Tag: antiDEI

  • Federal judge halts Education Department’s anti-DEI measures

    Federal judge halts Education Department’s anti-DEI measures

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    A federal judge blocked two U.S. Department of Education actions attempting to restrict diversity, equity and inclusion in schools on Thursday. 

    The decision undoes a February “Dear Colleague” letter that threatened to withhold federal funding to schools that didn’t eliminate race-based programming, as well as a subsequent letter requiring school districts to certify that they do not incorporate DEI in their schools. 

    In her 76-page opinion, Judge Stephanie Gallagher of U.S. District Court for Maryland ruled that the administration violated decision-making procedures under the Administrative Procedure Act — a move that violated the constitutional rights of plaintiffs, who are led by the American Federation of Teachers. 

    Gallagher, a Trump-appointed judge, took no stance, however, on the content of the Education Department’s directives themselves. 

    “Still here, this Court takes no view as to whether the policies at issue in this case are good or bad, prudent or foolish, fair or unfair,” she said. “But, at this stage too, it must closely scrutinize whether the government went about creating and implementing them in the manner the law requires. Here, it did not.” 

    The administration’s anti-DEI measures were already on pause as a result of this court case and at least two other separate but similar federal court cases pending in Washington, D.C., and New Hampshire. Those cases also challenged the Education Department’s anti-DEI policy.

    As a result of previous court action pausing the measures, the department had already withdrawn its certification requirement. 

    However, in an email to chief state school officers in April retracting the certification requirement, the department said, “Please be advised that the Court Order does not preclude the U.S. Department of Education from initiating any enforcement actions that it may otherwise pursue under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and its implementing regulations.” 

    Title VI bars discrimination based on race, color or national origin in federally funded programs — and has in the past been used especially to protect historically marginalized students from such bias. However, since President Donald Trump reentered the White House, the Education Department has invoked the civil rights statute to protect Asian and White students. The Trump administration’s anti-DEI efforts are a core part of that interpretation. 

    The Education Department echoed its earlier sentiments in a reaction to Thursday’s ruling. 

    “While the Department is disappointed in the judge’s ruling, judicial action enjoining or setting aside this guidance has not stopped our ability to enforce Title VI protections for students at an unprecedented level,” said the department in an email to K-12 Dive on Friday. “The Department remains committed to its responsibility to uphold students’ anti-discrimination protections under the law.”

    However, some public school educators and advocates say the measures would harm decades of equity work meant to level the playing field for Black and brown students. Moreover, the directives would create an environment of fear that impacts other underserved students such as students with disabilities, they say

     “Our district works hard to ensure that every student feels included through thoughtful curriculum and programs,” said Eugene School District 4J school board member Jenny Jonak in a statement on Thursday. The Oregon district was a plaintiff in the lawsuit that led to Thursday’s court decision. 

    “Teachers and schools must be able to provide inclusive, comprehensive education without fear of losing critical federal funding. We should never be forced to choose between supporting our students and securing the resources they need and deserve,” Jonak said.

    The Trump administration, in its court response to the lawsuit, argued that the certification requirement “fails to rise to the level of final agency action,” which would have required the formal rulemaking procedures that the department didn’t undergo. 

    Source link

  • Judge Keeps Alabama’s Anti-DEI Law in Place for Now

    Judge Keeps Alabama’s Anti-DEI Law in Place for Now

    The judge denied a motion for a preliminary injunction to block the anti-DEI law.

    Just_Super/iStock/Getty Images Plus

    Ruling in part that professors lack First Amendment protections in the classroom, a federal judge denied an effort from college faculty and students in Alabama to block a 2024 state law that banned diversity, equity and inclusion programs as well as the teaching of so-called divisive concepts.

    The plaintiffs, who include students from the University of Alabama at Birmingham and professors at the University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa, argued in court filings and at hearings that the legislation known as Senate Bill 129 amounted to state-sponsored censorship and infringed on their rights under the First and 14th Amendments. The professors alleged that they had to cancel class projects or events and faced other questions about their classroom conduct from administrators because of the law. They’ve also changed course material as a result.

    R. David Proctor, chief judge in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, found that while the professors and the Alabama NAACP had standing to sue, they weren’t likely to succeed at this time. For instance, he ruled that the professors aren’t protected by the First Amendment because their “in-class instruction constitutes government speech.”

    Furthermore, Proctor wrote, based on other rulings in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, “when there is a dispute about what is taught in the classroom, the university’s interests outweigh those of a professor, and the professor’s interest in academic freedom and free speech do not displace the university’s interest inside the classroom.”

    The plaintiffs said Proctor’s ruling was disappointing.

    “I feel incredibly dismayed that SB 129 is allowed to continue going into the new school year,” said Sydney Testman, one of the students who sued, in a statement. “As a senior at University of Alabama at Birmingham, I’ve seen firsthand how SB 129 has transformed my college campus for the worst. Voices have been silenced, opportunities have been revoked, and meaningful community engagement has faded. This decision undermines the need for students to properly feel a sense of belonging and inclusion on campus.”

    Source link

  • Federal judge declines to block Alabama anti-DEI law

    Federal judge declines to block Alabama anti-DEI law

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    Dive Brief: 

    • A federal judge declined to temporarily block the enforcement of a state law that bans public colleges from funding diversity, equity and inclusion programs and from compelling students to affirm certain “divisive concepts.”
    • Earlier this year, a group of students and faculty members sued the state’s governor and the University of Alabama’s trustees over the new law, arguing that it violates their free speech rights by placing viewpoint-based restrictions on what can be taught in the classroom. They also contended that the law undermines due process by being so ambiguous that instructors and students don’t know what is prohibited. 
    • U.S. District Judge R. David Proctor — a George W. Bush appointee — pushed back on those arguments in his 146-page ruling Wednesday. Proctor denied their request for a preliminary injunction, writing that public colleges could reasonably control curricular content and rejecting assertions that the law’s language is impermissibly vague. 

    Dive Insight: 

    Last year, Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey signed a law known as SB 129, which bans public colleges and K-12 schools from having DEI initiatives. It defined those efforts as programs, training or other events where attendance is based on “race, sex, gender identity, ethnicity, national origin, or sexual orientation.” 

    PEN America noted last year that while this language doesn’t outright ban all DEI initiatives, the attendance restrictions could bar public colleges from activities like creating programming specifically for international students or recognizing a Black student union. 

    The law also barred public colleges from requiring students to affirm or adhere to a list of so-called divisive concepts. 

    Under the law, one of the concepts is that individuals “are inherently responsible for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race, color, religion, sex, ethnicity, or national origin.” Another is that people are “inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or subconsciously” based on their personal characteristics. 

    The law also contains carve-outs. It says that the language does not bar public colleges from teaching or discussing divisive concepts “in an objective manner and without endorsement as part of a larger course of academic instruction.”

    According to court documents, faculty members who sued over the measure said that while they do not require students to affirm or adhere to these concepts, they worry that their instruction on race and gender could be viewed as running afoul of the law — even with the carve-outs for teaching. 

    “I do not know what it means to discuss a divisive concept ‘in an objective manner’ and ‘without endorsement,’” plaintiff Cassandra Simon, a social work professor at University of Alabama, said in court documents. “There is robust empirical evidence of implicit bias, white privilege, and the absence of a colorblind meritocracy. I am unable to determine whether continuing to present these scholarly findings, and assigning readings on these subjects, would violate SB 129.”

    One of Simon’s class assignments — that students select a social issue of their choice and advocate for it — was abruptly canceled due to the law, according to court documents. 

    Her students chose to hold a sit-in to protest SB 129 for their project. The day of the sit-in, however, the social work dean told Simon to cancel the assignment in part over concerns that it would compel students to agree with one of the banned divisive concepts. 

    Another plaintiff raised concerns over teaching about topics such as structural racism, employment discrimination and health disparities by race. And another voiced concerns that the law potentially limits his ability to teach about eugenics. 

    However, Proctor wrote in his ruling that the law doesn’t prohibit the teaching of divisive concepts and pointed to the carve-outs provided. 

    The judge also cited an appeals court case that found a public college could “reasonably control the content of its curriculum, particularly that content imparted during class time.”

    “There is no legal basis for concluding that the First Amendment protects a university professor’s academic freedom in the way the Professors suggest,” Proctor wrote. 

    Referring to the canceled sit-in, Proctor wrote that it was “a reasonable exercise of control over course curriculum to ensure that students would not feel coerced into advocating for a belief with which they disagreed.”

    Proctor also dismissed Ivey as a defendant in the case, ruling that plaintiffs’ alleged injuries aren’t traceable to her. 

    The plaintiffs in the case slammed the decision on Thursday. 

    “SB129 created a culture of fear that has severely hindered the ability of professors to provide comprehensive instruction in our areas of expertise,” Dana Patton, a University of Alabama professor and plaintiff in the case, said in a statement. “The law infringes on our academic freedom and our duty to students to provide a truthful and comprehensive education.”

    Alabama state Sen. Will Barfoot, the sponsor of the legislation, didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

    Source link

  • Iowa board approves course policy change after stripping anti-DEI references

    Iowa board approves course policy change after stripping anti-DEI references

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    The Iowa Board of Regents on Tuesday approved a policy change that requires public university faculty to “present coursework in a way that reflects the range of scholarly views and ongoing debate in the field.” 

    Under the change, effective immediately, the board will also audit the three universities it oversees — the University of Iowa, Iowa State University and the University of Northern Iowa — at least every two years for compliance with the new directive.

    The policy change significantly revises the original proposal’s language, which included references to diversity, equity and inclusion and critical race theory. Tuesday’s 7-1 vote came after public pushback over that proposal and two postponements by the board to approve the policy.

    The initial version of the proposal would have barred Iowa university academic programs from requiring courses containing “substantial content that conveys DEI or CRT.” As examples of DEI, it lists systemic oppression, anti-racism, social justice, and unconscious or implicit bias. Universities would have been able to apply to regents for exemptions.

    The wide-reaching language prompted criticism from academic groups, students and those who argued it would undermine free speech.

    In one example, five state educator groups launched a joint petition urging “the Iowa Board of Regents to firmly reject efforts to restrict what students can learn.” The petition, which does not address the updated policy, noted that the original language would have affected at least a dozen academic programs. 

    “Students in certain fields — such as social work and nursing — would have been at a special disadvantage, since those professions’ standards require graduates to show competency in various topics banned under the policy,” it said.

    Board President Sherry Bates said the regents delayed the vote at their July meeting so they could review the policy. The board then set a special August meeting for the vote.

    In the intervening weeks, the board released a new version of the proposal. The updated language — which ultimately passed Tuesday — states that “faculty may teach controversial subjects” when relevant to course content, but they must present such topics from multiple and opposing viewpoints.

    “University teachers shall be entitled to academic freedom in the classroom in discussing the teachers’ course subject, but shall not introduce into the teaching controversial matters that have no relation to the subject,” the updated version says.

    It also states that students’ grades should reflect their “mastery of course content and skills,” not their “agreement or disagreement with particular viewpoints expressed during instruction or in their work.”

    ‘What exactly is controversial, and who will decide?’

    The new policy addresses how topics are taught rather than what is taught, Regent Robert Cramer argued.

    “Personally, I don’t want any of the DEI/CRT woke left stuff being taught in our classes,” he said. “But this policy is not my personal beliefs.

    But Regent Nancy Dunkel, the sole member of the board to vote against the policy, raised concern about the ambiguity of the policy’s language.

    “What exactly is controversial, and who will decide? Can anyone declare something as controversial?” she asked. She also noted that the policy change in and of itself has become controversial among Iowa constituents. 

    Dunkel further raised questions about the requirement for faculty to present a range of viewpoints.

    “If a professor has to present both sides to an issue, does that mean a marketing professor must also include anti-capitalist arguments to students?” she asked. “Do anti-evolution arguments have to be presented in biology classes? How do we present both sides of the Holocaust?”

    The board voted immediately after Dunkel’s comments.

    ‘I will not be passive’ 

    The regents also made clear to Iowa’s three universities — the leaders of which joined Tuesday’s meeting — that they have been put on notice regarding DEI efforts.

    Two of Iowa’s public universities have become a talking point among conservative media outlets. In recent weeks, conservative outlets and anti-DEI watchdog groups published a series of videos — the most recent of which was released Sunday — that appear to show two officials at the University of Iowa and one at Iowa State discussing how they could work around state DEI restrictions.

    Source link

  • Iowa board reworks anti-DEI course policy proposal following pushback

    Iowa board reworks anti-DEI course policy proposal following pushback

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    Dive Brief:

    • The Iowa Board of Regents has removed references to “critical race theory” and “diversity, equity and inclusion” from a controversial proposal to limit what courses the state’s three public universities can require. The regents plan to vote on the issue during a special meeting on Tuesday.
    • Under the original proposal, academic programs would not have been able to require students to take classes containing “substantial content that conveys DEI or CRT.” Universities that wanted an exemption would have had to gain board approval every other year.
    • Following public pushback, the board reworked the proposal to state that “faculty may teach controversial subjects” when relevant to course content, but they are expected to “present coursework in a way that reflects the range of scholarly views and ongoing debate in the field.” The revision also leaves the board the option to “periodically” review the universities’ compliance.

    Dive Insight:

    The Iowa Board of Regents — which oversees the University of Iowa, Iowa State University and the University of Northern Iowa — has so far delayed the vote on the proposal twice, last postponing the decision at its July 30 meeting. 

    The original language included extensive examples of DEI topics that would have been restricted, including anti-racism, “transgender ideology,” systemic oppression, and unconscious or implicit bias.

    “One of the primary reasons we are not taking up the DEI/CRT policy is that the discussions on how to best implement the ideas that were brought forward are still ongoing,” Board President Sherry Bates said in prepared remarks, citing responses from the community. “It has become clear that we would be better served by something more comprehensive.”

    Much of the local response has been negative.

    Five Iowa educator advocacy groups joined together to form the Iowa Higher Education Coalition to oppose the policy and launched a petition “to urge the Iowa Board of Regents to firmly reject efforts to restrict what students can learn.” The petition, which does not address the updated policy, had garnered 470 signatures as of Friday afternoon.

    The faculty union at the University of Northern Iowa, one of the members of the coalition, voiced opposition at the board’s June meeting, when it was first scheduled to vote on the proposal.

    “There is no middle position, no position of slight appeasement,” United Faculty President Christopher Martin told board members at the meeting. “Either you stand for free expression at Iowa’s universities or you don’t. And God help Iowa, its public universities and all the citizens of this state if you don’t.”

    Martin said that the proposal came from two out-of-state think tanks’  generic recommendations, and he alleged that it runs contrary to state law.

    Since that meeting, the board has reworked the language significantly.

    “University teachers shall be entitled to academic freedom in the classroom in discussing the teachers’ course subject, but shall not introduce into the teaching controversial matters that have no relation to the subject,” the updated version said.

    Regardless of how the board votes next week, the Iowa Legislature may step in.

    State Rep. Taylor Collins, chair of the Legislature’s newly created Higher Education Committee and an avid opponent of DEI efforts, voiced support for the board’s original policy proposal last month.

    “If this policy is not adopted, the House Committee on Higher Education stands ready to act,” he said on social media after the board delayed a vote on the policy for the second time.

    Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds signed a bill in May 2024 that prohibits public universities from maintaining or funding DEI offices or from officially weighing in on a wide array of issues. The list includes allyship, cultural appropriation, systemic oppression, social justice, racial privilege or “any related formulation” of the listed topics. 

    The law prompted PEN America, a free expression advocacy group, to include Iowa on its yearly list of states that enacted “educational gag orders.”

    The board of regents has also moved to limit diversity work on campus. In 2023, it ordered the universities under its purview to cut all campuswide DEI efforts not required to comply with the law or accreditation standards.

    Source link

  • King Misrepresented in Anti-DEI Congressional Hearing

    King Misrepresented in Anti-DEI Congressional Hearing

    In January 2024, I wrote a Forbes article titled, “How Martin Luther King Would Respond to Today’s Attacks on DEI.” I declared therein that King would be outraged and disgusted by the catastrophic assault on values for which he fought, was arrested 29 times and ultimately died. Were he still alive today, I know for sure that King would call on leaders to demonstrate more courage and integrity as DEI is being recklessly torn down in our nation’s K-12 schools, higher education institutions, government agencies and businesses. He would insist on brave truth telling, nonviolent resistance, larger and more audacious multiracial coalitions, and strategically pulling every possible lever in defense of racial justice. King would not have been okay with colleges and universities closing culture centers and multicultural affairs offices, scrubbing their websites of language pertaining to antiracism and equity, and firing innocent DEI practitioners who broke no laws and did nothing wrong.

    Regarding his dream, I insisted the following in the aforementioned Forbes article about King: “Paradoxically, many people who know little about the greatest American civil rights leader of all time at least know he famously spoke these words: ‘I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.’ The part about not judging people by skin color gets weaponized to justify colorblindness.”

    Unsurprisingly, this very thing happened this week in a U.S. House of Representatives hearing titled “Restoring Excellence: The Case Against DEI.” I was the lone expert witness for the Democrats, a role I had played twice before on Capitol Hill.

    Robert Onder, a Republican congressman representing Missouri, prefaced a question to me by reciting the go-to line from King’s speech. “Let me read to you a quote you may have heard of, maybe you haven’t, it goes something like this …”

    Two things ran through my mind at the time. First was “Oh, here we go with the tired, predictable misrepresentation of Martin Luther King’s stance on colorblindness.” Secondly, I thought, “Of course I have heard these words—I have been a Black man in America for nearly 50 years; I am a proud graduate of a historically Black university; I spent a decade as a member of the Africana studies faculty at the University of Pennsylvania; I have delivered numerous Martin Luther King Day keynote addresses for universities and companies across the country (including this one in 2016 at Duke University in which I critiqued the twisting of King’s Dream speech); and I have read dozens of MLK sermons, speeches and letters, including but not limited to those published in A Testament of Hope: The Essential Writings and Speeches—how absurd to even suggest that I may be hearing these words for the first time.” It was the most disgusting moment of the hearing for me, yet I somehow maintained my composure.

    I have said it many times before, but it is worth repeating during these dangerous times in higher education and our democracy: King was not a proponent of colorblindness. He hated racism against African Americans and other people of color. He called white supremacy by its name. He called Black people by their names as he fearlessly demanded equity, opportunity and justice for them. The remedies he advocated were extraordinarily race-forward and color-conscious. Any policy or practice in higher education or elsewhere that insists on colorblindness is a misrepresentation of King’s stance.

    There is at least one other noteworthy thing about the annoying evocation of King in the congressional hearing: The civil rights icon said judged “by the content of their character,” but Onder and other Republicans kept insisting on narrowly judging applicants by standardized college entrance exams that tell admission professionals more about those prospective students’ ZIP codes, socioeconomic statuses, the ability of their families to pay for expensive test prep courses and tutors, and the abundance of resources in the K-12 schools they attended.

    Ironically, DEI opponents often fail to recognize and appreciate the incredibly valuable proxies for character, leadership, creativity and other strong indicators of undeniable potential for greatness in holistic admissions practices.

    Those of us who love King and truly value the race-consciousness of the unrealized American dream for which he fought, was repeatedly jailed and died must continue to help our family members, neighbors, colleagues, presidents and governing board members, students, and elected officials understand why wholesale, decontextualized advocacy for colorblindness is wrong, unfair and bad for our democracy.

    If we really want to honor King, especially during this time, more of us would demonstrate brave resistance to the enormously consequential dismantling of DEI in educational institutions and our broader society. The civil rights hero is widely known for peace, love and nonviolence—what Cornel West calls the “Santa Clausification” of King.

    But to be sure, King would have hated the weaponization of government to dismantle DEI broadly and racial equity efforts specifically right now. He would have put up the biggest fight and demanded that leaders, including those in higher education, stop cowardly surrendering to white supremacy and hate. More of us should do that, too.

    Shaun Harper is University Professor and Provost Professor of education, business and public policy at the University of Southern California, where he holds the Clifford and Betty Allen Chair in Urban Leadership.

    Source link

  • Navigating Anti-DEI in Higher Education

    Navigating Anti-DEI in Higher Education

    Title: Critical Leadership for Civil Rights in Higher Education: The Experiences of Chief Diversity Officers Navigating Anti-DEI Action

    Authors: Jeffrey K. Grim, Arissa Koines, Raúl Gámez, Erick R. Aguinaldo, and Jada Crocker

    Source: National Center for Institutional Diversity, University of Michigan

    Chief diversity officers (CDOs) in higher education play a critical role in ensuring civil rights and facilitating diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) on campuses. In a qualitative study of 40 CDOs by the National Center for Institutional Diversity, authors found that CDOs tend to take one of three approaches.

    The first approach, strategic inaction, involves not changing any current practices and watching how political trends change. Proaction involves “responding to foreseen anti-DEI actions to ensure they could successfully support all students, faculty, and staff without the disruption of political attacks on specific naming conventions or activities” (p. 4). The third strategy is reaction, in which CDOs eliminate DEI measures to comply with laws and regulations.

    Based on their findings, the authors offer the following seven recommendations for current CDOs in higher education.

    1. Resist anti-DEI intimidation tactics: Higher education leaders should remember that these tactics are exactly that: tactics. As such, do not preemptively comply with threats or potential anti-DEI actions.
    2. Partner with other institutional leaders: Create a cohesive plan of action and message for DEI. Consider Shared Equity Leadership as a frame for doing collective work.
    3. Develop coalitions with external stakeholders: Establish relationships with key higher education stakeholders (alumni, policymakers, nonprofits, etc.). Work together to advocate for DEI in higher education and its role in diversifying the workforce.
    4. Make research-informed decisions: Anti-DEI actions tend to be ideologically, rather than empirically, based. Consistently evaluate and track data so that there is justification for DEI work.
    5. Maintain organizational accountability: Diversity officers should be regularly assessed and evaluated, with data being used to highlight the impact of their work. Criteria for evaluation should be comparable to metrics for evaluating employees in other offices.
    6. Utilize professional development and network: CDOs should harness resources and connect with other CDOs to build a network of support, opportunity, and mentorship.
    7. Support health and well-being of DEI professionals: Leaders should be flexible and aware of the physical and mental toll of DEI work right now. Offer CDOs supports that work for them (e.g., compensatory time for after-hours meetings, professional development, etc.).

    Read the full report here.

    —Kara Seidel

    If you have any questions or comments about this blog post, please contact us.

    Source link

  • Education Department’s Anti-DEI Guidance Blocked

    Education Department’s Anti-DEI Guidance Blocked

    The Education Department won’t be able to enforce its guidance that declared all race-based programming and activities illegal following two court orders Thursday.

    Federal judges in New Hampshire and Maryland handed down the rulings after finding plaintiffs in the two separate lawsuits were likely to succeed in proving that the Feb. 14 Dear Colleague letter violated procedural standards and the First Amendment. Prior to the orders, colleges and K-12 schools that failed to comply with the letter risked their federal funding.

    “Although the 2025 letter does not make clear what exactly it prohibits, it makes at least one thing clear: schools should not come close to anything that could be considered ‘DEI,’ lest they be deemed to have guessed wrong,” the New Hampshire judge wrote. And since loss of federal grants could cripple institutions, “it is predictable—if not obvious—that [they] will eliminate all vestiges of DEI to avoid even the possibility of funding termination,” regardless of whether it is an example of executive overreach.

    The New Hampshire court’s preliminary injunction, which was issued first, was limited to institutions that are members of the plaintiff association, leaving many colleges and universities vulnerable. But just hours later, a Maryland judge filed her opinion that prevented the letter from taking effect until the case is resolved, which essentially serves as a nationwide injunction.

    The injunctions do not, however, block all of Trump’s attacks on DEI. The Dear Colleague letter was just one aspect of the president’s multipronged strategy.

    In a separate lawsuit from the NAACP challenging the department’s guidance and actions related to DEI, a District of Columbia judge blocked the department from requiring that K-12 schools certify that they don’t have any DEI programs. Thursday, April 24, was the deadline to comply. The department threatened to withhold federal funding from K-12 schools that didn’t meet the certification requirement. The judge ruled that “because the certification requirement conditions serious financial and other penalties on insufficiently defined conduct,” the plaintiffs were likely to succeed.

    Since its release, the Dear Colleague letter has sent K-12 and higher education advocates across the country into an uproar as lawyers and others argued that the document was a prime example of Trump abusing presidential power.

    The Education Department said in the guidance that the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which banned race-conscious admissions, also made any race-based programming, resources and financial aid illegal. The department gave colleges two weeks to comply. A few weeks after the letter took effect, the Office for Civil Rights opened dozens of investigations into colleges, accusing them of violating the guidance in the letter.

    Some colleges and universities, in an effort to comply with the letter, began to retract, or at least rebrand, their DEI activities, resources and scholarships. Some institutions, including the Universities of Cincinnati, Pittsburgh and Alaska, responded by scrubbing their websites of words like “diversity” and “inclusion.” Others, including Ohio State University, shuttered DEI offices and changed the eligibility requirements for certain programs entirely. (Those changes were made despite the advice of some academic associations to avoid pre-emptive compliance.)

    On March 3, the Education Department released an FAQ that watered down and provided clarity on some of the letter’s bold orders. But still, higher education groups continued to push back, and by the end of the week, both lawsuits had been filed.

    The one in New Hampshire was led by the National Education Association, the nation’s largest K-12 union, and the other in Maryland was from the American Federation of Teachers, a union that includes many higher education faculty.

    The unions argued that the letter and its threat to cut federal funding violated the First and Fifth Amendments, using vague language that exceeded the Education Department’s statutory authority. They also alleged that the scrubbing of DEI programs as well as the potential funding cuts would weaken schools’ and universities’ ability to act as tools of socioeconomic mobility.

    “This letter is an unlawful attempt by the department to impose this administration’s particular views of how schools should operate as if it were the law. But it is not,” the AFT complaint stated. “Title VI’s requirements have not changed, nor has the meaning of the SFFA decision, despite the Department’s views on the matter.” (Title VI of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin.)

    At a recent hearing in the Maryland case, the Department of Education argued that its letter was merely a reminder that existing civil rights laws protect white children from discrimination just as much as children from a minority group, Maryland Matters reported.

    “It’s highly unlikely that they’re going to go after a school because they taught a certain book,” U.S. attorney Abhishek Kambli said. “All this letter does is just clarify what the existing obligations are under Title VI [of the Civil Rights Act].”

    But the Maryland judge didn’t buy that argument, and she sided with the plaintiffs, as did the New Hampshire judge.

    The New Hampshire judge said the policies outlined in the letter failed to appropriately define DEI and therefore threatened to erode the “foundational principles” of free speech and academic freedom.

    The Maryland judge, on the other hand, approached her case from a perspective of “substantive and procedural legality,” saying the Trump administration’s letter failed to hold its own on that front as well.

    “Plaintiffs have shown that the government likely did not follow the procedures it should have, and those procedural failures have tangibly and concretely harmed the Plaintiffs,” Gallagher wrote. “This case, especially, underscores why following the proper procedures, even when it is burdensome, is so important.”

    And though the orders are just temporary holds and litigation will continue, education stakeholders consider it a win.

    “The nationwide injunction will pause at least part of the chaos the Trump administration is unleashing in classrooms and learning communities throughout the country, and it will provide the time for our clients to demonstrate clearly in court how these attacks on public education are unconstitutional and should be permanently stopped,” said Skye Perryman, president of Democracy Forward, a pro bono legal group that is representing AFT in Maryland.

    AFT president Randi Weingarten added in a statement that “the court agreed that this vague and clearly unconstitutional requirement is a grave attack on students, our profession, honest history, and knowledge itself.”

    For the NEA, the New Hampshire decision was “a victory for students, parents, and educators” that blocked an “unprecedented and unlawful” effort to control American schools.

    “Across the country educators do everything in their power to support every student, ensuring each feels safe, seen, and is prepared for the future,” NEA president Becky Pringle said in a news release. “Today’s ruling allows educators and schools to continue to be guided by what’s best for students, not by the threat of illegal restrictions and punishment.”

    The Department of Education did not respond to Inside Higher Ed’s request for comment prior to the publishing of this story.

    Source link

  • Federal judges deal major blow to Education Department’s anti-DEI guidance

    Federal judges deal major blow to Education Department’s anti-DEI guidance

    Two federal judges issued separate rulings Thursday that together dealt a major blow to the Trump administration’s recent guidance threatening to strip federal funding from colleges and K-12 schools that consider race in any of their policies, including scholarships and housing. 

    U.S. District Judge Stephanie Gallagher ruled that the U.S. Department of Education did not follow proper procedures when issuing the Feb. 14 letter and postponed its effective date nationwide while the legal challenge against the guidance plays out. 

    The order came in response to a lawsuit from the American Federation of Teachers and other groups, which alleged that the guidance “radically upends” federal antidiscrimination law and is too vague for colleges and K-12 school officials to understand what conduct is prohibited. 

    The guidance interprets the 2023 U.S. Supreme Court ruling against race-conscious college admissions to extend to every aspect of education, including financial aid, administrative support and graduation ceremonies. 

    According to AFT, the letter also implied that a wide variety of “core instruction, activities, and programs” used in teaching students — from diversity initiatives to instruction on systemic racism — could now be considered illegal discrimination. 

    The Feb. 14 letter asserted that colleges and K-12 schools had “toxically indoctrinated students with the false premise that the United States is built upon ‘systemic and structural racism’ and advanced discriminatory policies and practices.” 

    The Education Department appeared to walk back some of the strictest aspects of its guidance in a March Q&A document, but Gallagher wrote that the Q&A still lacked “sufficient clarity to override the express terms of the [Feb. 14] Letter.”

    Gallagher, a federal distict judge in Maryland, said the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in their arguments that the letter exceeds the Education Department’s authority by attempting to exercise control over curriculum. 

    “The government cannot proclaim entire categories of classroom content discriminatory to side-step the bounds of its statutory authority,” Gallagher wrote. 

    AFT Maryland President Kenya Campbell hailed the court’s order on Thursday. 

    “This preliminary injunction pauses the chaos caused by targeting and attacking vital communities and temporarily protects the critical funding schools, from our K-12 schools to our higher education institutions, rely on,” Campbell said. 

    The order came the same day as another federal judge made a similar ruling in a separate case brought against the Feb. 14 guidance. 

    The National Education Association, its New Hampshire affiliate and the Center for Black Educator Development sued the Education Department in early March, arguing the guidance undermines the free speech rights of educators. 

    Although the plaintiffs had sought a nationwide injunction, federal Judge Landya McCafferty, ruling for New Hampshire district court,  only blocked enforcement of the guidance for federally funded colleges and schools that employ or contract with the plaintiffs’ members. NEA alone has about 3 million members, including higher education workers.

    Source link

  • Education Department launches probes into over 50 colleges after anti-DEI guidance

    Education Department launches probes into over 50 colleges after anti-DEI guidance

    Dive Brief: 

    • The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights launched investigations into more than 50 colleges Friday over allegations that their programs and scholarships have race-based restrictions, a move in line with the agency’s broad crackdown on diversity initiatives. 
    • The civil rights investigations include prominent private colleges, such as Yale University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, as well as dozens of large public institutions, including Arizona State University and University of California, Berkeley. 
    • The investigations follow the Education Department’s Dear Colleague letter last month that says colleges are barred from considering race in their programs and policies. The guidance has drawn at least two lawsuits that accuse the letter of being unconstitutional. 

    Dive Insight: 

    The new investigations are just one of the aggressive moves the Education Department has taken to carry out President Donald Trump’s policy priorities to reshape higher education. 

    Trump and his administration’s top officials have not only threatened to pull funding from colleges over their diversity initiatives but also over the way they handle student protests and if they allow transgender women to play on teams corresponding with their gender identity. 

    Friday’s announcement escalates the Trump administration’s threats to pull federal funding over diversity efforts. 

    The Education Department said it is investigating allegations that 45 colleges have partnered with an organization for doctoral students that has race-based eligibility criteria. It is also looking into allegations that six have race-based scholarships and that one has a “program that segregates students on the basis of race.”

    The probes follow the Feb. 14 Dear Colleague letter, which interpreted the 2023 U.S. Supreme Court decision against race-conscious admissions to also mean that colleges were prohibited from considering race in their policies and programs, including scholarships and housing. 

    The letter panned diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, describing them as discriminatory practices aimed at “smuggling racial stereotypes and explicit race-consciousness into everyday training, programming, and discipline.” The guidance threatened to pull federal funding from colleges that didn’t comply with the Education Department’s interpretation of civil rights law. 

    At least two lawsuits have challenged the legality of the guidance, arguing that the letter is unconstitutionally vague, undermines academic freedom and violates free speech rights. 

    The plaintiffs and other critics have pointed out that the 2023 Supreme Court decision only touched on admissions. 

    “OCR’s letter goes beyond that in a way that is simply off-base, encompassing virtually all programs at schools and universities, including race-neutral policies,” researchers at The Century Foundation, a left-leaning think tank, said in a post this week. 

    Both The Century Foundation and some legal scholars have cautioned colleges to not overly comply with the letter.

    “It is important to ensure that educational policy is not changed based on a letter that oversteps legal boundaries,” Liliana Garces, an educational leadership and policy professor at the University of Texas at Austin, wrote in a February op-ed for The Chronicle for Education.

    Two weeks later after the Education Department issued the Dear Colleague letter — amid widespread outcry — the agency appeared to walk back some of the most contested provisions of the guidance in a Q&A. 

    For instance, the Education Department said using words like “diversity,” “equity,” and “inclusion” would not necessarily mean colleges are violating civil rights law. The agency also noted that it doesn’t have the power to control classroom instruction. 

    Yet the American Federation of Teachers, one of the groups suing over the guidance, said the Q&A only made the letter “murkier.”

    The Education Department’s new round of investigations also follow dramatic cuts at the agency, which eliminated nearly half its workforce through mass firings and voluntary buyouts. Department leaders concentrated many of the cuts in OCR, the very division responsible for carrying out the new civil rights investigations.

    Source link