A hidden‑camera investigation at North Carolina A&T State University captured administrators openly discussing how they renamed and repackaged DEI initiatives to sidestep recent anti‑DEI legislation.
In the footage, an assistant director in the Office of Intercultural Engagement acknowledged that the role is “not actually under the DEI office at all, so we’re able to just keep going,” and admitted that they “changed the wording of things.”
“It shook things up around here, but fortunately for us, this office is not actually under the DEI office at all, so we’re able to just keep going. We just like switched up our, you know, changed the wording of things,” stated Office of Intercultural Engagement assistant director, Pascha Miller.
Another administrator confirmed that the university had opted for “creative naming,” describing the process of rebranding DEI roles using the word “competency” instead of “diversity.”
The scene develops against a backdrop of action by the University of North Carolina System Board of Governors, which earlier this year moved to eliminate DEI offices in favor of an “institutional neutrality” standard.
Assistant director of LGBTA programs and services at the Office of Intercultural Engagement, Austin Horne, shared:
“The Board of Governors did a statute in May that is really like, attacking DEI jobs and restricting some of our language… It is very intentionally vague is what, you know, the way I read it. But it’s really leaving it up to you know each university to kind of think about it in their own way and consider how much they want to open themselves up to litigation. But, luckily I think there’s only been one position that wasn’t lost, it was just changed here.”
The undercover journalist pressed Horne further on this comment, getting confirmation that the university had taken no measures to remove DEI practices, but to rename them.
When asked by the journalist if this decision to rebrand was purely from a legal standpoint, Horne responded, saying, “Well, it’s not even to get around the legislation, so what the legislation is, is it’s giving us, I want to say it’s 11 rules for what we can and cannot say when we are speaking on behalf of the university, and so some universities like Charlotte have taken that and said these positions can’t function with these rules in place so we’re just going to get rid of them. Every other public university has said they can function, we’re just going to try and shield ourselves from litigation.”
Experts warn this case illustrates how many higher‑education institutions continue to maintain DEI frameworks in practice—even after states enact bans—simply by swapping labels.
The footage certainly raises concerns about accountability in taxpayer‑funded institutions.
If DEI is legally restricted or banned in a state, attempts to rebrand without public disclosure undermine transparency and risk misalignment with state law and public expectations for neutral, inclusive education frameworks.
Going forward, legislators and oversight bodies may need to not only scrutinize the presence of DEI offices but also audit the functions and language of renamed units to ensure compliance with state laws.
