What do education leaders need to know about the Department of Education’s new guidance on race and civil rights?

On February 14, 2025, the U.S. Department of Education released a Dear Colleague Letter (DCL) declaring that any use of race in decision making related to school and college practices and policies violates federal civil rights law. This would include any race-conscious initiatives, including diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs or using race-neutral approaches to promote racial diversity (e.g., in selective school admissions practices). However, according to legal experts, the DCL runs contrary to federal law and recent Supreme Court decisions. With that context in mind, how will the guidance letter impact the department’s civil rights enforcement work? And how should school, state, and college leaders think about civil rights compliance given the guidance’s expansiveness and questionable legal foundation? 

On February 28, the Brown Center on Education Policy at Brookings hosted a webinar with education and legal scholars, including experts in education civil rights enforcement, to discuss the legality of the February 14 guidance letter and related actions. The discussion focused on the potential implications for the schools, districts, states, and colleges and universities that are required to comply with federal civil rights law as a condition of receiving federal funding.  

Viewers submitted questions for speakers by emailing [email protected] and via Twitter at @BrookingsGov by using #TitleVIDCL.

Download the event summary

On February 14, 2025, the U.S. Department of Education released a Dear Colleague Letter (DCL) stating that any use of race in school or college decision-making would violate federal civil rights law. This includes any race-conscious policies, practices, or initiatives, including, notably, diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs. However, according to legal experts, the DCL runs contrary to federal law and recent Supreme Court decisions. With that context in mind, how will the guidance letter impact the department’s civil rights enforcement work? And how should school, state, and college leaders think about civil rights compliance given the guidance’s expansiveness and unconstitutional legal foundation?

On February 28, the Brown Center on Education Policy at Brookings hosted a webinar with education and legal scholars, including experts in education civil rights enforcement, to discuss the legality of the February 14 guidance letter and related actions. The discussion focused on the potential implications for schools, districts, states, and colleges and universities that are required to comply with federal civil rights law as a condition of receiving federal funding.

Moderator Rachel Perera opened the conversation by asking the panelists for their initial reaction to the February 14th DCL.

“It’s really a sad day when you see such a diminution of federal civil rights guidance,” said Robert Kim, current executive director at the Education Law Center. But professionals in the field have seen it coming a while, he noted, given what the Trump Administration has signaled.

“There is so much overreach here,” added Jackie Wernz, former attorney at the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights, referring to the letter’s interpretation of Title VI.

Kimberly Robinson, a law professor at the University of Virginia, explained in more detail: “The letter says Title VI prohibits race-based decision making no matter the form. This is simply untrue.” In reality, Title VI prohibits only disparate treatment and disparate impact due to race, color, or national origin, meaning institutions can pursue race-conscious goals as long as benefits are not denied and burdens are not placed on students because of their race.  

The letter similarly misinterpreted the 2023 Supreme Court ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (or SFFA), which does not prohibit schools or colleges from pursuing diversity, explained Liliana Garces, a professor of educational leadership and policy at the University of Texas at Austin. “It’s really trying to rewrite the decision itself,” she stated, “which it just does not have the authority to do.” Dear Colleague Letters are intended to clarify interpretations of the law, not contradict the law, as the DCL does in its description of the SFFA decision, said Robinson.

Several panelists expressed concern about how educational institutions and the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) will respond to the letter. The DCL threatens to terminate federal funding from any institution that does not comply with its guidance, and Kim expects the Trump administration to carry out enforcement using the DCL’s definition of illegal discrimination. Still, Robinson explained that OCR’s required investigation process is long and complex, making enforcement difficult and swift action unlikely. Wernz suggested that the administration may attempt to circumvent this process by using early resolutions or grant renewals to push institutions to make changes; “I refer to this as regulation by intimidation… and frankly, I think it’s working,” she said.

Garces added that “the letter has instilled a lot of fear,” but schools should know there are many groups challenging its constitutionality. In the meantime, the panelists urge educational institutions not to take extreme actions and risk violating the actual Title VI regulations in the process. “You don’t want to go so far in understanding this guidance that you run afoul of the actual law,” said Kim, suggesting that school administrators be in contact with their legal counsel and develop an internal diversity policy.

Robinson concluded on a more positive note, stating “My hope is that districts will seize the moment and really educate their staff and teachers about [Title VI] in a way that advances equal education opportunity.”