Emma Ambroziak / The Mossy Log
On Feb. 21, President Robin Holmes-Sullivan sent out an email to the Lewis & Clark community titled “Update on Dept. of Education’s ‘Dear Colleague’ letter.” The email was written as an official response to a Feb. 14 letter from the Department of Education (DOE) claiming that Diversity, Equity and Inclusion programs (DEI) are illegal under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In the email, President Holmes-Sullivan stated that LC is conducting a college-wide review of compliance with this new federal development.
“It should … be noted that while a ‘Dear Colleague’ letter ‘does not have the force and effect of law and does not bind the public or create new legal standards,’ we need to take this letter, and all other guidance and direction coming from government agencies, very seriously. We are conducting a review of existing college practices and programs to assure compliance with existing law and will monitor the situation carefully to address further developments,” the email read.
The Feb. 14 letter from the DOE followed a Jan. 21 executive order titled “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Resorting Merit-Based Opportunity.” The order, one of two executive orders signed on President Donald Trump’s first day in office targeting DEI, applies to both the public and private sectors. Section 3 requires federal contractors or those receiving federal funding to certify that they do “not operate any programs promoting DEI that violate any applicable Federal antidiscrimination laws.” Currently, enforcement of the two executive orders has been put under a preliminary injunction by a federal judge.
On March 1, the DOE’s Office of Civil Rights released new guidance on what specific programs the administration considers to be a violation of federal law. According to the document, schools are prohibited from considering race in administering resources, nor can they “administer or advertise scholarships, prizes, or other opportunities offered by third parties based on race.” Under the new guidelines, “schools with programs focused on interests in particular cultures … would not in and of themselves violate Title VI, assuming they are open to all students regardless of race.”
The Office of Civil Rights also responded to a question asking if DEI programs as a whole are unlawful.
“Many schools have advanced discriminatory policies and practices under the banner of ‘DEI’ initiatives. Other schools have sought to veil discriminatory policies with terms like ‘social-emotional learning’ or ‘culturally responsive’ teaching. OCR’s assessment of school policies and programs depends on the facts and circumstances of each case,” the statement read.
Though both the letter and the new guidance cite the 2023 Supreme Court case Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which outlawed racial preferences in admissions, as precedent, legal experts have noted that the Court’s decision explicitly does not apply outside of college admissions. State governments in Washington and California have claimed that the executive orders do not change federal law and that there is no need for institutions to comply.
Outside of federal law, there are currently over 30 bills across the U.S. targeting DEI in public colleges and universities. As of Feb. 2025, 13 of these bills and orders have been signed into law, across 11 states: Florida, North Dakota, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Alabama, Idaho, West Virginia, North Carolina and Iowa.
cluding Ohio State University and the University of Alaska, have eliminated programs deemed as DEI, leading to student protests that have drawn national attention. Others such as the University of Pennsylvania and University of Southern California (USC) have removed references to DEI from institutional websites. Notably, USC has removed online references to a scholarship for Black and Indigenous students.
These developments call into question the future of DEI programs at LC. On March 4, Dean of Equity and Inclusion Danielle Torres provided a statement to The Mossy Log over email. Torres emphasized that the review mentioned in President Holmes-Sullivan’s email does not indicate a change in policy.
“As mentioned in the President Holmes-Sullivan’s letter to the campus, the College is conducting a broad review of our practices, programming and communications to ensure that they comply with existing civil rights law. Although the recent Dear Colleague letter brought renewed focus to these issues, our attention to these issues is not new. This review does not arise from a change in college policy; it is a further effort to make sure our practices are aligned with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,” the statement read.
Torres clarified the goals of the review, addressing student concerns around the future of student affinity groups as well as offices such as Inclusion and Multicultural Engagement (IME) and the Office of Equity and Inclusion (OEI) on campus.
“We particularly want to ensure that all college programs and opportunities, as well as all campus activities, clubs and spaces, are clearly open to all students. For instance, we know that some students may have concerns about the status of affinity groups and clubs on campus, as well as specific offices such as IME and OEI,” she wrote. “We do not believe that the letter impacts the existence, efforts and focus of such groups or offices because such programs are open to all students regardless of background. However, it’s important that communications about campus groups and activities make it clear that all are welcome to participate. The review we are undertaking will help ensure this is clear.”
Torres further clarified the role of OEI. Despite the current orders, there are no plans to change its current functions.
“As an institutional office, OEI works with students, staff and faculty at all three schools (CAS, Graduate School of Education and Counseling, and the Law School). In addition, OEI houses the Bias and Assessment Response Team (BART), Title IX, and Title VI processes. We have no plans to change OEI programming or functions.”
Some questions submitted by The Mossy Log remain unanswered, including an inquiry into what specific programs were being reviewed. Torres noted that this was due to the rapidly changing nature of the case.
“The rate at which executive orders and other guidance have been issued by the new administration has been dizzying, and we are working as fast as we can to keep up, including working in conjunction with advisors and partners across higher education. New FAQs from the Department of Education regarding the Dear Colleague letter were just issued this past weekend. In such a rapidly changing environment, we aren’t able to answer every question you might have,” she wrote.
Torres gave a concluding statement on the matter, emphasizing LC’s commitment to protecting the rights of students.
“The Dear Colleague letter is guidance from the Department of Education, and as such, we take it seriously. At the same time, we remain committed to building an inclusive and supportive community where everyone can thrive. It will take some time, a lot of collaborative work across campus, and understanding any forthcoming additional guidance from the administration and the courts, to determine the best ways to do so. The offices that do this work will continue to be supported and L&C leadership will continue to seek guidance and advice from professional networks and higher education experts to ensure we are doing all we can to protect the rights and meet the needs of all students, which has always been our highest priority,” the statement read.
The LC community has yet to see the complete effects of the college’s review and the disputes over legality of these executive orders. The fate of DEI on college campuses remains to be seen as this story continues to develop.
About the Author
