Three letters have become a flashpoint in higher education: D-E-I.
Diversity, equity and inclusion. It’s the umbrella term for programs and initiatives intended to address representation and inclusion in schools and workplaces.
Speech pathologist and bilingual educator Dr. Genesis Arizmendi knows how charged those letters are.
“DEI has become such a weapon term, that has infiltrated so many areas of society in a negative view of bringing equitable approaches to the way we either conduct research, instruct our students and provide programming,” she said.
This midterm election, Arizona voters have a chance to weigh in on the debate to further restrict some of those practices in the state with Proposition 142.
The measure would amend the state constitution to prohibit teachings, trainings and advertisements geared toward a specific race or ethnicity.
Matt Beienburg is the director of education policy at the Goldwater Institute, a conservative think tank backing the proposition. He says the initiative builds on a 2010 state constitutional amendment prohibiting discrimination or preferential treatment based on race, ethnicity, sex or national origin.
Beienburg sees DEI as a threat to that principle.
“So Prop 142 just says enough of that,” he said. “We believe that equality before the law is a permanent, enduring principle, and we in Arizona are not going to base our public policy protection of that equality on who's in the White House.”
The initial amendment to the state constitution, Beienburg explained, was a response to Affirmative Action. But Prop 142 does not necessarily distinguish that connection.
Atiq Shomar is a psychotherapist and transformational DEI leader. They say omitting the phrase "DEI" from the measure's language is no accident.
“I think this law, in particular, really is vague on purpose, which is why it doesn't list the DEI, so that it can get past some people seeming like it's neutral in ways that it is absolutely not neutral,” they said.
Shomar, whose grandparents came to the U.S. from Syria, is particularly concerned about the measure's proposal to prohibit required trainings in intersectionality in public education.
“The proposition says we can't talk about intersectionality, which is such an important word in racial justice and feminist circles,” they said. “Those are all different identities that impact each other. I think there's fear that our culture will change to be more inclusive in ways that people feel afraid of.”
Nolan Cabrera with the University of Arizona’s Center for Higher Education, said he worries the measure would enforce consequences for having discussions about race and identity altogether in the classroom.
“Functionally, what it's trying to do is silence people from actually, meaningfully engaging issues of race, and then also sort of parenthetically issues of gender, transness, etc.," he says. "The overall impact of that is what's called the chilling effect. It's supposed to make it so that people just don't do it.”
Cabrera added that suppressing such discussions in the educational system can have drastic effects for voters down the line.
Arizmendi, who is also the director of the multicultural and bilingual certificate program at the U of A, agrees.
“It's just extremely concerning to think about these implications long term,” she said. “When we are looking at such a range of human experiences, lived experiences, that is what leads to healthy, positive societies at large.”
But Beienburg says the proposal targets how policies are implemented, not whether history can be taught.
“One of the things that is important is Prop 142 is very explicit. It does not say you can't have instruction on slavery, Jim Crow, the Civil Rights Era,” he said. “If 142 is the law of the land, it means every time we see a change in Washington, that it is not going to happen in Arizona. It will just be very clear this state does not endorse race-based discrimination and we're not going to use our state resources to do so.”
The concerns from DEI proponents come amid broader changes to diversity programs at Arizona universities due to pressure from President Trump.
At the University of Arizona in 2025, for example, six of the college’s seven cultural centers were consolidated into one, out of fear of the university losing funding. Some U of A administration also forced cultural groups to remove diasporic references from their names, like Asian or African-American.
The two sides disagree over how broadly the restrictions of Prop 142 could affect public education and the ways institutions address race and identity.
Cabrera says it is all about statistics for those with a majority in elected representation.
“When you look at the statistics about which groups in the population have most control of elected representation; Fortune 500 companies, the Supreme Court, Congress, Senate, the presidency,” he said. “Just how much more do you want of the pie? Because in essence that's what they're doing. They're saying that white people are a big chunk of the pie, which they're not.”
A yes vote would amend Arizona’s constitution to add these restrictions. A no vote would leave the existing constitutional provisions in place.
Voters must now ask: How far should DEI restrictions go in the name of equal treatment?
