Over the weekend, the Department of Education released a set of FAQs meant to clarify the confusion that exploded across the higher ed landscape after it told colleges to end diversity, equity, and inclusion programming, or risk federal funding. 

I wanted to dig more into what the department is saying now, and how uncertainty is still playing out across campuses. It’s a spot we’ll continue to cover in the coming months, particularly as we continue to see college campuses take steps to preemptively comply with what they think the administration wants.

Colleges that roll back programs or initiatives before they’re required to do so are helping to facilitate the administration’s agenda, Denise A. Smith, deputy director of higher education policy and a senior fellow at The Century Foundation, told me in an email.

The FAQ reinforces the administration’s core legal argument that any consideration of race in education is discriminatory unless it's meant to fix a clear and proven prior mistake. But it turns down the temperature compared to the Dear Colleague letter, which, as Brianna Atkinson, our reporter at WUNC put it this week, used “language more often heard at a political rally than in a legal policy directive.” 

The FAQ says that schools with programs focused on specific cultures or observance events for things like Black History Month aren’t violating federal law, as long as those programs and events are open to everyone. But, we’ve already seen examples of colleges scaling back in this area — Michigan State University cancelled its Lunar New Year event this winter and Texas publics cut funding for identity-specific graduation ceremonies last year.

And, the FAQ notes that whether or not a policy violates federal law doesn’t hinge on the use of words like “diversity,” “equity,” or “inclusion,” but rather whether or not a college is creating a hostile environment based on race. 

This was particularly notable to me, as we have repeatedly seen colleges rename or close DEI offices in response to federal directives. Just this month, Indiana University Indianapolis closed its equity training center for promoting “divisive training.” Mississippi State University plans to rename its diversity center. And Northwestern University has been scrubbing websites for its library, liberal arts college, and women’s center. 

• ‘DEI isn’t just lawful — it’s mission-critical’ (via our partner WBEZ) 

• ‘Extremely concerned’: In unusual letter, Mississippi State president comments on potential Trump administration changes to research funding (via our partner Mississippi Today) 

• IU Indy equity center shuttered after Trump administration cuts funding (via our partner Mirror Indy) 

Perhaps most importantly, the FAQ also spells out the process for revoking federal funding — and it’s less abrupt than the Dear Colleague letter made it sound. The department won’t immediately pull the funding for a college found to be in violation of the law. Instead, there will be a multi-step negotiation process, the FAQ said. 

Uncertainty still abounds. And while the FAQ addresses the Dear Colleague letter, that guidance never had the force of law in the first place. 

Concern remains that the administration’s other attempts to take aim at diversity initiatives will be interpreted very broadly, said Todd Wolfson, president of the American Association of University Professors. 

“What it feels like to me is it's an attempt to reinscribe racial hierarchy by not dealing with the actual inequalities we deal with in health, in education, in economics,” he told me last month.

Lawmakers in Texas and Florida were the first to target DEI within public universities. Texas lawmakers so far this year have continued to seize on the momentum they helped create. 

• Texas A&M System bans drag shows from its universities (via our partner The Texas Tribune)

House and Senate budget proposals include a $400 million cut to higher ed, and Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick has indicated he plans to use the budget to continue exerting control over universities, our partner The Texas Tribune reported. 

“If they don’t kick DEI out of their schools, they’re going to get a lot less,” he said to applause at a conference late last month. 

Support our work 💰️ 

We’re coaching 17 partner newsrooms around the country to meet this moment.

If in-depth, local coverage of higher-ed matters to you, donate to Open Campus today.

Elsewhere on Open Campus

Ohio lawmakers are advancing a bill that would reduce the independence of universities and ban professors’ right to strike. It has drawn staunch criticism from students and faculty members, who testified at the Statehouse. 

But presidents at Ohio’s public universities have remained silent on it. Emails show that they strategically decided to not take a public position on the bill, Senate Bill 1, and risk provoking conservative lawmakers.

“The concern is that we will push our luck by requesting a new round of changes to SB1, especially given the likelihood of the bill passing as is,” university leaders said in a meeting meeting summary. 

Amy Morona, our reporter at Signal Ohio reported this story using public records, such as meeting minutes and emails between university leaders. We co-published this reporting with The Chronicle of Higher Education. 

Amy found that university leaders were making a bet. By avoiding a fight over the higher-ed overhaul, they felt they had better odds of getting what they really wanted: a 2% funding increase. 

Their gambit didn’t pay off. The governor’s budget plan for next year includes just a 0.1% increase.

Keep in touch

We’re a nonprofit newsroom that relies on the support of readers like you. Donate today.

Interested in reaching readers who care about higher education in communities across the country? Get in touch or request our media kit.

Please share. Forward this newsletter to colleagues, family, and friends who might be interested. They can sign up for their own copy here.

Run a newsroom and want to improve your coverage of higher ed? Let’s talk.

Got a story tip or a question? Please send it along.