On Feb. 14, 2025, the United States Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) released a memo threatening to withhold federal funding from educational institutions that do not dismantle Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) practices within 14 days. Despite the rhetoric, the funding threatened to be pulled does not go towards “DEI practices,” but rather integral programs that affect student health and well-being across the country such as Title IV, Special Needs programs, Curriculum development and more, using the United States most vulnerable students as a pawn in the Trump administration’s attack on DEI.
The memo, known as the Dear Colleague Letter, is riddled with vague language and suspect legal ground. The letter widely expands the scope of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) v. Harvard and attempts to initiate actions that exceed the jurisdiction of the department and the OCR.
In the wake of political turbulence, it is crucial to remember that the Dear Colleague Letter does not change the law. Courts have upheld many programs that promote equal educational opportunity, including those that the OCR now deem illegal, such as eliminating standardized testing requirements in college admissions (as stated in the Dear Colleague letter). Furthermore, federal courts have also struck down some of the Trump administration’s recent DEI bans and funding freezes. Repercussions of the Dear Colleague Letter is expected to face the same scrutiny.
In SFFA v. Harvard, University of North Carolina, the Supreme Court of The United States (SCOTUS) ruled it unconstitutional for colleges to use race-based affirmative action programs as a factor in the college admissions process. However, the Supreme Court specified that DEI efforts are “plainly worthy” and “commendable goals” when pursued in a lawful manner. DEI teaching includes inclusive content, highlighting the different perspectives, histories and contributions of people from a variety of identities such as indigenous history or Jim Crow Laws. The courts, as well as many students and educators across the country, can attest to the fact that DEI programs are often misrepresented and come in many forms that benefit students of all racial and economic backgrounds, from lessons on civil rights to the elective Ethnic Studies and Social Justice (ESSJ) classes which students take on their own accord. In general, DEI is used as a tool to decentralize the European viewpoint in which history is often taught from; A viewpoint which can limit students’ knowledge and understanding, and ultimately foster long-standing biases.
In addition to questionable legal viability, the Dear Colleague Letter is littered with vague, contradictory language. While explicitly acknowledging America’s history of slavery, the memo proceeds to state that the concept of “systemic racism” is “indoctrination.” The memo also fails to establish clear specifications for threatened DEI practices or feasible plans for enforcement. According to the OCR, almost any practice involving the discussion of race could be considered discrimination. Contrary to the letter’s verbiage, efforts to promote equity and social justice are not “nebulous” or dangerous to any accord.
The OCR also stated that they “may assess compliance” after the short 14-day timeline for the abandonment of DEI programs. This broad language gives the impression that, similar to the Trump Administration’s executive orders and funding cuts, the Dear Colleague Letter is serving as a bully tactic rather than a deliberately crafted plan of action.
While the goal is to eliminate money going towards DEI (which is not a single dollar of the district’s budget) the cut would affect other programs such as Title IV, state funding for curriculum development, free or reduced lunch programs and support for students with special needs. By targeting what the administration deems “woke,” many students will fall through the cracks as their protected education becomes another pawn in Trump’s agenda. Here is a simple glance at how these groups may be affected:
Title IV: Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 refers to federal financial aid funds in postsecondary schooling, such as colleges and universities. Almost all Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) fall under this, meaning that students attending school with the promise of FAFSA or other financial need may no longer be eligible for federal aid. This will thus impact many seniors and other upperclassmen as finances are a large part of deciding if and where to attend college, funding or reduced prices of the SAT and Advanced Placement tests or other college preparation.
State funding for curriculum development: Curriculum is primarily set by local entities, including school districts or individual schools. This happens in 43 states, including California, though the remaining seven states have a mix of state and local level influences. Despite most curriculum development happening at local levels, federal funding comes in for students with special needs, and a separate clause of Title IV which funds science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) and arts programs. That being said, there are already equity disparages between states’ curriculums, which will become worse with an end to federal funding. In states that have lower literacy rates and declining enrollment, many students will lose already depleting public arts and specialized STEM programs.
Free and reduced lunches: The United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) funds the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) through allocated resources set forth in congressional appropriations each year, benefitting low income families and allowing equal access to healthy, balanced meals at school. According to the School Nutrition Association (SNA), out of the 29.6 million students who are served school lunch everyday, 21.3 million of them rely on free or reduced-priced lunch programs (FRPL), which students qualify for by being at or below 130% of the poverty line in their respective states. The destruction of such a program would be detrimental to student health and well-being across the country, disallowing students from having equal access to nutritional food during school hours. Many students who rely on FRPL may only be able to eat three meals a day through the reimbursement program, and consequently, pulling funding would potentially put millions of students in a food-insecure situation.
Students with Special Needs: One group that will be the most affected by a federal funding ban or reduction is students with special needs. Budget cuts in the recent Ventura Unified School District (VUSD) have already torn through schools, most notably cutting the hours and positions of special education teachers. A federal funding cut would exacerbate the issue, making special education students fall behind in programs meant to help them. In some districts across the country, almost 25% of their local budget is spent on special education. Due to this financial expense, the federal government enacted the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), and pledged to cover 40% of the cost. Though the act has since fallen short, with an average of only 15% of costs being covered at the federal level, completely removing this money will have detrimental effects on these students and their educators.
It is clear that the conditions proposed in the Dear Colleague Letter are not address any underlying issues with the education system, but instead risk a future where education is further divided and racial and economic disparities are deepened. The letter was written in a language meant to scare American educators into teaching one side of the story, a side that denies some of the most monumental and crucial movements in history. The letter represents more than just an attack on DEI; it threatens to dismantle critical programs that protect our most vulnerable populations. We must recognize that the preservation of these programs is essential to ensuring that all students have the opportunity to thrive. It’s time to demand that our policymakers prioritize student well-being over political agendas and protect the values that make our education system stronger. The battle for an inclusive education system is far from over, and now is the time to defend the opportunities that all students should have access to.
Editorials reflect a majority opinion of the 13-person Editorial Review Board and are written collaboratively.
