Nathaniel Rodwell-Simon

Julius Rosenwald Hall, which houses the University’s College admissions office.

Update, February 21, 2025, 9:15 p.m.: A federal judge in Maryland has issued a preliminary injunction against some of the Trump administration’s recent executive orders and subsequent agency actions aimed at eliminating diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs. 

In his opinion, District Judge Adam Abelson wrote that the Trump administration shall not “require any grantee or contractor to make any ‘certification’ or other representation” that they do not operate any DEI programs.

The order stemmed from a lawsuit filed by the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education, the American Association of University Professors, and other groups, which argued that the orders were unconstitutionally vague and restrictive of freedom of speech.

Educational institutions have 14 days to end diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs and policies or risk facing investigation and losing federal funding, the U.S. Department of Education announced Friday.

The deadline was communicated in a February 14 letter sent to institutions of higher education and state educational agencies by Craig Trainor, the Department of Education’s acting assistant secretary for civil rights.

The Department of Government Efficiency also posted the letter on X.

The directive is the Trump administration’s latest move targeting DEI policies in schools. Last month, President Donald Trump signed an executive order instructing the attorney general and secretary of education to bring state agencies and educational institutions in line with the administration’s interpretation of civil rights law. That executive order also revoked many of the Biden administration’s DEI policies.

The University receives hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding annually. The exact number is not publicly available but includes funding for federal student aid, work-study, and research grants.

“The Department will vigorously enforce the law on equal terms as to all preschool, elementary, secondary, and postsecondary educational institutions, as well as state educational agencies, that receive financial assistance,” Trainor wrote. “Additional legal guidance will follow in due course.”

In the letter, Trainor interprets Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as prohibiting DEI programs and other practices, which he calls “pervasive and repugnant race-based preferences and other forms of racial discrimination.”

Title VI “prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance.” UChicago, like most private universities, is covered by Title VI.

Trainor also cites the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (SFFA v. Harvard) as setting a legal precedent for the new guidelines.

The Supreme Court concluded that institutions of higher education cannot consider race as a specific factor in admissions, declaring affirmative action in college admissions unconstitutional and reversing the precedent set in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke.

The University filed an amicus brief in the case, defending the use of affirmative action in admissions programs.

“In recent years, American educational institutions have discriminated against students on the basis of race, including white and Asian students, many of whom come from disadvantaged backgrounds and low-income families,” Trainor wrote. “These institutions’ embrace of pervasive and repugnant race-based preferences and other forms of racial discrimination have emanated throughout every facet of academia.”

In a press release shared with the Maroon, the Department of Education elaborated on its interpretation of the SFFA v. Harvard decision:

“In Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, the U.S. Supreme Court not only ended racial preferences in school admissions, but articulated a general legal principle on the law of race, color, and national origin discrimination—namely, where an educational institution treats a person of one race differently than it treats another, and race is a factor in the different treatment, the educational institution has violated the law.”

The White House did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

Edward Blum, a conservative legal strategist and the president of SFFA, believes the letter is “likely a prelude to a forthcoming series of detailed directives that will identify discriminatory policies and programs that will be challenged by the Education Department.”

“Public and private educational institutions that have adopted policies that they consider race-neutral may soon have those policies declared as illegal race proxies,” Blum wrote in an email to the Maroon.

The University’s DEI programs currently include undergraduate and postdoctoral fellowships offered to “scholars from diverse backgrounds,” workshops on inclusion, and a “D&I Planning Toolkit” developed through the Office of the Provost, which provides resources for educators who want to implement diversity and inclusion initiatives within their academic units.

The Office of the Provost’s diversity and inclusion team also periodically administers “Campus Climate Surveys,” which assess students’ perceptions of factors like racism, sexism, homophobia, and belonging at the University.

“While the University has made significant strides in creating a more inclusive campus, there is still much work to be done,” the provost’s website reads. “We promise to remain vigilant and dedicated—ceaselessly working to identify and remove barriers to full participation. For our efforts to be successful, this work needs to happen at a grassroots level and an institutional one.”

The University did not respond to a request for comment.

Former Vermont Law School civil rights law professor Marianne Engelman Lado thinks the letter is “intended to spread disinformation and distort federal law in order to chill lawful speech and activities that are designed to promote fairness and equal opportunity.”

Lado served in the Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Environmental Justice and Civil Rights during the Biden administration.

UChicago Law School civil rights law professor Darrell A.H. Miller told the Maroon that he predicts that Trainor’s letter will lead to more debate about the applications of Title VI. He stressed, however, that the letter likely does not affect research or classroom education.

“None of this letter could be construed to prohibit what a researcher or a teacher might present as just a matter of historical or empirical fact,” Miller said.

Richard Epstein, the James Parker Hall Distinguished Service Professor Emeritus of Law at UChicago Law School, told the Maroon that “the [federal government] has gone from moving 100 miles an hour in one direction to 100 miles an hour in the opposite direction after the Biden administration completely overplayed their hand on DEI.”

“To understand what’s going on with [DEI] you have to understand that [the Trump administration is] in an absolute boiling rage about it. This issue has become much too polarized. Trump has been doing payback for the Biden administration, and [so we’re] desperately looking for some intermediate position which is no longer on the table,” Epstein said.

“This isn’t just a disagreement. One side believes [DEI programs] are morally required, and the other side believes that they’re morally reprehensible,” he added.

According to Epstein, one of the University’s biggest challenges is the number of significant policy changes made by the Trump administration in recent weeks.

“Universities can try to bring lawsuits, but the [Trump administration] is also cutting indirect costs, which is madness, and doing lots of other things. There are too many issues to fight, and it’s very hard to fight a two-front war. Each university standing alone cannot win,” he said.

“The embellishments and the rhetoric of this letter are far outside the state of the law and previous administrations’ stances on the Civil Rights Act,” Lado told the Maroon. “The import of the spirit and language of the 1964 Civil Rights Act is that the law came out of people striving to escape segregation in federally funded facilities [like schools and hospitals]. It was intended to breathe life into the Reconstruction amendments. It is applicable to all people.”

Epstein offers a different interpretation: “Without doubt, the Civil Rights Act was written and meant to be entirely color-blind,” he said.

“This letter and these executive orders don’t change the reality that the American dream is not equally accessible to all,” Lado concluded. “Ultimately, if we limit these programs, we’ll weaken the economy and threaten our multicultural society. But it is now up to the universities to interpret this letter and to figure out how to move forward, consistent not with this letter’s language but with the actual case law.”

Zachary Leiter and Nathaniel Rodwell-Simon contributed reporting.