Colleges and universities have been operating under a microscope for the past few years, and as 2025 begins, there is no sign of that scrutiny abating, albeit with a different focus under the current presidential administration. As this new administration begins, higher education is understandably, and appropriately, on high alert.
Looking ahead at 2025, we address what we expect to be the key areas of government investigation, oversight, and prosecution this year. We focus on the "what" and the "how": addressing first the issues that we anticipate being the target of government activity and then the tools that may be employed to effectuate this oversight.
I. The Focus Areas: Programs and Initiatives Likely to Face Ongoing or Increased Scrutiny
Higher education has become ground zero for some of the most heavily politicized issues in recent months. The first days of the Trump administration have also brought a barrage of activity affecting or even targeting colleges and universities. The following is a list of issues we view as points of significant concern for government enforcement this year within this ever-evolving environment.
Race and DEI
President Trump's criticism of race-conscious initiatives and diversity, equity, and inclusion programming ("DEI") was a focal point of his campaign, and it appears to remain a focal point during the opening weeks of his second term. Within 48 hours of his inauguration, President Trump issued a flurry of Executive Orders, including the "Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity" Executive Order ("DEI Executive Order"), which revoked several prior active executive orders, including dating back to 1965. The DEI Executive Order broadly deems DEI programs and policies illegal, and it specifically addresses higher education institutions, stating an intention to root out all race- and sex-based preferences used by higher education institutions (among many other "critical and influential institutions of American society").
Admissions and race-conscious programming. Race-conscious programming has been an area of significant risk for higher education institutions since before the second Trump administration began. The Supreme Court's 2023 decision in Students for Fair Admissions ("SFFA") v. Harvard College and SFFA v. University of North Carolina (together referenced herein as "SFFA") declared race-conscious admissions programs unlawful. SFFA has also spurred challenges to all aspects of higher education institutions' operations. As our prior client alert explained, throughout 2024, universities confronted challenges to their procurement policies, scholarship and fellowship programs, and employment decisions. Although some courts have relied on SFFA in reviewing such challenges, many cases are still working their way through the courts.
But the Trump administration's view on the matter is clear: SFFA applies broadly. The DEI Executive Order denounces "institutions of higher education [that] have adopted and actively use" race-based preferences. It states that all such policies could violate Federal civil rights laws, and it does not use any language limiting its opinion to admissions policies. The DEI Executive Order instructs the Attorney General and Secretary of Education to issue guidance to higher education institutions "regarding the measures and practices required to comply with [SFFA]." This guidance will be provided by May 21, 2025.
DEI programming. In 2024, DEI programming was a focus for Republicans in Congress and Republican-controlled state legislatures around the country. This past year, three states—Alabama, Iowa, and Utah—prohibited universities from maintaining DEI offices. Many other state legislators introduced a variety of legislation targeting DEI in higher education, and although these laws were not ultimately enacted, institutions in these states still acted quickly to comply. For example, the University of Kentucky voluntarily closed its "Office for Institutional Diversity" after questioning from the state legislature. At the Federal level, members of Congress have vocally criticized DEI programming. In March, the House Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Development had a hearing, "Divisive, Excessive, Ineffective: The Real Impact of DEI on College Campuses." Rep. Burgess Owens, the Chairman of the Subcommittee, opened the hearing by calling DEI "a long-growing cancer that resides at the heart of American academic institutions." This year, one Arkansas senator has already announced his intention to introduce legislation targeting these programs in higher education institutions.
The Trump administration has signaled its intent to challenge higher education institutions' DEI policies directly. In his DEI Executive Order, President Trump "order[ed] all agencies to enforce our longstanding civil-rights laws and to combat illegal private-sector DEI preferences, mandates, policies, programs, and activities." President Trump has already dismantled DEI programs throughout the Federal Government through his "Ending Radical And Wasteful Government DEI Programs And Preferencing" Executive Order. And, in his DEI Executive Order, President Trump instructed federal agencies to create a "plan of specific steps or measures to deter DEI programs or principles (whether specifically denominated 'DEI' or otherwise) that constitute illegal discrimination or preferences." We thus expect challenges to race-conscious and DEI policies and programs to continue, and likely increase, in 2025.
Sex and Gender Identity
The Trump administration has also prioritized issues involving sex and gender identity in higher education. One of President Trump's first acts in his second term was to issue the "Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism And Restoring Biological Truth To The Federal Government" Executive Order ("Sex/Gender Executive Order") to proclaim that "'[s]ex' is not a synonym for and does not include the concept of 'gender identity,'" and direct agencies to enforce "sex-protective laws" as excluding gender and sexual orientation. The Sex/Gender Executive Order specifically targets higher education through Title IX, including instructions to rescind prior Title IX guidance, and instructions to the Attorney General to issue guidance that Bostock v. Clayton County, which held that Title VII's ban on discrimination based on sex also prohibits discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation, does not apply to Title IX. It further directs "the Attorney General, the Secretary of Labor, the General Counsel and Chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and each other agency head with enforcement responsibilities under the Civil Rights Act [to] prioritize investigations and litigation to enforce" the Executive Order's policies.
This position is a direct reversal of the Biden administration's policy, particularly with respect to Title IX. In 2024, the Department of Education finalized a rule amending Title IX regulations to, among other things, interpret "sex" to include sexual orientation and gender identity. On January 9, 2025, a Kentucky federal district court vacated the 2024 Title IX rule in full, and on January 31, the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights ("OCR") issued a Dear Colleague letter confirming that it had no intention of reviving the 2024 rule. OCR stated it would enforce Title IX under the 2020 rule instead of the "recently invalidated 2024 Title IX Rule." In support of this position, OCR cited both the Kentucky decision and the Sex/Gender Executive Order.
Beyond this recent Title IX activity, there has been and will likely continue to be significant focus on transgender students, especially in college athletics. Last year, Ohio and New Hampshire joined a list of states banning transgender girls and women from girls' and women's sports teams at both the K-12 and collegiate level. The National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics, which oversees collegiate sports for smaller colleges, approved a policy barring most transgender women from competition. And the House recently passed a bill that would prohibit transgender girls and women from playing on K-12 and college teams that align with their gender identity.
Finally, we note that the Supreme Court may weigh in again on this topic in 2025. In October, the Supreme Court granted a certiorari petition to review the Sixth Circuit's decision in a reverse discrimination sexual orientation case, Ames v. Ohio Dep't of Youth Services. Although this is again a Title VII case, the Supreme Court will be addressing what standard to apply in reverse discrimination cases. Many circuits now require "background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority" (e.g., that a member of the relevant minority group made the decision at issue). If the Supreme Court reverses the Sixth Circuit, reverse discrimination claims are likely to significantly increase in the coming year.
Free Speech and the First Amendment
Student protests. In 2024, free speech and the First Amendment remained hot topics as the ongoing Israel-Palestine conflict created uniquely challenging enforcement issues for universities across the country. Pro-Palestinian protests on college campuses escalated in April 2024, following the arrests at Columbia University, where more than 100 students were arrested. This dismantling of the initial encampment at Columbia sparked similar actions nationwide, leading students at over 100 colleges across the United States to set up protest encampments demanding that their schools divest from companies supporting Israel. The dismantling of these encampments resulted in numerous OCR investigations and settlements with universities involving claims of harassment following the protests.
The Trump administration has, in its first days in office, taken a clear position on this issue. First, among the many Executive Orders President Trump signed on his first day in office was the Executive Order "Protecting the United States from Foreign Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats," which appears to target foreign students and staff who participated in pro-Hamas protests. The Executive Order called for the removal of these foreign visa holders, stating "the United States must ensure that admitted aliens and aliens otherwise already present in the United States do not bear hostile attitude towards its citizens, culture, government, institutions, or founding principles, and do not advocate for, aid, or support designated foreign terrorists and other threats to our national security."
On January 29, 2025, President Trump issued his Executive Order, "Additional Measures to Combat Anti-Semitism" ("Anti-Semitism Executive Order"), outlining the administration's plan to combat antisemitism in the United States following a reported rise in antisemitism incidents after the October 7 attack by Hamas in Israel. The Anti-Semitism Executive Order specifically addresses a "failure" to protect students on campuses, citing a December 2024 House Committee report on antisemitism (addressed in greater detail below). It directs the Department of Education to prepare a report that includes an inventory and analysis of all Title VI complaints and administrative actions related to antisemitism after October 7, 2023. The order also directs the Attorney General to prosecute antisemitism under the Conspiracy Against Rights statute, 18 U.S.C. § 241, and instructs the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Education, and the Secretary of Homeland Security to coordinate on recommendations for monitoring and reporting activities by alien students and staff that may warrant removal under immigration law.
Since the ceasefire announcement, college protests have subsided, and it remains unclear if the Trump administration will use the order to identify students from 2024 protests. Following the 2024 protests, Steve Scalise, House majority leader, has discussed plans to punish universities that allow pro-Palestine protests by revoking their accreditation.
Academic freedom. Universities' ability to rely on traditional First Amendment protections for curriculum and scholarship is likely to be tested under the second Trump administration. In a section entitled "Scope," the DEI Executive Order includes the following provision: "This order does not prohibit individuals teaching at federally funded institutions of higher education, as part of a broader course of academic instruction, from advocating for, endorsing, or promoting unlawful employment or contracting practices that are prohibited by this order." The implications of this provision remain unclear, but the Scope provisions are likely included to protect against First Amendment challenges to the Executive Order.
President Trump promised during his campaign to eliminate "wokeness" in education and intends to use federal funds as leverage to achieve this goal. He has promised to cut federal funding to any schools that promote "Critical Race Theory, transgender issues, and other inappropriate racial, sexual, political content on our children." In contrast, the Trump administration has taken steps to promote "patriotic education."
The administration's early actions in this realm have focused on K-12 schooling, but they reveal a broader position toward academic freedom that implicates higher education. For example, the January 29, 2025 Executive Order, "Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling," directs schools to cease promoting "discriminatory equity ideology" and instead promote "patriotic education." On January 24, 2025, the Department of Education dismissed all pending complaints about book bans, rejecting the notion that removal of "racially divisive" books could amount to a Title VI violation.
Critical race theory took center stage a few years ago, but Republicans have vowed to focus on this in the new year. In December, Republican members of the U.S. House Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education discussed what they refer to as "woke" curricula in schools. This topic remains a significant concern for lawmakers, especially in light of a Florida Senate Bill passed in 2023, which has already impacted schools in Florida this past year (e.g., Florida International University's Board of Trustees voted to drop 22 courses from the core curriculum, including Anthropology of Race & Ethnicity, Introduction to LGBTQ+ Studies, and Sociology of Gender).
Foreign Influence and the China Initiative
China Initiative II. The Trump administration will likely restart, if not expand, the China Initiative, which was terminated by President Biden. Under the China Initiative in his first term, President Trump pursued individuals and institutions for alleged undisclosed ties to China. The China Initiative led to multiple criminal prosecutions, many of them resulting in dismissals, and a number of investigations of research facilities and institutions. Project 2025, believed to be a significant influence on President Trump's likely agenda, explicitly called for the restart of the China Initiative. The first China Initiative was largely viewed as a failure and the new administration may modify its approach accordingly. The first China Initiative mainly targeted Chinese researchers alleged to have undisclosed ties to China and programs in China. The Second China Initiative will likely be more institution and laboratory focused. For example, the inquiries may focus on sanctions, export control, supply chain prohibitions, and international collaborative efforts. Data privacy requirements and cybersecurity controls are other mechanisms the government may use to pursue institutions dealing with foreign entities.
In 2024, the research compliance landscape saw significant updates, particularly in the realm of research security training. The Office of Science and Technology Policy issued new guidelines mandating that covered institutions, including certain higher education and nonprofit research entities, implement comprehensive research security training programs. These programs are designed to address cybersecurity, foreign travel security, research security, and export control. Institutions can meet these requirements by certifying that their personnel have completed federal research security training modules or by deploying their own training programs. This move aligns with broader efforts to enhance national security and protect sensitive research from foreign interference, underscoring the critical importance of robust cybersecurity measures in academic and research settings.
II. Enforcement: Agencies and Their Tools
The federal government wields a significant number and type of tools it might leverage to obtain policy-oriented results. On an individual basis, for example, as discussed above, Homeland Security and other federal agencies, perhaps in conjunction with university campus safety departments, may investigate and target individual student visa holders and seek to rescind or revoke their permissions based on participation in protests. Law enforcement can use administrative subpoenas, voluntary requests for information, search warrants (in appropriate circumstances), and other tools to investigate and identify students for further scrutiny and enforcement. Historically, the Department of Justice ("DOJ") has prosecuted visa holders or other non-citizens for conduct while in the United States or before arriving here by alleging those individuals lied on immigration paperwork by either certifying they had not violated any laws in the past or certifying they would abide by all laws while in the United States. The government has broad discretion in this area, including an expansive definition of materiality governing information provided during the application process: "A fact is considered material...[if] had the truth been known, [the individual] would not have been eligible to receive a visa or enter the United States." Visa fraud can be a criminal offense, and investigators often utilize the entire law enforcement toolkit, including grand jury subpoenas and testimony, search warrants, surveillance, and more.
Institutions are also likely to undergo significant scrutiny in the coming year. First, they may be the recipient of government requests (or lawful demands) for information about individual students, faculty, facilities, residences, and more. These inquiries will range from targeted to broad, and we recommend each inquiry be carefully scrutinized for lawfulness as well as any statutory or policy-based notice requirements. We recommend institutions review their internal policies on responding to lawful process, consult internal or external counsel upon receipt of any such process, and undertake a review of institutional document/information preservation and destruction policies. Second, institutions may themselves be targeted for investigation in connection with any number of potential violations. For example, research misconduct and undeclared conflicts of interest, discrimination and harassment complaints, and newly required certifications of compliance with federal law and policy related to DEI programs can serve as the basis for federal investigations. Institutions should review their existing programs and existing grant and contract processing procedures.
False Claims Act
Many government investigations will begin with whistleblower tips or whistleblower lawsuits (qui tams). In addition to the broad reward component of the False Claims Act ("FCA"), many DOJ components have implemented jurisdiction-specific whistleblower reward programs, and many existing programs already provide bounties to tipsters. Given the politically charged nature of these policies and directives, institutions should expect to see an increase in tipster activity. Institutions should evaluate existing programs and procedures for employees, academics, and students to raise concerns of all types and should ensure those programs provide mechanisms for reporting back—in some manner—the outcome of those concerns. Many whistleblowers report that they attempted to solve the perceived problem at the institution level before resorting to becoming a tipster. Good stakeholder communication is important while being mindful to protect any attorney-client or otherwise privileged information.
A claim to the government may be false if it contains material misrepresentations or omissions. Institutions may be liable for contract certifications and other paperwork if the government or relator (whistleblower) can prove that the institution had actual knowledge about the false information, was deliberately ignorant, or acted with reckless disregard to the truth or falsity of the information. The FCA provisions are incredibly broad and carry tremendous treble damages plus statutory penalties per claim.
2024 FCA cases - cybersecurity. In 2024, a series of high-profile FCA cases placed colleges and universities under scrutiny, with allegations of failing to meet cybersecurity requirements. DOJ efforts to combat cybersecurity threats include its Civil Cyber Fraud Initiative. This initiative is dedicated to using the FCA to promote cybersecurity compliance amongst government contractors and grantees, holding them accountable when they knowingly violate applicable cybersecurity requirements. On October 22, 2024, following a qui tam action filed by a whistleblower and former employee, Pennsylvania State University reached a settlement with the DOJ, agreeing to pay the U.S. Government $1.25M for alleged cybersecurity compliance violations under the FCA. As another example, on February 19, 2024, the DOJ intervened under the qui tam or whistleblower provisions of the FCA in a claim against the Georgia Institute of Technology ("Georgia Tech") and Georgia Tech Research Corp. ("GTRC"). The allegations state that these defendants knowingly did not comply with cybersecurity requirements associated with the Department of Defense ("DoD") contracts. The whistleblower suit was initiated by current and former members of Georgia Tech's Cybersecurity team. The complaint alleges that a research lab at Georgia Tech failed to develop and implement a system security plan, as required by the DoD cybersecurity regulations, and submitted a false cybersecurity assessment score to DoD for the Georgia Tech campus. The complaint also alleges that the lab failed to install, update or run anti-virus or anti-malware tools on desktops, laptops, servers, and networks at the lab. The case is still being litigated in the Northern District of Georgia.
Anticipated FCA liability - DEI programs. The DEI Executive Order, discussed above, establishes new compliance obligations for all government contractors and grant recipients. Most notably, the Order introduces a new mandatory contract certification. The inclusion of mandatory contract certification is directly linked to the Trump administration's desire to use the FCA to enforce its policy vision, as certifications are "claims" to the government and can therefore be the basis of a FCA claim.
To expand and make plain the FCA's application to contract and grant documents, the DEI Executive Order includes a requirement that every contract or grant award include a "term requiring the contractual counterparty or grant recipient to agree that its compliance in all respects with all applicable Federal anti-discrimination laws is material to the government's payment decisions for purposes of section 3729(b)(4) of title 31, United States Code." Moreover, a contractor or grant recipient must also affirmatively "certify that it does not operate any programs promoting DEI that violate any applicable Federal anti-discrimination laws." This means that, when implemented, any government contractor or grant recipient or institution who continues to engage in prohibited discrimination or maintains certain affirmative action programs or DEI policies—contrary to the new contract terms and affirmative certifications—will risk liability under the FCA by virtue of submitting invoices to the government for payment. As discussed above, this risk is especially high because of the FCA's qui tam relator provisions, which incentivize employees through bounty payment to bring FCA suits on behalf of the government. Government investigation in this space may begin with the institution's receipt of a Civil Investigative Demand from DOJ seeking testimony and/or documents, a subpoena, investigators appearing on campus or at the institution, an administrative subpoena, or other form of inquiry.
Given the large role whistleblowers play in the origination of these investigations, institutions should be mindful of their document retention policies particularly in connection with departing employees and contractors. Institutions should both ensure compliance with internal preservation policies (both keeping and destroying) and ensure that departing employees and contractors do not retain any institution-owned information, documents, or messages.
Congressional Inquiry
The focus on higher education is not limited to the executive branch. In 2024, Congress continued turning its attention toward colleges and universities with highly publicized inquiries into universities' handling of protests and antisemitism in connection with the Israel-Palestine conflict. This scrutiny also went well beyond public hearings, including requesting and subpoenaing documents from institutions on the topic. On December 18, 2024, the U.S. House of Representatives released a Staff Report on Antisemitism ("Staff Report") condemning universities for failing to sufficiently combat antisemitism on campuses. The report criticizes several universities' conduct in great detail, such as providing data regarding disciplinary action taken (or not taken) by universities toward students. The report makes several recommendations, including that universities "impose meaningful discipline in response to antisemitic conduct violations" and more broadly "increase academic rigor and viewpoint diversity," and that the executive branch "aggressively enforce" Title VI and the Clery Act and withhold funding or issue fines for noncompliant universities.
Congress has also directed its attention toward the other key focal points of President Trump's campaign and the first days of his second administration, such as gender. For example, in December, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on federal regulations around sports gambling that ended up shifting focus toward transgender athletes, with several committee members grilling NCAA president Charlie Baker on the NCAA's policies, which do not ban transgender athletes from participating in college sports.
Congressional attention on higher education is likely to continue in this first year of the second Trump administration. Focus on colleges and universities aligns with the goals and initiatives of the executive branch. It has yielded quick results: Following highly public congressional hearings, multiple presidents of prominent universities resigned. Given the recent political momentum and the Staff Report's emphasis on holding universities accountable, higher education institution can expect congressional subpoenas and other forms of congressional inquiry to continue.
Agency Investigation and Activity
President Trump's various Executive Orders promised regulatory action against entities engaging in conduct contrary to the Administration's policies, including those engaging in DEI programing and promoting "gender ideology." The DEI Executive Order also expressly directs each agency to identify up to nine potential civil compliance investigations of certain categories of organizations, including "institutions of higher education with endowments over 1 billion dollars." The Trump administration has several tools it could use to push its agenda.
An attack on higher education institution's funding will be, and already has been, at the center of efforts to compel compliance with the Administration's policies. During his campaign, President Trump pledged to cut federal funding to educational institutions "pushing Critical Race Theory, transgender insanity, and other inappropriate racial, sexual, or political content on our children." Following through on these commitments, on January 27, 2025, Matthew Vaeth, the acting director of the Office of Management and Budget ("OMB"), issued a memorandum directing all federal agencies to "temporarily pause all activities related to obligation or disbursement of all Federal financial assistance, and other relevant agency actions that may be implicated by the executive orders, including, but not limited to, financial assistance for foreign aid, nongovernmental organizations, DEI, woke gender ideology, and the green new deal." Two lawsuits were immediately filed to enjoin the implementation of this memorandum. In one case, the court entered an administrative stay preventing OMB from enforcing the memorandum, but the stay is only in effect until 5:00 p.m. on February 3, 2025 and it only affects the "pause [on] disbursement of Federal funds under all open awards." After this order, OMB rescinded the directive (although while seemingly moving forward with the underlying policy). The court in the other case thereafter also issued a temporary restraining order enjoining the funding suspension. Although—as we explained in a recent client alert—the funding suspension is likely unlawful, recipients of federal funding remain in a state of uncertainty as these cases proceed and the administration's policies continually shift.
Regardless of how this funding suspension plays out, the Trump administration will likely continue to target higher education institutions' funding, specifically as it relates to NIH and other federal research grants.
Department of Health & Human Services (HHS). In 2024, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and the House Committee on Education and the Workforce sent a joint letter to HHS Secretary inquiring, in light of the student protests related to the Israel-Palestine conflict, how HHS and NIH were "ensuring that [NIH-funded] institutions [were] fostering and maintaining an environment free from harassment and discrimination." The letter also states that "HHS's OCR is responsible for ensuring that institutions that receive Federal financial assistance comply with Title VI as well as other civil rights laws" and argues that "[c]olleges or universities that violate Title VI can ultimately lose Federal funding." HHS OCR did not engage with the House Committees on the issue. In September, however, HHS OCR did initiate a Title VI investigation into Cleveland Clinic because of an allegation that "Cleveland Clinic treats white individuals differently from certain racial and ethnic minorities in the tailoring and provision of services provided through its Minority Stroke Program and Minority Men's Health Center."
We expect HHS OCR to only become more active in this space under the Trump administration. Indeed, in its Staff Report mentioned above, the House foreshadowed what steps HHS and NIH may take this year. For example, the Staff Report notes that "[i]f NIH is not satisfied with the actions taken by the grantee institution because of [an HHS OCR and HHS OGC] investigation, it may recommend further actions" and "[f]ailure to implement said actions may result in suspension or reconsideration of the grant." The Report also suggests "[a]ll NIH-funded institutions should create a task force or commission of external experts in civil rights—including an expert in antisemitism—to review their curriculums for bias, discrimination, indoctrination, etc., to ensure that students are not being subjected to politicized or biased educations." These suggestions are even more important to consider because of the newly mandated certification required in all grant and contract applications certifying that the institution is in compliance with DEI rules. Significantly, institutions that do undertake a task force or commission process should be mindful of the recommendations and findings of those groups and ensure they are either implemented or considered and rejected based on sound (and well documented) reasoning. Alternatively, ignoring those findings could heighten the potential argument that a certification on a contract or grant form is false because the institution writ-large utilized a commission but ignored its advice.
Department of Education. The Department of Education's Office of the Inspector General ("DOE OIG") may also play a role in enforcing the Trump administration's agenda. President Trump recently fired the Inspector General for the Department of Education and is likely to appoint a new one favorable to his positions. The DOE OIG investigates whether federal funds provided to higher education institutions are being used in permissible ways. That may extend to funds being used in connection with race-conscious or sex-conscious programs, DEI programs, certain curricula, and other operations that may not comply with the Administration's new policies.
Lastly, as is no surprise, we expect the Department of Education's OCR will be an active participant in these regulatory actions. In 2024, OCR was particularly active with respect to universities' handling of student protests and allegations of antisemitism and discrimination targeting students of Palestinian, Arab, South Asian, or Muslim descent. OCR entered into dozens of resolution agreements with institutions resolving Title VI investigations into such conduct, and it also published a fact sheet and a number of letters clarifying schools' obligations under Title VI. One such letter provided several examples illustrating how OCR could apply Title VI standards to allegations of discrimination arising from student protests or comments directed towards Jewish, Arab, Muslim, or Israeli students. This activity has continued into 2025, with seven universities entering into Title VI resolution agreements with OCR in January alone.
We also flag that one organization, the Equal Protection Project, has filed dozens of complaints with OCR, alleging universities' "diversity" scholarship, fellowship, and other programs impermissibly restrict eligibility to students based on race, color and national origin. We anticipate OCR will become much more active in investigating these and other similar complaints.
Originally published 03 February 2025
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
