A lawsuit filed in a New Hampshire federal court challenges a directive from the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) that seeks to eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in public education. The plaintiffs argue that the directive misrepresents civil rights law, violates constitutional protections, and creates uncertainty for educators.
The directive, issued on February 14, warns institutions receiving federal funding to stop considering race in admissions, hiring, scholarships, and other areas or risk losing funding. The lawsuit contends that this sudden policy shift contradicts existing laws and regulations without proper explanation or adherence to procedural requirements.
According to the complaint, the DOE’s letter is unconstitutionally vague, making it unclear what constitutes a violation. One teacher expressed concern that teaching about historical topics such as the Civil Rights Act, Jim Crow laws, or the Tulsa race massacre could be misinterpreted as a violation. The letter’s lack of clear definitions leaves educators uncertain about how to comply without risking their careers.
The lawsuit also raises First Amendment concerns, arguing that the directive suppresses speech and academic freedom by threatening institutions that offer DEI-related programs. Additionally, the recent creation of a public reporting website, which allows individuals to submit complaints against schools promoting so-called “divisive ideologies,” raises fears of targeted investigations and reputational harm.
The complaint warns that the threat of losing federal funding could force institutions to limit discussions about race and diversity, leading to widespread self-censorship. Teachers worry about assigning certain readings, hosting guest speakers, or engaging students in discussions that could be perceived as noncompliant.
The lawsuit also challenges the administration’s authority to implement the policy, arguing that it bypasses required legal procedures. The plaintiffs claim that the DOE is exceeding its jurisdiction and improperly interpreting a Supreme Court ruling that prohibited race-based college admissions but did not extend to DEI programs or curriculum content.
At the core of the dispute is the belief that the administration is imposing restrictions on schools to eliminate DEI initiatives. The plaintiffs argue that the directive’s ambiguity makes it impossible for educators to determine what is permissible, increasing the risk of arbitrary enforcement. The lawsuit seeks a declaration that the policy is unconstitutional and an injunction to prevent its enforcement.
