Education Department Orders Schools To Stop All Racial Discrimination
The letter mostly builds on existing civil rights law.

Last Friday, the Department of Education released a "Dear Colleague" letter directing educational institutions to stop all forms of racial discrimination in essentially all aspects of their operations, including "admissions, hiring, promotion, compensation, financial aid, scholarships, prizes, administrative support, discipline, housing, graduation ceremonies, and all other aspects of student, academic, and campus life."
The letter, from Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Craig Trainor, mostly reiterates existing civil rights prohibitions on racial discrimination, as well as the 2023 Supreme Court decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard that barred race-based affirmative action in college admissions.
"If an educational institution treats a person of one race differently than it treats another person because of that person's race, the educational institution violates the law," the letter reads. "The Department will no longer tolerate the overt and covert racial discrimination that has become widespread in this Nation's educational institutions. The law is clear: treating students differently on the basis of race to achieve nebulous goals such as diversity, racial balancing, social justice, or equity is illegal under controlling Supreme Court precedent."
While the letter primarily focuses on existing legal protections against race-based discrimination, it also singles out more nebulous forms of apparent discrimination in educational institutions. "Other programs discriminate in less direct, but equally insidious, ways," the letter reads. "[Diversity, equity, and inclusion] programs, for example, frequently preference certain racial groups and teach students that certain racial groups bear unique moral burdens that others do not."
Obviously, the Education Department is well within its rights to remind schools that they can't discriminate against students based on race. But the DEI-related provisions could also create confusion and possibly cause some colleges to suppress academic freedom in the name of eliminating DEI. After President Donald Trump signed several executive orders banning DEI programs in the federal government, West Point went so far as to disband several student cultural organizations.
"I think, what the letter is mostly meant to signal is a change in enforcement priorities. Most of what it's saying here is not new at all. But I think what they're trying to communicate is that they're going to enforce these laws with a different emphasis," says Robert Shibley, special counsel for campus advocacy at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), a First Amendment organization. Shibley says the passage focused on DEI programs could lead to confusion and overreach, depending on how schools interpret it.
"The way 'teach' is going to be interpreted, is going to be very important when looking at this 'Dear Colleague' letter," Shibley says. " I do think there's legitimate concerns to be had there. And I think it's important that the department clarify that sooner rather than later."
Shibley also noted that universities shouldn't jump to overly broad interpretations of letters like this without further clarification.
"I think it's also incumbent on universities to be responsible when they are figuring out how to apply these….Universities need to have a common sense approach to making a good faith effort to follow this kind of guidance. But that doesn't mean that they have to do things that are manifestly unjust at a moment's notice."
How schools will ultimately interpret the letter remains to be seen, but if what happened at West Point is any indication, some colleges may do far more than merely follow decades-old civil rights law.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
West Point went so far as to disband several student cultural organizations.
Good. The only culture club at westpoint should be the American club
To quout the great philosopher Sgt Hartman "Ithere is no racial bigotry here. I do not look down on niggers, likes, wops, or greesers"
“You are all equally worthless.”
"likes"?
You know who they are.
We’re dismantling racism and promoting equality by dismantling democrat policies. Just like sixty years ago.
(D)democratic policies. Nothing to do with small-D democracy (or small-L liberal).
That is, educational institutions are required to follow the law. This is controversial in some circles.
A "color blind form of white supremacy" [because it "fails to acknowledge past and current 'discrepancies'"]; I just learned about that here a couple of weeks ago. So no "content of character over color of skin." Who'd a thought MLK would become a white supremacist?
Just another Uncle Tom. Who knew?
Schools know better than the people and should be able to violate laws, parental rights, the constitution, etc. - jeff
It is as if educational institutions never heard of Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954)
"I think, what the letter is mostly meant to signal is a change in enforcement priorities. Most of what it's saying here is not new at all. But I think what they're trying to communicate is that they're going to enforce these laws with a different emphasis," says Robert Shibley, special counsel for campus advocacy at the [...], a First Amendment organization. Shibley says the passage focused on DEI programs could lead to confusion and overreach, depending on how schools interpret it.
Once again libertarians, F*RE is not your friend. The social/cultural Marxists have forced this "You can't discriminate, but you also can't use objective metrics that produce disparate outcomes." no-win situation and are extracting funds by making taxpayers, students, administrators, etc. sing and dance for them.
The actual answer is that public funds shouldn't be teaching people about race one way or the other. It's a bottomless pit of insanity (One classmate at University used to note in parody, "They're building a *new* Black Cultural Center? Where's the first Japanese-Eskimo Cultural Center?") that, rather overtly paves a path beginning at liberal education and ending with effectively government-sponosred/defined racism.
Defending a University teaching black people what it means to be black, is not free speech. It's defending a social progrom. At this point, even for strictly endowment-backed schools, much of the profit was ill-gotten gains, directly or indirectly, from taxpayers of all races.
F*RE is just another layer of lawyers and bureaucrats that will axe any and all principles in order to preserve their own paychecks.
NB: You'll notice that several terms are ellipsized or asterisked out even though, at least for one, they're in quotes. When I post this post straight up without the edits, I get a Wordfence 403 error. Maybe it's just a coincidence that mentions of F*RE in an article about F*RE incur an unusual 403 error... maybe it isn't.
Did you mean "program" or "pogrom"? Both work in the context but it changes the meaning of that paragraph more than a little.
LOL.
"Foundation for Collective Rights and Oppression (FCRO)" (Foundation for Racial Indoctrination and Trans-racial Oppression (FRITO)?) I can post.
But literally just saying the name of "The Organization Whose Name I Dare Not Speak" (as well as several permutations with hyphens and other test text) gets me:
Awesome job retards.
Testing:
FIRE
Yeah, the original post, I went backwards through references to FIRE and obfuscated until it posted. Didn't go until the [...]. The word itself doesn't seem to be the problem and, as indicated, it's not really some sort of sloppy regex match to generic rights foundations.
Actually saying FIRE is, apparently, not an unsafe operation, but naming The Organization Whose Name I Dare Not Speak is potentially an unsafe operation.
This is as hilariously retarded as whatever university's IT department forbidding terms like 'black box' because of racism.
More awesomeness: It doesn't matter which thread *I* post referring to the "Foundation for Oxymoronic Restrictions in Expression, Speech, Kafkaesque Intimations, and Nonsense (FORESKIN)" to, it gets blocked.
I could switch on the VPN and see if the block is related to my IP or see if I have an old login I could dust off but, at this point, this dumpster fire of a website isn't worth it.
AIM
Guess you can yell 'fire' in a crowded comment section.
What will now be the most important thing?
Race is still the most important thing, you just won't be able to set up specific classes and charge in order to retard students into thinking that the all the systems that set up, afford, and maintain classes and facilities to teach them how evil and racist other people are for being a part of or setting up such a system.
Right now it seems to be Elon Musk attacking the Magic Money Tree.
The true African American.
Emma Camp: The libertarian case for racism.
The last 60 yrs. of progressive racism marching through educational institutions were OK, it wasn't until 2022 that.... all of the sudden... things started to get out of hand.
Also free state education and other human "rights".
So NOW they untangle Brown v Board of Ed? What would Edwin "Birchie" Walker think iv that?
This letter backs up Brown v. Topeka Board of Education, nitwit.
'Education Department Orders Schools To Stop All Racial Discrimination'
Now imagine the ecstasy among Democrats and progressive activists if this headline was published in 1960.
Oh, they would have hated it back then too - it wasn't the Democrats that supported the CRA.
The letter from the Dept. of Education agrees with existing law, but the byline of this article says, "Education Department Orders..." The Dept. of Education has no ability to enforce anything it "orders" except through funding, and there is a movement within government to defund, disband, dissolve, and eliminate the Dept. of Education established by Pres. Jimmy Carter. It hasn't worked well. All 50-states have a Dept of Education and can receive and disburse funds to school districts allocated by Congress rather than being funneled through a leftist federal Dept. of Education with a huge staff of Marxist ideologists. In the interest of efficiency and tax-dollar savings we should bypass the massive federal Dept of Education and fund directly the state's Department of Education who fund schools.
Not quite true. The Department of Justice DOES have the authority and the ability to enforce federal laws against discrimination. Or have you forgotten Little Rock desegregation?
Almost every American knew that DEI was illegal, but were afraid to object in the face of media and 'expert's' condemnation. Once the dam was opened we are all free to see what was there.
Gov't: End DEI.
Shibley: It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the—if he—if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not—that is one thing...
And, again, private, Black and/or Women's Universities have existed since before the Civil War (to say nothing about monasteries, convents, nunneries, libraries, and temples similarly educationally including-but-segregating people going back into antiquity). They have almost wholly been displaced by "Racial Studies" (and Gender Studies) at mainstream/integrated/public institutions that are managed and/or funded by The State.
The system has been captured by Marxist/socialist racial progressivism since at least 3 decades before the Clinton Era and the "Free Speech" lawyer is equivocating about rolling things back to 2016.
Glad the people are starting to recognize it.
Democrats flag-ship about Anti-Racism *** is *** racism in action.
The same is true of feminism.
Precisely a predictable consequence of making 'armed-theft' of *special* [WE] Identify-as people (i.e. socialism) a political ideology. History repeating itself over and over and over again. The USA is NOT a [Na]tional So[zi]alist 'democracy'. It is a *Constitutional* (Supreme Law) Union of Republican States.
From what I can find, West Point shut down the Asian-Pacific Forum Club, Latin Cultural Club, National Society of Black Engineers Club and Society of Women Engineers Club.
Depending on what those clubs do and/or the membership requirements they enforce, West Point may have been right to do so. Is there (and would they even allow) a National Society of White Engineers Club or a Society of Men Engineers Club? The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race. On the other hand, if the Asian-Pacific Forum Club is a bunch of future soldiers talking about the politics and cultures of places where they may someday be sent to fight, that would probably be a mistake. The names of the clubs alone are not really enough to tell.
a National Society of White Engineers Club or a Society of Men Engineers Club?
You do know that the racist left has a quick answer for this, right?
Does this mean that "protected classes" are no longer a thing? But I digress! Of course the Asian-Pacific Forum Club is limited to Asian-Pacific cadets. You can tell if you will simply let go of your false parity and think.
>Education Department Orders Schools To Stop All Racial Discrimination
How dare the DoE do this! Who do the people running think they are? They're not *in charge!*
But, but, but, what about the disparate impact on all the illegal aliens who just want to come to the US to get a free college education so they can go back to their countries and fix all the problems there?
A Matter of Time
“The future isn’t what it used to be.” -Yogi Berra (1925-2015)
Past is prologue? Not always although 'tis true that the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. It's the reason for racing forms at the track.
Debt! These United States are drowning in debt. Unsustainable? Yes. In economics, however, say what not when or when not what. Never say both together. Why? Because no one can identify with accuracy all the controlling variables even the bewildered Jerome Powell.
President Trump is enacting a series of "reforms", including the damnable Department of Education. They are based upon a series of problematic assumptions. The validity of those assumptions will determine the success or failure of those "reforms".
Only one prediction is certain. The consequence of continuing down the Path to Perdition that we "nervous Nellies" have been plodding since President Johnson used the term when enacting the "Great Society" during the 1960's must be economic, political, and sociological disaster. Ah, but when?
1. This letter has zero legal significance. Rules like this need go through the proper process.
2. DEI is about non-discrimination. Just because Republicans hoodwinked the public to believe DEI is affirmative action or CRT does not make it so.
BS. Or was the era of Campus Rape tribunals just something that happened in a fever dream? Dear Colleague letters can have significant impacts.
Now... I'll be the first to admit that it's possible that the Obama era Dear Colleague letter that resulted in hundreds of millions in lawsuits, fake accusations and destroyed lives and academic careers could have had an outsized impact because academia was particularly predisposed to go along with its dear-colleague-ness, whereas a Dear Colleague letter that says "stop being racist" might get some pushback.
2. DEI is about non-discrimination. Just because Republicans hoodwinked the public to believe DEI is affirmative action or CRT does not make it so.
No, it's not. It's about the 'equal distribution of shares' by using racism as a 'corrective measure'.
The truth about what DEI is does not change because MAGAs did a successful job in lying to the public about what it is. Look at what they are actually cutting, student groups that support and celebrate cultures, Black history month, the idea that trans people exist, efforts to provide services in less common languages, outreach to minority or underrepresented communities, sign language interpreters, disability accommodations, acknowledgment of achievements by women and minorities, and much more, all on the cutting block. None of that is your BS "It's about the equal distribution of shares by using racism as a corrective measure." You have been lied to.
You should know about lying, even if you are not very good at it.
So….. lots of meaningless pandering, molly?
Haha. You suck.
How can you be so consistently wrong about everything? Are you a troll deliberately provoking the extremists here? Microaggression is totally about the feelings of the victim, having nothing whatever to do with the imagined aggressor. Maybe you could do some reading about "receiver operating characteristic" - or can AI actually read? The goal of DEI is to weaponize guilt and chill discussion, and nothing else.
re you a troll deliberately provoking the extremists here?
This. Very obviously this. Been muted forever because it has nothing real to say.
"nebulous goals such as diversity, racial balancing, social justice, or equity"
Almost, but not quite. I find racial discrimination and all forms of racism detestable and intolerable. I find diversity to be a fact or reality and unavoidable, not a goal to be achieved. I find equity to be a legal process defined in court rulings by judges, impossible to achieve by any government regulatory bureaucracy. The "nebulous goals" here are regulatory, not aspirational. If the few remaining racist bigots, misogynists and homophobes would stop ruining our society, equity and tolerance and equal opportunity and rights under the law would be almost completely achieved in a heartbeat. It will never be achieved by enforced rebalancing and reparations - quite the opposite! Those attempts have fueled racism and bigotry, not curbed them.
Would you have any objection of the Trump administration would order the EEOC to decline to investigate and dismiss all current cases alleging racial discrimination?
Why would they do that? They just told all the schools to stop being racist. Of course they're going to investigate and hopefully prosecute any that keep doing it.
You did not answer my question. Would you have any objection of the Trump administration would order the EEOC to decline to investigate and dismiss all current cases alleging racial discrimination?
Your question is idiotic and irrelevant.
My question is real and immediately applicably to current events. I am guessing you would be cool with it.
Your question is playing a silly and stupid what-if game based in nothing concrete. It is irrelevant.
"Would you have any objection"
First off, I would eliminate the EEOC. The FBI should investigate all valid charges of criminal violation of equal rights under the United States Constitution and the DoJ should prosecute suspected violators.
Discrimination is rarely if ever criminal. It is civil.
Then why is the government involved at all? The person alleging discrimination can bring that case directly.
Balance of power. Few people have thousands of dollars laying around to start a discrimination suit, even if they will get attorneys fees at the end. Without the government helping enforce it's laws, they will not be enforced and thus effectively not exist.
Another reason is that fighting discrimination is for the benefit of all, thus the government has a responsibility to pursue these cases for the public good.
The FBI should investigate all valid charges of criminal violation of equal rights under the United States Constitution and the DoJ should prosecute suspected violators.
Uh, the Equal Protection Clause constrains the government to enforce its laws equally for all people. By itself, it does nothing to protect people from discrimination by private individuals, groups, or businesses. To the extent that the 14th Amendment advances a principle of equality and non-discrimination, it is only enforced against private discrimination through laws passed by Congress, such as the Civil Rights Act.
How about "set asides"? Are those still OK?
Yes, but according to MAGAs, only for white cis Christian men.
Cite?
Is this going to make it illegal for a university to put extra effort to recruit groups that experienced blatant discrimination in the past? I don't mean showing preference in the decisions to admit students, award scholarships, or hire faculty and staff. I mean spending more time and money encouraging minorities to apply for those things. Will it prevent universities from putting in extra effort to support K-12 education in poor, minority-heavy schools in their towns and cities?
One interpretation of all of this is that these people wanting a "color-blind" society now is that they really do want a level playing field for everyone. But an alternative interpretation is that they see how their groups currently have advantages because of past discrimination, so they are opposing anything that might erode those advantages and that could create a truly level playing field.
An institution can't discriminate to address past wrongdoing unless the institution is addressing its own wrongdoing and the beneficiaries are the ones directly or proximately affected by the past discrimination. General redress of past societal wrongs is not a compelling interest.
... and it's also impossible and aggravates the problem.
... and it's also impossible and aggravates the problem."
I'll ask the same thing you asked me below. How do you know that?
400 years of discrimination white people be like: This is correct and the natural order.
Few years after discrimination ends and efforts are made to help those communities affected white people be like: No fair, we are against any and all discrimination down to even efforts to reach out to minority communities.
"white people be like (x2)"
Are you for fucking real? This is brain rot memespeak.
My first question for you would be, "Have any of those efforts ever been successful?" and my second question would be, "How do you know?"
It is difficult to know if they have been successful and how much so if they have been, because we would have to compare it to...not doing those things? The things we can look at are the achievement gaps in educational results and attainment, and in economic outcomes. If the gaps have been closing, well, then maybe they are helping. If not, then maybe they aren't. There's also a lot of confounding variables and figuring out how those affect outcomes independent of each other is challenging to say the least.
I don't know whether those efforts have been successful, as I haven't looked at the data that carefully. If they haven't been, then I'd be really interested in figuring out what would be successful. Or is just throwing up our hands and assuming that it is an intractable problem a better idea in your view?
I'm not interested in group remedies. If any individual has been the subject of discrimination, they may sue.
"Education Department Orders Schools To Stop All Racial Discrimination."
Gee, the Department of Education is only about 60 - 70 years late on the issue.
Ask me again why I believe the Department of Education should be terminated.
The current incarnation of the Department of Education didn't exist 60 years ago. It began operating in 1980 after Carter signed the law creating it the previous year. Of course, it wasn't really created out of thin air, as it had operated as the Office of Education between 1953 and 1979 as part of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. That same Office of Education was part of the Federal Security Administration between 1939 and 1953, and the Department of the Interior between 1929 and 1939. It was called the Bureau of Education within the Department of the Interior from 1870 until 1929, the Office of Education from 1869-1870, and it was the Department of Education when originally created in 1867.
Oh, and the Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights is responsible for enforcing Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. And has been since its reorganization in 1980.
Oh, and the Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights is responsible for enforcing Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. And has been since its reorganization in 1980.
Seeing how affirmative action was the norm for colleges and universities, it doesn't look as though the Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights did a good job enforcing Title VI of the CRA.
I see. Getting rid of affirmative action is what they should have been doing rather than making sure that black kids, Hispanic kids, kids with disabilities, and girls got equal educational opportunities to 'normal' white boys.
They should have been fighting both of those kinds of discrimination.
And, so again, my reply is aimed at Uncle Jay's belief that getting rid of the Dept. of Education is a good idea. How does that fix this problem you think exists of discriminating (against who, specifically?) without also eliminating something you just said the Dept of Education should be doing?
So you're a fan of Ibram X Kendi?
"The remedy for past discrimination is present discrimination, and the answer to present discrimination is future discrimination."
So a never-ending cycle of discrimination is the answer?
I happen to not view programs that aim to remedy past wrongs as being discrimination. Just like it wouldn't be discrimination when the government gives money and other aid to people hurt by natural disasters (that isn't discrimination against people that didn't have their homes destroyed), aid to people with disabilities (that isn't discrimination against people that aren't disabled), survivor benefits to families of military service (that isn't discrimination against people that didn't lose a parent, spouse, or child in service of the country).
In all of those cases, the money spent for them, and other benefits and advantages the government can give to different groups of people for a wide range of reasons, do have an impact on other people not in those groups that have to compete against them for jobs, housing, business loans, or whatever.
If you really think that efforts to undo discrimination that goes back to the founding and before is discrimination that should be stopped, then you should also want all of that other discrimination stopped. Tax credits for businesses to do something that the government thinks is good? Gone, so that it doesn't given those businesses any advantages over their competitors that can't do the same thing health insurance benefits from an employer being non-taxable? Gone, so that it doesn't favor those workers over others that don't get health insurance. Mortgage interest deduction? Gone, so that it doesn't favor people that own homes over those that rent. Farm subsidies? Gone, since that favors farmers over people that aren't farmers. (And, not incidentally, raises the cost of food for everyone.)
The actual libertarians around here are no doubt cheering for all of that to happen, and I'd respect them for their consistency. At least, I would if they put their vote where their ideology is rather than picking the "lesser of two evils". Neither of those two evils will do anything to get rid of those policies. Instead, they each are always looking for ways to reward their voters with some kind of benefit that the other side's voters wouldn't.