At the National Association of Agricultural Educators (NAAE) Convention in Nashville this December, a presentation urging educators to reframe FFA’s DEI efforts raised eyebrows—and questions—about compliance with federal policy on diversity, equity, and inclusion programming.
ACTE Remarks To Educators about DEI Reframing
ACTE’s Dr. Alisha Hyslop delivered remarks during a session hosted by The National Council for Agricultural Education.
Hyslop’s slide used in her presentation (see above) characterized the current federal environment as “chaotic and uncertain”. She further expressed concern over what she described as the administration’s “continued anti-DEI focus.”
More significantly, convention attendees report that Dr. Hyslop posed a direct question to agriculture educators: “How can you frame activities in new ways to accomplish similar goals?” She then reportedly discussed strategies for continuing DEI-related work under different terminology and program structures. Attendees say she referenced the “SAE for All” initiative—a Council-funded program now implemented by FFA—as an example of how such efforts could proceed with less public scrutiny.
Questions Arise About FFA DEI Reframing
This raises uncomfortable questions that deserve clear answers.
First, what exactly was said? The characterizations we’ve heard come from attendees who found the presentation troubling. But without a recording or official transcript, we’re left with secondhand accounts. Will ACTE, The Council, or NAAE release the presentation materials or provide clarity on what was actually recommended?
Second, what do FFA leadership and the NAAE Board think? National FFA Board Chair Travis Park and National FFA CEO Scott Stump reportedly attended this session. Do they agree that educators should “reframe” DEI programming to avoid federal scrutiny? Does NAAE’s leadership endorse strategies aimed at circumventing executive orders and federal oversight? Their silence on this matter is telling.
Third, what about SAE for All? The Council developed the initiative with funding from the National FFA Foundation. The Council’s own strategic priorities explicitly commit to “elevate and emphasize inclusion, diversity, and equity” in agricultural education. If SAE for All was cited as an example of DEI work that can “fly under the radar,” shouldn’t FFA supporters know whether this program was designed to continue a DEI agenda under a different name?
DEI Rebranding vs. Compliance
President Trump’s executive orders require organizations receiving federal funds to certify they are not operating prohibited DEI programs. The orders also demand the elimination of DEI content from policies, websites, contracts, and training materials. Organizations that falsely certify compliance face potential penalties under the False Claims Act.
Agricultural education organizations—including many state FFA associations and local chapters—receive federal funding through sources like Perkins CTE grants.
So here’s the question that matters most: Are agricultural education leaders prepared to comply with federal law, or are they exploring ways to evade it?
The FFA community—parents, donors, alumni, and the teachers doing the real work in classrooms and barns across America—deserves transparency. We don’t need spin or clever rebranding. We need honest answers about whether the organizations entrusted with our tax dollars and our students’ formation are operating in good faith compliance with federal policy.
NAAE, ACTE, The Council, and National FFA: the ball is in your court.