برچسب: Secretary

  • Secretary of ED McMahon Wants to Destroy US Education with Her Budget!

    Secretary of ED McMahon Wants to Destroy US Education with Her Budget!


    Secretary of Education Linda McMahon released her budget proposal for next year, and it’s as bad as expected.

    Carol Burris, executive director of the Network for Public Education, reviewed the budget and concluded that it shows a reckless disregard for the neediest students and schools and outright hostility towards students who want to go to college.

    We know that Trump “loves the uneducated.” Secretary McMahon wants more of them.

    Burris sent out the following alert:

    Image

    Linda McMahon, handpicked by Donald Trump to lead the U.S. Department of Education, has just released the most brutal, calculated, and destructive education budget in the Department’s history.

    She proposes eliminating $8.5 billion in Congressionally funded programs—28 in total—abolishing 10 outright and shoving the other 18 into a $2 billion block grant. That’s $4.5 billion less than those 18 programs received last year.

    Tell Congress: Stop McMahon From Destroying Our Public Schools

    And it gets worse: States are banned from using the block grant to support the following programs funded by Congress:

    • Aid for migrant children whose families move frequently for agricultural work
    • English Language Acquisition grants for emerging English learners
    • Community schools offering wraparound services
    • Grants to improve teacher effectiveness and leadership
    • Innovation and research for school improvement
    • Comprehensive Centers, including those serving students with disabilities
    • Technical assistance for desegregation
    • The Ready to Learn program for young children

    These aren’t just budget cuts—they’re targeted strikes

    McMahon justifies cutting support for migrant children by falsely claiming the program “encourages ineligible non-citizens to access taxpayer dollars.” That is a lie. Most migrant farmworkers are U.S. citizens or have H-2A visas. They feed this nation with their backbreaking labor.

    The attack continues for opportunity for higher education:

    • Pell Grants are slashed by $1,400 on average; the maximum grant drops from $7,395 to $5,710
    • Federal Work-Study loses $1 billion—an 80% cut
    • TRIO programs, which support college-readiness and support for low-income students, veterans, and students with disabilities, are eliminated
    • Campus child care programs for student-parents are defunded

    In all, $1.67 billion in student college assistance is gone—wiped out on top of individual Pell grant cuts. 

    Send your letter now

    And yet, McMahon increased funding for the federal Charter Schools Program to half a billion dollars for a sector that saw an increase of only eleven schools last year. Meanwhile, her allies in Congress are pushing a $5 billion private school and homeschool voucher scheme through the so-called Educational Choice for Children Act (ECCA).

    And despite reducing Department staff by 50%, she only cuts the personnel budget by 10%.

    This is not budgeting. It is a war on public education.

    This is a blueprint for privatization, cruelty, and the systematic dismantling of opportunity for America’s children.

    We cannot let it stand.

    Raise your voice. Share this letter: https://networkforpubliceducation.org/tell-congress-dont-let-linda-mcmahon-slash-funding-for-children-college-students-and-veterans-to-fund-school-choice/  Call Congress.

    Let Congress know that will not sit silently while they dismantle our children’s future.

    Thank you for all you do,

    Carol Burris

    Network for Public Education Executive Director



    Source link

  • ‘Fixing the core’: U.S. Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona vows to promote equity

    ‘Fixing the core’: U.S. Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona vows to promote equity


    U.S. Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona, left, speaks to members of the Education Writers Association at annual conference.

    Credit: Mallika Seshadri / EdSource

    Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona answered questions about this year’s rocky rollout of the new Free Application for Federal Student Aid Application (FAFSA), civil rights violations and Covid recovery, among other topics, on Thursday, at the Education Writers Association’s annual conference in Las Vegas. 

    Erica L. Green, a White House correspondent for The New York Times moderated the discussion — which was followed by a Q&A from the audience. 

    “I have the opportunity to see as a father, what my daughter and my son are experiencing as students, and it fills me with joy to see the promise, the opportunities that are available,” he told the audience in his opening remarks. “And that’s what we’re fighting for in this Biden/Harris administration.”

    Here are the highlights from his discussion on current issues in education, which have been edited for length and clarity: 

    Does the department understand the “gravity” of this year’s rocky FAFSA rollout?

    As frustrating as it was to be a secretary of education, to see the delays and the setbacks that we were having, I know it was much more frustrating for families, for students, for school leaders. But we’re also aware that this system, right now, is going to get better, and it’s going to continue to get better every year. You know, we’re at 10.4 million submissions. We’re 11% lower than we were last year, which is something that we’re working directly to address. Then applications are being processed. We’re working with colleges very closely. We’re working with superintendents, parents, community partners — (this) is all hands on deck.

    Did student loan debt take precedence over the FAFSA rollout? 

    As a first [generation] college student, the system wasn’t working for too many Americans in this country. … I would be more frustrated with myself if I looked back and I didn’t do anything about it (the FAFSA rollout).

    We’ve been devoting resources to FAFSA since we got in. We recognized early on that it needed to be delayed, and we continue to find ways to move it along. But no, the idea of we took resources away from (the effort to reduce student debt) to do that (revamping FAFSA) is false. 

    We have a very aggressive agenda to fix a broken system. We fix Public Service Loan Forgiveness. Seven thousand people got it in four years over the last administration. Ninety percent of people were denied. Now we have over $50 billion just in debt relief for teachers, nurses, service members, people that are serving our community. So, there is a lot of work that we are doing to fix a broken system. Improving FAFSAs is part of that. 

    Is the Office of Civil Rights ready to tackle a constantly growing load? 

    There’s an influx of practices that promote exclusion, that target students who, many times, are already vulnerable. We’re seeing, in many states, laws being passed that really, in my opinion, divide and make students feel less welcome in schools.

    We are prepared. We are pushing for additional funding for investigators when these cases come forward. But we’re also being proactive through our officer-based partnerships. We’re not waiting for incidents to happen to then address it. We’re working very closely on creating materials (and) guidance resources. We work very closely with university leaders, K-12 leaders on what they could do. We redesigned our website to make sure that the resources that we have in D.C. are two clicks away….

    We are working proactively but also being very intentional about communicating with both Democrats and Republicans that we have 60 less investigators now than we did in 2009. We have about three times as many requests for investigations. We need to make sure that we’re not just talking about supporting our students, but making sure we’re funding it. 

    Will cases be resolved by the end of this year? 

    Some cases take over a year because what the investigation request comes in as, often changes once we get people on the ground investigating. …  I don’t want to speak to timelines and investigation in a hypothetical sense. 

    I will tell you they’re priority for OCR (the Office for Civil Rights). And what we’re doing is communicating the resolutions that we come up with. You know, the goals of these investigations are not just to say you were wrong, but to say this student was harmed, and you have to provide restitution. How are you going to do that so that this doesn’t happen again? We want to lift those up and make cases out of those in a way that other universities can learn from it.

    How should districts navigate attacks to pipeline programs for specific demographics? 

    Let me start off by sharing an experience that I had: I was speaking at a commencement, and the word “equity” was scrubbed out of my bio. Let that sink in for a second. 

    The level of scrutiny that our leaders are under is ridiculous. In my conversations, whether it’s a college leader or a district leader, they’re telling me we have to navigate this. This is political interference. … We’re going to do everything in our power to make sure students feel welcome, are seen for who they are, respected, and let the political stuff stop at the doorstep. 

    Is the department prepared for potential attacks to key civil rights cases?  

    Nothing really surprises us. … We’ve seen book bans just take over. Forty-seven percent of the books that were banned were books on LGBTQI or BIPOC-themed. … What was once done in the shade is now being done in the sunlight. It doesn’t surprise me. We are prepared. I trust our educators to know how to make students feel welcome and supported and how to create a community in our schools. 

    Has the administration had an opportunity to be aggressive to get schools on track post-Covid? 

    We released the Raise the Bar strategy early on. We’ve been focusing on comprehensive schooling. … We were up to $200 million in full-service community schools, which helped address chronic absenteeism, parent engagement. … We’re focusing on career pathways. We have more states now that have career pathways. We have teacher apprenticeships in 30 states. We had zero when I came in. 

    In terms of mental health, we have 40% more school social workers, counselors, 25-30% more nurses. … What we’re doing is focusing on the core of what works. We know good teaching and learning works. We are really raising the bar on the teaching profession. … We’re defending public education, focusing on good Title I programming, making sure our students have access to multilingualism in this country. I’m talking about embracing multilingualism as a superpower. 

    What do you want to be remembered for?

    We’re focusing on fixing the core of education — literacy, numeracy, giving students access to higher levels of that, addressing inequities in our schools by addressing mental health issues, by making sure we have a professional workforce that is respected and is going to want to come back. 

    We’re losing teachers. We have a lot of schools in our country that have 20-30% of the teachers are substitute teachers. So we’re doing that, and we’re improving affordability and access to higher education. To me, there’s no silver bullet. … It’s about really being student-centered and making sure we’re focusing on the things that actually move the needle in the classroom, while also addressing inequities by being bold.

    Are Jewish students’ civil rights violated under Article 6 of the Civil Rights Act when that Jewish student is told that Israel should not exist?

    If a student feels that they are being attacked for who they are — their faith or who they are, where they come from — and they feel that they’re being violated, or they feel harassed, it is the responsibility of the college to act. And if the investigation comes forward, it’ll be reviewed by the Office for Civil Rights.

    Is anti-Zionism a civil rights Article Six violation? 

    We do take into consideration anti-Zionism in the investigations that we’ve made, as the executive board in the last administration requires us to do. 

    What are your thoughts on diversity, equity and inclusion bans? 

    Those programs are intended to make sure that (students) feel welcome on those campuses. That’s the bottom line. And there’s a myth out there that they promote only some and not others. Well then, fix it. I believe a lot of the issues that we’ve had in this country — in the last two months on campuses — could have been corrected with strong programs that support diversity, equity and inclusion, because they teach students, and they embrace a culture where you can disagree but still be a part of a community, which is what we didn’t see on some campuses. 

    So for me, as a Latino, it really concerns me because I remember my experience when I was the first one in my family going to a college, and I didn’t know anyone there. It’s programs like that that helped students like me, 30 years ago, feel welcome, seen and unapologetic for who they are. 

    What is the department’s plan to fund districts to reduce absenteeism? Is the department willing to call for grant proposals to address the challenge? 

    A big part of the focus of those full-service community schools is focusing on attendance. The funding for that since the president took office … is five times more. In our budget, we have a proposal for $8 billion. A big chunk of that would be for addressing chronic absenteeism. And there’s already $250 million in grants. 

    Do you release any form of guidance on book bans? 

    The biggest difference from my current position to every other position I’ve had since I was a fourth grade teacher is that I don’t influence, promote, dictate curriculum. Those decisions are state level decisions. … 

    For me, as a teacher, CRT (critical race theory) is culturally relevant teaching. … When we teach in a way that’s culturally appropriate with materials that reflect the beautiful diversity of our country, students engage better. We talk about chronic absenteeism, right, making students feel welcome and seen. We have the opposite happening. …

    We are engaging through our Office of Civil Rights to provide support for those districts and how to handle situations like that and inform districts of what the rights are. We actually sent folks from the Office of Civil Rights … to states when requested to help them understand how to navigate political terrain, while doing what’s right for kids.  

    Where does special education fall in your top 10? 

    It’s very high, I would say; you know, definitely one of the priorities, but we address it by saying we need to fund our public schools. When I talk about defending public education, I recognize there are students with disabilities that need to make sure that public education dollars don’t dry up. 

    You know, when I was a school principal, we had ratios of like 25 to 30 students with special needs with one teacher. Those ratios just get higher. School counselor-to-student ratios are like 600 to 1 in a lot of parts of our country. When I talk about making sure we’re funding public education, it’s the students with disabilities that also are said to lose a lot if you don’t do that. … 

    I’m not into shiny things, I’m into what works in the classroom: funding Title I, funding our classrooms. Giving our schools the resources that they need will go to those special education students as well. …

    Special education students or regular education students first. We can’t put them in a corner, put them in a box and say “these are your resources over here.” Every teacher should be qualified to serve students with disabilities. 

    Have schools spent enough Covid relief money on the priorities you outlined?

    I do believe that districts focus on academic recovery, mental health support and making sure that facilities are safe for students to return. … 

    As these … dollars sunset, we’re passing the baton back for state and local leaders who recognize that when used well, we get students back to school, we close achievement gaps, we provide the mental health support that our students need. So, let’s not take our foot off the gas pedal. And, we have a blueprint of those priority areas that work, and we see data from our districts that show, when used well, it does work. We just can’t stop now. 





    Source link

  • Secretary Linda McMahon Sent a Rude, Threatening Letter to Harvard

    Secretary Linda McMahon Sent a Rude, Threatening Letter to Harvard


    The Trump administration has declared war on Harvard University, for what is now–in the Trump era–the usual reasons: allegedly, that Harvard is not doing enough to stop anti-Semitism (a claim that is opposed by many Jews, who don’t want to be the favorite cause of a hateful, bigoted President); that Harvard engages in the policies of diversity, equity, and inclusion, which have been banned by the Trump administration; and that Harvard engages in “racism” by admitting and hiring nonwhite students and professors. The Trump administration has demanded the power to monitor Harvard’s curriculum, admissions, and hiring. Such a federal takeover is obviously unacceptable to Harvard, as it should be unacceptable to any private institution.

    To Harvard and other universities, such a government intrusion would compromise academic freedom and their independence. Frankly, the best characterization of this government takeover of independent private institutions is fascist.

    The Trump administration is currently withholding $2.2 billion that is dedicated to medical and scientific research. Does it make sense to punish Harvard’s alleged DEI transgressions by stopping funding for projects seeking cures for tuberculosis and ALS?

    Secretary of Education Linda McMahon wrote a condescending, insulting letter to Harvard, warning that it would no longer receive any funding until it accepted Trump’s demands. She posted it on Twitter.

    Page 1
    Page 2
    Page 3

    She accused Harvard of “disastrous mismanagement,” snd she warned, “This letter is to inform you that Harvard should no longer seek grants from the federal government, since none will be provided.” Her biggest grievance appears to be that Harvard continues to practice affirmative action despite the Supreme Court banning it. The Trump administration considers any effort to admit or hire people of color to be racism. So the very presence of Black students and professors is evidence that Harvard engages in “ugly racism.”

    In her letter, Secretary McMahon rants about Harvard’s abandonment of “merit” and of the excellence for which it was once known.

    This stance is ironic, coming from a member of the most unqualified, incompetent Cabinet in modern American history. Was McMahon the best qualified person to be Secretary of Education? Did her experience in the world of wrestling entertainment qualify her to lecture Harvard about academic excellence? Was there no Republican State Commissioner of Education or university president available?

    Was Robert F. Kennedy Jr. the best person to run the department of Health and Human Services? Did Pete Hegseth become Secretary of Defense because of his merit?

    Various Twitter accounts have posted a copy of her letter with her grammatical errors marked in red pencil. They claim this was Harvard’s response, but it was not.

    Harvard responded with a dignified letter to McMahon that restated their intention not to be cowed by her threats, rudeness, and bluster.

    The New York Times reported,

    In a statement on Monday night, a Harvard spokesperson said the letter showed the administration “doubling down on demands that would impose unprecedented and improper control over Harvard University and would have chilling implications for higher education.”

    The statement suggested it would be illegal to withhold funds in the manner Ms. McMahon described.

    “Harvard will continue to comply with the law, promote and encourage respect for viewpoint diversity, and combat antisemitism in our community,” the statement said. “Harvard will also continue to defend against illegal government overreach aimed at stifling research and innovation that make Americans safer and more secure.”

    I’m betting on Harvard. They are fighting for academic freedom and for freedom from government control of a private institution. They will have the best legal talent. They will be represented by lawyers with sterling conservative credentials.

    Harvard will be here long after the Trump administration is a memory, a very bad memory, like the McCarthy era.



    Source link

  • Trump nominee for education secretary would come backed with detailed policy agenda

    Trump nominee for education secretary would come backed with detailed policy agenda


    Linda McMahon, former administrator of Small Business Administration, speaking during the Republican National Convention on July 18, 2024, in Milwaukee.

    Credit: AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite

    President-elect Donald Trump’s selection of a close ally and the co-chair of his transition team indicates that education could be a major priority of his administration, even though it did not feature prominently in the 2024 presidential campaign.

    Linda McMahon, the former CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment, is a leading financial backer Trump has been close to for decades. She is also chair of the board of the little known America First Policy Institute, sometimes referred to as a “shadow transition operation” or “White House in waiting.

    The institute has issued a detailed education policy agenda that is likely to serve as a guide for McMahon, and the Trump administration in general, should she be confirmed by the U.S. Senate.

    For those reading the political tea leaves, it was notable that in nominating McMahon, Trump did not explicitly charge her with shutting down the U.S. Department of Education, and that the agenda of the America First Policy Institute does not call for it either. Instead, Trump called on her “to spearhead efforts to send education back to the states” an expansive and undefined charge, especially because by law education is already mostly a state and local function.

    Regardless of the fate of the department, the contrast between President Joe Biden’s and Trump’s education agendas — and between McMahon and current Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona — could not be wider. 

    Cardona is a lifelong educator, becoming secretary after a career as a teacher, principal, district administrator, and state commissioner of education. McMahon spent most of her career building the WWE, founded with her husband, Vince McMahon. 

    Cardona’s net worth is estimated by Forbes magazine to be $1 million, most of it tied up in his principal residence, retirement savings, and a 529 college savings account for his children. By contrast, Forbes places McMahon and her husband’s net worth at $2.5 billion. 

    The only thing they seem to have in common is that they are both from Connecticut. 

    But even though McMahon has a slim resume regarding education, she is not entirely an education neophyte. She studied to become a French teacher in college. She has been a trustee of Sacred Heart College, a Catholic college in Fairfield, Connecticut, for years. She was appointed to the Connecticut State Board of Education in 2009, although she left after a year to run for the U.S. Senate in 2010 and again in 2012 — both times unsuccessfully.  

    McMahon is more of a traditional conservative Republican than several of Trump’s other Cabinet nominees. In some ways, she is more similar to Betsy DeVos, another billionaire, who was Trump’s first secretary of education. But unlike DeVos, she has had experience in government, as head of the Small Business Administration during Trump’s first term.   

    In 2019, she left that post, not under a cloud or fleeing vitriol from Trump like many others in his administration, to head the America First PAC, which raised funds for Trump’s re-election bid in 2020. 

    On the explosive issue of “school choice,” publicly, at least, she has mostly called for expanding charter schools, rather than taxpayer-funded vouchers. “I am an advocate for choice through charter schools,” she declared in her 2010 campaign for Senate. 

    She also has some bipartisan instincts, even getting support from the Democratic senators she had previously run against, when they had to approve her nomination to head the Small Business Administration. Sen. Richard Blumenthal called her “a person of serious accomplishment and ability,” and Sen. Chris Murphy described her as a “talented and experienced businessperson.”

    As SBA administrator, she drew high praise from some Democrats for increasing loans to women-owned businesses, and for making the agency more efficient, including from then-Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md., the ranking member of the Small Business and Entrepreneur Committee.

    Another sign of her bipartisan inclinations came in a September commentary in The Hill newspaper, when she argued for a radical revision of the Pell Grant, the main form of federal student financial aid. 

    While most Pell grants go to full-time students, McMahon argued that the grant should also be available to students enrolled in “high-quality, shorter-term, industry-aligned education programs that could lead to immediate employment in well-paying jobs.” 

    To that end, she endorsed a bill known as the Workforce Pell Act, sponsored by lawmakers usually on far opposite sides of the political aisle — Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-N.C., and Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., Rep. Mark DeSaulnier, D-Calif., Bobby Scott, D-Va. 

    Arguably one of her key qualifications is that she and Trump have a positive relationship. Unlike many who served in his first administration and left reviled by their former boss, when she stepped down as SBA administrator, Trump praised her as a “superstar.” “Just so smooth,” he said. “She’s been one of our all-time favorites.”

    But her most important credential may well be her role as chair of the board of the America First Policy Institute, which she helped start.

    Its 150-person staff includes well-known Trump staffers like Kellyanne Conway and its executive director, Chad Wolf, the former secretary of homeland security. Pam Bondi, the head of the institute’s legal arm, was just nominated by Trump to be attorney general in place of Matt Gaetz, who withdrew his nomination.

    Like Project 2025, the conservative blueprint issued by the Heritage Foundation, which Trump has disavowed and says he had no role in crafting, the America First Policy Institute has also drawn up a similar detailed policy framework, including one on education. Yet the institute has not done much to publicize its proposals, which Trump has reportedly appreciated.  

    The institute draws a sharp contrast between its “America First” polices and what it calls “America Last” policies championed by Democrats.

    “America Last” policies, it argues, “prioritize radical ideologies and failing public schools.” These include promoting “transgenderism” and “radical ideologies over core subjects,” while fighting “school choice expansion,” and parent notification policies regarding curriculum and gender identification. 

    The institute calls for reinstating Trump’s 1776 Commission to promote “patriotic civic education” and removing critical race theory and diversity, equity and inclusion from what it alleges are requirements for federal grants.

    And instead of supporting “leftist teachers unions” and teacher tenure, it advocates for “reduced union influence, and increasing flexibility in hiring and firing.”

    For these and other reasons, it is to be expected that key education groups would oppose McMahon’s nomination. 

    “Rather than working to strengthen public schools, expand learning opportunities for students, and support educators, McMahon’s only mission is to eliminate the Department of Education and take away taxpayer dollars from public schools,” said President Becky Pringle, president of the National Education Association, the largest teachers union in the U.S.

    But for conservatives like Frederick Hess, director of education policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, McMahon is an unknown quantity when it comes to education, and he made a pitch for approaching her nomination with an open mind. “I’m looking forward to learning more about her views and approach to the role in the weeks to come,” he said. “I’d avoid gross assumptions based on biography. Those seeking reflexive celebration or condemnation should look elsewhere. “

    Controversy has already surfaced about her nomination. Media reports point to an October lawsuit in Maryland alleging McMahon and her husband failed to stop a prominent WWE ringside announcer in the 1980s and 1990s from sexually abusing 12- and 13-year-olds known as “ring boys” who were hired to do errands in preparation for wrestling matches.

    What is still an open question is whether Trump will move to eliminate the Department of Education, or how aggressively he will do so. His administration may decide that it is more important to keep the department intact for any number of reasons, including transforming its influential Office of Civil Rights into a weapon to impose his education agenda onto states or schools.

    And it is possible that McMahon will continue to voice her praise for teachers, and for public schools, including charter schools. “We have a very good system of public and private schools,” she said in an interview a decade ago. “I’ve watched some masterful teachers who are innovative and who are reaching kids who are below grade level in many of the subjects.  To see how they get turned around is heartwarming and astounding.”





    Source link

  • Wisconsin: State Chief Jill Underly Rejects Secretary McMahon’s Anti-DEI Demand

    Wisconsin: State Chief Jill Underly Rejects Secretary McMahon’s Anti-DEI Demand


    Wisconsin Public Radio reported that State Superintendent Jill Underly has announced that the state will not comply with a letter from U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon in which she directed states to agree with the Trump administration about stamping out diversity, equity, and inclusion. Trump wants to eliminate DEI, which would involve reversing compliance with existing civil rights law. In addition, although McMahon may not know it, she is violating federal law by attempting to influence curriculum and instruction in the schools.

    Thank you, Superintendent Underly!

    WPR reported:

    Wisconsin school districts won’t comply with a directive from the Trump administration to eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion programs until districts have more information.

    On Wednesday, state Superintendent Jill Underly asked the U.S. Department of Education for clarification on both the intent and legality of an April 3 directive that schools sign a letter acknowledging they’re following the government’s interpretation of civil rights laws.

    Schools were given 10 days to do so, or be at risk of losing Title I funding. The federal government later extended the deadline to April 24. 

    This school year, Wisconsin received about $216 million in Title I funds. About $82 million of that money went to Milwaukee Public Schools.

    Underly said the request from the Department of Education potentially violates required procedural steps, is unnecessarily redundant and appears designed to intimidate school districts by threatening to withhold critical education funding.

    “We cannot stand by while the current administration threatens our schools with unnecessary and potentially unlawful mandates based on political beliefs,” Underly said in a statement. “Our responsibility is to ensure Wisconsin students receive the best education possible, and that means allowing schools to make local decisions based on what is best for their kids and their communities.”

    On Feb. 14, the U.S. Department of Education sent a “Dear Colleague” letter giving educational institutions 14 days to eliminate diversity initiatives or risk losing federal funding.

    At that time, the state DPI issued guidance to school districts encouraging a “measured and thoughtful approach, rather than immediate or reactionary responses to the federal government’s concerns.”

    Secretary of Education Linda McMahon has not clearly defined what the administration considers a violation of civil rights law. The February letter said institutions must “cease using race preferences and stereotypes as a factor in their admissions, hiring, promotion, scholarship.”

    In a related document addressing frequently asked questions about how the administration would interpret Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the agency said: “Many schools have advanced discriminatory policies and practices under the banner of ‘DEI’ initiatives.” 

    The document went on to say that schools could engage in historical observances like Black History Month, “so long as they do not engage in racial exclusion or discrimination.”



    Source link