Listen to this article
Download AudioTrump’s DEI Cuts: Impact on Schools & Black History
DEI education faces significant federal funding cuts.
By Darius Spearman (africanelements)
Support African Elements at patreon.com/africanelements and hear recent news in a single playlist. Additionally, you can gain early access to ad-free video content.
Federal Funding Threatened Over DEI Education
The Trump administration has put schools on notice. States and districts must now certify they are following Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. This means disavowing Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs to keep receiving federal money (EdWeek). This move ties crucial funding to eliminating initiatives designed to help marginalized students, including many Black students.
The Department of Education claims DEI practices violate Title VI. This law prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin in federally funded programs. Interestingly, the administration argues this despite not having a clear definition of what DEI means (EdWeek). Subsequently, schools are left guessing which programs might put their funding at risk. Confusion exists around initiatives like social-emotional learning (SEL) or culturally relevant teaching, both often linked to DEI efforts (EdWeek).
This policy builds on earlier actions. Memos and FAQs issued in February 2025 warned districts about funding risks associated with DEI (EdWeek). It’s worth noting the 2025 date mentioned in some reporting might be a typo or projection, as most related actions occurred earlier (Texas Tribune, ABC7 Chicago). Nevertheless, these warnings have already sparked legal challenges from major teachers’ unions fighting back against the pressure (EdWeek).
What is DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion)?
DEI refers to initiatives creating environments where everyone, especially those from marginalized groups, feels represented, treated fairly, and included. It focuses on actively removing systemic barriers.
- Different from Anti-Discrimination: Goes beyond just following laws; DEI proactively promotes fairness and belonging (ABC News, University of Virginia).
- Different from Affirmative Action: Affirmative action often uses targeted support (like race-conscious admissions) to fix past discrimination, while DEI focuses more broadly on changing processes for equity (Texas Tribune, ABC News).
Examples include anti-bias training, making hiring practices inclusive, and ensuring workspaces are accessible (ABC News, ABC7 Chicago).
Weakening Civil Rights Act Schools Enforcement
The administration didn’t stop at funding threats. It significantly weakened the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR). This office is crucial for enforcing protections against discrimination based on race, disability, sex, and more. Specifically, 7 out of 12 regional OCR offices were eliminated, severely hindering enforcement capacity (ACLU).
This reduction in oversight puts vulnerable students at risk. Millions of students with disabilities, many of whom are Black or from other minority groups, rely on the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). IDEA guarantees specialized instruction and assistive technology. However, with fewer watchdogs, these essential supports could be jeopardized (ACLU). Furthermore, Title I funding, which supports schools in low-income areas often serving large populations of color, is also under threat. Cuts to these programs and federal student aid could worsen existing racial and economic inequalities in education (ACLU).
Erasing Black History & Threatening Academic Freedom
This crackdown goes beyond funding and enforcement. It’s part of a larger effort to control how history, especially Black history, is taught. The administration frames DEI as “radical indoctrination,” aiming to silence discussions about racism, resistance, and the realities of America’s past (Christina Greer via YouTube). For the Black community, this isn’t just about curriculum; it’s about erasing our stories and struggles from the national narrative.
Political science professor Christina Greer highlighted the danger of this approach. She emphasized that ignoring our collective past, including segregation and the hard-won progress of the Civil Rights Era, prevents national unity. Facing these historical harms is necessary, in fact, for economic and social progress (Christina Greer via YouTube). Moreover, silencing DEI initiatives threatens academic freedom on university campuses. If diverse perspectives are shut down, universities risk becoming echo chambers, suffering from a “homogeneity of thought” that stifles intellectual debate and innovation (Christina Greer via YouTube, Harvard Business School Online).
DEI programs often directly support the teaching of Black history. They can fund curriculum development, support scholars from underrepresented backgrounds, and promote culturally relevant teaching methods (ABC News, ABC7 Chicago). These efforts ensure students encounter perspectives beyond traditional Eurocentric narratives. Therefore, attacking DEI is also an attack on the accurate and comprehensive teaching of Black history and experiences (University of Virginia).
Understanding Title VI Enforcement and the DEI Conflict
The core of the administration’s argument rests on Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. This law forbids discrimination based on race, color, or national origin in any program getting federal funds. The administration claims DEI initiatives inherently violate this by favoring certain groups (EdWeek). Critics argue that DEI’s focus on *equity*—addressing systemic disadvantages to create fair outcomes—constitutes illegal discrimination under a law designed for equal *access* (ABC News, ABC7 Chicago).
For example, Texas Governor Greg Abbott’s office stated that DEI policies “expressly favor some demographic groups to the detriment of others,” framing them as illegal (Texas Tribune). This interpretation pits the goal of remedying historical exclusion against a narrow reading of anti-discrimination law. Consequently, programs designed to address racial bias in hiring or admissions are labeled discriminatory under Title VI, even if their intent is to promote fairness (Texas Tribune, ABC7 Chicago). This legal ambiguity is being weaponized, according to civil rights groups.
The Title VI vs. DEI Conflict
Title VI Argument (Admin View)
Prohibits race-based discrimination in federally funded programs. Requires equal access/treatment. Argues DEI initiatives violate this by “favoring” certain groups, even if unintentionally.
DEI Goal (Proponent View)
Aims for equitable outcomes by addressing systemic barriers and historical disadvantages. Uses targeted strategies (like culturally relevant teaching or bias training) to ensure fairness and belonging for marginalized groups.
The core tension: Does addressing systemic inequity (DEI’s goal) constitute illegal discrimination (“favoritism”) under Title VI?
Legal Challenges and Calls for Action
Civil rights groups and educators are pushing back. The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights accused the Department of Education of using Title VI as a tool to intimidate schools. They point out the legal murkiness and the administration’s attempt to equate DEI with unlawful discrimination (EdWeek). This misuse of civil rights law, they argue, actually undermines its original purpose.
The ACLU is urging Congress to step in. They advocate for restoring the Education Department’s civil rights enforcement power to protect marginalized students effectively (ACLU). Restoring the gutted OCR offices is a key part of this. Additionally, there are calls for collective action among educators and institutions facing these coordinated political threats. Resisting politically motivated attacks on academic freedom and DEI requires a unified front (Christina Greer via YouTube).
Teachers’ unions are also taking legal action. Their lawsuits challenge the funding cuts, potentially arguing that the administration is overreaching its authority and violating statutory requirements (EdWeek). They might claim that cutting funds for programs designed to *comply* with anti-discrimination goals actually undermines Title VI itself (ABC News, ABC7 Chicago). Practical resistance strategies include these lawsuits, partnering with civil rights groups, mobilizing community support, and advocating for protective legislation (ABC News).
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Darius Spearman has been a professor of Black Studies at San Diego City College since 2007. He is the author of several books, including Between The Color Lines: A History of African Americans on the California Frontier Through 1890. You can visit Darius online at africanelements.org.
