Rhode Island schools should heed state's nondiscrimination laws, say state officials
Angélica Infante-Green, Rhode Island Commissioner of Elementary and Secondary Education, speaks at a press event on Feb. 10, 2025, at Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Elementary School in Providence. Infante-Green, along with the state's Attorney General, is advising schools to hold off on adopting federal directives regarding LGBTQ+ and DEI policies. (Photo by Alexander Castro/Rhode Island Current)
Rhode Island's Attorney General and K-12 education commissioner have teamed up once again, urging schools to think carefully before changing LGBTQ+ and diversity-related policies following recent executive orders by President Donald Trump.
'The children of Rhode Island's public schools deserve a safe and inclusive learning environment — no matter who they are, what they look like, or where they come from,' Attorney General Peter Neronha and state education Commissioner Angélica Infante-Green wrote in their guidance to schools.
The 10-page document arrived Friday morning, the same day as a federal deadline to eliminate diversity, equity or inclusion-related school programming or possibly lose federal funding, as originally outlined in a Feb. 14 letter from the U.S. Department of Education Office of Civil Rights (OCR). This the second time the attorney general and education commissioner have co-authored guidance for schools, following a Jan. 27 letter regarding concerns on deportation or detainment by federal immigration officials.
The federal education department's letter, Neronha and Infante-Green wrote, 'is not by itself an enforcement mechanism,' and along with recent executive orders that target DEI and LGBTQ+ policies, 'infringe upon the authority of state and local governments over the education of children.'
The guidance also discusses four executive orders President Donald Trump issued between Jan. 20 and Jan. 29, that target DEI spending, gender identity and racial politics in schools. Among the orders discussed specifically is 'Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism And Restoring Biological Truth To The Federal Government' issued on Jan. 20 during Trump's first day back in office. The gender order asserts that federal law will only recognize two sexes, and commands agencies to restructure laws and policies accordingly.
Neronha and Infante-Green emphasized that, even with these federal changes, Rhode Island laws and protections remain unchanged. They reassured schools that they are not legally required to alter existing policies right now, especially as some of the education department's letter and some of the executive orders face court challenges.
'While the courts continue to rule on the legal effect of the Administration's actions, any attempt by state or local officials to comply with important aspects of these Executive Orders or the OCR Letter would be premature and potentially contrary to state and federal law,' the guidance reads.
The guidance noted that Rhode Island's LGBTQ+ regulations in public schools are instituted by the Rhode Island education commissioner and 'have the force and effect of law. … Until a court holds otherwise, these state laws and regulation continue to govern.'
In 2001, Rhode Island was the second state to include transgender people in its nondiscrimination laws, which prohibits discrimination in public spaces. The guidance noted that restrooms, including those in public schools, are public places protected by anti-discrimination laws.
The guidance will be updated as legal challenges to the federal directives unfold, the attorney general and commissioner wrote.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
How civil rights investigations against schools have changed under Trump admin
Amid a flurry of civil rights and Title IX investigations, the Trump administration has reopened K-12 schools and universities, signaling a complete 180-degree shift in the interpretation of the mandates. The Trump administration is fighting schools over transgender athletes, bans on Native American mascots and Chicago's 'Black Students Success Plans.' The switch from the previous administration has caused whiplash for schools, with advocates warning students some complaints may not be worth pursuing. 'The Trump Administration has created dumpsters for so-called civil rights violations that are distractingly unresponsive to actual acts of violence, harassment, discrimination and abuse in our nation's educational institutions,' says Shaun Harper, a professor of education, public policy and business at the University of Southern California. 'It is painfully apparent that destructive politicized attacks on DEI are far more important to them than are efforts to ensure the actual civil rights of American students, families and educators,' he added, referring to diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. The most drastic change has been in the handling of cases involving transgender athletes. The Biden administration notably moved to add protections for LGBTQ individuals to Title IX, a civil rights law that protects students against sex-based discrimination. Former President Biden also proposed protections for transgender students, such as forbidding overarching bans on transgender women in girls' sports, but withdrew the proposal before President Trump took office, so the new president could not take the provision and alter it. Under the Trump administration, dozens of schools have come under fire with alleged Title IX violations over transgender athletes. The biggest threat occurred against California after the Trump administration said it would pull federal funding from the state following a transgender high school track and field athlete qualifying to compete in the state championship. 'It's definitely been tough to have students come to us who are considering filing an Office of Civil Rights [OCR] complaint because they've experienced discrimination at their school, and have to sort of say, 'I'm not even sure if it's a good idea at this moment,' given the way that the Trump administration is enforcing Title IX,' said Emma Grasso Levine, senior manager of Title IX policy and programs at the Title IX advocacy project Know Your IX. 'Having OCR suddenly stop being an option for many students because of the discriminatory way that the Trump administration is operating … really does limit mechanisms for accountability to ensure that schools are handling Title IX cases and preventing sex-based harassment,' she added. In a statement to The Hill, Department of Education spokesperson Julie Hartman said the Trump administration is 'restoring civil rights law and reversing the damage inflicted by the Biden Administration, which stretched the scope of federal anti-discrimination law beyond its statutory purview.' Hartman added, 'By enforcing the law as it is written, the Trump Administration's OCR is using its personnel and resources responsibly to protect all Americans and eliminating wasteful and unfounded investigations.' While the Trump administration has been vague in its definition of what DEI initiatives are at schools, the civil rights investigations the Education Department is opening give a glimpse at its meaning. Chicago Public Schools is currently under investigation over 'Black Students Success Plans' the district made, without making similar plans for students of other ethnicities. The Education Department launched a probe against New York's Education Department after it threatened to strip funding from a school for having a Native American mascot. 'Forcing them to change the name, after all of these years, is ridiculous and, in actuality, an affront to our great Indian population. The School Board, and virtually everyone in the area, are demanding the name be kept,' Trump said about the incident. Supporters of the president are encouraged by the rapid switch in gears in what investigations are brought to schools, pointing out some families have been waiting four years for this. 'The [Biden] administration had a pretty clear stance in favor of what they called equity, but I argue was really racial favoritism and an ideology in favor of identity politics,' said Jonathan Butcher, a senior research fellow in education policy at the Heritage Foundation. 'The Trump administration is, I believe, appropriately viewing the Civil Rights Act in terms of colorblindness and meritocracy and trying to preserve, or at least restore those things to American public life and in public law,' he added. 'It should be a relief to local educators and families who are concerned that the transgender movement has taken over our view of what it means to be male and female.' The relief by some parents — and fear by others — of what cases will be prioritized highlights the struggle with the political whiplash that can occur when the Education Department switches hands. 'Even with the pingponging, it doesn't mean that the Trump administration is accurate, and they're putting forward an unlawful and wrong interpretation of the law by distorting the law and using it as a way to require discrimination against students, and especially students from vulnerable communities,' said Shiwali Patel, senior director of Safe and Inclusive Schools. There are concerns about how the Trump administration is using the Office of Civil Rights, but also if it will even exist by the end of his presidency. Many employees in the office were fired during the Education Department's reduction in force, and Trump has floated moving OCR to the Department of Justice. Some advocates have said the Department of Education will be unable to uphold its legal obligations, especially as OCR cases were already backlogged before the layoffs. 'They're prioritizing weaponizing these laws to require harm against students, against vulnerable groups of students, with the few resources that they have, because now we're now dealing with an OCR that is at almost half of what it used to be because of all the cuts and the layoffs that the Trump administration has engaged in,' Patel said. The North Star for both sides is passing laws either in Congress or on the state level to fight against the executive changes that happen to these investigations every four years. 'I think the states have adopted laws that have prohibited boys in girls' sports,' Butcher said. 'All of these things that states are doing are codifying what the Trump administration is now supporting.' 'At the federal level, it'll definitely be up to Congress, of course, when it comes to putting something into law. And I think that federal lawmakers would do well to be mindful not only of what the Civil Rights statutes say on this issue, but also what voters are feeling like,' he added. 'Voters, I think, have made it clear through surveys that these positions on, again, boys getting access to girls' private spaces and sports, are unpopular.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Trump's war against DEI isn't going so well in Virginia
Apparently when President Trump says 'illegal DEI,' he means lawful and common-sense efforts to integrate public schools. At least, that's the takeaway from the Department of Education's new investigation against Fairfax County Public Schools. Trump officials claim Fairfax County violated federal law when it adopted an admissions policy designed to 'change the demographic make up' of its most competitive high school. This theory, which equates integration with segregation, dates back to Barry Goldwater, who remarked in 1964 that 'the Constitution is color-blind … and so it is just as wrong to compel children to attend certain schools for the sake of so-called integration as for the sake of segregation.' It seems Trump agrees. Unfortunately for him, the Supreme Court does not. Just last year, the court declined to overturn a ruling for Fairfax County. As I explained at the time, that decision made sense. Even as the Supreme Court has shifted hard right, decades of conservative case law — including from Chief Justice John Roberts — condone racial goals such as diversity, equality and inclusion. The new investigation tracks Trump's disregard for courts and his tendency toward bluster over substance. But in important respects, it also exposes that Trump's war on DEI lacks any moral and legal basis. Some context is helpful. For decades, Black advocates sought to desegregate Thomas Jefferson High School, one of the nation's top-ranked public schools. As recently as 2012, the NAACP filed a civil rights complaint alleging that the school's admissions policies discriminated against African American and Hispanic students and students with disabilities. Things shifted in 2020. As racial justice protests erupted across the globe, local leaders grappled with the fact that in a county with roughly 100,000 Black residents, Thomas Jefferson High School admitted so few Black students that the number was too small to report. The state convened a task force to examine the causes of this ongoing exclusion at Thomas Jefferson and other Virginia schools. Following a series of hearings, the board revised the school's admissions process, eliminating a $100 application fee and a standardized testing requirement. Contrary to ongoing claims that the new policy compromised 'merit,' the board raised the minimum GPA for admission from 3.0 to 3.5 and added an honors course requirement. The new policy also implemented a holistic evaluation that included new 'experience factors,' such as whether the applicant qualified for reduced meals or is an English language learner. The updated process also ensured that each middle school receive a number of seats equal to 1.5 percent of its eighth-grade class. The school board resolved that '[t]he admission process must use only race-neutral methods that do not seek to achieve any specific racial or ethnic mix, balance or targets.' This means that admissions officials are not told the race, ethnicity, sex or name of any applicant. In Supreme Court parlance, the entire admissions process was 'colorblind.' The new process produced promising results. In its inaugural year, Thomas Jefferson High School received 1,000 more applicants than the prior cycle. This larger applicant pool also 'included markedly more low-income students, English-language learners, and girls than had prior classes at TJ.' Consistent with the heightened GPA requirement, the admitted class's mean GPA was higher than in the five preceding years. The new process also yielded greater racial diversity. Black students comprised 10 percent of the applicant pool and received nearly 8 percent of offers and Hispanic students comprised 11 percent of the applicant pool and received over 11 percent of offers. The overall percentage of Asian American students decreased from the preceding year, but Asian Americans continued to enjoy the highest percentage yield of all racial groups. And as the Fourth Circuit detailed, Asian American students from historically underrepresented middle schools 'saw a sixfold increase in offers, and the number of low-income Asian American admittees to TJ increased to 51 — from a mere one in 2020.' In short, Thomas Jefferson High School adopted a 'race-neutral' process to pursue a set of goals that included increasing Black and Hispanic representation. This is the precise type of practice the Trump administration denigrates as 'illegal DEI.' Efforts to promote racial diversity do constitute DEI. But they are far from illegal. In fact, Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard — the 2023 decision striking down Harvard University's formal consideration of applicant race — supports most of the DEI policies Trump now targets. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Roberts deemed Harvard's underlying goals as 'worthy' and 'commendable.' Justice Brett Kavanaugh made the point more directly; writing for himself, Kavanaugh noted that 'racial discrimination still occurs and the effects of past racial discrimination still persist' and that 'universities still can, of course, act to undo the effects of past discrimination in many permissible ways that do not involve classification by race.' The actions of the high school square with Kavanaugh's call for policies that attend to race but do not differentiate between individual students on this basis. This should short-circuit the Department of Education's investigation against Fairfax County. But it is unlikely to stall Trump's desire to outlaw integration. The Pacific Legal Foundation, which initiated the lawsuit against Fairfax County and remains a force on the right, wants to revive Goldwater's hostile approach to integration. Consider the following FAQ on Pacific Legal's website: 'schools may use or not use standardized tests, essays, interviews, or auditions, as long as their reasons for using or not using them are not racial.' By this logic, a high school could lawfully eliminate an admissions fee if motivated by public relations concerns, but it would be unlawful to take that same action if done to decrease racial barriers that exclude low-income Black and Hispanic students. Now consider higher education. Per Pacific Legal, Harvard University could eliminate admissions preferences for the children of alumni and wealthy donors if done to appease alumni pressure. But it would be unlawful for Harvard to take the same action if the goal is increasing the number of Asian American students or mitigate unearned racial preferences that flow to wealthy white applicants. The upshot is that affirmative efforts to reduce racial inequality — everything Trump dubs 'illegal DEI' — remain legal and morally just. So, at least for now, integration does not equate to segregation. Jonathan Feingold is an associate professor at Boston University School of Law. He is an expert in affirmative action, antidiscrimination law, education law, and critical race theory. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
Trump Is Melting Down in Private at ‘Weak' Amy Coney Barrett
President Donald Trump has privately lashed out at conservative Supreme Court justices for not consistently backing his agenda, taking particular aim at his most recent appointee Amy Coney Barrett. One week after Barrett enraged MAGA Republicans by recusing herself from an Oklahoma charter school case, CNN reported that the president has become increasingly frustrated by his 2020 Supreme Court pick, fueled by right-wing allies telling him that she is 'weak'. According to unnamed sources, Trump has been increasingly irked by others on the bench, too, including Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, whom the president also nominated during his first term. But the main target was reportedly Barrett amid concerns from allies that her rulings have not been consistent with how she presented herself before she was appointed to her lifetime job on the nation's highest court. Tensions in MAGA world over Barrett have been simmering for months. In March, for example, Barrett voted to reject Trump's attempt to freeze nearly $2 billion in foreign aid, prompting legal commentator Mike Davis to declare on Steve Bannon's podcast: 'She's a rattled law professor with her head up her ass.' Earlier in January, Barrett sided with Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, a fellow conservative, and the liberal justices of the court to allow Trump to be sentenced in his so-called 'hush money' trial. Trump had been convicted in May after a jury in New York unanimously found him guilty of 34 counts of falsifying business records to cover up a sex scandal with porn star Stormy Daniels. But last month's decision to recuse herself in the Oklahoma case particularly enraged those in Trump's circle, given the administration had backed the school. In a statement to the Daily Beast, spokesman Harrison Fields said: 'President Trump will always stand with the U.S. Supreme Court, unlike the Democrat Party, which, if given the opportunity, would pack the court, ultimately undermining its integrity. 'The President may disagree with the Court and some of its rulings, but he will always respect its foundational role,' he said. Barrett was nominated by Trump in 2020, but had become a darling of religious conservatives during her earlier confirmation hearings to sit on the Seventh Circuit. Appointed to the Supreme Court at the age of 48, she was the youngest woman justice to sit on the bench and also happened to be the first mother of school-aged children to serve there. While Barrett has joined conservatives on major rulings to move US law to the right, including on abortion and affirmative action, MAGA acolytes have become increasingly angered by her more centrist rulings, with some even calling her 'evil' and a 'DEI' hire. 'Amy Coney Barrett was a DEI appointee,' far-right influencer, Laura Loomer wrote on X in March. The post also featured a photo of Barrett's family, which includes two children adopted from Haiti, who are Black. Her supporters, however, have fought back. 'Barrett is a terrific justice, and, in most cases, those who are criticizing her are forgetting the proper role of the judiciary,' wrote National Review senior editor Charles C.W. Cooke in a recent column titled 'In defense of Justice Amy Coney Barrett.'
