LawFlash

US Department of Education Issues Sweeping Guidance on Race-Conscious Practices By Academic Institutions

February 20, 2025

The US Department of Education’s (the Department’s) Office for Civil Rights issued a sweeping “Dear Colleague” letter on February 14, 2025 outlining a new zero-tolerance policy for the consideration of race in any regard by academic institutions that receive federal funding. The letter states that the Department will enforce its new directive 14 days from the date of the letter and institutions that are found to be noncompliant “with federal civil rights law” may face the potential loss of federal funding.

The letter suggests that institutions may expect aggressive action by the government with respect to efforts to promote diversity that the Department views as discriminatory. All academic institutions that receive federal funding—spanning colleges, universities, K-12 institutions, and preschools—should use this opportunity to carefully assess their current practices, taking into account institutional priorities and risk tolerance in this new environment.

THE DEPARTMENT’S NEW STANCE ON RACE-CONSCIOUS PRACTICES

The Department’s letter, signed by Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Craig Trainor, begins by stating its intent to “clarify and reaffirm the nondiscrimination obligations of schools and other entities that receive federal financial assistance from the [Department]” and to suggest academic institutions are “discriminat[ing] against students on the basis of race” and “embrac[ing] . . . pervasive and repugnant race-based preferences and other forms of racial discrimination.”

The letter asserts that “[e]ducational institutions have toxically indoctrinated students with the false premise that the United States is built upon ‘systemic and structural racism’” and claims institutions are “smuggling racial stereotypes and explicit race-consciousness into everyday training, programming, and discipline” through diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives.

The letter discusses the US Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, which held that the use of affirmative action in college admissions violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment—but the letter articulates the Department’s view that the Court’s holding is not limited to admissions, and instead applies much more broadly.

The letter states “[f]ederal law . . . prohibits covered entities from using race in decisions pertaining to admissions, hiring, promotion, compensation, financial aid, scholarships, prizes, administrative support, discipline, housing, graduation ceremonies, and all other aspects of student, academic, and campus life.” The Department also notes that it intends to crack down on not only express racial preferencing but also other programs that “[r]ely[] on non-racial information as a proxy for race.” This is significant because it expressly suggests the Department will consider even race-neutral criteria unlawful if the motivation is to achieve greater diversity.

The letter makes clear that the Department intends to enforce its new guidance broadly against all academic institutions that receive federal funding. The letter states that the Department will “vigorously enforce the law on equal terms as to all preschool, elementary, secondary, and postsecondary educational institutions, as well as state educational agencies, that receive financial assistance.”

Time is of the essence as the letter states that the Department “intends to take appropriate steps to assess compliance with the applicable statutes and regulations based on the understanding embodied in this letter beginning no later than 14 days from today’s date.”

The letter advises educational institutions to “(1) ensure that their policies and actions comply with existing civil rights law; (2) cease all efforts to circumvent prohibitions on the use of race by relying on proxies or other indirect means to accomplish such ends; and (3) cease all reliance on third-party contractors, clearinghouses, or aggregators that are being used by institutions in an effort to circumvent prohibited uses of race.”

The letter concludes by warning that “[i]nstitutions that fail to comply . . . may . . . face potential loss of federal funding” and inviting anyone who believes they have been discriminated against by an academic institution to file a report with the Department. The letter also includes a link to the Office for Civil Rights online complaint form.

ASSESSING RISK AND DEVISING PLANS IN THE NEW ENVIRONMENT

The Department’s new expansive stance puts academic institutions in a challenging position. On one hand, many institutions are deeply committed to promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion and providing opportunities for students who have historically faced disadvantages. On the other, many of these same institutions are heavily reliant on federal funding to operate.

The Department’s guidance purports to draw clear lines (“At its core, the test is simple: If an educational institution treats a person of one race differently than it treats another person because of that person’s race, the educational institution violates the law.”). But there will not be a one-size-fits-all approach when it comes to how academic institutions will choose to proceed in light of the Department’s new stance. Academic institutions will need to make difficult and highly individualized determinations about which practices—if any—they will change in light of the new and riskier environment.

At a minimum, all academic institutions should consider taking the following steps:

  • Identify institutional priorities and risk tolerance. As noted, institutions may be forced to make difficult decisions about individual programs and initiatives as well as broader policies. Building consensus on institutional priorities and risk tolerance will enable more consistent and principled decision-making and inform any review or assessment of policies, programs, and practices.
  • Identify and assess current programs and practices that may be race-conscious or that may appear to the Department to use other variables as a proxy for race (such as geography, socioeconomic position, or first-generation status). This will likely require coordination with various stakeholders within the institution, including personnel with responsibility for admissions, financial aid, athletics, and academics, among other functions. Where race-conscious programs or practices are identified, careful consideration should be given to whether they should be modified to enhance compliance with the Department’s new directive, depending on institutional priorities and risk tolerances, perhaps even eliminated.
  • Document the institution’s race-neutral approaches to admissions, hiring, promotion, compensation, financial aid, scholarships, prizes, administrative support, discipline, housing, graduation ceremonies, and other aspects of student, academic, and campus life that may be susceptible to claims of race-conscious decision-making. As noted, the Department has indicated an intent to apply the Supreme Court’s Students for Fair Admissions decision far beyond its admissions context. This will undoubtedly spur litigation, which will require institutions to vigorously defend their practices.

HOW WE CAN HELP

Morgan Lewis is available to consult with you to identify practices that may create legal risk and potential strategies for mitigating that risk.

Stay Informed

Visit our US Administration Policies and Priorities resource center and subscribe to our mailing list for the latest on programming, guidance, and current legal and business developments involving the Trump-Vance administration.

Contacts

If you have any questions or would like more information on the issues discussed in this LawFlash, please contact the authors or lawyers in our Culture and DEI practice:

Authors
Noah J. Kaufman (Boston)
Matthew H. Hawes (Pittsburgh)
Ami N. Wynne (Chicago)
Olanike A. Steen (Philadelphia)