Department of Education: Banishing Segregation or Community?

By Maya Dominguez. 

The “Un-Collegiate” Letter

On February 14, 2025 the United States Department of Education Office for Civil Rights issued a “Dear Colleague” letter that was not very collegial. In it, the acting Assistant Secretary, Craig Trainor, uses Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as a guise for the administration’s motives. The letter uses the Civil Rights Act to eliminate any trace of culture, history, and diversity—the exact opposite of its intended purpose. This comes as yet another attack on DEI programs in the United States.

Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was implemented to combat segregation and discrimination against people of color, particularly in business and public schools. The United States was built off of systemic racism, which means that the way the U.S. functions today inherently is biased against people of color. Education is one of the areas of society most affected by the U.S.’s systemic racism. This inequity can easily be seen in the funding that is provided to schools. Districts with the most Latino, Black, and Native students receive significantly less federal funding than districts with primarily white students. 

The ignorant Department of Education letter perverts the legislative intent behind the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and uses it to harm the very individuals it was created to protect. The letter bans any use of race in schools, including in “admissions, hiring, promotion, compensation, financial aid, scholarships, prizes, administrative support, discipline, housing, graduation ceremonies, and all other aspects of student, academic, and campus life.” The school must comply under threat of losing all federal funding. Further, the letter includes a link for anyone to report their suspicions of continuing diversity initiative or race-related groups.

The letter uses the recent Supreme Court decision regarding affirmative action, Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, as the justification for this move, but the Department of Education’s interpretation extends beyond the holding of the case. The decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard ended programs such as affirmative action, arguing that they were exclusionary and gave an unfair advantage to minority students. The letter, however, attempts to use the Supreme Court’s holding to enforce the eradication of all diversity within schools—creating environments lacking support systems for minority students, which in turn pushes these students out of schools.

Indeed, it seems as though the Department of Education aims to eliminate people of color in schools, as the letter states in no uncertain terms that it intends to use anti-discrimination laws to “provid[e] our Nation’s students with an educational environment that is free of race, color, or national origin. . . .” 

The 14-Day Deadline

The Department of Education gave all schools a fourteen-day deadline to eliminate all programs relating to race before the funding sanctions are implemented. Several schools jumped into action and eliminated all programs with even the appearance of race-based motivations. 

West Point banned all of its student-led affinity groups. North Carolina’s universities will no longer host any of their race-related forums or events. The University of Colorado removed all language from its website that used the term “D.E.I.” 

The University of Arizona released an email to its students and faculty acknowledging the confusion and uncertainty running through their student body. The email further explained, however, that the administration would be cataloging every race-related group on campus and would “continue to abide by state and federal laws.” This likely means U of A will end these programs. Several pages on the University of Arizona’s website also went down after the Department of Education’s letter was sent out, which included the Land Acknowledgement and the Bias Education and Support Team pages.

Multiple community colleges in Arizona, including Maricopa Community College, have cancelled their Native American Graduation ceremonies.

Arizona State University also caved to the pressures of the letter, walking back their longstanding traditions of Diverse Convocations and removing all gender-affirming and LGBTQ+ resources on their website. 

What About Affinity Groups?

With several schools banning their affinity groups, and many more seemingly on that pathway, student leaders fear for their organizations, their current members, and incoming cohorts of students. Jacob Martinez, an Executive Board Member of ASU’s Chicano Latino Law Students Association, expressed his alarm regarding the Department of Education’s “attacks on groups on campus meant to foster inclusivity.” He further explained saying that student groups “provide spaces where [students of color] can find support from and connections to others with backgrounds similar to their own.” 

The Department of Education letter confuses the meanings of groups of community, and groups separated from others by force, racism, and hate. There is a significant difference between segregation, which means the forced isolation of a group away from others, and community, which means a group of people brought together with a common characteristic or interest.  The letter prohibits all public schools from having any group, scholarship, or admission from relating to race in any way. What this prohibition fails to consider is that many of the affinity groups, admissions decisions, scholarships, and ceremonies are not prioritizing students of color over white students, but rather merely giving students of color a stepping stool to get them one step closer to the level at which the white student began. What it wrongly deems segregation and hate, is actually community, celebration, and tradition.

Abolishing student affinity groups does not accomplish this administration’s mistaken belief that white students are being left out. In fact, most affinity groups are open to everyone, and not being a member of the group is the choice of those non-member students. The organizations are self-selected optional clubs that anyone can choose to be a part of. These open-arms policies are often written into the bylaws of the organizations’ founding documents. 

For example, at Arizona State University, many of the affinity groups have clauses in their bylaws that state that “[m]embership and all privileges, including voting and officer positions, must be extended to all students without regard to age, ethnicity, gender, disability, color, national origin, race, religion, sexual orientation, or veteran status.” ASU touts that it is, “measured not by whom it excludes, but by whom it includes and how they succeed.” However, many students are concerned about how well the ASU administration will protect its students of color after its subpar response to the attack on ASU DACA students in late January. 

Affinity groups are essential to student life within schools. They provide comfort and familiarity for all students, especially those who can only turn to their peers for guidance. They provide a place of open arms and welcome to anyone who feels alone. As explained by Jacob Martinez, “Many times, students of color feel isolated when they are surrounded by others who lack an understanding of their cultural backgrounds and what it means to be first generation. These student groups provide spaces where those students can find connections to others with backgrounds similar to their own, which can drastically help improve student experiences on campus.”

The Department of Education letter places these safe havens at serious risk. These affinity organizations provide support and mentorship with open arms to all students, especially those who lack other support systems. They lift up black and brown students who often have to forge their own path as first generation students with no familial connections in the job market. These groups provide the equality and equity that the Civil Rights Act first intended.