While much of the now-infamous Valentine’s Day Dear Colleague letter from the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights was vague and void of specific information, the following sentence was crystal clear:

Despite the letter’s clear language to the contrary, higher education leaders and the media (including the higher ed press) did the math and declared Feb. 28 “deadline day” for diversity, equity and inclusion programs in higher education. “Deadline day,” read one story. “The clock is running out,” claimed another. An Associated Press story ran with the lead “Schools and colleges across the U.S. face a Friday deadline to end diversity programs or risk having their federal money pulled.” What ensued was a self-made crisis characterized by spirited debates and ill-advised anticipatory compliance with the yet-to-be-announced changes to enforcement of Title VI of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Seasoned veterans knew better. The most likely “next step” indicated by the department was presumed to be further communication from OCR about the “measures to assess compliance” that were promised in the letter.

And that is exactly what happened. On March 1, the department issued a press release and FAQ document elaborating on the Dear Colleague letter. The FAQ elaborates on the new administration’s intention to use a novel and expansive interpretation of the 2023 Supreme Court decision in SFFA v. Harvard, an admissions case in which Chief Justice John Roberts opined that diversity-related goals within higher education can be “commendable” and “plainly worthy.” It answers questions about how the department will receive complaints. In short, the department did exactly what it stated it would do within the 14-day timeline. The so-called deadline was a chimera, an artifact of the confusion and fear created by the letter’s politically charged context and lack of specificity.

While it leaves many key questions unanswered, the FAQ does favorably settle several unclear points raised by the Dear Colleague letter.

Question 8 asks, “Are Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) programs unlawful under SFFA?” The answer is no. Only if those programs discriminate on the basis of race, color or national origin do they violate the law. The answer further clarifies what we have known all along: “Whether a policy or program violates Title VI does not depend on the use of specific terminology such as ‘diversity,’ ‘equity,’ or ‘inclusion.’” The department declares in unambiguous language that it cannot deem certain words “illegal,” nor are phrases such as “diversity,” “equity,” “inclusion” or “belonging” a violation of nondiscrimination obligations.

Question 9 asks, “Does this mean that students, teachers, and school employees may not discuss topics related to race or DEI under Title VI?” Again, the answer is no. Only if those classroom discussions create “hostile environments through race-based policies and stereotypes” do they violate the law. The answer makes clear, “Nothing in Title VI, its implementing regulations, or the Dear Colleague Letter requires or authorizes a school to restrict any rights otherwise protected by the First Amendment.”

The 14-day window between the Dear Colleague letter and the FAQ did not pass without some productive and inspirational advocacy. Notably, Paulette Granberry Russell and the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education won a significant legal victory in federal district court, achieving a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement activities and the withdrawal of funding based on anti-DEI executive orders.

The American Council on Education submitted a persuasive letter to OCR—signed by 71 national higher education organizations—requesting that the Dear Colleague letter be rescinded and that the department engage with the higher education community to ensure a clear understanding of the legal obligations of colleges and universities—a rare example of higher education speaking with one voice on this topic.

The rest of the frenetic activity in this two-week time span was less productive. Despite many thoughtful suggestions to the contrary, some colleges and universities hastily undertook “audits” and website “scrubbing” of programming they thought might possibly be covered in the OCR’s forthcoming communications. A careful review of the FAQ document is likely to reveal that much of this was an unnecessary overreaction.

From my perspective, the most harmful occurrence was an unproductive debate over institutional responses to the letter. Most of these took the shape of a false dichotomy between courage and cowardice. In my estimation, the institutions that stayed the course and waited for guidance from OCR were not courageous, but rather prudent. Conversely, the institutions that moved to action were not universally motivated by fear or cowardice, but rather by institution-specific realities of board governance, state and local politics, and individual risk assessments. At the end of the day, it was context and not courage or cowardice that motivated institutions.

With a published methodology for compliance assessment now communicated, the department has answered a few of the lingering questions outlined on Valentine’s Day. Most notably, the FAQ provides a clear statement on how the Dear Colleague letter will be enforced.

The answer to Question 14 clarifies that the department will use existing case-processing procedure—which includes due process for institutions and the possibility of a voluntary resolution agreement—and links to a newly revised Case Processing Manual. It is now the job of institutions that are committed to building “inclusive and diverse campus communities”—as the ACE letter penned by Ted Mitchell so eloquently states—to prepare a spirited defense of their programming by demonstrating that their efforts do not violate federal civil rights law.