{"id":40080,"date":"2025-08-06T12:45:00","date_gmt":"2025-08-06T12:45:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/?p=40080"},"modified":"2025-08-21T04:03:07","modified_gmt":"2025-08-21T04:03:07","slug":"trump-has-promised-to-eliminate-funding-to-schools-that-dont-nix-dei-work-but-half-of-the-states-are-not-complying","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/trump-has-promised-to-eliminate-funding-to-schools-that-dont-nix-dei-work-but-half-of-the-states-are-not-complying\/","title":{"rendered":"Trump has promised to eliminate funding to schools that don\u2019t nix DEI work \u2013 but half of the states are not complying"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Hilary Lustick<\/a>, UMass Lowell<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

It\u2019s been about six months since the U.S. Department of Education sent a \u201cDear Colleague<\/a>\u201d letter to all schools that receive federal funding, warning them that they could risk losing this money if they promote what the department calls \u201cpervasive and repugnant\u201d racial preferences.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The letter, among other things, reversed<\/a> previous presidents\u2019 positions on how diversity, equity and inclusion influences schools\u2019 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Trump also issued an executive order, \u201cReinstating Commonsense School Discipline Policy<\/a>,\u201d in April 2025, doubling down on the letter.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Trump\u2019s 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 recognized research<\/a> that Black, Latino and Native American students are disciplined more frequently<\/a> and harshly than white and Asian students.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I am an educational scholar<\/a> who has spent the past 13 years analyzing school discipline policy. While previous administrations have issued \u201cDear Colleague\u201d letters to schools, Trump\u2019s is the first that frames itself as though it were law \u2013 setting a potential new precedent for the executive branch to issue educational mandates without the approval of the judicial or congressional branches of government.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

While all but two states have responded to Trump\u2019s letter, about half of them have said<\/a> they are not going to comply with its terms \u2013 despite the administration\u2019s threat of cutting funding if they do not follow the guidance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"An
President Donald Trump displays an executive order on education alongside Secretary of Education Linda McMahon on March 20, 2025. Associated Press<\/a><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Understanding DEI in education<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Equity-oriented education<\/a>, 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Research shows<\/a> that these techniques can help reduce racial discipline gaps in academic achievement and disciplinary outcomes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Obama administration in 2014 recognized this research<\/a> in its own \u201cDear Colleague\u201d letter to schools. The administration advised schools to either reform their discipline practices toward nonpunitive alternatives to suspension or risk being investigated for discrimination.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The first Trump administration rescinded this letter<\/a> in 2018.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Then, in 2023, the Biden administration released a document<\/a> along the same lines as Obama\u2019s letter.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Trump\u2019s February 2025 letter<\/a> grouped all of these recommendations under the banner of \u201cDEI\u201d and argued that such practices are discriminatory, privileging students of color over white and Asian students.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In his April executive order, Trump reiterated that<\/a> 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 race, color or national origin<\/a>,<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Public school districts regularly have to issue a certificate of compliance to the government showing that their work is in line with Title VI<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

While the Trump administration characterizes DEI as \u201csmuggling racial stereotypes and explicit race-consciousness into everyday training, programming, and discipline,\u201d it does not define exactly what constitutes DEI programming.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This puts school districts at risk of losing funding if they maintain any initiatives related to racial equality.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Legal concerns with Trump\u2019s directives<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The executive office and members of Congress typically issue \u201cDear Colleague\u201d letters, which are not legally binding, to advise schools and others on policy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yet Trump\u2019s letter was written like a mandate and reinforced by an executive order, which is legally binding.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Some scholars are calling the letter an \u201coverreach<\/a>\u201d of legal authority.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the spring of 2025, I analyzed states\u2019 responses to Trump\u2019s letter and executive order.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Two states, Iowa and Tennessee<\/a>, had not yet provided public responses.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Twenty-three states complied<\/a> with the administration\u2019s directive by signing the letter as of May 30. Some, like Oklahoma<\/a>, not only certified the letter but also passed state laws banning DEI policies and programs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The remaining 25<\/a> states refused to certify the letter, asserting that they already complied with Title VI and that their policies are not discriminatory.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In addition, 19 of those 25 states sued the Trump administration<\/a> over the letter in April, culminating in a court injunction<\/a> later that month that temporarily released states from having to comply with its demands.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I noticed that many states that refuted Trump\u2019s letter used the same exact words in their responses, signaling a concerted effort<\/a> to resist Trump\u2019s directives. States that did not sign on to the letter but objected to its intent generally resisted on legal grounds, ethics or both.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A legal argument<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Most states that rejected it grounded their refusal to sign Trump\u2019s letter in federal law. They cited the Civil Rights Act and the Paperwork Reduction Act<\/a>, 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 Trump\u2019s directive.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Education commissioners from a few states<\/a>, including Illinois<\/a> and Minnesota<\/a>, also cited specific language used by Betsy DeVos, Trump\u2019s former education secretary in his first term<\/a>, who supported DEI policies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Charlene Russell-Tucker, the education commissioner for Connecticut, also pointed out<\/a> that in order for the federal government to cancel DEI programming, it would have to first legally change the definition of Title VI<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

States resisting on other grounds<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Some education officials also argued<\/a> that their DEI work is ideologically necessary for providing supportive learning environments for all students.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Patrick Tutwiler<\/a>, Massachusetts\u2019 interim education commissioner, wrote in an April 16 letter, for example, that \u201cMassachusetts will continue to promote diversity in our schools because we know it improves outcomes for all of our kids.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Other officials displayed more subtle resistance. Randy Watson, Kansas\u2019 education commissioner<\/a>, for example, affirmed the state\u2019s \u201ccommitment to comply with all Federal statutes,\u201d including Title VI \u2013 but did not explicitly address Trump\u2019s \u201cDear Colleague\u201d letter.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Similarly, Kentucky informed the Department of Education of its compliance with federal law, while simultaneously encouraging local districts to continue diversity, equity and inclusion<\/a> work.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mississippi\u2019s state department of education pointed out that<\/a> 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"A
Massachusetts Secretary of Education Patrick Tutwiler, seen in Boston on March 7, 2025, is among the state education officials who have pushed back against Trump\u2019s \u2018Dear Colleague\u2019 letter. Jonathan Wiggs\/The Boston Globe via Getty Images<\/a><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

More legal pushback<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

While the Trump administration has made major cuts<\/a> to the Department of Education, it has not announced that states refusing to certify the letter will lose funding.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hilary Lustick<\/a>, Associate Professor of Education, UMass Lowell<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This article is republished from The Conversation<\/a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Hilary Lustick, UMass Lowell It\u2019s been about six months since the U.S. Department of Education sent a \u201cDear Colleague\u201d letter to all schools that receive federal funding, warning them that they could risk losing this money if they promote what the department calls \u201cpervasive and repugnant\u201d racial preferences. The letter, among other things, reversed previous […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":56,"featured_media":40081,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[8025,115,292,46,295,296,4],"tags":[11300,16726,5540,2427,16725,687,7737,10941,885,891,886,860,15971,1602,15345],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/40080"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/56"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=40080"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/40080\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":40212,"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/40080\/revisions\/40212"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/40081"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=40080"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=40080"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=40080"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}