社区黑料

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for 社区黑料 Newsletter

After casting doubt on almost everything schools do to foster racial diversity in a Feb. 14 letter to schools, the U.S. Department of Education appears to have walked back the tone 鈥� and much of the substance 鈥� of its message.

Experts consider a released by the department late Friday to be more in line with how the courts have traditionally viewed illegal discrimination.

鈥淭his is such a far cry from what they put out two weeks ago,鈥� said Jackie Wernz, a civil rights attorney and consultant who worked in both the Obama and first Trump administrations. 鈥淚t’s downright reasonable.鈥�

Part of the Trump administration鈥檚 larger effort to root out diversity, equity and inclusion, the called diversity a 鈥渘ebulous鈥� goal and warned that districts could be subject to investigations for treating 鈥渟tudents differently on the basis of race.鈥� It prompted opposition from , and education . And it left some educators wondering topics like Black History Month.

The Q&A, however, asserts that officials would not automatically consider anything labelled DEI to be illegal and would examine as part of its investigations whether a policy actually resulted in discrimination against students. Cultural and historical observances are fine, the document says, as long as all students are welcome to participate, regardless of race.

鈥淭hey were trying to see how far they could go, and then they got the pushback,鈥� Wernz said, noting the timing of the department鈥檚 guidance. 鈥淚 love that they say you can celebrate Black history at the end of the month.鈥�

In a on the changes, Wernz noted that the department clarified that it would need evidence that a particular racial group was harmed before it decided to launch an investigation. But she still warned districts to avoid lessons that separate students by race or assignments that ask them to identify their race. 

Neeraja Deshpande, a policy analyst at the conservative Independent Women鈥檚 Forum, said there was no need to walk back any instructions to districts.

鈥淚 don’t think the earlier letter needed to be softened,鈥� she said. 鈥淏ut, of course, school districts were going to have questions and this seemed to answer them.鈥�

鈥榁agueness, Confusion and Chaos鈥�

The department is still likely to get wide-ranging reports of what members of the public consider 鈥渄ivisive ideologies and indoctrination.鈥� The portal it unveiled last week doesn鈥檛 define what the department considers to be illegal discrimination. 

The additional guidance hasn鈥檛 prompted the American Federation of Teachers to drop its federal lawsuit over the original letter. In a statement, AFT President Randi Weingarten said that the Q&A 鈥渏ust made things murkier.鈥�

Last week, the union, along with AFT-Maryland and the American Sociological Association, sued, appeared to ban the teaching of 鈥渟ystemic and structural racism鈥� in American history. The lawsuit says the teachers would be afraid to discuss Jim Crow laws, the internment of Japanese Americans and other examples of historical discrimination.

The Q&A doesn鈥檛 discuss how teachers should approach lessons on history and only says, 鈥淥CR鈥檚 assessment of school policies and programs depends on the facts and circumstances of each case.鈥�

鈥淚f you are a classroom teacher, you still have no idea what you can or can鈥檛 teach when it comes to the history of the United States and the world,鈥� Weingarten  said. 鈥淚t seems like vagueness, confusion and chaos is the point.鈥�

Did you use this article in your work?

We鈥檇 love to hear how 社区黑料鈥檚 reporting is helping educators, researchers, and policymakers.