Abstract\nPlain language summaryU.S. higher education is facing an ongoing assault via state legislation targeting divisive concepts, such as teaching critical race theory and initiatives supporting diversity, equity, and inclusion across campus. Although attacks to foundational aspects of postsecondary education in the U.S. are not new in the history of the sector, the current policy trend offers an opportunity to gain insights into how institutions and various stakeholders respond to these events and the ethical tensions these individuals may face. Using qualitative content analysis, this study examines publicly available statements and other responses by stakeholders of public 4-year institutions in the Southern United States, as defined by membership in the Southern Regional Education Board. This region of the country has become an epicenter for the introduction and adoption of these types of policies; the region also encompasses a diverse group of states politically and regarding institutional representation within public postsecondary sectors. Ultimately, this study seeks to understand how characteristics of higher education influence responses by institutional stakeholders in this regional context.Anti–higher education sentiment has been increasingly vocal across the United States, particularly from conservative politicians and media since President Trump’s Administration took office in 2017. While anti–higher education commentary is not a new phenomenon, the particular focus of this most recent wave centers on practices and programs aligning with critical race theory (CRT) and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) and has resulted in a growing number of proposed and enacted state policies targeting these areas. A fundamental question, however, centers on how public institutions and their institutional stakeholders respond to these policies. This study reviews 82 publicly available responses by institutional presidents, faculty, staff, students, alumni, and trustees from public 4-year institutions located in the Southern United States. These data were systematically collected and analyzed through the theory of stakeholder saliency, and several themes emerged. For example, despite expectations that state contexts, such as partisan state politics or number of postsecondary institutions, might influence the number, content, or character of responses, findings suggest that the seriousness of these attacks may have superseded many of these differences, with many responses focused on reacting to active bills and adopted policies rather than proactively voicing concerns about national and regional trends. Students, faculty, and staff were often more vocal in their opposition to these policies, whereas presidents and other institutional leaders attempted to remain more neutral, potentially because of their role and position in relation to the policymakers. Given the use of publicly available responses, findings highlight the potential disconnect in media coverage of key stakeholders as well as the representative institutions included in the coverage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]