U.S. Schools Face Deadline to End Diversity Programs, But Few Are Rushing to Comply

Overview of the Federal Directive and Its Implications

The U.S. education system is grappling with a contentious directive from the Trump administration, which has set a Friday deadline for schools and colleges to discontinue diversity programs or risk losing federal funding. The directive, issued in the form of a "Dear Colleague Letter" on February 14, instructs schools to cease any practices that treat individuals differently based on race. While the memo has sparked widespread concern, many educators and institutions are adopting a cautious, wait-and-see approach, believing they are on solid legal ground. State officials in Washington and California have even urged schools not to make changes, emphasizing that the memo does not alter federal law and does not require immediate action. Similarly, New York City schools have maintained their existing policies and curriculum, while leaders of some colleges, such as Antioch University and Western Michigan University, have dismissed the memo as non-binding unless federal law is formally changed.

Resistance and Legal Ambiguity

Despite the administration’s aggressive tone, there is a growing sense of resistance among educators and civil rights advocates. Opponents of the memo argue that it represents an unprecedented overreach, aiming to stifle diversity and inclusion efforts. The guidance appears to target a wide range of practices, including classroom lessons on racism, colleges’ diversity recruitment efforts, and even voluntary student groups like Black student unions. Education organizations have cautioned schools against making hasty changes, warning that such decisions could be difficult to reverse. Ted Mitchell, president of the American Council on Education, has reassured colleges that if they were in compliance with federal law before the memo, they remain compliant. "There’s nothing to act on until we see the administration or its agencies try to stop something," Mitchell said. "And then we’ll have the argument."

The Unrealistic Threat of Federal Funding Cuts

While the loss of federal funding would be devastating for schools and colleges, the process of imposing such a penalty is neither quick nor simple. The Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights, which handles civil rights investigations, is understaffed and overwhelmed, with fewer than 600 employees tasked with overseeing more than 18,000 school districts and 6,000 colleges. Even when investigations are launched, they often take years to resolve. For instance, a case involving Michigan’s education agency, which began in 2022 under President Joe Biden, remains unresolved in federal court. Catherine Lhamon, who led the Office for Civil Rights under Biden, expressed hope that schools would stand firm on their commitment to inclusivity. However, some education leaders argue that resistance is too risky. At the University of Cincinnati, officials are evaluating diversity-related jobs and removing DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) references from school websites. "Given this new landscape, Ohio public and federally supported institutions like ours have little choice but to follow the laws that govern us," said University President Neville G. Pinto.

A Shift in Interpretation of Nondiscrimination Laws

The memo reflects a dramatic shift in how the Trump administration is interpreting nondiscrimination laws, expanding a 2023 Supreme Court decision that barred the use of race in college admissions to nearly every aspect of education. This includes hiring, promotions, scholarships, housing, graduation ceremonies, and campus life. Republican-led states have largely welcomed the memo, with Alabama’s state superintendent, Eric G. Mackey, stating that his state never supported using race in decision-making and sees no need to change its practices. However, the memo has been met with fierce opposition from civil rights groups and educators, who argue that it undermines efforts to create inclusive environments. The American Federation of Teachers has filed a legal challenge, claiming the memo violates free speech laws.

The Chilling Effect and Confusion Among Schools

Despite the administration’s aggressive posture, many schools are adopting a cautious approach, unsure of how to interpret the memo or its implications. Some are seeking guidance from state attorneys general, while others are choosing to maintain the status quo to avoid being targeted. In Minnesota, the superintendent of the North St. Paul School District, Christine Tucci Osorio, assured teachers that they could still celebrate African American History Month, despite the confusion. Liz King, senior director for the education equity program at the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, noted that "cooler heads are largely prevailing," as schools recognize the risks of abandoning their diversity efforts. "Once a school sends the message that they are not going to stand up for a member, a community within their school, that is broken trust, that is a lost relationship," King said.

Trump’s Use of Funding as Political Leverage

The memo is part of a broader pattern by the Trump administration to wield education funding as a political tool, threatening cuts for schools that do not align with its agenda on issues such as transgender students’ participation in sports and race-related instruction. Historically, the Education Department has rarely resorts to cutting federal funding, as investigations are lengthy and often result in resolutions before penalties are imposed. The last time the department successfully revoked funding was in 1992, and even then, the case was resolved before any money was withheld. While the administration’s approach has sowed fear and uncertainty, many educators remain steadfast in their commitment to diversity and inclusion, recognizing the vital role these