Low-income rural areas that publish DEI statements required by state law but do not necessarily engage in practice are caught up in crossfire.
Several blue states have joined New York and are resisting federal efforts to end the Diversity, Equality and Inclusion (DEI) program in public schools.
Leaders in California, Minnesota, New York, Oregon, Wisconsin and Washington state that they will not provide a federal signed statement by the April 24 deadline, proofing their adherence to practices that prohibit Donald Trump’s presidential training, racial and gender affinity groups, racially preferred employment practices, and classroom calicolas like racial racial figures by race.
Federal news sent to state educational institutions asked leaders to report on behalf of all school districts. New York was the first state to reject the request, with other states following last week.
State and districts that do not comply with the risk of losing federal education funds, according to a 2023 Supreme Court decision to ban racial preferences in college admissions.
It is unclear where the other states in this process stand. The Department of Education told the Epoch Times that U.S. federal Puerto Rico had complied with the order, but the agency had not reported state-by-state updates.
Related Stories
Rural areas in the state opposing the order are caught up in crossfire. Many serve low-income student populations and do not have a strong property tax base and therefore rely more on federal title 1 funding percentages than urban areas.
School officials said these districts have DEI statements on their website in accordance with state laws introduced years ago, but do not engage in affinity groups for minority teachers and students or require culturally inclusive teaching practices.
Jaime Green, the superintendent of the Trinity Alps Unified District in northern California, said that although he relies on federal funds to supplement the duty-free forest area, he has never received a letter from his state Department of Education to disclose information about his district on the matter.
“Because we believe in local management, we hope that locally elected board members will be considered in the decisions of each state,” Green told the Epoch Times.
David Little, executive director of the New York State Association of Rural Schools, said rural areas in Empire State have struggled with severe registration losses over the past decade. Most of them rely on state funding based on registration rather than property taxes or federal aid, so they cannot afford to not comply with state requirements, such as DEI statements for employment, comprehensive practices for all students, and mandatory school boards.
“For rural schools, today is everything they know,” he said. “You’re trying to educate your kids. You’re not running a compliance machine.”
In contrast, the two largest school districts in the country have guidelines for implementing racial or gender identity-based programs.
Both the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers have filed federal lawsuits challenging the legality and synthesis of the Trump administration’s DEI accreditation requirements.
Several states also had bills that included Delaware’s mandate of cultural responsibility education, apprenticeships and placement programs for teachers in Hawaii, requiring a task force to mandate Illinois’ “LGBTQIA+” diversity training and to research and promote diversity in New York’s public schools.
Jonathan Butcher, an education policy scholar at the Heritage Foundation, said he is not sure how the Trump administration will proceed after the April 24 deadline. Federal agencies can take a closer look at each state and audit individual districts as they did with similar orders from universities and universities.
“The state is already withholding money from the district,” he told the Epoch Times. “I think the administration is mostly within that range. If the state chooses to test this and see how serious (Trump) is, the administration shows it is very serious.”
Butcher said federal education funds, which are primarily limited to aiding low-income and special education students, typically reach less than 10% of the district’s revenues.
He believes it is unfair that education supervisors in some states have announced their decision not to comply without gathering opinions from all districts, but at the same time, rural areas should not assume that even the red states intend to comply with the order.
“There’s a mandatory affinity group that’s compulsory to meet at lunchtime in South Carolina,” Butcher said. “Yes, this is happening in districts of all shapes and sizes.”
Butcher added that the top notion (the main reason for the Trump administration’s plan to dismantle the Department of Education) allows states and school districts to make their own decisions. If they choose to maintain DEI practices and refrain from federal money, taxpayers who voted for leaders against such practices will not have to pay them.
Trump previously issued an executive order to promote the abolition of the Department of Education, with Education Secretary Linda McMahon already firing half of the agency’s staff. Additionally, the special education functions of K-12 school institutions will be transferred to the Department of Health and Human Services, with SMEs taking over student loans.
If states and school districts could maintain their DEI programs without federal funding, the butchers said they “didn’t need Washington in the first place.”
