The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) announced last week that it will dissolve its central DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) office, the Institute Community and Equity Office (ICEO), in a move that reflects growing pressures facing higher education institutions nationwide.
In a letter to the MIT community, President Sally Kornbluth framed the decision as a shift rather than a retreat. Signature ICEO programs—such as the MLK Visiting Professors and Scholars Program and the Community Learning Initiative—will be transferred to other campus departments. A new Standing Institute Committee will be established to maintain cross-campus coordination on community-building efforts.
“MIT is in the talent business,” Kornbluth wrote. “Our success depends on attracting exceptionally talented people of every background… and making sure everyone at MIT feels welcome and supported.” She emphasized that while the central DEI office is being “sunset,” the Institute remains committed to creating an inclusive environment.
The announcement follows a year-long internal review led by former Vice President for Equity and Inclusion Karl Reid, who stepped down earlier this year. A working group found that while community members valued the office’s programs, there was a “broad desire to rethink how this work is done,” with many advocating for a bottom-up, unit-based approach over centralized initiatives.
Still, the timing of MIT’s decision places it in the crosshairs of a broader political crackdown on DEI in higher education. President Donald Trump’s administration has aggressively moved to dismantle DEI infrastructure at U.S. colleges, threatening federal funding to institutions that fail to comply. MIT is currently among 45 universities under investigation by the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights.
In a statement to CNN, an MIT spokesperson reiterated the school’s “unwavering” commitment to diversity and inclusion, noting the office’s closure is part of a strategic restructuring, not a disavowal of its core mission.
The national context, however, is hard to ignore. Nearby Harvard University has faced its own challenges, including federal efforts to revoke its ability to host international students and withhold billions in research funding. Harvard, too, recently rebranded its DEI office, signaling a similar recalibration.
As elite institutions navigate a changing political landscape, MIT’s move may signal a new phase in how universities seek to uphold inclusive values—less through centralized offices and more through distributed, localized efforts. For supporters of DEI in higher ed, the shift raises important questions about accountability, sustainability, and what meaningful inclusion looks like without a central hub to drive it.
