How it started vs. how it's going:

(Stanford walks back its racist diversity training checklist https://provost.stanford.edu/2020/11/18/a-message-on-diversity-training/ )

Note that Stanford's clarification does not explicitly state that they will fight the order rather than complying with it, thought the point will be largely moot once Biden takes office.

Instead, Senator Collins-like, they state that they "were deeply concerned" by the Executive Order, and "will continue to advocate against policies that could inhibit our efforts to advance diversity and inclusion".

It's interesting to read these events, and parallel ones at other universities, in light of legal endogeneity theory in law & organizations. Basically, the argument there is that much of the law is implemented by organizations who have wide latitude to interpret its meaning.

Orgs shape the "content and meaning of law" through their individual and collective compliance (or non-compliance) decisions. These decisions may then be reviewed by courts if there are challenges, but courts often defer to the orgs at least in part.

Orgs also can decide whether to engage in "symbolic" vs. "substantive" compliance.

All this to say: No university had to jump to enact these orders in the way the Trump administration had in mind, but that's somehow exactly what Stanford did.

For details, see https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.soc.23.1.479 or https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/W/bo24550454.html