Teachers’ Union Files Lawsuit Against Trump’s Anti-DEI Directive

A group of educators is suing the Department of Education over its recent “Dear Colleague Letter,” (DCL) which gave K-12 schools and federally funded colleges roughly two weeks to stop considering race as a factor in admissions, financial aid and hiring — or risk losing federal funding.

The challenge was brought forward by the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), which represents approximately 400,000 higher education workers, AFT-Maryland, and the American Sociological Association.

“The Department of Education’s new policy, reflected in the February Dear Colleague Letter, seeks to undermine our nation’s educational institutions and is an unlawful attempt to impose this administration’s particular views, which are not based in the law, of how schools and teachers should operate,” Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, which is representing the plaintiffs, said in a press release. “This is un-American and unlawful.”

The plaintiffs argue in the complaint that the department’s letter appears to classify “a wide variety of core instruction, activities, and programs” used by colleges, K-12 schools, and pre-K institutions as illegal discrimination.

“This vague and clearly unconstitutional memo is a grave attack on students, our profession and knowledge itself. It would hamper efforts to extend access to education, and dash the promise of equal opportunity for all, a central tenant of the United States since its founding,” Randi Weingarten, president of AFT, said in a press release.

The plaintiffs also argue that the letter’s “unprecedented weaponization and undermining of civil rights laws” could allow the Trump administration to threaten federal funding cuts for institutions that teach accurate history, including lessons on slavery, diversity, and inclusion.

“It would ban meaningful instruction on slavery, the Missouri Compromise, the Emancipation Proclamation, the forced relocation of Native American tribes, the laws of Jim Crow, Brown v. Board of Education, the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, and the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act,” Weingarten said.

In the complaint, the plaintiffs explain that to avoid enforcement they would need to censor discussions on diversity, equity, and inclusion, eliminate related student groups and programming, and halt any campus activities that could be seen as addressing these issues.

“The overbreadth and vagueness of the law, and the content-based restrictions it places on speech and expression, will force Plaintiffs’ members to choose between chilling their constitutionally protected speech and association or risk losing federal funds and being subject to prosecution,” the complaint says.

The plaintiffs are asking a federal judge to rule the guidance unconstitutional and block its enforcement.

“Federal statute already prohibits any president from telling schools and colleges what to teach. And students have the right to learn without the threat of culture wars waged by extremist politicians hanging over their heads,” Weingarten said in a press release. “Our suit exposes these harms and shows how this memo’s arbitrary and capricious reasoning flies in the face of both American values and established law.”

Last week, a federal judge in Maryland granted a temporary injunction in a separate case, halting portions of Trump’s anti-diversity executive orders. However, according to Inside Higher Ed, while the executive orders and the “Dear Colleague” letter share similarities, they operate independently. As a result, the injunction does not affect the Department of Education’s guidance. The department has reaffirmed its interpretation of the law and stated that the compliance deadline remains unchanged.

Organizations such as the American Council on Education (ACE), EdTrust, and the American Association of University Professors have advised colleges and universities to stay calm and not to overreact to the guidance.

“To be abundantly clear, Dear Colleague letters are not law. They are simply statements of intent by executive agencies about how they intend to interpret the law,” Ted Mitchell, president of ACE, said at a policy briefing. “And so overcompliance, anticipatory compliance, pre-emptive compliance, is not a strategy. The strategy needs to be much more considered, much more nuanced.”

Jon Fansmith, ACE’s senior vice president for government relations and national engagement, emphasized in the same briefing that the vague directive is likely meant “to sow chaos” and “create fear.”

“The idea that every institution in this country could meaningfully come into compliance with this interpretation, even if they wanted to, even if they should … is just ridiculous. It would be impossible for most institutions, let alone all institutions to comply,” Fansmith said.

On Tuesday, the ACE sent a letter to Craig Trainor, the acting assistant secretary of civil rights, urging him to “rescind the DCL.”

“In order to support students and combat discrimination, OCR ought to engage relevant stakeholders in a consultative manner to ensure that institutions of higher education are in compliance with their legal obligations under Title VI and federal nondiscrimination law,” the letter says.