Since the release of the latest Dear Colleague letter, there has been no shortage of analysis, debate, and concern across higher education. And rightfully so.
I highly encourage you to read "Hitting Pause on the 'Dear Colleague' Letter" by Liliana Garces in the Chronicle of Higher Education. This article stands out as the most insightful and practical breakdown I’ve encountered. It goes beyond surface-level reactions to provide a clear-eyed assessment of how the letter overreaches the Supreme Court’s Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard ruling—and what that means for colleges and universities.
For higher education leaders, leading at this time requires both diligence and strategic action. That’s why I’m sharing key takeaways from the article, along with actionable insights to help institutions uphold their missions, protect academic freedom, and avoid unnecessary compliance with non-binding guidance.
Here are your top 5 takeways from this article:
1. Understand the Overreach of the “Dear Colleague” Letter
The letter significantly expands the Supreme Court’s ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard beyond its legal scope.
While the Court addressed race in admissions decisions, the letter extends its application to areas like hiring, housing, and compensation—areas not covered in the ruling.
Actionable Insight: Institutions should focus on what the Supreme Court directly addressed and consult legal counsel to avoid overreaching into areas the Court didn’t rule on.
2. Recognize Misinterpretations of the Court’s Ruling
The Supreme Court did not ban all considerations of race in admissions. It allows for individualized reviews where an applicant’s discussion of race is relevant to their personal journey.
The letter incorrectly suggests that even race-neutral policies promoting diversity are impermissible—contradicting established legal precedents.
Actionable Insight: Institutions can still pursue diversity goals through race-neutral policies without violating the SFFA decision.
3. Protect Institutional Autonomy and Academic Freedom
The letter poses a threat to academic freedom by implying that institutions could lose federal funding if they maintain diversity goals—even if those goals don’t involve racial classifications.This imposition infringes on an institution’s right to define its mission and values.
Actionable Insight: Colleges and universities should advocate for their autonomy and resist compliance based on overreaching, non-binding guidance.
4. Understand Constitutional Protections and Due Process
Although the letter states it lacks “the force and effect of law,” it threatens institutions with compliance reviews, raising constitutional concerns.
The U.S. Constitution protects institutions from ideological mandates tied to federal funding and ensures due process before funding can be withdrawn.
Actionable Insight: Institutions should be aware of their legal rights and ensure any challenges to their policies follow due process.
5. Navigate the Legal Landscape with Caution and Integrity
Leaders must carefully interpret the legal boundaries and avoid making policy changes based on guidance that lacks proper legal authority.
There is a risk of undermining institutional autonomy by responding prematurely to non-binding directives.
Actionable Insight: Work closely with legal counsel to safeguard the institution’s mission and values while adhering to legitimate legal requirements.
Final Thought:
Higher education leaders are navigating a complex and shifting legal landscape. Protecting academic freedom, institutional autonomy, and diversity goals requires a nuanced understanding of the legal boundaries and the courage to resist overreaching mandates. Leaders must advocate for their institutions while ensuring they comply only with legitimate, lawful directives.
Read the full article at: https://www.chronicle.com/article/hitting-pause-on-the-dear-colleague-letter
Comments