The definitions in our glossary are primarily sourced from Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary and Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute. We have made slight modifications where needed for brevity and to better tailor the definitions to the specific needs of users of this website. For more detailed explanations of the terms, users are encouraged to review the definitions on these websites or conduct their own independent research.
Explainer
Targeted Programs
Advancing DEI Initiative
Many organizations have “targeted programs”—initiatives intended to uplift or benefit a marginalized or underrepresented group. Examples include:
Scholarships
Grants
Fellowships
Internships
Mentorship and sponsorship programs
Coaching programs
Many of the anti-DEI lawsuits in our tracker are challenging targeted programs, arguing that they violate anti-discrimination laws by excluding members of certain demographic groups based on race, sex, or other legally protected characteristics. For example, one lawsuit (which has since settled) challenged an internship program offered by the National Museum of the American Latino that limited eligibility to Latina, Latino, and Latinx students.
Not all targeted programs are legally risky. Each organization should conduct its own risk assessment with legal counsel and their DEI leader to determine whether their programs involve legal risk, and if so, how to weigh those legal risks against other factors such as program impact and the risks of abandoning the initiative.
Organizations that have identified an unacceptably high legal risk in a targeted program may wish to consider one of the following shifts:
From cohorts to content. Instead of limiting eligibility to certain demographic cohorts, consider opening the program to candidates of any background who demonstrate a commitment to the content of the program.
From cohorts to character. Instead of selecting applicants based on having a particular identity, ask applicants to submit an essay describing how race or other aspects of their identity have affected their life, “be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise.” This formulation was permitted by the Supreme Court in the Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard case, provided an applicant is assessed on their experiences or attributes as an individual, not on the basis of their group identity.