Programs Director, Oklahoma Center for Community and Justice (OCCJ)
The last five years have seen a significant increase in public conversation surrounding identity-based experiences, leading to major policy shifts on the state and federal level concerning diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI).
These changes have led leadership both in the state of Oklahoma and on the national level to severely limit the conversation on health equity by removing inclusive language, erasing the record of underserved communities, halting research focused on anything inclusion-related, and limiting Oklahoma’s teachers on how they can discuss history and/or include diverse students.
Such attempts to target and remove equity from public life will undoubtedly lead to an increase in the disparity of experiences between non-minoritized and minoritized Oklahomans.
In 2020, the combination of the COVID-19 pandemic and racialized violence put equity center stage in American society. This tumultuous period saw a growing national interest in understanding diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) and expanding knowledge about identity’s impact on lived experiences. As identity took a more visual presence in public life, institutions created programs and initiatives focused on understanding and combatting inequities. However, recent political administrations have sought to remove the conversation of equity from view, with policy changes on the federal and state level seeking to censor education, research, funding, and data collection on identity. This intentional move away from equity has far-reaching implications for all areas of public life, but of particular concern in this brief is the impact such bans may have on health equity in Oklahoma specifically.
These policy shifts show up distinctly in education, where there is increased censorship of educators through policies intending to remove, defund, and/or alter research, programs, and data collection related to equity. Given federal and state level bans on DEI language in research, funding is likely to continue to be cut to work that addresses health disparities. This restructuring against equity-focused studies will lead to a sizable gap in American research that concerns issues of inclusion, disparities, and diverse life experiences. Continued equity-related bans will have long-term impacts on health outcomes in ways that are likely only starting to be discussed.
Since taking office in January 2025, President Trump has released a slew of executive orders targeting – both directly and indirectly – health equity programs and practices, including:
The Oklahoma legislature, supported by Governor Kevin Stitt and State Superintendent Ryan Walters,2At the time of publication, Ryan Walters is no longer serving as State Superintendent; however, the mindset and culture shift started by Walters continues to be in effect. have also targeted equity-based language in education through bills such as:
When legislators seek to remove the focus on equity, the long term health of underserved communities is put at risk. Research has shown that “racial and ethnic health disparities result in higher rates of illness and death across a wide range of health conditions” and that in “the absence of focused efforts, disparities will likely widen because the underlying inequities that contribute to them persist, leading to worse overall health and unnecessary health care costs.”3Hill, “Elimination of Federal Diversity Initiatives,” 2025. The indirect outcome of these efforts will be increased health disparities as underserved communities’ needs and experiences are erased from public record.
Such policy shifts impact both the experiences of individuals seeking care and individuals’ desire to work in the medical field. People of color tend to be significantly less represented in the healthcare workforce than their White counterparts, and the censorship of racialized experiences is likely to deter some future medical professionals from working in the space. This representational disparity not only impacts medical professionals, but their patients as well, as a recent survey by KFF showed that people of color are more likely to report positive interactions with healthcare providers when said providers share an identity factor with the patient.4Samantha Artiga et al., “Survey on Racism, Discrimination and Health: Experiences and Impacts
Across Racial and Ethnic Groups,” KFF, December 5, 2023.
One study even found that an increase in Black primary care physicians led to higher life expectancy among Black people.5John E. Snyder et al., “Black Representation in the Primary Care
Physician Workforce and Its Association With Population Life Expectancy and Mortality Rates in the US,”
JAMA Netw Open 6.4 (2023). By removing race and ethnicity from the conversation, fewer people are going to be able to receive structurally competent, cross-cultural medical care, and are more likely to have negative health outcomes, like a shortened life expectancy.
One direct consequence of this major policy shift has already become evident: research and resources are being removed or heavily altered. To enforce Trump’s recent executive orders targeting DEI work, the Office of Personnel Management requested the elimination of publicly available DEI content which resulted in the removal of many vital health datasets from online databases. Many health professionals began sounding the alarm in early 2025 as the Center for Disease Control (CDC) and other important online databases began removing material from their websites. Two of the CDC’s most widely used health surveys – the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) and the Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) – were taken down, likely due to their inclusion of gender identity and other equity-based metrics. Other removed datasets include CDC AtlasPlus (related to HIV, viral hepatitis, STIs, and TB), PEPFAR data dashboards (the US global HIV/AIDS program), and Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) databases.6Cynthia Cox et al., “A Look at Federal Health Data Taken Offline,” KFF, February 2, 2025.
While some datasets have since been relaunched, the message was clear: collecting information about the diversity of health experiences and outcomes was a risky move, as it could put both research and resources at risk of removal by the current federal administration.
What is being removed when identity is taken out of the conversation? Research has shown that identity factors (such as race, ethnicity, and sexuality) can be key factors in health outcomes. For example, one merely has to look at infant mortality rates in Oklahoma. Per 1000 live births, the overall infant mortality rate in Oklahoma is 7.1; however, adding only one identity factor (race/ethnicity) can create a very different picture. For White infants, the rate is only 6.4, but for Black infants it is 11.2, and for infants of other races or are multiracial, the rate rests around 8.1.7“Oklahoma Maternal and Infant Health Data,” State Profiles for Women’s Health, KFF. Accessed September 15, 2025.
By including race in the conversation of health outcomes, one has a clearer picture of the context and scope of the problem at hand. Not only does this enrich one’s understanding of the context of infant mortality rates, but it raises interesting questions: what accounts for these differences? What can public health leaders do to improve these numbers?
Similar comparisons can be made to other identity factors that are being targeted for removal by the current administration, such as sexuality, gender identity and expression, and language. Ignoring the impact identity can have on health disparities is to ignore the greater picture of individual health outcomes and impede future growth towards improving outcomes.
This critical focus on health equity work has also had a substantial negative impact on federal funding. The federal administration has paused, or removed entirely, grants that include equity-related terms such as “advocacy, discrimination, disparity, inequity, pronoun, race, ethnicity” and dozens more, releasing a list of 100+ words that should be limited or avoided.8Karen Yourish et al., “These Words are Disappearing in the New Trump Administration,” New York Times, March 7, 2025. The policy enforcement is vague — while the usage of targeted words has resulted in some grants being completely disbanded, some professionals are merely being told to be cautious around their usage, creating an unclear picture of the issue at hand.
Regardless of the confusing implementation of such bans, “the words and phrases listed here represent a marked — and remarkable — shift in the corpus of language… They are an unmistakable reflection of this administration’s priorities.”9Karen Yourish et al., “These Words are Disappearing in the New Trump Administration,” 2025. The priorities that such policies make evident is the complete erasure of diverse identities from public health.
Oklahoma’s policies surrounding education and equity – most notably HB 1775 and SB 796 – have created an educational environment where equity and identity are routinely undermined. Such approaches have an impact both on curriculum and campus climate.
Campus climate – defined as “a reflection of the actual or perceived attitudes, behaviors, and standards throughout a campus” – is an important indicator of the experience of students, faculty, and staff of an institution.10Isaac Clark and Donald Mitchell, “Exploring the Relationship Between Campus Climate and Minority Stress in African American College Students,” Journal Committed to Social Change on Race and Ethnicity (JCSCORE) 4, no. 1 (2018): 68. Oklahoma campus climates have shifted in recent years to be less inclusive, and more critical, of diverse identities, with many diversity-focused community centers and offices closing within a few short years. Research shows a correlation between campus climate and minority stressors, indicating that less inclusive campus climates contribute to increased instances of minority stress11Clark and Mitchell, “Exploring the Relationship Between Campus Climate and Minority Stress, 2018. which, in turn, has a negative impact on students’ overall health.12D.M. Frost and I.H Meyer, “Minority stress theory: Application, critique, and continued relevance,” Current Opinion in Psychology 51, 101579 (2023). When students, faculty, and staff do not see their identities represented, valued, and respected on campus, this disparity could have a significant impact on their physical and mental health.
Oklahoma legislation surrounding equity and education is also changing the content that is taught in both higher education and K-12 classrooms. Policy targeting the elimination of nuanced conversation surrounding race, ethnicity, gender identity, and sexuality will create incomplete and gap-laden understandings of important concepts of history, science, and the humanities. How does one learn sex education without discussing gender and sexuality? How does an Oklahoma student understand the history of Tulsa without having learned about the Tulsa race massacre?
Recent shifts in policy could also have an impact on the funding of student scholarship and research. SB 796 could be applied to programs like Oklahoma’s Promise, a scholarship program supporting high school students from low-income families in achieving higher education, or like McNair, a U.S. Department of Education TRIO program which supports minoritized students in paying for doctoral study. Such programs might be at risk of defunding and disenfranchising under current administration’s approaches to education and equity. A lack of support for minoritized students means less minoritized students succeeding, which will again alter the quality of inclusion on campus, impacting health outcomes for minoritized students, faculty, and staff.
Many of the broad policy shifts discussed in this piece have long-term, far-reaching implications, but the reality is that the impact may not be truly recognized for years to come.
What research has already made clear is that concentrated efforts from current federal and state administrators to de-legitimize and undermine health equity is already having an impact on education, most notably in the education around and funding of research on health disparities. This shift in discussion of equity will have significant impacts on health in a multitude of ways, including deterring people of color from pursuing work in the medical field, increasing minority stress, and could have a negative impact on the life expectancy and overall health outcomes of minoritized individuals.
To remove discussion of identity from public life is to tell people that identity is not a key factor in life experiences, an idea which has been routinely disproven through research.13For examples, see “Valuing Identity” by Osamudia R. James and “Identity Matters for Well-Being” by Francesca De Lise, Luyckx, and Crocetti. To improve the life expectancy of all Oklahomans — including those with minoritized identities — policymakers must reverse course and reincorporate equity and identity into their work. Removing equity from the conversation will have negative outcomes for the health of Oklahomans by disenfranchising supportive programs, undermining inclusive campus culture, erasing data and research representing diversity, and ultimately removing diverse identity from public life.
Programs Director, Oklahoma Center for Community and Justice (OCCJ)
Irissa Baxter-Luper (she/her) serves as Programs Director for Oklahoma Center for Community and Justice (OCCJ) and is Vice Chair of the Tulsa 2SLGBTQIA+ committee. She has a Masters of Arts in Genocide Studies with a focus on gender, sexuality, and systemic oppression. Prior to joining OCCJ, she was Postsecondary Initiatives Manager at Take Control Initiative as well as Coordinator of Women’s and LGBTQ Affairs and Sexual Assault Victim Advocate for Oklahoma State University, where she earned the Stillwater Leaders Under 40 award. Outside of work, Baxter-Luper loves spending time with her pets, analyzing scary movies, and being in community.
Artiga, Samantha, Liz Hamel, Ana Gonzalez-Barrera, Alex Montero, Latoya Hill, Marley Presiado, Ashley Kirzinger, and Lunna Lopes. “Survey on Racism, Discrimination and Health: Experiences and Impacts Across Racial and Ethnic Groups.” KFF, December 5, 2023. https://www.kff.org/racial-equity-and-health-policy/survey-on-racism-discriminatio n-and-health/.
Clark, Isaac, and Donald Mitchell. “Exploring the Relationship Between Campus Climate and Minority Stress in African American College Students.” Journal Committed to Social Change on Race and Ethnicity (JCSCORE), no. 1 (2018): 67–95. https://www.jstor.org/stable/48645343.
Cox, Cynthia, Matthew Rae, Jennifer Kates, Emma Wager, Jared Ortaliza, and Lindsey Dawson. “A Look at Federal Health Data Taken Offline.” KFF, February 2, 2025. https://www.kff.org/policy-watch/a-look-at-federal-health-data-taken-offline/.
De Lise, F., Luyckx, K. & Crocetti, E. “Identity Matters for Well-Being: The Longitudinal Associations Between Identity Processes and Well-Being in Adolescents with Different Cultural Backgrounds.” J. Youth Adolescence 53, 910–926 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-023-01901-8.
Frost, D. M., & Meyer, I. H. “Minority stress theory: Application, critique, and continued relevance.” Current Opinion in Psychology, no. 51.101579 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2023.101579
Hill, Latoya, Samantha Artiga, Akash Pillai, and Alisha Rao. “Elimination of Federal Diversity Initiatives: Implications for Racial Health Equity.” KFF, March 21, 2025. https://www.kff.org/racial-equity-and-health-policy/issue-brief/elimination-of-feder al-diversity-initiatives-implications-for-racial-health-equity/.
James, Osamudia R. “Valuing Identity.” Minnesota Law Review 102, no.1 (2017): 127. https://doi.org/10.24926/265535.984.
LaVeist TA, Pérez-Stable EJ, Richard P, et al. “The Economic Burden of Racial, Ethnic, and Educational Health Inequities in the US.” JAMA. 329.19 (2023): 1682–1692. doi:10.1001/jama.2023.5965.
“Oklahoma Maternal and Infant Health Data.” State Profiles for Women’s Health. KFF. Accessed September 15, 2025. https://www.kff.org/interactive/womens-health-profiles/oklahoma/maternal-infant-health/.
Salsberg E, Richwine C, Westergaard S, et al. “Estimation and Comparison of Current and Future Racial/Ethnic Representation in the US Health Care Workforce.” JAMA Netw Open 4.3 (2021). doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.3789.
Snyder JE, Upton RD, Hassett TC, Lee H, Nouri Z, Dill M. “Black Representation in the Primary Care Physician Workforce and Its Association With Population Life Expectancy and Mortality Rates in the US.” JAMA Netw Open. 6.4 (2023). doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.6687
Yourish, Karen, Annie Daniel, Saurabh Datar, Isaac White, and Lazaro Gamio. “These Words are Disappearing in the New Trump Administration.” New York Times, March 7, 2025. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/03/07/us/trump-federal-agencies-websi tes-words-dei.html.
Erasure in Action The Implications of Anti-Equity Policy on Healthcare in Oklahoma Read More
Bleeding Behind Bars Access (and lack thereof) to Menstrual Products in Prisons Read More
Dispelling Myths about the Baby-Friendly Hospital Initiative Abstract The Baby-Friendly Hospital Initiative Read More
