When the Equal Protection Project filed a federal civil rights complaint against Kansas State University this month, the group presented its action as a straightforward defense of equality. Its lawyers, led by Cornell Law professor William A. Jacobson, argued that K-State’s Women in Business program and its associated scholarships violate Title IX because they effectively exclude men. The complaint, lodged with the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR), accused the program of “structuring and marketing itself as exclusively for women,” thereby dissuading male students from participation and unfairly barring them from scholarships.
The filing marks a new chapter in EPP’s campaign. For the past two years, the organization has primarily targeted programs and scholarships designed for students of color. By challenging racial affinity groups and minority-only aid, EPP positioned itself as part of the broader conservative backlash against diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. But in going after K-State’s Women in Business program, the organization has pivoted toward a new target: women. The complaint frames scholarships awarded at events like the Women in Business Summit and Women in Finance Day as unlawful under Title IX, arguing that even if eligibility criteria do not explicitly bar men, the branding and promotional language create an exclusionary effect.
At one level, the case is a legal test of how far federal civil rights law extends. Title IX prohibits sex-based discrimination in education programs that receive federal funds, but historically, programs designed to support women in male-dominated fields have been tolerated under the doctrine of “exceedingly persuasive justification.” Cases like United States v. Virginia (1996), which forced the Virginia Military Institute to admit women, and Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan (1982), which struck down a women-only nursing program, illustrate the tension: sex-based programs may advance opportunity, but they must also meet heightened constitutional scrutiny. EPP’s argument is that K-State’s branding alone—“Women in Business”—sends a signal that men are unwelcome, and that this chilling effect amounts to discrimination.
But beyond the legal question lies a broader cultural and political strategy. As DEI opponents have notched victories against programs for students of color—through lawsuits, state legislation, and federal guidance—attention has turned to gender-based initiatives. The EPP complaint cites a July 2025 memorandum from the U.S. Attorney General, warning federally funded institutions not to run race- or sex-exclusive scholarships or mentorships. By seizing on this new guidance, EPP positions itself not only as a watchdog but as an enforcer of a shifting federal standard, one increasingly skeptical of identity-based programming.
Critics argue that this is not about equality at all, but about dismantling the infrastructure of support that has historically expanded opportunities for underrepresented groups. In the case of K-State, the largest beneficiaries of DEI in business programs are women, who remain underrepresented in finance and corporate leadership. By challenging programs designed to close those gaps, EPP is, in effect, attacking one of the most visible success stories of DEI. For decades, women-focused initiatives have helped elevate participation and visibility in sectors that remain stubbornly male-dominated. To critics, going after them is proof that no DEI constituency is safe—that what began with minority scholarships is now extending to women’s leadership and career development.
The question of standing underscores this tension. EPP itself is unlikely to have standing to sue in federal court, since it cannot show that its own members were harmed. Instead, its strategy relies on administrative complaints—filings that any party may submit to OCR regardless of direct injury. The agency then decides whether to investigate, and its remedies can be serious: fines, loss of federal funding, or referral to the Justice Department. In other words, EPP doesn’t need to find an actual male student excluded from a scholarship to put pressure on universities; the mere filing is enough to open an investigation and force institutional change.
This tactic has proven effective. According to reporting in The Chronicle of Higher Education, dozens of schools have altered or dismantled DEI programs in response to EPP complaints, even without formal OCR findings. Critics call this a chilling effect: universities are quietly preempting federal enforcement by dismantling equity programs that once served women and minorities.
For Kansas State University, the stakes are high. If OCR takes up the complaint, the university may have to revise or even shutter programs that its business school has proudly touted as tools for women’s advancement. For women in finance and business—fields already marked by gender imbalance—the loss of tailored mentorship and scholarships would be a setback.
EPP insists that it is simply enforcing the law, that equality must mean equality for all. But opponents argue that the group is weaponizing civil rights law to turn back the clock on progress, dismantling the very programs that made Title IX a tool of inclusion rather than restriction. What began as an attack on minority scholarships has become an attack on women’s leadership. And if Kansas State is any indication, the next phase of the anti-DEI movement may not stop until every identity-based support program is gone.
