;)
The previous presidents鈥� positions on how diversity, equity and inclusion influences schools鈥� disciplinary measures. It advised schools to, within two weeks, begin to eliminate all discipline protocols rooted in DEI, on the grounds that this work is discriminatory against white students.
Trump also issued an executive order, 鈥�,鈥� in April 2025, doubling down on the letter.
罢谤耻尘辫鈥檚 letter and executive order exert an unusual level of influence over how schools can decide the best way to teach and, when necessary, discipline students. It also cuts against that Black, Latino and Native American students and harshly than white and Asian students.
I am an who has spent the past 13 years analyzing school discipline policy. While previous administrations have issued 鈥淒ear Colleague鈥� letters to schools, 罢谤耻尘辫鈥檚 is the first that frames itself as though it were law 鈥� setting a potential new precedent for the executive branch to issue educational mandates without the approval of the judicial or congressional branches of government.
While all but two states have responded to 罢谤耻尘辫鈥檚 letter, they are not going to comply with its terms 鈥� despite the administration鈥檚 threat of cutting funding if they do not follow the guidance.
Understanding DEI in education
, or diversity, equity and inclusion, refers to an ideology and programming that intend to ameliorate patterns of racial inequality. In the context of discipline in schools, DEI strategies could include teachers having conversations with children about their behavior, rather than immediately suspending them.
that these techniques can help reduce racial discipline gaps in academic achievement and disciplinary outcomes.
The Obama administration in 2014 in its own 鈥淒ear Colleague鈥� letter to schools. The administration advised schools to either reform their discipline practices toward nonpunitive alternatives to suspension or risk being investigated for discrimination.
The first Trump administration in 2018.
Then, in 2023, the Biden administration released a along the same lines as Obama鈥檚 letter.
罢谤耻尘辫鈥檚 grouped all of these recommendations under the banner of 鈥淒EI鈥� and argued that such practices are discriminatory, privileging students of color over white and Asian students.
In his April executive order, Trump if schools did not eliminate DEI, they would be out of compliance with Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. This act prohibits discrimination on the basis of ,
Public school districts regularly have to issue a certificate of compliance to the government showing that their work is in line with .
While the Trump administration characterizes DEI as 鈥渟muggling racial stereotypes and explicit race-consciousness into everyday training, programming, and discipline,鈥� it does not define exactly what constitutes DEI programming.
This puts school districts at risk of losing funding if they maintain any initiatives related to racial equality.
Legal concerns with 罢谤耻尘辫鈥檚 directives
The executive office and members of Congress typically issue 鈥淒ear Colleague鈥� letters, which are not legally binding, to advise schools and others on policy.
Yet 罢谤耻尘辫鈥檚 letter was written like a mandate and reinforced by an executive order, which is legally binding.
Some scholars are calling the letter an 鈥溾�� of legal authority.
In the spring of 2025, I analyzed states鈥� responses to 罢谤耻尘辫鈥檚 letter and executive order.
Two states, , had not yet provided public responses.
Twenty-three states with the administration鈥檚 directive by signing the letter as of May 30. Some, , not only certified the letter but also passed state laws banning DEI policies and programs.
The states refused to certify the letter, asserting that they already complied with Title VI and that their policies are not discriminatory.
In addition, 19 of those 25 states over the letter in April, culminating in a later that month that temporarily released states from having to comply with its demands.
I noticed that many states that refuted 罢谤耻尘辫鈥檚 letter used the same exact words in their responses, signaling a to resist 罢谤耻尘辫鈥檚 directives. States that did not sign on to the letter but objected to its intent generally resisted on legal grounds, ethics or both.
A legal argument
Most states that rejected it grounded their refusal to sign 罢谤耻尘辫鈥檚 letter in federal law. They cited the Civil Rights Act and the , which protects states from having to file redundant paperwork. Because these states already certified compliance with Title VI, this argument goes, they should not have to do so again under 罢谤耻尘辫鈥檚 directive.
Education commissioners from a , , also cited specific language used by Betsy DeVos, , who supported DEI policies.
Charlene Russell-Tucker, the education commissioner for Connecticut, that in order for the federal government to cancel DEI programming, it would have to first .
States resisting on other grounds
Some education officials that their DEI work is ideologically necessary for providing supportive learning environments for all students.
, Massachusetts鈥� interim education commissioner, wrote in an April 16 letter, for example, that 鈥淢assachusetts will continue to promote diversity in our schools because we know it improves outcomes for all of our kids.鈥�
Other officials displayed more subtle resistance. , for example, affirmed the state鈥檚 鈥渃ommitment to comply with all Federal statutes,鈥� including Title VI 鈥� but did not explicitly address 罢谤耻尘辫鈥檚 鈥淒ear Colleague鈥� letter.
Similarly, Kentucky informed the Department of Education of its compliance with federal law, while simultaneously encouraging local districts work.
Mississippi鈥檚 state department of education school districts operate independently, so the state cannot force policies on them. However, Mississippi signaled compliance by citing a new state law banning DEI and confirmed that each of its individual school districts have already certified compliance with federal laws.
More legal pushback
It is not yet clear what might follow the April court injunction, which largely prevented the Department of Education from cutting federal funding to schools that continued their DEI-related programs and policies.
While the Trump administration has to the Department of Education, it has not announced that states refusing to certify the letter will lose funding.
This is the first time an administration is issuing such a direct threat to withhold K-12 funding, placing schools in an unknown place, without a clear blueprint of how to move forward.
This article is republished from under a Creative Commons license. Read the .