YAF Files Complaint Against Kansas State University Over DEI Programs

A photo of Anderson Hall on the Kansas State University campus. Courtesy: Brady Traffas

MANHATTAN, Kan. — The Young America’s Foundation (YAF) has filed a federal complaint against Kansas State University, alleging that the university's Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives violate federal law by continuing despite recent executive orders aimed at dismantling such programs. The complaint, submitted to the U.S. Department of Education, claims K-State is circumventing federal directives by rebranding its DEI office as the "Office of Access and Opportunity" without changing its core policies or personnel.

YAF argues that this rebranding is a deliberate attempt to skirt federal mandates and continue promoting what it describes as "racialist and gender ideology." The complaint specifically targets K-State's strategic plans, including "K-State 2025" and "Next Gen K-State," which embed DEI principles into hiring practices, teaching goals, and student success programs. YAF claims these plans prioritize diversity metrics over merit-based opportunities.

The complaint also criticizes multiple colleges within K-State, including Agriculture, Architecture, Business, Education, Engineering, Health and Human Sciences, Veterinary Medicine, and Arts and Sciences, for implementing DEI initiatives that allegedly violate federal law. These include race-based hiring practices, scholarships, and programming.

Additionally, YAF objects to campus resources such as the Spectrum Center, which supports LGBTQ+ students, and the Multicultural Student Center. The organization argues these programs exclude conservative viewpoints and foster division. K-State Athletics is also accused of advancing social justice initiatives like Black Lives Matter panels and LGBTQ+ advocacy programs, which YAF claims promote ideological agendas rather than inclusivity.

YAF maintains that conservative students face discrimination on campus and that their speech is stifled by student organizations aligned with DEI principles. The complaint alleges violations of Title VI, Title IX, and recent executive orders from the Trump administration aimed at dismantling DEI offices.

Samuel Schweier, a senior studying political science, strongly criticized the complaint, calling it "hypocritical from start to finish." He emphasized the importance of DEI programs for all students, including himself. "I am a perfectly able white male who has needed services from them before. One of the biggest things that I worked with the DEI council was making sure that bathrooms were handicap accessible. I shattered my ankle and couldn't walk for months. And I needed those handicap restrooms," Schweier said. He also supported the name change of the office, noting, "Honestly, I think that's a great name change because that tells you exactly what it's for, it's to make sure that all students have the same access to facilities and the same opportunities."

Kelsey WeKamp, a history and art history major, echoed similar sentiments. "It felt like an attack on marginalized groups more than anything," she said, highlighting that DEI initiatives support not just LGBTQ+ and racial minority students but also veterans and students with disabilities. WeKamp also disputed YAF's claim that K-State infringes on First Amendment rights, pointing out that the erasure of sidewalk chalk messages could have been due to various factors. "They were talking about their freedom of speech being infringed with the sidewalk chalk and the erasure of the sidewalk chalk could have happened to anyone. It could have been the elements, it could have been just people walking through, it could have been anything," WeKamp said.

Parker Freeby, another student, expressed skepticism about YAF’s claims, stating, "If K-State is promoting fairness for all, I don’t see what the issue is." Freeby acknowledged that while all groups should have free speech rights, he had not seen sufficient evidence to justify dismantling DEI programs.

The complaint has left the K-State community divided, with the federal government's review of the claim potentially impacting the university's policies and climate in the future.