What’s New
The Trump administration’s crusade against what it calls illegal diversity, equity, and inclusion programs in higher education was just dealt a significant legal blow.
U.S. District Judge Stephanie Gallagher, a Trump appointee, ruled on Thursday that the U.S. Education Department acted unlawfully when it issued two guidance documents telling institutions to dismantle DEI programs or risk losing federal funding.
The Details
The federal government, Gallagher wrote in her decision, sought to “substantially alter the legal obligations of schools and educators” without providing enough notice or seeking public comment.
“The government did not merely remind educators that discrimination is illegal; it initiated a sea change in how the Department of Education regulates educational practices and classroom conduct,” the judge said.
The department’s missives caused “millions of educators to reasonably fear that their lawful, and even beneficial, speech might cause them or their schools to be punished,” she added.
In a statement to The Chronicle, an Education Department spokesperson said the ruling won’t impede the agency’s ability to “enforce Title VI protections for students at an unprecedented level.” A Department of Justice memo from late July, targeting similar provisions as the Education Department’s guidance, still stands and hasn’t been legally challenged.
The Backdrop
The federal directives struck down on Thursday have been part of a broader campaign against DEI that has prompted dozens of colleges to overhaul offices, eliminate jobs, and even cancel cultural events. The department has based its reasoning on the 2023 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Students for Fair Admissions, which banned race-conscious admissions.
The first such document was a “Dear Colleague” letter issued February 14 that directed colleges to dismantle race-conscious policies and programming, such as scholarships, housing, hiring, and “all other aspects of student, academic, and campus life.” Institutions were told to comply within two weeks.
On March 1, the department released a frequently-asked-questions document that further described the government’s interpretation of Title VI, the federal law barring discrimination based on race, color, and national origin. That guidance said that campus programs focused on particular cultures and regions “would not in and of themselves” be considered illegal, while graduation ceremonies, scholarships, and student-support programs operating based on identity likely would be.
Then, on April 3, the Trump administration told school districts to certify that they did not operate DEI programs, giving them 10 days to do so.
All three documents had not been in effect since an April 24 ruling — jointly issued by three federal courts — that temporarily paused enforcement.
But before the courts weighed in, the Education Department used its interpretation to launch investigations, including a probe into 45 universities for their partnership with the Ph.D. Project, a nonprofit that supports minority doctoral students.
“They just kind of decreed this, and they did it in a way that is unsubstantiated, unsupported, and unexplained,” said Michael Pillera, director of the Educational Opportunities Project at the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.
What to Watch for
Some civil-rights advocates said they were pleased about Thursday’s ruling, but added the path forward for colleges and other affected institutions isn’t simple.
“This is a win for us. The problem is that this is now six months later,” said Royel M. Johnson, an associate professor and director of the National Assessment of Collegiate Campus Climates at the University of Southern California’s Race and Equity Center.
While some colleges hurried to terminate DEI programs earlier this year, it’s unlikely they’ll bring them back now given the continuing threats to federal funding, said Beth Gellman-Beer, a former regional director for the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights. The department’s guidance had its intended effect on colleges, regardless of whether it was lawful, Gellman-Beer said.
“This has been the playbook all along — to issue things that I suspect the administration knows will be overturned by a court, but it doesn’t matter, because issuing it in the first place has the intended chilling effect,” added Gellman-Beer, who was laid off from OCR in March and is now an independent consultant.
Antonio Ingram II, senior counsel at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, said he’ll be watching closely to see how colleges respond: “We will now see if there was actually a fear of violating federal edicts, or if there was a deeper disinvestment in those resources and commitments.”
Meanwhile, the Department of Justice on July 30 issued a memo about what kinds of DEI efforts could be discriminatory — and it looks a lot like the Education Department guidance that was just struck down. That memo, characterized by the Trump administration as nonbinding but strongly encouraged for recipients of federal funding, remains in effect.
