NASFAA Joins Call on ED to Rescind DCL on Ending Racial Preferences, Requests Collaborative Process With Higher Education Community
By Maria Carrasco, NASFAA Staff Reporter
NASFAA, along with over 60 higher education organizations, sent a letter to the Department of Education (ED) asking it to rescind its recent Dear Colleague Letter (DCL), which told institutions to cease using "racial preferences" in admissions, financial aid, hiring and other areas, or be at risk at losing federal funding. Instead, the organizations are urging ED to work with the higher education community so it can understand its legal obligations.
Earlier this month, ED formally released a DCL aiming to provide clarity over legal requirements for institutions under the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) v. Harvard, and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. While the U.S. Supreme Court decision only touched on race in institutions’ admissions policies, the DCL stated that institutions must cease using race preferences as a factor in admissions, financial aid, hiring, training, and other institutional programming.
Furthermore, institutions that fail to comply, may be subject to an investigation from ED and could lose federal funding. ED said that it will begin assessing compliance 14 days from the letter’s publication date, which was February 14.
The guidance has given institutions more questions than answers. In light of these questions, over 60 higher education organizations signed onto a letter, spearheaded by the American Council on Education (ACE), to ED’s Acting Assistant Secretary for the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) Craig Trainor, and argued ED should rescind the DCL and instead work with the higher education community to ensure a clear understanding of institutions’ legal obligations.
“The Department should encourage inclusive and welcoming educational environments for all students, regardless of race or ethnicity or any other factors,” the letter reads. “Over the last two years, our colleges and universities have worked hard to assess and modify, as appropriate, policies and practices in light of the decision in the SFFA case and applicable civil rights laws.”
The letter lists several points of confusion from the DCL, including ED’s assertion that diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts and initiatives on campus are discriminatory. The organizations argued that the range of activities associated with DEI are not illegal.
Furthermore, the organizations stated that while DEI programs must be consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision on race-based admissions, institutions' efforts to build “inclusive and diverse campus communities” are not illegal or discriminatory. Additionally, the organizations wrote that ED’s reference to “DEI programs” doesn’t provide any clarity to institutions about their obligations under the law, or how previously legal institutional programs, which are designed to support students, are now in violation of the law.
The organizations also pointed out inconsistencies in the guidance where at first ED wrote that the DCL “does not have the force and effect of law and does not bind the public or create new legal standards.” However, that language contradicts other language in the DCL where ED gave institutions 14 days to be in compliance or face possible investigation or loss of all federal funding. The organizations said it’s “unreasonable” for ED to require institutions to be in compliance to this “extremely broad reinterpretation of federal law” in just 14 days.
“In order to support students and combat discrimination, OCR ought to engage relevant stakeholders in a consultative manner to ensure that institutions of higher education are in compliance with their legal obligations under Title VI and federal nondiscrimination law,” the letter reads.
Publication Date: 2/27/2025
David S | 2/27/2025 1:38:13 PM
Armand, I'm afraid you're presuming that society provides a level playing field. It does not.
Armand R | 2/27/2025 12:0:59 PM
"Over 60 higher education organizations signed onto a letter...and argued ED should rescind the DCL.
“'The Department should encourage inclusive and welcoming educational environments for all students, regardless of race or ethnicity or any other factors,' the letter reads."
This is exactly what the DCL does.
Michael B | 2/27/2025 11:17:37 AM
While NASFAA and other organizations argue that the DCL lacks clarity and unfairly restricts DEI initiatives, the Department of Education’s stance aligns with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which deemed race-based admissions policies unconstitutional.
Legal Consistency – The Supreme Court ruling does not only apply to admissions but extends to all aspects of institutional decision-making that involve racial preferences. It is a natural step for ED to ensure compliance beyond admissions alone.
Fairness and Equal Treatment – Race-based policies, even when well-intended, may inadvertently disadvantage other students. Prohibiting racial preferences in hiring, financial aid, and other institutional programs promotes a merit-based approach that does not discriminate based on identity.
Institutional Adaptation – While institutions claim to need more time for compliance, they have had nearly a year since the Supreme Court ruling to reassess policies. The 14-day requirement is strict, but it reinforces urgency in ensuring adherence to federal law.
Alternative Diversity Strategies – Institutions can still pursue diversity through race-neutral means, such as socio-economic status, first-generation status, and targeted outreach, without explicitly using racial preferences.
Regarding legacy admissions, while this remains a separate issue, it does not justify maintaining race-based preferences. Addressing inequities in college admissions should include scrutiny of all preferential systems, but removing one form of preferential treatment (racial preferences) is a step toward a fairer system.
David S | 2/27/2025 10:28:22 AM
Aside from the fact that there's no universal, legally recognized definition of "DEI," odd how this administration is going after that - including programs such as support groups for underrepresented minorities - but not a peep about colleges that will move an applicant to the top of the pile because their parents are alumni and/or donors.
You must be logged in to comment on this page.