If you’re in DC, Live WonkyFolk today. We’ll discuss the chaos in Washington, the budget and what it might mean for education, and the upcoming SCOTUS case on religious charter schools. Doors 4p, show 4:30. Cocktails and food. RVSP here. Christopher “Sandy” Jencks has died. He was a legit legend in our sector, heterodox thinker. … Continue reading "“Dear Colleague” Letters Are Rarely As Charming As They Sound."
If you’re in DC, Live WonkyFolk today. We’ll discuss the chaos in Washington, the budget and what it might mean for education, and the upcoming SCOTUS case on religious charter schools. Doors 4p, show 4:30. Cocktails and food. RVSP here.
Christopher “Sandy” Jencks has died. He was a legit legend in our sector, heterodox thinker. If you are unfamiliar with his work, take a few minutes to learn. Here’s a Times story from 1975 about a part of school voucher history. There really are not too many new ideas in our sector, we just recycle the old ones in more and more toxic ways. He was not like that, a genuine fresh thinker unafraid to follow evidence.
On Friday evening, people across the country celebrated Valentine’s Day—some with their sweethearts, others seeking one, and some simply enjoying time with friends.
Donald Trump celebrated with two executive actions – and a master class on his method you’d be wise to pay attention to. From the Oval Office he released an Executive Order that would take federal funds from any school with a Covid vaccine mandate. This is theater. Especially in K-12, these mandates are a thing of the past. The experts who track them don’t even bother any more. But, there is still a hangover from the pandemic that activates people, especially part of Trump’s base, but probably a wider swath of people than you might think. That’s what he’s playing at here. Tactically, it’s smart politics: some of his opponents might take the bait, his base will love it, and it carries almost no practical consequences. However much you might loathe Trump, don’t let it blind you to the ways he’s a clever populist politician.
Strategically, stunts like this pose the same political risk for Trump and the Republicans as they did for Biden and Harris. If inflation isn’t controlled, or the economy tanks, people outside the hard core base will look back and ask, ‘why were you doing all this other stuff?’ Yet that’s a tomorrow problem. Trump thinks in today’s. (As we learned in 2020 and 2021 the Trump to really worry about is the politically cornered one.) A normal White House would be doing an event on the economy, every day, pressuring Congress, keeping that message front and center. Instead, Gulf of America all the way down. The Dems thought/think their audience is MSNBC, the Trump folks think it’s hyperonline shitposters who get off ‘owning the libs.’ They’re both wrong.
New letter from the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights
The other action Trump took late Friday was lower profile but more consequential. Friday afternoon the Office of Civil Rights at the Department of Education released a “Dear Colleague” letter on DEI and federal funding. For the uninitiated, “Dear Colleague” letters are often not as collegial and friendly as they sound. This one is more “F you colleague.” It starts out with some breezy language about civil rights and then gets to the main event:
Opinions vary, but I’d suggest taking it seriously and literally. This is step toward some enforcement actions to make a point and coerce action. It will also occasion litigation about just how broadly the Supreme Court’s recent affirmative action case applies, and implicitly begs some questions about differences between K-12 schools and higher ed.
The letter, not surprisingly, implies and leaves space for a maximalist position on all questions. However, its construction is poor enough, either by design or sloppy execution, as to leave a lot of open questions, including voluntary but sanctioned versus coerced activities. I’ve been critical of much of the way DEI has been implemented in this sector, going far beyond genuine commitments to difference, opportunity, and inclusion and into straight-up coercive politics. Yet a lot in here seems overly broad and overkill, and even conservatives I talked with who are broadly sympathetic to the administration’s policy aims declined to defend aspects of it. But they were understandably cautious because you can’t really figure out exactly or specifically what they are trying to say because of how it’s put together – it’s even missing a footnote in one place. (Just spitballing here, but maybe don’t fire all the staff before you try to do the work?) It reads like a mix of talking points and an ‘Art of the Deal’ approach hastily mashed into a Dear Colleague letter. That’s a problem given the consequence of these things.
If you want to understand the conservative take on these questions, here’s a Rick Hess Q & A about DEI (though not this letter specifically).
Want Eduwonk.com in your inbox when it’s published? You can sign up for free here.
In general, this seems more aimed at higher education, but in K-12 it also sets up a fight with California conservatives have been spoiling for. California Governor Gavin Newsom has tried to quietly bob and weave through a controversial California ethnic studies curriculum. That curriculum has been criticized by an ideologically wide swath of people concerned about accurate history and anti-semitism. That’s an example of the wedge they are trying to drive. They will be on firmer political ground there than with some of the broader overreaches they seem to be considering. Most Americans do not consider every and any focus on diversity on campus or in schools to be a legal issue. That kind of overreach will backfire and the political math behind it is terrible. It’s 2025 not 1955.
At her confirmation hearing last week Linda McMahon said curricular decisions were local, and confirmed the limitations on the Department’s ability to involve itself in curriculum. New Hampshire Democrat Maggie Hassan said the hearing was an “elegant gaslighting,” because she thought McMahon really just meant to dismantle the agency. Actually, it was an elegant evasion because what the Trump Administration plans to do is hang everyone on their own petard with moves like this using the agency, its force including new Biden-created authority, contemporary language and jargon, and recent precedent.
The administration is tapping into two different wellsprings here. First, “Dear Colleague” letters have taken on greater utility, importance, and force over the years. Two Obama ones were especially controversial, on Title IX and on school discipline, and haven’t aged well. Both are bete noirs among legally-focused conservatives. This is one will takes its place as the inverse example.
In both of those cases, people who liked them said, ‘well, what’s the big deal?’ ‘It’s not a regulation.’ ‘This is common sense stuff. And if you get investigated it’s just an investigation, not the end of the world.’ They intimated or said outright that if you were not on board with those letters something was wrong with you. Of course, anyone on the receiving end of a federal investigation knows that’s bullshit. These letters, whether from a Democratic or Republican administration, are intended to coerce action without having to go through the regulatory process or Congress. They have some throwaway language about how they’re not law. But they matter. A lot. This is turnabout.
In other words, as opposed to some other actions we’ve talked around here lately, that Congress can choose to address or not, this one is coming through the parallel administrative state both parties have championed for its force and convenience.
The second wellspring is the performative DEI theater of the last decade. You might recall that at the end of his first term, Trump’s Department of Education started telling colleges whose presidents were giving speeches about their complicity in systemic racism that if that was indeed the case they would be ineligible for federal dollars. A fight about that was brewing but rendered moot when Biden won the election.
So here we are. Elite bubble meets populist point. Expect over-correction because all the incentives auger that way. An easy tell is that this letter could have been more narrowly constructed. Or better constructed and released with clearer context about what is and is not going to be pressured rather than essentially saying, ‘more soon!’ Part and parcel of this rushed and haphazard approach to governing that will have real consequences.
There will be people who will make this even more toxic for their own political ends – on both sides. It will be toxic enough regardless.
