Written by: Bess Murad
On Friday, February 14, the Education Department warned schools that they may lose federal funding if they consider race in scholarships, hiring, or any element of student and campus life. Institutions have fourteen days to adhere to the directive, which elaborates on the 2023 Supreme Court decision prohibiting race-conscious admissions. Additionally, it clarifies that any staffing decisions or student services influenced by race could result in penalties for institutions.
The letter reaffirms the government’s stance on enforcing nondiscrimination laws under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits race-based exclusion or discrimination in programs funded by the federal government. Though historically aimed at protecting minorities, the Department now interprets Title VI as prohibiting race-conscious programs themselves.
Craig Trainor, the acting assistant secretary for civil rights at the Education Department, alleged in the letter that schools, including K-12 institutions and universities, have engaged in race-based discrimination in admissions, hiring, financial aid, and activities such as DEI programs, graduation ceremonies, and housing policies. The letter contends that these practices perpetuate stereotypes and unequal treatment based on race. Schools are encouraged to ensure their policies adhere to civil rights laws, cease the use of any indirect methods by which they might consider race and avoid third-party services that sidestep these restrictions.
Noncompliance with the Department’s letter could result in the loss of federal funding. The letter clarifies that the guidance does not have the force of law, does not create new legal standards, and does not bind the public. Instead, it aims to clarify existing legal requirements under Title VI, the Equal Protection Clause, and other federal laws. However, lawyers and school administrators question the feasibility of complying with the broad directive within two weeks, noting that the Education Department has not specified what compliance entails.
Expanding the Scope Beyond Supreme Court Precedent
The letter references the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) v. Harvard, which ruled that race-based preferences in college admissions are unconstitutional unless they undergo strict scrutiny. The petitioners in the lawsuit challenged Harvard’s admissions policies, claiming that they discriminated against Asian American and White applicants in favor of underrepresented minorities. The court concluded that any use of race must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest, such as remedying specific past discrimination or addressing imminent safety risks in prisons. The Court explicitly rejected the idea that diversity or racial balancing constitutes a compelling interest.
Trainor cites to SFFA, stating that educational institutions “may neither separate or segregate students based on race, nor distribute benefits or burdens based on race.” However, the SFFA ruling was specific to admissions and did not directly address hiring, scholarships, or campus programs—areas now covered by the Education Department’s directive.
The Court in SFFA pointed out that nothing prevents universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race has influenced their life, as long as that discussion is closely linked to a quality of character or unique ability the applicant can offer to the university. However, the Department argues that the SFFA ruling goes beyond admissions and applies to all decisions regarding race in educational contexts, including hiring, financial aid, scholarships, and other campus activities. Moreover, the letter indicates that schools cannot segregate students or assign benefits based on race, nor can they indirectly use proxies like personal essays or extracurricular activities to determine a student’s race.
Potential Legal Challenges
This raises legal questions about whether the department is overstepping its authority by extending restrictions beyond those set by the Supreme Court. Several aspects of the directive are likely to face legal challenges. Critics argue that the Supreme Court ruling primarily addressed student admissions, which means its extension to faculty hiring may lack legal precedent. They point out that affirmative action in hiring has historically been protected under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, suggesting that universities could assert that existing employment discrimination laws still allow for race-conscious hiring. However, supporters of the directive contend that race-conscious hiring practices contradict the principle of equal treatment and that extending the ruling aligns with a broader interpretation of nondiscrimination laws.
Similarly, the policy’s impact on scholarships and financial aid could be contested. Opponents argue that many scholarships and grants are privately funded or managed by student government initiatives rather than university administrations, making federal intervention questionable. They also suggest that restricting race-based scholarships could raise First Amendment concerns if it is seen as government overreach into student organizations or external funding. Conversely, proponents maintain that any form of race-based financial aid—regardless of its funding source—can promote racial preferences that the Supreme Court has ruled against, and that federal oversight is essential to ensure fairness in financial aid distribution.
The directive also raises questions about student affinity groups and cultural programs, which have long been a part of college life. Opponents argue that banning these groups under Title VI could be legally dubious as long as they remain open to all students, regardless of race. However, supporters believe that such programs can create de facto segregation and that public institutions should not support initiatives that categorize students by race in any capacity.
Conclusion
While opponents view the policy as an overreach that limits institutional autonomy, supporters see it as a necessary step to uphold race-neutral principles in academia. Legal experts anticipate that universities will challenge the directive, which could result in a new Supreme Court case that clarifies the limits of race-conscious policies in education beyond admissions.
Sources:
Associated Press, Trump Administration Gives Schools a Deadline to End DEI Programs or Risk Losing Federal Money, U.S. News Feb. 18, 2025.
Brooke Schultz, Trump Administration Warns Schools: End Race-Based Programs or Risk Losing Funds, Education Week, February 18, 2025.
Craig Trainor, Dear Colleague Letter, United States Department of Education Office for Civil Service, February 14, 2025.
Olivia Hampton, Obed Manuel & Leila Fadel, Schools, colleges have 2 weeks to ban DEI. An education expert warns it won’t be easy. National Public Radio, Feb. 16, 2025.
Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, 600 U.S. 181 (2023).
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Zach Montague, Education Dept. Gives Schools Two Weeks to Eliminate Race-Based Programs, New York Times, Feb 17, 2025. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/17/us/politics/education-dept-race-based-programs.html
Zachary Schermele, Trump gave schools 2 weeks to ban DEI. Lawyers say it’s not that simple, USA Today, Feb. 20, 2025, https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/education/2025/02/20/trump-dei-dear-colleague-letter/79196225007/
42 U.S.C. § 2000d
34 C.F.R. § 100.1