America’s public schools are shaping up to be the latest center of resistance to the Trump administration, with their leaders pushing back on the Education Department’s order to purge diversity, equity, and inclusion programs from “every facet of academia.” 

The anti-DEI order came from the department’s Office of Civil Rights in a “Dear Colleague” memorandum over the weekend and applies to K-12 schools and universities and colleges that receive federal funding. The Department warned that any institution that failed to comply within two weeks would lose that funding. 

However, the School Superintendents Association, which represents more than 10,000 school district leaders nationwide, is advising its members not to take the order too seriously. The association, in a blog post shared Monday, suggests that the office’s threat “may not be convincing for several reasons.” 

Namely, it notes that President Trump’s recent decision to halt the office of civil rights’ enforcement makes “widespread proactive enforcement action against districts less possible” and adds that the legal aspects of the memorandum “are likely to be successfully challenged in court.”

The blog post further references the view of a “trusted” civil rights attorney, Jackie Wernz, who maintains that “this guidance appears motivated more by intimidation than actual enforcement power.” She advises schools that want to avoid “unnecessary policy shifts” to only scrutinize programs that may be the most at risk under the current law, like those that explicitly use race in admissions, financial aid, hiring, or discipline.

Ms. Wernz says that schools are less likely to get in trouble for “race-neutral-yet-race-conscious policies” and adds that “there certainly is no legal merit” to claims that considering diversity goals or race at all is problematic. 

The acting assistant secretary for civil rights, Craig Trainor, cited in the Dear Colleague letter the 2023 Supreme Court ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard that shot down affirmative action. The court’s decision, Mr. Trainor writes, “clarified that the use of racial preferences in college admissions is unlawful” and thus “sets forth a framework for evaluating the use of race by state actors and entities covered by Title VI.” 

He continues: “Although SFFA addressed admissions decisions, the Supreme Court’s holding applies more broadly. 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.” 

The letter specifically prohibits considering race in decisions related to “hiring, promotion, compensation, financial aid, scholarships, prizes, administrative support, discipline, housing, graduation ceremonies, and all other aspects of student, academic, and campus life.” 

The measure was quickly denounced by the American Federation of Teachers, the second largest teacher’s labor union in the country, which argued that federal law “prohibits any president from telling schools and colleges what to teach.” The union’s president, Randi Weingarten, claimed that the memo “makes it far harder to do our jobs and will only stoke division and fear.”

A Washington Democrat and ranking member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Senator Murray, similarly critiqued the Education Department’s order. “While it’s anyone’s guess what falls under the Trump administration’s definition of ‘DEI’, there is simply no authority or basis for Trump to impose such a mandate,” Ms. Murray stated. “In fact, federal laws prohibit ANY president from telling schools and colleges what to teach, including the Every Student Succeeds Act.”

On the higher education front, most university leaders have remained silent. American universities, which receive billions of dollars annually in funding for research grants, student financial aid, and institutional support, have a lot to lose should the Education Department make good on its threat. 

In November, a group of Columbia University faculty, staff, students, and alumni estimated that Columbia could lose out on $3.5 billion in federal funding — 55 percent of the school’s annual operating budget — should it face government retaliation for its divisive policies. The group urged the New York City-based Ivy not to play “chicken” in the face of significant financial risk.

A group of higher education advocacy groups, including the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education and the American Association of University Professors, have already launched a legal challenge to the Trump administration’s executive orders targeting DEI. The organizations, in a lawsuit filed earlier  this month, argue that the 47th president’s orders are unconstitutional and call on the courts to block their enforcement. 

Mr. Trump’s push to purge DEI is not unpopular among the general public. According to a recent YouGov poll, more Americans support rather than oppose ending diversity, equity, and inclusion programs in school and government. Meanwhile, Americans’ satisfaction with the public school system has hit a new low, as recorded by a recent Gallup survey.