The Department of Education Office for Civil Rights released a “Frequently Asked Questions” document on Feb. 28 clarifying its stance on the Feb. 14 directive urging the elimination of race-conscious decisions in higher education.
The ED’s Feb. 14 “Dear Colleague” letterinstructed schools to eliminate “racial preferences” and otherwise race-conscious decisions in areas including admissions, hiring and institutional programming within two weeks or risk losing federal funding.
However, after this sweeping directive sparked weeks of confusion and controversy, the ED has signaled a softer stance on race-conscious programs. The FAQ document indicates that not all diversity programs are banned outright — offering some flexibility for institutions to continue certain DEI programs like Black History Month, provided they avoid racial preferences or exclusionary practices.
The ED said that assessments of school policies and programs will occur on a case-by-case basis and indicated that not all DEI programs “in and of themselves violate Title VI, assuming they are open to all students regardless of race.”
Title VI “prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance,” according to the Department of Justice.
The new guidance acknowledges that institutions may still pursue broader diversity goals, as long as race is not a sole or determining factor in eligibility. Programs focused on socioeconomic disadvantage, first-generation status or geographic diversity may remain intact.
However, these clarifications do not fully resolve the uncertainty facing Cornell and peer institutions, as the ED still detailed the potential for investigations and funding cuts under Title VI violations.
Still, the ED clarified the limits of its control, citing the Department of Education Organization Act, which “prohibit[s] the ED from exercising control over the content of school curricula.” Prior to the release of the FAQ, the American Federation of Teachers union and the American Sociological Association sued the ED on the basis of First and Fifth Amendment violations.
The initial directive prompted widespread concern on campus, particularly from cultural groups and affinity spaces. Black Students United held an emergency meeting on Feb. 21 to address the potential elimination of identity-based program houses and student resources rooted in racial or cultural affiliation. Universities including the University of Pennsylvania and Harvard University deleted some DEI messaging and programming from their websites following directives and threats by the Trump administration.
The letter outlined the ED’s interpretation of the Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which struck down race-conscious admissions practices. The ED wrote on Feb. 14 that the ruling broadly applied to campus life beyond admissions, including using race in decisions relating to hiring practices, scholarships, student programming and other institutional policies.
In a Feb. 21 statement released by the University in response to campus concerns about changing federal guidelines, Interim President Michael Kotlikoff affirmed the University’s commitment to diversity, calling it a “driver of our excellence.” However, the statement also emphasized that Cornell “follow[s] the law” and is “committed to merit-based decisions,” in all processes.
“We will continue … to work to ensure that our principles are consistently maintained, and to advance our mission in ways that comply with existing federal and state law,” Kotlikoff wrote.
