Tag: guidance

  • WHD Issues Enforcement Guidance on Independent Contractor Classification – CUPA-HR

    WHD Issues Enforcement Guidance on Independent Contractor Classification – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | May 5, 2025

    On May 1, the Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division (WHD) issued a field assistance bulletin providing guidance on determining employee or independent contractor status under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) while DOL reviews the 2024 final rule, Employee or Independent Contractor Classification Under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The rule currently faces legal action in multiple federal court cases in which the Trump DOL has taken the position that it is reconsidering the 2024 rule, including whether to rescind the regulation.

    Simply put, the bulletin states that WHD “will no longer apply the 2024 Rule’s analysis when determining employee versus independent contractor status in FLSA investigations.” Instead, WHD will enforce the FLSA’s worker classification rules according to Fact Sheet #13, which was issued in 2008, and Opinion Letter FLSA2019-6, which was issued during President Trump’s first term.

    The opinion letter from Trump’s first term articulates WHD’s position on gig economy worker classification, ultimately finding such workers to be independent contractors because they work for the consumer and do not fit “any traditional employment paradigm” under the FLSA. The Biden administration previously withdrew the opinion letter, but it has now been reinstated as Opinion Letter FLSA2025-2.

    Fact Sheet #13 provides a broader perspective regarding the meaning of “employment relationship.” It specifically asserts that an employee under the FLSA is “one who, as a matter of economic reality, follows the usual path of an employee and is dependent on the business which he or she serves,” and that an employer-employee relationship under the law is tested by “economic reality.” It also lists seven factors that are considered significant by the Supreme Court in determining employee classification under the FLSA:

    • The extent to which the services rendered are an integral part of the principal’s business;
    • The permanency of the relationship;
    • The amount of the alleged contractor’s investment in facilities and equipment;
    • The nature and degree of control by the principal;
    • The alleged contractor’s opportunities for profit and loss;
    • The amount of initiative, judgment, or foresight in open market competition with others required for the success of the claimed independent contractor; and
    • The degree of independent business organization and operation.

    Looking Ahead

    The field assistance bulletin changes the enforcement priorities of WHD with respect to worker classification, though the Biden administration’s independent contractor rule remains in effect for the time being. Legal challenges against the Biden rule are ongoing, and the Trump administration has started reviewing the regulation, though there is no official process yet to rescind it.

    CUPA-HR continues to monitor for updates related to the independent contractor classification regulations and will keep members informed of future updates.



    Source link

  • Education Department unveils guidance to make switching accreditors easier

    Education Department unveils guidance to make switching accreditors easier

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

    The U.S. Department of Education unveiled guidance Thursday intended to make it easier for colleges to change accreditors and lifted a pause on its review of applications for new accrediting agencies. 

    The guidance comes a week after President Donald Trump signed an executive order to reshape the accreditation system and make it easier for new agencies to come onto the scene. 

    Trump’s order also took aim at accreditor criteria related to diversity, equity and inclusion and directed U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon to ensure colleges prioritize “intellectual diversity” among their faculty — a mandate that raised concerns about academic freedom among some higher education experts. 

    “President Trump’s Executive Order and our actions today will ensure this Department no longer stands as a gatekeeper to block aspiring innovators from becoming new accreditors nor will this Department unnecessarily micromanage an institution’s choice of accreditor,” McMahon said in a Thursday statement. 

    The Education Department also revoked guidance issued in 2022 that outlined a more rigorous review process for colleges to switch accreditors. The Biden-era guidance said the department would review whether a college wanted to change accreditors to lessen oversight and if moving to a new agency would strengthen its institutional quality, among other factors. 

    At the time, the Biden administration said the guidance sought to ensure colleges weren’t attempting to evade oversight from their current accreditor by switching to a new one. 

    The Trump administration’s new guidance, however, says the agency will reestablish “a simple process that will remove unnecessary requirements and barriers to institutional innovation.” Under the policy, colleges must submit a two-page form to serve as documentation of their prior accreditation, as well as “materials demonstrating reasonable cause” for changing or adding an accreditor. 

    The form includes a checklist of reasons institutions may seek to switch accreditors, along with a section requiring colleges to certify that they have not had their accreditation withdrawn or faced accreditor sanctions in the past two years. Colleges must also attach their most recent letter renewing their accreditation. 

    Wesley Whistle, project director for student success and affordability at New America, a left-leaning think tank, criticized the new process, arguing that making it easier to switch accreditors could lead institutions to move to agencies with less rigorous standards. 

    “This new guidance says all they have to do is fill out this checklist and provide them [with] their most recent letter of reaffirmation,” Whistle said. “That letter could be almost a decade old.”

    Moreover, that letter wouldn’t indicate if a college is currently under investigation by its accreditor, Whistle said. 

    “Just because an institution may not be on probation today, they could still be under investigation,” Whistle added. 

    The Education Department also said it will have 30 days to approve an application to switch accreditors. If not, the change will be automatically granted unless a college failed to meet the eligibility requirements. 

    Whistle described the policy as a “30-day rubber stamp.” 

    “It’s irresponsible,” Whistle said. “There’s nearly 6,000 colleges and universities that are eligible for Title IV aid, so conducting even a modest review takes time and expertise.”

    The Trump administration’s new guidance also permits colleges to switch to new accreditors if required by state law. Other recognized reasons include seeking an accreditor that better aligns with a college’s religious mission, changing the types of academic programs offered or objecting to current accreditation standards, including DEI requirements. 

    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

  • USCIS Announces Guidance on Social Media Screening for Immigration Benefit Requests

    USCIS Announces Guidance on Social Media Screening for Immigration Benefit Requests

    by CUPA-HR | April 9, 2025

    On April 9, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced that it will begin considering “aliens’ antisemitic activity on social media and the physical harassment of Jewish individuals as grounds for denying immigration benefit requests.” According to the announcement, the guidance is effective immediately and impacts individuals applying for lawful permanent resident status, foreign students, and “aliens affiliated with educational institutions” linked to antisemitic activity.

    Under the new guidance, USCIS will look at social media content that indicates a requestor “endorsing, espousing, promoting, or supporting antisemitic terrorism, antisemitic terrorist organizations, or other antisemitic activity as a negative factor in any USCIS discretionary analysis when adjudicating immigration benefit requests.” The announcement states that DHS and USCIS aim to enforce all relevant immigration laws to the maximum degree, consistent with President Trump’s executive orders on combatting antisemitism and national security controls to protect against foreign terrorists.

    In early March, USCIS published a proposal to collect social media information on applications for immigration-related benefits. USCIS claimed that such collection of information was necessary to comply with Trump’s national security executive order discussed above. The comment period for this information collection proposal is still open. The comment period closes May 5.

    CUPA-HR continues to monitor for updates on immigration policy changes that could potentially impact student and nonimmigrant work visas used by the higher education community.



    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

  • This week in 5 numbers: Education Department adds detail to DEI guidance

    This week in 5 numbers: Education Department adds detail to DEI guidance

    The value of the grant portfolio at Johns Hopkins University affected by an “unexpected stoppage” of funds from the U.S. Agency for International Development, the institution announced this week. The research university is bracing for cuts amid funding uncertainty caused by the Trump administration.

    Source link

  • Education association sues Trump admin over DEI guidance

    Education association sues Trump admin over DEI guidance

    Legal challenges to the Education Department’s guidance ordering colleges to rescind all race-based programming are piling up. 

    A week after the American Federation of Teachers sued the Trump administration over the guidance, the National Education Association and the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit that seeks to restrain the department from enforcing the Feb. 14 letter.

    Similar to the AFT lawsuit, the NEA argues that the letter and its threat to cut federal funding would hamper public schools’ function as “the nation’s ‘nurseries of democracy.’” The NEA lawsuit was filed in the New Hampshire federal district court, while the AFT’s challenge is in Maryland district court.

    “The Trump administration is threatening to punish students, parents and educators in public schools for … fostering inclusive classrooms where diversity is valued, history is taught honestly, and every child can grow into their full brilliance,” Becky Pringle, president of the NEA, said in a news release. “We’re urging the court to block the Department of Education from enforcing this harmful and vague directive and protect students from politically motivated attacks that stifle speech and erase critical lessons.”

    NEA alleges that the Dear Colleague letter “imposes vague and viewpoint discriminatory prohibitions,” “invites arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement,” and causes “substantial, irreparable harm.” 
    The NEA wants the court to declare the letter contrary to constitutional rights and place a permanent restraint on the department, preventing it from enforcing the letter’s orders.

    Source link

  • Higher ed botched response to anti-DEI guidance (opinion)

    Higher ed botched response to anti-DEI guidance (opinion)

    While much of the now-infamous Valentine’s Day Dear Colleague letter from the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights was vague and void of specific information, the following sentence was crystal clear:

    “The Department intends to take appropriate measures to assess compliance with the applicable statutes and regulations based on the understanding embodied in this letter beginning no later than 14 days from today’s date, including antidiscrimination requirements that are a condition of receiving federal funding.”

    Despite the letter’s clear language to the contrary, higher education leaders and the media (including the higher ed press) did the math and declared Feb. 28 “deadline day” for diversity, equity and inclusion programs in higher education. “Deadline day,” read one story. “The clock is running out,” claimed another. An Associated Press story ran with the lead “Schools and colleges across the U.S. face a Friday deadline to end diversity programs or risk having their federal money pulled.” What ensued was a self-made crisis characterized by spirited debates and ill-advised anticipatory compliance with the yet-to-be-announced changes to enforcement of Title VI of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964.

    Seasoned veterans knew better. The most likely “next step” indicated by the department was presumed to be further communication from OCR about the “measures to assess compliance” that were promised in the letter.

    And that is exactly what happened. On March 1, the department issued a press release and FAQ document elaborating on the Dear Colleague letter. The FAQ elaborates on the new administration’s intention to use a novel and expansive interpretation of the 2023 Supreme Court decision in SFFA v. Harvard, an admissions case in which Chief Justice John Roberts opined that diversity-related goals within higher education can be “commendable” and “plainly worthy.” It answers questions about how the department will receive complaints. In short, the department did exactly what it stated it would do within the 14-day timeline. The so-called deadline was a chimera, an artifact of the confusion and fear created by the letter’s politically charged context and lack of specificity.

    While it leaves many key questions unanswered, the FAQ does favorably settle several unclear points raised by the Dear Colleague letter.

    Question 8 asks, “Are Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) programs unlawful under SFFA?” The answer is no. Only if those programs discriminate on the basis of race, color or national origin do they violate the law. The answer further clarifies what we have known all along: “Whether a policy or program violates Title VI does not depend on the use of specific terminology such as ‘diversity,’ ‘equity,’ or ‘inclusion.’” The department declares in unambiguous language that it cannot deem certain words “illegal,” nor are phrases such as “diversity,” “equity,” “inclusion” or “belonging” a violation of nondiscrimination obligations.

    Question 9 asks, “Does this mean that students, teachers, and school employees may not discuss topics related to race or DEI under Title VI?” Again, the answer is no. Only if those classroom discussions create “hostile environments through race-based policies and stereotypes” do they violate the law. The answer makes clear, “Nothing in Title VI, its implementing regulations, or the Dear Colleague Letter requires or authorizes a school to restrict any rights otherwise protected by the First Amendment.”

    The 14-day window between the Dear Colleague letter and the FAQ did not pass without some productive and inspirational advocacy. Notably, Paulette Granberry Russell and the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education won a significant legal victory in federal district court, achieving a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement activities and the withdrawal of funding based on anti-DEI executive orders.

    The American Council on Education submitted a persuasive letter to OCR—signed by 71 national higher education organizations—requesting that the Dear Colleague letter be rescinded and that the department engage with the higher education community to ensure a clear understanding of the legal obligations of colleges and universities—a rare example of higher education speaking with one voice on this topic.

    The rest of the frenetic activity in this two-week time span was less productive. Despite many thoughtful suggestions to the contrary, some colleges and universities hastily undertook “audits” and website “scrubbing” of programming they thought might possibly be covered in the OCR’s forthcoming communications. A careful review of the FAQ document is likely to reveal that much of this was an unnecessary overreaction.

    From my perspective, the most harmful occurrence was an unproductive debate over institutional responses to the letter. Most of these took the shape of a false dichotomy between courage and cowardice. In my estimation, the institutions that stayed the course and waited for guidance from OCR were not courageous, but rather prudent. Conversely, the institutions that moved to action were not universally motivated by fear or cowardice, but rather by institution-specific realities of board governance, state and local politics, and individual risk assessments. At the end of the day, it was context and not courage or cowardice that motivated institutions.

    With a published methodology for compliance assessment now communicated, the department has answered a few of the lingering questions outlined on Valentine’s Day. Most notably, the FAQ provides a clear statement on how the Dear Colleague letter will be enforced.

    The answer to Question 14 clarifies that the department will use existing case-processing procedure—which includes due process for institutions and the possibility of a voluntary resolution agreement—and links to a newly revised Case Processing Manual. It is now the job of institutions that are committed to building “inclusive and diverse campus communities”—as the ACE letter penned by Ted Mitchell so eloquently states—to prepare a spirited defense of their programming by demonstrating that their efforts do not violate federal civil rights law.

    Steve Robinson is president of Lansing Community College.

    Source link

  • Teachers’ union sues to block Trump admin’s DEI guidance

    Teachers’ union sues to block Trump admin’s DEI guidance

    The lawsuit comes after a federal judge blocked the Trump administration from carrying out parts of two executive orders cracking down on diversity, equity and inclusion.

    Pete Kiehart/The Washington Post/Getty Images

    A coalition of educators and sociologists is challenging the Department of Education and its unprecedented Dear Colleague letter—which declared all race-conscious student programming illegal—in a lawsuit filed late Tuesday evening.

    The American Federation of Teachers and the American Sociological Association argue in the complaint, which was submitted to a Maryland federal court, that following the letter’s dictates “will do a disservice to students and ultimately the nation by weakening schools as portals to opportunity.”

    “This vague and clearly unconstitutional memo is a grave attack on students, our profession and knowledge itself … It would hamper efforts to extend access to education, and dash the promise of equal opportunity for all, a central tenet of the United States since its founding,” AFT president Randi Weingarten said in a statement. “It would upend campus life.”

    The expected legal challenge came just three days before a Feb. 28 compliance deadline. The four-page guidance document says that colleges and universities must rescind any race-based policies, activities and resources by the end of the day or risk investigation and the loss of federal funding.

    The department justifies its demands through a new interpretation of the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which banned the consideration of race in college admissions. Although the Supreme Court’s decision applied specifically to admissions, the Trump administration believes it extends to all race-conscious activities.

    On Friday, a judge from the same federal court in Maryland issued a temporary injunction in a separate lawsuit that blocked parts of President Trump’s antidiversity executive orders.

    But higher education legal experts say that the Dear Colleague letter and the executive orders, though similar, are independent levers, so the injunction doesn’t affect the department’s guidance. The Education Department has also said it is still moving forward with its interpretation of the law and the deadline stands.

    So now all eyes are on this most recent court case, as higher education leaders wait to see if the judge will issue a second injunction and block the guidance.

    “The Department of Education’s new policy, reflected in the February ‘Dear Colleague’ letter, seeks to undermine our nation’s educational institutions and is an unlawful attempt to impose this administration’s particular views,” said Skye Perryman, president of Democracy Forward, the legal group representing the plaintiffs. “We will continue to pursue every legal opportunity to oppose and stop harmful attacks on freedom of expression and on the values like inclusion, diversity and belonging that make us all and our nation stronger.”

    In the meantime, higher education advocacy groups are urging colleges and universities to stay calm and not overreact to the Dear Colleague letter.

    On Tuesday the American Council on Education sent a letter to Craig Trainor, the acting assistant secretary of civil rights, requesting that he “rescind the DCL” and work with higher education institutions to ensure a clearer understanding of the letter before setting a new compliance deadline.

    “Over the last two years, our colleges and universities have worked hard to assess and modify, as appropriate, policies and practices in light of the decision in the SFFA case and applicable civil rights laws,” ACE president Ted Mitchell wrote. “It is unreasonable for the department to require institutions to appropriately respond to this extremely broad reinterpretation of federal law in a mere two weeks and in the absence of necessary guidance.”

    Source link