Department of Education investigating Evanston-Skokie District 65 over ‘privilege walks'
EVANSTON, Ill. — The US Department of Education announced they are investigating Evanston-Skokie District 65 over alleged racial discrimination and 'privilege walks.'
The department alleges District 65 violated the Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The investigation stems from drama teacher Dr. Stacy Deemar's two complaints.
The complaints allege that District 65 engages in racial segregation and stereotyping through 'privilege walks' and district-sponsored segregated affinity groups.
Privilege walks is a practice where students step forward when answering 'yes' to certain questions and step back when answering 'no.' It looks at social privileges that benefit some people over others, according to Kiwanis.
'The policies and practices to which the District allegedly subjects students and teachers shocks the conscience. Amid a dismal academic achievement record, the District appears to focus on unlawfully segregating students by race, instructing students to step forward and others to step back on the basis of race, and associating 'whiteness' with the devil. If true, how is this conceivable in America today?' said Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Craig Trainor.
Investigation launched into Chicago Public Schools' Black Student Success Plan
Trump's Department of Education is also investigating Chicago Public Schools' over their Black Student Success Plan.
CTU President Stacy Davis Gates called the investigation 'baseless.'
WGN News reached out to District 65 for a statement and have not heard back at this time.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
What is accreditation and what happens if Columbia University loses it?
Columbia University could find itself facing far-reaching consequences as the Trump administration threatens its accreditation and accuses the school of violating federal anti-discrimination laws. The potential loss of accreditation raises unanswered questions and poses serious risks for Columbia – or any other higher education institution – as a high-stakes battle between the White House and colleges across the country escalates. Accreditation is required for federal student loan eligibility and Pell Grants, and its loss would have direct impacts on students and faculty. Here's what we know about what losing accreditation could mean for Columbia. The Department of Education announced Wednesday it had notified Columbia's accrediting agency – the Middle States Commission on Higher Education – of the school's alleged violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, and said the school 'no longer appears to meet' the commission's accreditation standards. Accreditation decisions are made by federally recognized independent accrediting bodies through a lengthy process, but the new Department of Education statement adds significant pressure on Columbia. It's a peer-review process where schools and programs are evaluated to ensure they meet basic standards of quality, according to the Department of Education. Standards are set by accrediting agencies – private organizations that work with educational institutions to establish benchmarks. It's a critical system that determines which institutions can access billions of dollars in federal financial aid. In order to ensure 'a basic level of quality, the practice of accreditation arose in the United States as a means of conducting non-governmental, peer evaluation of educational institutions and programs,' the Department of Education's website says. If the institution or program meets the agency's standards, it earns accreditation and is listed in official publications. But it doesn't stop there. Accrediting agencies monitor schools and re-evaluate them periodically to ensure they continue to meet the required standards. Accreditation comes in two forms: institutional, for entire colleges, and specialized, for specific programs like law or nursing. Some accreditors also assess vocational institutions. The system helps identify quality schools, ease credit transfers, secure federal aid, and set professional licensing standards. The Council for Higher Education Accreditation ensures accrediting agencies uphold rigorous standards. The US has numerous accrediting agencies, but only those recognized by the Department of Education are considered reliable authorities on educational quality. The department currently recognizes dozens of accrediting agencies. Loss of accreditation could have sweeping consequences for Columbia students, rendering their academic credits ineligible for transfer and potentially disqualifying them from admission to many graduate programs, which typically require a degree from an accredited institution. And accreditation is required for federal student loans and Pell Grant eligibility. Columbia, in a statement, said Wednesday it is 'aware of the concerns raised' by the government and has 'addressed those concerns directly with Middle States.' 'Columbia is deeply committed to combatting antisemitism on our campus. We take this issue seriously and are continuing to work with the federal government to address it,' the university said. But the White House takes an entirely different view. 'After Hamas' October 7, 2023, terror attack on Israel, Columbia University's leadership acted with deliberate indifference towards the harassment of Jewish students on its campus,' US Secretary of Education Linda McMahon said Wednesday. 'We look forward to the Commission keeping the Department fully informed of actions taken to ensure Columbia's compliance with accreditation standards including compliance with federal civil rights laws,' McMahon said. The Middle States Commission on Higher Education, one of the nation's major accrediting agencies, serves as the accreditor for Columbia University. 'Everything done in the name of the institution, including all academic programs and services, falls within their scope of accreditation,' the commission's website reads. Columbia University was set to undergo an accreditation review by the commission during the 2024-25 academic year, according to the student newspaper Columbia Spectator. The university was previously accredited in 2015-16, with an earlier review in 2005-06. The process is crucial for maintaining access to federal student aid, including grants and loans, and serves as a measure of academic quality. The commission said it received a letter on the matter but does 'not have any other comment at this time.' Columbia has been gearing up for the review since early 2023 by forming a steering committee and six working groups tasked with addressing seven core accreditation standards, including governance, ethics, educational effectiveness and institutional improvement, the newspaper wrote. In September, the Office of the Vice Provost for Academic Programs released a 103-page draft self-study report outlining Columbia's compliance with accreditation benchmarks. 'It provides an opportunity for us to showcase the work that we're doing and our ongoing evolution as an institution,' Dana Palmer, senior associate provost for academic programs, told the student paper. 'What does student life look like outside of the classroom, looking at a very multidimensional perspective?' Schools have lost accreditation – or had it revoked and reinstated – in the past. In 2004, Barber-Scotia College, a historically Black institution founded by the Presbyterian Church, lost its accreditation and chose not to appeal, leaving its students ineligible for federal financial aid, according to the Church's news service. The Southern Association of Colleges and Schools cited 'a fundamental issue of integrity,' including improperly awarded degrees, in its decision. Schools that fail to meet accreditation standards may be placed on probation, according to the Accrediting Commission of Career Schools and Colleges. A few schools currently on probation include Cambridge Technical Institute in Puerto Rico, East West College of Natural Medicine in Florida, and American Trade School in Missouri. On April 23, President Donald Trump signed an executive order aimed at overhauling the university accreditation process. The executive order accuses accreditors – independent bodies that regulate academic standards – of abusing their authority by prioritizing diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives over academic outcomes. That order singled out on its criticism the American Bar Association – which provides accreditation for Juris Doctor programs in the country – and the Liaison Committee on Medical Education, the only federally recognized body that accredits Doctor of Medicine degree programs in the US and Canada. The White House criticism set the tone for its take on higher education institutions. At the core of its offensive was the requirement of concrete actions to end diversity and inclusion programs for both student bodies and faculty. 'American students and taxpayers deserve better, and my Administration will reform our dysfunctional accreditation system so that colleges and universities focus on delivering high-quality academic programs at a reasonable price,' the April executive order stated. The Council of Regional Accrediting Commissions, which represents the seven largest accrediting entities, criticized Trump's order, saying it misrepresented the role of accreditors in higher education. 'Accrediting agencies are instrumental to promoting quality assurance and protecting student and taxpayer investments in higher education,' Heather Perfetti, the president of the organization, said, adding the council 'firmly rejects' the administration's characterization. The order makes it easier for universities to switch accreditors or for new accrediting institutions, while also directing the government to 'take appropriate action to terminate unlawful discrimination' in the accreditation process.
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
SCOTUS Eases Path for 'Reverse Discrimination' Lawsuits
An exterior view of the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., on June 20, 2024. Credit - Andrew Harnik—Getty Images Lawsuits for 'reverse discrimination' will face an easier path after the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously sided on Thursday with a woman who argued that she was passed over for a promotion and later demoted because she is straight. The court's ruling is a departure from previous court decisions that have set a higher bar in cases where people who are part of a majority group, such as those who are white and straight, filed lawsuits alleging discrimination under federal civil rights law. But the Supreme Court said in its ruling that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race and sexual orientation, among other characteristics, 'draws no distinctions between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs. Rather, the provision makes it unlawful 'to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.'' 'By establishing the same protections for every 'individual'—without regard to that individual's membership in a minority or majority group—Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone,' Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote for the court. The case was brought by Marlean Ames against the Ohio Department of Youth Services, where she started working in 2004. In 2019, she applied for a promotion, but was turned down and a colleague with less seniority—who was a lesbian woman—received the promotion instead. Ames was later demoted and her previous role was given to another colleague who had less seniority, a gay man. She sued under Title VII, alleging in her lawsuit that she was denied the promotion and then demoted due to her sexual orientation. Her supervisors, however, said Ames was passed over for the promotion because she didn't have the vision and leadership skills needed for the role and demoted because they had concerns about her leadership skills. Lower courts had previously ruled against Ames, saying her lawsuit failed to demonstrate 'background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.' But the Supreme Court ruled that requirement was 'not consistent with Title VII's text or our case law construing the statute.' Contact us at letters@
Time Magazine
an hour ago
- Time Magazine
Supreme Court Unanimously Sides With Straight Woman In ‘Reverse Discrimination' Case
Lawsuits for 'reverse discrimination' will face an easier path after the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously sided on Thursday with a woman who argued that she was passed over for a promotion and later demoted because she is straight. The court's ruling is a departure from previous court decisions that have set a higher bar in cases where people who are part of a majority group, such as those who are white and straight, filed lawsuits alleging discrimination under federal civil rights law. But the Supreme Court said in its ruling that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race and sexual orientation, among other characteristics, 'draws no distinctions between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs. Rather, the provision makes it unlawful 'to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.'' 'By establishing the same protections for every 'individual'—without regard to that individual's membership in a minority or majority group—Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone,' Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote for the court. The case was brought by Marlean Ames against the Ohio Department of Youth Services, where she started working in 2004. In 2019, she applied for a promotion, but was turned down and a colleague with less seniority—who was a lesbian woman—received the promotion instead. Ames was later demoted and her previous role was given to another colleague who had less seniority, a gay man. She sued under Title VII, alleging in her lawsuit that she was denied the promotion and then demoted due to her sexual orientation. Her supervisors, however, said Ames was passed over for the promotion because she didn't have the vision and leadership skills needed for the role and demoted because they had concerns about her leadership skills. Lower courts had previously ruled against Ames, saying her lawsuit failed to demonstrate 'background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.' But the Supreme Court ruled that requirement was 'not consistent with Title VII's text or our case law construing the statute.'
