top of page

DEI REPORTS ON SCHOOL DISTRICTS

Below you can find several reports on DEI Policies and Practices implemented by local public schools districts in direct violations of both State and Federal law. The reports provided below have been forwarded to the Department of Education as well as the Department of Justice, courtesy of Attorney General Pam Bondi.

​

Feel free to use these as templates to report the illegal activities of your local school districts. 

​

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: WHAT IS DEI?

Public schools may teach inclusivity and equal dignity, but cannot classify, preference, exclude, or compel speech based on protected traits. Programs that cross into differential treatment by race/sex risk violations of Title VI and the Equal Protection Clause, and—specifically in Washington—RCW 49.60.400 (I-200), which bans governmental “preferential treatment” in education.

​

Courts have tightened scrutiny of race-conscious educational practices: Parents Involved v. Seattle School Dist. No. 1 (2007) (K–12 racial tie-breakers unconstitutional) and Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard/UNC (2023) (race-based admissions unlawful). While SFFA is a higher-ed case, it reaffirms that racial classifications by state actors are “presumptively invalid” and must satisfy strict scrutiny—guidance K–12 districts ignore at their peril.

​

WHAT DEI LOOKS LIKE IN K-12—AND WHERE IT LEGALLY GOES WRONG

Typical components. Districts adopt statements about belonging, staff “cultural-competency” training (in Washington, often to comply with SB 5044), curriculum audits for representation, and recruitment outreach. Those aims, if implemented neutrally, are generally lawful.

​

Red lines. The legal risk arises when initiatives:

​

  1. Treat students or staff differently because of race/sex (e.g., race-exclusive clubs, scholarships, or set-asides; race-conditioned discipline or grading);

​

    2.Compel agreement with ideological statements or pronoun usage contrary to sincerely held beliefs (especially         for staff), triggering First Amendment concerns; and

​

    3. Replace individualized educational need with identity categories to allocate programs or sanctions.

​

             - Title VI bars race/national-origin discrimination in federally funded programs; Equal Protection imposes                  strict scrutiny on racial classifications; Adarand confirms strict scrutiny applies to all governmental

                racial classifications, “benign” or not. Parents Involved and SFFA sharpen these constraints for schools.

​

              - In Washington, RCW 49.60.400 (I-200) independently bans “preferential treatment” in public education                  based on race/sex/ethnicity. Even if a district believes a classification is remedial, I-200 forbids it if it                      advantages or disadvantages based on protected traits.

​

               - Compelled speech issues are fact-specific. In higher education, Meriwether v. Hartop recognized a                            professor’s First Amendment claim regarding mandated pronoun usage; K–12 employees’ speech rights                    are narrower, but blanket compelled-speech regimes can still raise constitutional problems if not                                carefully tailored and neutrally administered. (This is not a “ban” on courtesy or anti-harassment; it’s a                    caution about compulsory ideological affirmations.)

​

​

  • Title VI, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d; DOJ Title VI overview and enforcement materials. Department of Justice+1

  • Equal Protection Clause; Parents Involved v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1, 551 U.S. 701 (2007). Justia Law

  • Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard/UNC, 600 U.S. ___ (2023). Supreme Court

  • RCW 49.60.400 (I-200) (Washington ban on preferential treatment). Washington State Legislature

  • Meriwether v. Hartop, 992 F.3d 492 (6th Cir. 2021) (compelled speech—higher ed context; instructive limits). Sixth Circuit Court

  • Dobbin & Kalev, “Why Doesn’t Diversity Training Work?,” Annual Review / related articles (mixed efficacy; design caveats). Harvard Scholar+1

  • NCES/BJS, Indicators of School Crime and Safety (baseline safety trends and practices). National Center for Education Statistics+1

  • Gottfredson et al., “Effects of school resource officers…” (mixed SRO impacts; implications for neutral safety design). Wiley Online Library

DEI REPORT ON STEILACOOM HISTORICAL SCHOOL DISTRICT
LOCATION: STEILACOOM, WASHINGTON

DOE MEMORANDUM ON DEI IN SHSD_Page_01.jpg
DOE MEMORANDUM ON DEI IN SHSD_Page_02.jpg
DOE MEMORANDUM ON DEI IN SHSD_Page_03.jpg
DOE MEMORANDUM ON DEI IN SHSD_Page_04.jpg
DOE MEMORANDUM ON DEI IN SHSD_Page_05.jpg
DOE MEMORANDUM ON DEI IN SHSD_Page_06.jpg
DOE MEMORANDUM ON DEI IN SHSD_Page_07.jpg
DOE MEMORANDUM ON DEI IN SHSD_Page_08.jpg
DOE MEMORANDUM ON DEI IN SHSD_Page_09.jpg
DOE MEMORANDUM ON DEI IN SHSD_Page_10.jpg
DOE MEMORANDUM ON DEI IN SHSD_Page_11.jpg
DOE MEMORANDUM ON DEI IN SHSD_Page_12.jpg
DOE MEMORANDUM ON DEI IN SHSD_Page_13.jpg
DOE MEMORANDUM ON DEI IN SHSD_Page_14.jpg
DOE MEMORANDUM ON DEI IN SHSD_Page_15.jpg
DOE MEMORANDUM ON DEI IN SHSD_Page_16.jpg
DOE MEMORANDUM ON DEI IN SHSD_Page_17.jpg
DOE MEMORANDUM ON DEI IN SHSD_Page_18.jpg
DOE MEMORANDUM ON DEI IN SHSD_Page_19.jpg
DOE MEMORANDUM ON DEI IN SHSD_Page_20.jpg
DOE MEMORANDUM ON DEI IN SHSD_Page_21.jpg
DOE MEMORANDUM ON DEI IN SHSD_Page_22.jpg
DOE MEMORANDUM ON DEI IN SHSD_Page_23.jpg
DOE MEMORANDUM ON DEI IN SHSD_Page_24.jpg
DOE MEMORANDUM ON DEI IN SHSD_Page_25.jpg
DOE MEMORANDUM ON DEI IN SHSD_Page_26.jpg
bottom of page