Dear Colleague Letter to Education Leaders Regarding DEI Programming from ED’s Office of Civil Rights

The news and reaction to a Dear Colleague Letter (DCL) published late last week has spread quickly through the education communities at all levels. The blog post below is a summary of the letter and suggested next steps (though these do not constitute legal advice).

Background:

On January 21st President Trump signed an executive order entitled Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity through which he asserted that diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies violate U.S. civil rights laws. This executive order gave the Attorney General and the Secretary of Education 120 days to issue guidance to institutions of education that receive federal funding on how to comply with the 2023 Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard Supreme Court decision.

Summary:

Late February 14, 2025 the Acting Assistant Secretary for the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights, Craig Trainor, published a Dear Colleague Letter (pictured above) indicating that federal funding may be removed from institutions of primary, secondary, and post-secondary education that are found to violate the Department’s interpretation of federal civil rights law, including by promotion of DEI programs deemed to discriminate on the basis of race, color, or national origin.

This DCL frames the concept of DEI around the notion that DEI programing creates conditions in which one race receives preferential treatment over another, or such programming encourages racial segregation at institutions of learning.

Moreover, this letter cites the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard as evidence that racial preferences in college admissions is unlawful and expands this decision to prohibit the consideration of race in activities such as “hiring, promotion, compensation, financial aid, scholarships, prizes, administrative support, discipline, housing, graduation ceremonies, and all other aspects of student, academic, and campus life.”

Considerations:

As the Dear Colleague Letter states, the letter is meant to provide notice of the Department’s current interpretation of federal law, with the added note that the Department intends to provide additional guidance in the future. In addition, although not descriptive, the Department asserts that it plans to take steps to ensure compliance beginning 14 days after the publishing of the letter.

Again, this particular Dear Colleague Letter only refers to race-based decision-making. Therefore, mentions of sex, accessibility, and environmental justice were excluded, though these were components in President Trumps’ executive order Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity.

Furthermore, this letter is not clear on which forms of federal funding the Trump administration would attempt to remove if an institution is found not to be in compliance. In other words, this letter does not suggest if it would make a distinction between funds given to programs and funds provided to individuals. For instance, it is unknown what the Trump administration plans for Pell Grant recipients attending institutions that they deem to be incompliant. Notably, the letter does not offer language which discusses reinstating funding for institutions which the Trump administration deems to no longer be out of compliance.

Limitations:

As the Dear Colleague letter mentions, the contents of this letter do not have the force of law, as such, this letter does not supersede statue. Therefore, practices that are codified into law cannot be unilaterally undone by the Trump administration. However, this Dear Colleague Letter does present a vision for enforcement policy and thus sets forth a foundation for conducting federal investigations, even if at this time there is no clarity on what investigations would look like and how they would be processed; especially in an environment where the federal workforce is seeing an all-around reduction. Finally, neither the aforementioned executive order nor this Dear Colleague Letter offer a precise definition of diversity, equity, and inclusion further creating a lack of clarity.  

Suggested Next Steps:

ACCT recommends institutions to seek advice from their institution’s legal counsel as federal laws, directives, and policy positions interact differently with different states and different campuses which interpret DEI differently.

To help inform these conversations, create a compendium of federal funding sources – including Title IV direct student aid and campus-based aid; federal grants and contracts; and earmarks. It is important to have a sense of the full impact of federal funding on your institutional budget.

Additionally, doing an audit of campus programs that are focused on race-based Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion would further inform the decision-making process about any changes the college chooses to make.

 Génesis Santiago is the Senior Government Relations Associate at ACCT