As Trump’s deadline to eliminate DEI nears, few schools openly rush to make changes
As the deadline set by the Trump administration to end diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programmes approaches, schools and universities across the United States remain largely unmoved. The directive, issued in a memo on 14th February, warned institutions to cease any practice that differentiates based on race or risk losing federal funding. However, most schools believe they are on firm legal ground and consider the threat of funding cuts both unprecedented and difficult to enforce.
State officials in Washington and California have advised institutions not to make any immediate changes, asserting that the memo does not alter federal law and requires no action. Similarly, New York City schools have continued with their existing policies and curriculum, refusing to modify them in response to the memo.
Some university leaders have outright dismissed the directive. The president of Antioch University stated that “most of higher education” would not comply unless federal law changed. Meanwhile, Western Michigan University’s president instructed staff and students to “please proceed as usual.”
Opponents condemn the memo as an overreach
Critics argue that the Trump administration’s directive is an overreach, designed to create a chilling effect on discussions about race and diversity in education. The guidance appears to prohibit not just targeted recruitment in diverse areas, but also voluntary student groups such as Black student unions and classroom discussions on racism.
Education organisations have been advising schools to take a cautious approach, warning against hasty decisions that could be difficult to reverse. Ted Mitchell, president of the American Council on Education, has reassured institutions that if they were compliant with federal law before the memo, they remain so now.
“There’s nothing to act on until we see the administration or its agencies try to stop something,” said Mitchell. “And then we’ll have the argument.”
Cutting federal funding: A complex and lengthy process
While the loss of federal funding would be devastating for schools and universities, imposing such a penalty is neither straightforward nor swift. The department of education’s office for civil Rights, which oversees investigations, had fewer than 600 employees last year, while there are over 18,000 school districts and 6,000 universities across the country.
Even when an institution faces an investigation, the process of terminating funding can take years. Under the Biden administration, the education department attempted to withdraw federal funding from Michigan’s education agency over disability rights violations in 2022. However, that case remains tied up in court today.
Catherine Lhamon, who previously led the office for civil rights under Biden, has urged schools to stand firm in their commitment to inclusive education.
However, some institutions are hesitant to resist outright. At the university of cincinnati, President Neville G. Pinto has begun reviewing DEI-related roles and removing DEI references from the university’s website. Likewise, colorado State university’s chancellor, Tony Frank, has urged compliance, warning that resistance could be too risky for students and staff.
A shift in interpretation of nondiscrimination laws
In Republican-led states, education leaders have welcomed the memo. Alabama’s state superintendent, Eric G. Mackey, stated that his department had never supported using race in decision-making and anticipated no disruption to daily operations.
The memo does not carry the weight of law but signals how the Trump administration intends to interpret existing nondiscrimination statutes. It broadens the scope of a 2023 supreme court ruling that banned race-based college admissions, extending the principle to all aspects of education, including hiring, promotions, scholarships, and student organisations.
The new guidance has already been challenged in court by the american federation of teachers, which argues that it infringes on free speech rights.
Institutions caught in uncertainty
With legal challenges underway, many school leaders remain uncertain about the memo’s implications. Christine tucci osorio, superintendent of north St. Paul school district in Minnesota, admitted that the situation was confusing, stating, “We are looking to our attorney general for guidance.” When a teacher inquired whether the school could still observe African American History Month, she reassured them that they could.
Despite concerns that institutions would scramble to comply, many are choosing to wait and assess the situation. “Cooler heads are largely prevailing,” said Liz King, senior director of the education equity programme at the leadership conference on civil and human rights.
“Once a school sends the message that they are not going to stand up for a community within their institution, that is broken trust, that is a lost relationship,” king said.
Trump’s use of funding as political leverage
More Read
Trump has been vocal about his intent to use education funding as a political tool, threatening financial penalties for schools that do not align with his administration’s views on issues such as transgender rights and race-related instruction.
Historically, civil rights investigations conducted by the department of Education take a minimum of six months and often much longer. Even if a school is found to be in violation, it is typically given 90 days to rectify the situation before facing penalties. Only if an institution refuses to comply does the department have the authority to withhold federal funds—a process that involves administrative hearings and potential legal appeals.
The last time the education department successfully cut federal funding was in 1992, when the capistrano unified school district in california was found to have retaliated against a teacher for filing a sex discrimination complaint. However, the district reinstated the teacher before any funding was actually revoked.
Given the complexity of the enforcement process, many schools are adopting a ‘wait and see’ approach rather than making immediate changes. With legal challenges pending and uncertainty surrounding enforcement, it remains to be seen whether the Trump administration can successfully implement its directive or whether educational institutions will continue to resist.
