On February 14th, 2025, a letter was issued by the Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights of the United States Department of Education. The letter states that “the Department will no longer tolerate the overt and covert racial discrimination that has become widespread in this Nation’s educational institution.” Institutions that fail to comply with this new policy will lose federal funding as soon as February 28, 2025. According to President Donald J. Trump’s administration, diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives are discriminatory and illegal under Supreme Court precedent, but how? And how would this “anti-discriminatory” policy affect public and private institutions, especially diverse ones such as The Village School?
Firstly, a closer look at what DEI means must be taken. DEI, short for diversity, equity, and inclusion, has been around since approximately 1965. Its programs aim to bring acceptance to those of different backgrounds, cultures, nationalities, and identities in various environments, including workplaces and educational institutions. Schools often integrate these programs when hiring faculty and staff, recruiting students, making decisions, and creating campus culture. These efforts create an environment where marginalized groups feel more included and supported because they feel acknowledged.
What DEI initiatives seek to achieve in education is an increase in access and representation for historically marginalized communities, ensuring a true reflection of the diversity of broader society. Some initiatives are scholarships for minorities, race-conscious faculty training, and policies aimed at increasing an inclusive learning environment. Despite this, DEI initiatives have faced criticism, especially from far-right conservative politicians, like President Donald Trump, who proclaim that it promotes reverse discrimination.
Trump’s policy uses federal funding as leverage to enforce the removal of DEI programs in educational institutions. His administration argues that racial discrimination under recent Supreme Court rulings (the removal of Affirmative Action in Universities) is constituted by these programs. Withholding funding from institutions that fail to remove DEI initiatives is a tactic the administration is using to completely dismantle such programs from both public and private institutions. This raises concerns about academic freedom, autonomy within institutions, and a broader impact on the marginalized students who benefit from DEI policies.
Private institutions like The Village School, with a diverse student body and international curriculum, may face unique challenges under the new policy. Undoubtedly, private institutions rely less on federal funding, but some participate in federally funded programs that may be at risk. The Village School prides itself in being an inclusive environment for students from all over the world but could be compelled to revisit its DEI initiatives due to criticism and potentially harm its student recruitment and faculty diversity. Campus culture could face a huge shift if DEI policies are removed because inclusivity in admissions and hiring could become more difficult to promote.
On the other hand, public institutions in Texas rely heavily on federal funding which makes them extremely vulnerable to Trump’s policies. These institutions may have no choice but to comply with the demands to avoid several financial consequences. At a state level, Texas has already seen efforts to restrict DEI, adding pressure to schools that need the financial support. “You’ve got people living in abject poverty. Mothers and fathers with a much larger percentage of disrupted lifestyles in the homes, single mothers working multiple jobs,” said Current Events and AP Human Geography teacher, Elizabeth Penny, “I’ve substituted at those schools and they’re just not equal.” A huge disproportionate amount of students from marginalized groups could stay in school longer or not even graduate.
The ramification of anti-DEI policy extends beyond individual institutions. President Trump’s use of executive power to redefine discrimination and upheave DEI programs set a precedent for future policymakers. This move raises concern about the extent of institutional autonomy and diversity efforts. Similarly, it is likely that institutions and civil rights organizations will push back against what they believe to be an abuse of executive power. Long-term effects are still unclear, but the lives of millions of Americans are at stake, beyond education.
Overall, the potential impact of Trump’s anti-DEI policy is harmful not only to public institutions but to private ones as well. While The Village School and similar educational institutions may have some flexibility, public schools and universities may face unrepairable financial strains. Ultimately, the policy raises concerns about the role of executive authority in more than one area. It is of the utmost importance to remain educated on the topic not just under this administration but under future ones too. Educational funding should not be something to hold over people’s heads, and moving forward this could affect everyone, not just students.
Resources:
https://www.ed.gov/media/document/dear-colleague-letter-sffa-v-harvard-109506.pdf
https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/2025/01/31/dei-diversity-equity-inclusion-explained-trump-executive-order/78088476007/
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/ending-radical-and-wasteful-government-dei-programs-and-preferencing/
