Funding Over Values? DEI Office Closure and Art Censorship Tarnishes Ball State University
The True Price of Federal Funding in the face of DEI Elimination and the Chilling Effect on Free Expression
Ball State University is facing escalating controversy over the elimination of an office dedicated to supporting an inclusive, diverse and equitable community, and the removal of a student’s artwork from public display at its student center, an action igniting debate about artistic expression, censorship, and the University’s commitment to its own freedom of expression policies. The eyes of the academic world, and indeed the country, are now on Ball State to see how it responds to this challenge.
The University’s April 17th justification for closing the Office of Inclusive Excellence — compliance with a federal mandate — has been met with skepticism and accusations. The decision by President Mearns and the University Board of Trustees raises concerns that financial considerations are taking precedence over the institution’s moral commitments to inclusivity and diversity. Many argue this decision represents a submissive action to what they perceive as an overreaching executive order, effectively allowing the federal government to dictate the internal policies of a private university. The threat of losing federal funding, which has been used as a lever by the Trump administration, is seen as a significant factor in the University’s decision, raising questions about the extent to which institutions can maintain their autonomy in the face of federal pressure.
The message is clear: financial concerns trump moral commitments.
President Mearns publicly stated the closure was in compliance with President Donald Trump’s Executive Order 14173, which mandated the termination of discriminatory and illegal preferences, including DEI initiatives, across federal departments and agencies. Reports indicate some staff from the Office of Inclusive Excellence are being reassigned to the Office of Strategic Plan Support. The full ramifications of this closure on the University’s climate and its support for diverse student populations remain uncertain, but many in academic and government circles are seeing this executive order as a federal overreach, and a violation of the universities rights to self governance.
In his public statement, President Mearns explicitly affirmed the University’s commitment to freedom of expression and academic freedom, calling it a “moral obligation.” He stated, “we will also sustain our enduring commitments to freedom of expression and to academic freedom. These commitments are the foundation of our educational enterprise.”
The website pages for the former OIE were scrubbed the same day by the University, but the archived page for the eliminated office states it is “dedicated to the recruitment, retention, and celebration of diverse faculty, staff, and students who possess a variety of worldviews, identities, and experiences.” The office closure sparked protests on campus which drew crowds of students and the general public. In their comment to BSU newspaper, The Daily, protester Iris Romero declared, “You can not say you see your hispanic students, your black students,your diverse students if you get rid of DEI.”
Ball State’s Freedom of Expression policy, thankfully not eliminated on the same day as the Office of Inclusive Excellence, continues to emphasize the school’s commitment to the First Amendment. It states the University “guarantees all members of the University community — including students, faculty, staff, and visitors — the broadest possible latitude to speak, write, listen, challenge, and learn.”
The policy further asserts it is not the University’s role to shield individuals from unwelcome or offensive ideas, underscoring the value of civility while cautioning that concerns about mutual respect should not be used to shut down discussion. It outlines narrow exceptions to free expression, such as unlawful speech, defamation, harassment, and disruption of University functions, but the removal of the student’s artwork does not immediately appear to fall under these categories.
The censorship was prompted by Student Affairs and facilitated by the Director of the Student Center mere days before the Office of Inclusive Excellence (OIE) was eliminated. This begs the question of whether these actions are isolated incidents or symptoms of a larger shift in the University’s priorities? According to the Director of the School of Art, Lara Kuykendall, PhD, she found out that the artwork was removed via a Coordinator, and the professor of the senior capstone class confirmed the artwork had already been removed on the evening of April 15th. In an email from the Director of the Student Center, the School of Art administration was told “Student Affairs administration thought that ‘the image does not represent the image the Student Center wants to project to our visitors.’” Kuykendall wishes the opportunity had been possible to have an open dialog with the student center administration about why they felt the artwork was objectionable, and talk about context and the importance that exhibitions play in art and design education.
Adding another layer of complexity, the Student Center, where student artwork is regularly displayed, is a central hub on campus, but doesn’t house the University Office of Student Affairs. That office resides in the Administration building where the President’s office is located. Given the impending closure of the OIE, the possibility of a retaliatory action by a member of the Student Affairs office, targeting specific members of the student body, cannot be dismissed.
Furthermore, it is highly probable that President Mearns or the Board of Trustees would have been in the Student Center and had the opportunity to view the art on exhibit prior to their April 17th vote. This raises questions about whether the removal was influenced by concerns raised at the highest levels of university administration, particularly in light of the impending decision to close the OIE and the desire to maintain federal funding.
The University’s own Freedom of Expression policy emphasizes open contestation of ideas, a principle directly contradicted by the clandestine censorship of artwork. President Mearns’s hypocrisy sets an unsettling and troubling precedent.
This might be just the tip of the iceberg. This series of unfortunate events highlights the importance of reflecting on the fundamental contribution of art and artists to our culture. Art often functions as an indicator of the extent to which free speech and expression are valued in a democratic system. Any limitations on creative expression should be the rare exception, be carefully scrutinized, and treated with the greatest sensitivity.
Where is the open dialog so highly valued by the University and President Mearns? How was the University’s freedom of expression policy applied? Why was the art censored? Was the artwork deemed to fall under one of the narrow exceptions outlined in the policy? If so, on what specific grounds? Was the artist afforded due process or even informed of the decision?
This is a tenuous situation for artists and the arts community, in addition to the erosion of the University’s autonomy.
The Director of the Student Center, Michael McKean, and members of the Student Affairs were invited to submit official comments, but no explanation was provided before publication. In their response, the Dean and Associate Dean of the College of Fine Arts, along with the Director of the School of Art, expressed support for the affected students. The censored exhibition was subsequently relocated to the David Owsley Museum of Art for an extended time period, and an agreement was reached to prevent further artwork removals in the Student Center “based on content objections.”
The University’s Freedom of Expression policy explicitly states, “debate or deliberation may not be suppressed because the ideas put forth are thought by some or even by most members of the University community to be offensive, unwise, immoral, or wrong-headed.” It emphasizes such judgments are to be made by individuals, who should respond not by suppressing speech but by openly contesting the ideas. The clandestine removal of artwork stands in stark contrast to this principle of open engagement.
Moreover, the policy underscores the University’s educational mission, which includes “fostering the ability of members of the University community to engage in such debate and deliberation in an effective and responsible manner.” Censoring student artwork, particularly without any opportunity for dialogue or explanation, undermines this very mission by stifling creative expression and sending a chilling message to students about the limits of free inquiry on campus.
The potential connection between the closure of the OIE, driven by federal funding concerns, and the censorship of specific artwork, while not definitively proven, warrants serious consideration. In a climate where discussions about diversity and inclusion are increasingly fraught, any action that could be perceived as targeting individuals or expressions from marginalized communities risks eroding trust and creating a hostile environment. The University must be transparent in its explanation for the artwork’s removal to dispel any such perceptions and to address concerns that its actions are prioritizing financial interests over its stated moral principles.
Unfortunately, Ball State’s situation is not unique. Universities across the nation grapple with the complexities of balancing institutional autonomy with concerns about freedom of expression, inclusivity, respect, and the potential for offense, all while navigating the pressures of federal funding and executive orders. The Trump administration’s ultimatums for fealty have discriminately struck institutions of higher education, notably Harvard University, who rejected orders to comply with dismantling its diversity programming, limiting student protests, and submitting to federal audits tantamount to government overreach.
Harvard’s response: “No government — regardless of which party is in power — should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue.”
Ball State University now faces a critical juncture. Its actions in response to these incidents will speak volumes about its true commitment to the principles it espouses in its Freedom of Expression policy and its moral obligations to its students and diverse community. A failure to provide a transparent explanation and to take corrective action risks damaging its credibility and alienating its student body, faculty, alumni and the wider academic community, and adds to the perception that the University is choosing Federal funding over its own stated principles. As the nation watches, Ball State’s response will not only define its immediate future but also send a powerful message about the values and autonomy of higher education in a politically charged climate.
This article is also published on Medium.com