A Deliberate Distortion of Reality
Analyzing the Department of Education’s “Dear Colleague” Letter
On February 14, 2025, the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights issued a “Dear Colleague” letter, adopting an aggressive stance that distorts standard educational practices through a political lens. The letter distorts both history and current realities to push a biased narrative. It ignores clear evidence of systemic discrimination while falsely painting diversity efforts as the real problem. It also twists legal language to serve an ideological agenda, selectively citing Supreme Court rulings while conveniently ignoring their broader historical and legal context.
Here’s a breakdown of the letter’s misrepresentations and what’s really happening on campuses today.
The Letter’s Legal Directive & Its Polarizing Rhetoric
The letter delivers a stern legal directive: all educational institutions must eliminate race-based practices and fully comply with federal civil rights laws, as interpreted through the Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) v. Harvard decision. It asserts that DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) efforts are discriminatory and warns of federal funding loss for non-compliance, stating that race-neutral, equal treatment is the only lawful standard.
However, the letter’s rhetoric goes beyond legal interpretation and into inflammatory accusations. It claims:
“In a shameful echo of a darker period in this country’s history, many American schools and universities even encourage segregation by race at graduation ceremonies and in dormitories and other facilities.”
This comparison is misleading. It conflates voluntary, community-building initiatives with the forced segregation of the past, distorting the reality of inclusivity efforts.
Affinity-Based Ceremonies: Celebration, Not Segregation
Contrary to the letter’s implications, many schools hold Affinity-Based Graduation Ceremonies to honor the achievements of students from specific racial, ethnic, or identity groups. These ceremonies are voluntary and supplementary to main commencements, not a replacement or form of exclusion.
For example, Columbia University hosts Multicultural and Affinity Graduation Celebrations for communities including Native, Asian, Latino, Black, LGBTQ+, and first-generation low-income students. These events are open to all who wish to participate and exist alongside the university-wide commencement.
Rather than dividing students, these ceremonies foster inclusion by creating spaces to celebrate identities and experiences that are often marginalized.
Affinity Housing: Building Community, Not Barriers
The letter’s portrayal of affinity housing as a return to segregation is equally flawed. Affinity Housing is a voluntary residential option where students with shared identities, experiences, or cultural backgrounds choose to live together to foster a sense of community and belonging.
For example:
George Washington University (GWU) offers student-created living communities centered around shared interests, identities, or passions, such as academic disciplines, athletic teams, or cultural groups. (Emphasis on “student-created”)
American University offers Black Affinity Housing, a living-learning community designed to affirm and support Black students’ experiences on campus.
These housing options are entirely optional and exist alongside general residential facilities, ensuring that no student is excluded from broader campus life.
The True Role of Affinity Groups in Education
The letter's attempt to equate affinity groups with segregation is a disingenuous distortion and a deliberate effort to undermine support for minority communities and promote a harmful, racist agenda.
Affinity groups are vital spaces for students who have historically faced pressure to suppress their identities to fit into dominant norms. These groups provide a supportive environment where students can connect, celebrate shared experiences, and foster emotional well-being.
Importantly, affinity groups are:
Voluntary: Students choose to participate; these groups do not replace or restrict access to any academic or campus activities.
Community-Building, Not Divisive: They function much like professional or interest-based clubs, uniting students over shared experiences and fostering cross-cultural understanding.
A Response to Marginalization, Not a Cause of It: Unlike the exclusionary policies of the past, these spaces empower students to embrace their identities rather than hide them.
Confronting Systemic Racism: A Historical Reality
One of the letter’s most inflammatory claims is:
“Educational institutions have toxically indoctrinated students with the false premise that the United States is built upon ‘systemic and structural racism’ and advanced discriminatory policies and practices.”
This sweeping claim oversimplifies a complex issue with a clear bias. Instead of encouraging discussion, it pushes a one-sided judgment that shuts down conversation.
The use of the term “indoctrination” is especially misleading. It suggests coercion or brainwashing; an inaccurate description of how history and social issues are taught in most educational institutions. In reality, topics like inequities and historical injustices are presented to students for analysis, debate, and understanding, not as dogma. The goal of academic institutions is to foster critical thinking and informed inquiry, not to enforce uniform beliefs. Yet, despite countless attempts to clarify this, many outside the classroom continue to misconstrue the work educators do.
Dismissing Systemic Racism Ignores Historical Reality
What is most troubling is the letter’s outright rejection of systemic and structural racism as a “false premise”. This denial disregards overwhelming historical and social evidence. From slavery and Jim Crow laws to redlining and disparities in the criminal justice system, systemic racism has left a deep and lasting imprint on American society. Acknowledging these is not about criticizing the country but about facing its complexities so we can work toward a fairer and more just future.
The refusal to engage with this history reveals a deep emotional immaturity, both in the author and the ideology behind this letter. Just as personal growth requires acknowledging past mistakes, societal progress depends on an honest reckoning with historical injustices. A country cannot evolve if it refuses to confront the darker chapters of its past.
Using Smoke and Mirror Politics to Hide the Agenda
Let’s be realistic: the letter’s author and those supporting its message do not need to be educated on these misrepresentations and flaws in logic. The author knew full well the bad-faith argument they wanted to make, and this letter is a clear example of mirror politics. This is a tactic where someone accuses others of what they are guilty of themselves. This letter accuses institutions of discrimination and segregation while it actively seeks to dismantle policies that promote inclusion and equity. It twists efforts to address inequality and makes them seem like the real problem, shifting the focus away from real discrimination.
The purpose of this letter is to erase the reality of discrimination in this country, pretending it never existed. The blame of discrimination is shifted onto those who have fought to expose it and misrepresent their push for equality as the real source of division.
Misinterpreting the SFFA Decision: Legal and Logical Flaws
The letter misapplies the SFFA v. Harvard ruling to argue for banning all DEI initiatives and its interpretation is flawed:
“Although SFFA addressed admissions decisions, the Supreme Court’s holding applies more broadly. At its core, the test is simple: If an educational institution treats a person of one race differently than it treats another person because of that person’s race, the educational institution violates the law. Federal law thus prohibits covered entities from using race in decisions pertaining to admissions, hiring, promotion, compensation, financial aid, scholarships, prizes, administrative support, discipline, housing, graduation ceremonies, and all other aspects of student, academic, and campus life. Put simply, educational institutions may neither separate or segregate students based on race, nor distribute benefits or burdens based on race.”
This interpretation is an extreme and unfounded stretch of the Supreme Court’s holding. Here’s why this argument does not hold water:
1. The SFFA Decision Is Narrowly About Admissions—Not DEI Programs
The SFFA v. Harvard ruling addressed race-based considerations in admissions; it did not create a sweeping prohibition on DEI programs, student services, or campus life initiatives. The Supreme Court’s analysis was specific to how race was used in selection criteria for admission decisions.
To apply the ruling to every aspect of campus life, such as DEI training, cultural centers, mentorship programs, and student organizations, is a gross misreading of the decision. The ruling does not say that programs designed to support underrepresented students are illegal, just that race cannot be a factor in admissions decisions.
2. Equal Treatment Does Not Mean Ignoring Disparities
The author’s argument applies a simplistic “colorblind” standard that treats any recognition of racial disparities as discrimination. This is a misinterpretation of federal law (Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964), which has long recognized that addressing systemic barriers to opportunity is not discrimination, it is equity.
3. The Author Misuses the Concept of “Benefits” and “Burdens”
The author conflates outreach and support programs with “benefits” distributed by race. However, these initiatives are typically:
Voluntary opportunities, not entitlements.
Resource-based services, such as mentorship, tutoring, or career networking, open to all.
Educational programs, such as workshops on inclusion and cultural awareness, designed to benefit the entire campus community.
Providing support to underrepresented groups removes barriers, which increases equal opportunity, not preferential treatment.
5. The Supreme Court Did Not Prohibit Race-Conscious Dialogue or Support
The SFFA v. Harvard decision was clear that universities can still consider how an applicant’s experiences, including those shaped by race, have influenced their lives and contributions. This means that:
Programs addressing inequality, cultural awareness, and inclusion remain lawful.
Universities can continue fostering inclusive campus environments through DEI offices, cultural centers, and community programs.
Calling It Like It Is
The Department of Education’s “Dear Colleague” letter stands as a glaring example of fear-based messaging and an unwillingness to confront the realities of race, equity, and inclusion in education. Its attempts to reframe voluntary, community-building initiatives as segregation are not only disingenuous but rooted in a fragile, reactionary attempts to silence conversations about systemic inequities.
By distorting the intent behind DEI programs and affinity spaces, the letter exposes an agenda more concerned with preserving comfort for those resistant to change than fostering equitable educational environments. The dismissal of systemic racism shows a significant denial of both historical and present-day realities; a clear display of white fragility, using fear-based arguments to resist accountability for systemic inequities.
Ultimately, the letter’s inflammatory accusations do not protect students or uphold fairness; they perpetuate harmful myths that prevent progress toward a truly inclusive and just educational system.