OCR Issues Frequently Asked Questions and Connecticut State Board of Education Offers Guidance Regarding Dear Colleague Letter on Racial Discrimination and DEI

As discussed in our prior blog post, the United States Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”) recently issued a Dear Colleague letter (“Letter”) discussing how OCR will interpret and enforce federal laws prohibiting schools and other entities receiving federal financial assistance from discriminating on the basis of race.

In the three weeks since the Letter was issued, OCR has released a series of Frequently Asked Questions (“FAQ Document”) about Title VI compliance, and the Connecticut State Board of Education (“CSBE”) has issued guidance to explain the Letter “in the context of current law.” Meanwhile, the U.S. Department of Education (the “USDOE”) has unveiled an online portal allowing the public to report allegedly discriminatory practices in educational institutions, while two federal lawsuits have been filed challenging the Letter on constitutional and other grounds.

OCR’s “Frequently Asked Questions About Racial Preferences and Stereotypes Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act”

OCR’s FAQ Document is “intended to anticipate and answer questions that may be raised” in response to the Letter—specifically, how the Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (“SFFA”) decision “applies to racial classifications, racial preferences, and racial stereotypes” and how OCR will interpret and enforce that ruling.

After explaining how to file a complaint with OCR, the FAQ Document turns to an analysis of the SFFA decision. While acknowledging that the case addressed the use of race in college admissions, it suggests that the ruling has “broad implications for race-based policies in education generally.” OCR’s FAQ Document identifies two “rules” that the Supreme Court articulated: (1) “a school may never use a student’s race as a ‘stereotype or negative’”; and (2) the use of racial classifications or distinctions raises constitutional concerns and triggers strict scrutiny even when they do not involve conscious stereotypes or use race as a disadvantage in a zero-sum process.

The FAQ Document also notes that the “Supreme Court held that Title VI is ‘coextensive’ with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,” which means that any race-based discrimination that violates Title VI also violates the Equal Protection Clause, and vice versa. This interpretation means that OCR will hold public schools and private schools that accept federal financial assistance to the same legal standard.

In regard to racial classifications, the FAQ Document criticizes the use of “overbroad, underinclusive, or arbitrary and undefined” categories that run the risk of “devolving into unlawful racial stereotypes.” Citing Supreme Court precedent and a 2004 Dear Colleague letter on segregated extracurricular activities, the FAQ Document also maintains that “a school cannot engage in any programming, graduation ceremonies, housing, or any other aspect of school life that allows one race but not another or otherwise separates students, faculty, or staff based on race.”

Although OCR’s FAQ Document does not assert that diversity, equity, and inclusion (“DEI”) programs are inherently unlawful, it states that many schools have advanced discriminatory policies and practices under the banner of those initiatives (as well as those aimed at “social-emotional learning” or “culturally responsive” teaching). The FAQ Document clarifies that “programs focused on interests in particular cultures, heritages, and areas of the world” and “educational, cultural, or historical observances” do not in and of themselves violate Title VI, but that they must be open to all students regardless of race and must not engage in racial exclusion or discrimination.

Similarly, in addressing discussions of topics such as race and diversity, the FAQ Document emphasizes that such activities may be unlawful if they create a hostile environment, based on the factual circumstances—for instance, an elementary school program that shames students of a particular race or accuses them of being oppressors in a racial hierarchy, or a university that requires students to participate in “privilege walks” or mandates courses or trainings that emphasize and focus on racial stereotypes.

If OCR determines that a school has failed to comply with the civil rights laws it enforces, the FAQ Document states that OCR will contact the school to determine its willingness to resolve the issue. If the school agrees to resolve the complaint, OCR and the school will negotiate an agreement that describes the specific remedial actions that will be taken to address areas of noncompliance, to be monitored by OCR. If the school is unwilling to negotiate an agreement, OCR will inform the school of the consequences, which may result in administrative proceedings or referral to the U.S. Department of Justice for judicial proceedings.

Connecticut State Board of Education Guidance Regarding the Letter

On February 26, 2025, the Connecticut State Board of Education (“CSBE”) issued guidance regarding the force and effect of the Letter. In its guidance, the CSBE seeks to clarify the Letter by providing context and notes the following:

• Federal law prohibits the USDOE from using a grant, contract, or cooperative agreement to endorse, require, or sanction curriculum designed to be used in an elementary or secondary school.
• Federal funding may not be terminated except through a legal process that includes the opportunity for a hearing, a finding adverse to the federal funding recipient, and subsequent review of the decision.
• The Letter expressly states that it “does not have the force and effect of law and does not create new legal standards.”
• The Letter does not order schools and districts to terminate all DEI programs within fourteen days. Rather, it warns that it is a violation of Title VI for school receiving federal funding to give preferential or adverse treatment to students based on race, color, or national origin if that disparity deprives students of an educational benefit.
• After the fourteen-day period, OCR’s assessments of Title VI compliance will include whether a school or district’s DEI programs or other policies favor or disfavor students based upon race, color, or national origin.

Federal Lawsuits Filed

Separate and apart from OCR’s FAQ Document and the CSBE guidance, there have been other legal developments regarding the Letter and its impact on schools. On February 25, 2025, the American Federation of Teachers and the American Sociological Association filed an action challenging the Letter in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. On March 5, 2025, the National Education Association filed a similar lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire.

The complaint filed in Maryland alleges that the Letter “radically upends and re-writes otherwise well-established jurisprudence,” “misrepresents the state of the law under Title VI and the Constitution” in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in SFFA, and “fails to provide definitions and objective standards for assessing discrimination in violation of Title VI.” Similarly, the complaint filed in New Hampshire states that the Letter “radically resets [the USDOE’s] longstanding positions on civil rights laws that guarantee equality and inclusion and impermissibly infringes on the authority of states and school districts over public education as well as the First Amendment rights of educators and students.” It further states that these fundamental flaws “could not stand no matter the process followed.”

Both lawsuits request a declaratory judgment that the Letter is unconstitutional and a preliminary injunction enjoining its implementation or enforcement.

As of the date of this writing, the federal government has not responded to the complaints, but additional legal developments in this area are almost certain.

U.S. Department of Education Launches “End DEI” Portal

On February 27, 2025, the USDOE launched a portal entitled “End DEI”, through which “students, parents, teachers and the broader community” can report “illegal discriminatory practices at institutions of learning.” The USDOE states that it will use information submitted through the portal to identify potential areas for investigation.

What This Means for Schools

As legal developments continue to unfold, school officials may be uncertain about what actions, if any, they should take in response to this rapidly evolving legal landscape. We note that OCR’s FAQ Document discusses enforcement mechanisms, but it also highlights the possibility of voluntary negotiated agreements and acknowledges that there will be an administrative process before sanctions are imposed on school districts whose compliance is challenged. Nonetheless, as discussed in our prior post, we continue to recommend that schools and school districts review their existing policies and practices — particularly those that could be perceived as conditioning educational benefits or opportunities upon an individual’s race or ethnicity. Specific action steps for schools include:

• Take inventory and evaluate school programs and initiatives through a Title VI lens and consider whether any of your policies, programs, or practices provide preferential or adverse treatment based on race, color, or national origin.
• Remain focused on ensuring that educational programs provide benefits to all students regardless of race, color, or national origin – a principle that has long been central to school districts’ non-discrimination obligations.
• Continue to monitor relevant developments and ensure school programs comply with anti-discrimination laws.

Finally, we recommend that school districts continue to monitor developments on the state and federal levels, and consult legal counsel with any questions.