Five days after the Education Department sent out a bombshell letter on race and diversity, college leaders are still contending with which, if any, policies and programs need to be altered, and what to tell their communities in the meantime.
The “Dear Colleague” letter issued on Friday by the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) told colleges they have two weeks to stop using race — specifically, making decisions or operating programs based on race — in all “aspects of student, academic, and campus life.” Otherwise, institutions risk federal funding cuts, according to Craig Trainor, the acting assistant secretary for civil rights.
The letter itself directed colleges to revisit policies on admissions, hiring, promotion, financial aid, administrative support, discipline, and housing, and an Education Department statement reiterated the threat of funding cuts.
The department’s legal reasoning relies on an expansive reading of the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, which declared that it was unconstitutional for colleges to use race in admissions decisions.
As of Wednesday, colleges’ responses to the letter were a mixed bag. Some institutions said they were already in compliance with the Education Department’s directives and didn’t plan to make any changes, while other campus officials announced plans to review current programs and offices.
Over 200 colleges had already altered or eliminated their diversity, equity, and inclusion websites and programs before Trump took office, mostly in response to state laws. Most, if not all, had reassessed their use of race in decision-making after the Supreme Court’s admissions ruling, legal experts told The Chronicle.
Higher-education organizations largely condemned the letter as government overreach. Peter McDonough, the American Council on Education’s vice president and general counsel, wrote in a statement to The Chronicle that colleges must “remain steadfast” in their beliefs that diverse communities are beneficial.
“It should not even be open for debate whether colleges and universities should be committed to being inclusive and welcoming,” McDonough wrote. “These are hallmarks of any educational environment someone ought to want for their children or themselves.”
The Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities urged OCR to rescind the letter, criticizing its “problematic overtones” and threats to funding for Hispanic-serving institutions.
Swift Responses
Greg Smith, chancellor of the San Diego Community College District, told The Chronicle in an interview on Wednesday that he has “zero concern that anything we’re doing would violate federal nondiscrimination law.”
Smith said his campuses don’t plan to stop offering any programs, including themed graduation ceremonies for Black students and LGBTQ students. (The Dear Colleague letter calls out race-based graduation events as an example of activities that federal officials believe are illegal.)
A loss of federal funding for his district’s three colleges “could become problematic,” Smith said. However, he expressed broader concerns that institutions voluntarily complying with directives will signal to campus communities “that we don’t support you any longer.”
“Until there is a specific actionable thing that happens, a change in the law, a change in the organization of the federal department and how we engage and receive services or funding, I’m not going to react to that,” Smith said. “I’m going to continue to do what we do.”
Most college leaders have not been as explicit as Smith. Many issued statements saying they will continue to monitor, assess, and consider potential impacts of the OCR guidance. Some statements also acknowledged the confusion and uncertainty prompted by the letter, and said their campus commitments to inclusion and equity haven’t changed. Others have stayed quiet.
A handful of administrators emphasized that they believe campus policies and programs are already in compliance with relevant federal law, but said they would conduct a review in light of the breadth and scope applied in the letter. Some colleges, including Marquette and Illinois State Universities, announced the creation of working groups.
Another president who has been more outspoken is Case Western Reserve University’s Eric W. Kaler, who called the letter a “gross overreach” of the Supreme Court’s decision in a statement released Tuesday. Kaler said that the university’s admissions and financial-aid policies already comply with the law, though officials are assessing other programs that might be relevant to the letter, he added.
“Case Western Reserve has long been guided by a commitment to embrace our differences — whether they’re rooted in what we study, where we’re from or how we intend to shape the world — and we will continue to do so,” Kaler wrote in the statement.
Oregon State University officials similarly said that the institution was already “fully compliant with all state and federal laws” and that all its programs are open to all students, according to a campuswide email sent Monday.
“Quite simply, all are welcome at Oregon State University,” Rob Odom, a university spokesperson, wrote in the email. “Part of that welcome means meeting communities and students where they are, honoring their unique perspectives, their challenges and their lived experiences.”
Meanwhile, at the University of Florida, all activities at “non-academic Living-Learning Communities,” or affinity housing groups, were paused on Monday, according to an email from the university’s housing authority. Mentions of the Black and LGBTQ student-housing groups were scrubbed from the housing authority’s website. Housing for pre-medical, engineering, and honors students remains unaffected.
A university spokesperson did not confirm whether the changes were correlated with the Education Department’s letter and did not offer further comment.
‘Unprecedented’ Overreach
While colleges have to take federal guidance seriously, some legal experts doubt that the threats to withhold funding through OCR procedures hold much weight. The School Superintendents Association, which represents K-12 institutions, said in a statement that those threats “may not be very convincing” because of potential legal challenges and recent halts to OCR investigations under Trump.
“Actual enforcement action by OCR to remove federal funding is incredibly rare,” said Jackie Wernz, a lawyer who previously worked in OCR for three years under both the Obama and first Trump administrations. “I have been on the brink of enforcement procedures only a couple times as an OCR attorney or in private practice.”
Most of the time, Wernz said, colleges enter resolution agreements before investigations reach that point.
At Case Western Reserve, Kaler told the campus community that recent government mandates can be “unsettling” and included links to mental-health resources for students, faculty, and staff. Higher-education experts echoed the sentiment.
“Everyone is worried and/or panicked,” said Melissa Carleton, who chairs the higher-education team at the law firm Bricker Graydon.
But Carleton encouraged college leaders to “take a deep breath.” Work with college counsel, Carleton advised, to closely review the original Supreme Court ruling on admissions, identify campus programs that consider race, “then determine whether, under the language of the court case, those things are still legal.”
Otherwise, experts said, colleges will have to wait on forthcoming guidance from the Education Department and the attorney general, which is expected to be jointly issued within 120 days of Trump’s January 21 executive order targeting DEI in federal agencies. That guidance should offer more clarity regarding the measures required for compliance with the Trump administration’s reading of the admissions decision, Carleton said.
In the meantime, Rebecca Joseph, another Bricker Graydon lawyer who specializes in civil rights and DEI compliance, said colleges should focus on “taking inventory” of the programs and practices that might be subject to scrutiny, such as affinity-based mentorship programs, thematic housing options, or race-conscious scholarships. Colleges should ensure that the purpose and selection standards for such programs are conveyed clearly and implemented consistently.
Lynn Pasquerella, president of the American Association of Colleges and Universities, warned colleges against removing diversity programs before fully understanding whether they violate the law. The letter is a signal of “unprecedented” overreach of government into higher education, she added.
“Don’t engage in preemptive compliance with laws that are not in place yet,” she said, “especially when it means the marginalization and disenfranchisement of certain student populations.”
