In July 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a memorandum, now widely referred to as the Bondi Memo, to all federal agencies responsible for enforcing civil rights laws. The Memo provides new guidance for identifying and responding to potentially unlawful DEI practices among recipients of federal funding.

For K-12 schools and districts and higher education institutions, this Memo signals a renewed and highly focused federal enforcement strategy that may affect scholarships, hiring practices, training programs, and more. Below, we have broken down what you need to know across five essential areas.

1. Purpose and Scope: Why This Memo Matters

The Memo outlines how the DOJ and, by extension, all federal funding agencies should approach DEI-related practices that may violate civil rights laws.

It does not create new law. Rather, it reinforces existing legal obligations for recipients of federal financial assistance, including:

• Public and private K-12 schools and districts
• Colleges and universities
• Education agencies and departments

This Memo urges agencies to closely examine DEI programs and policies for compliance with anti-discrimination laws and refer potential violations for enforcement action, including possible civil or criminal penalties.

2. Key Legal Principles

At the heart of the memo is this principle: recipients of federal funds must not discriminate based on race, color, national origin, sex, or religion. The memo references several federal laws that protect these characteristics:

• Title VI (race, color, national origin)
• Title VII (employment discrimination)
• Title IX (sex-based discrimination in education)
• Equal Protection Clause (state actors)

The Memo emphasizes that any use of race or sex in decision-making is only lawful under very narrow circumstances, specifically, if it satisfies strict scrutiny (for race) or heightened scrutiny (for sex). These legal thresholds are rarely met.

3. Unlawful Practices Identified in the Memo

The Memo categorizes unlawful DEI practices into several broad groups. Here are the most relevant for education:

Preferential Treatment

• Limiting scholarships or programs to specific racial/ethnic groups
• Hiring or promotions based on race or sex, even under “underrepresented” labels
• Reserving resource access (e.g., lounges or mentorships) to specific racial or ethnic groups

Use of Proxies

• Using terms like “cultural competence,” “lived experience,” or geographic targeting as stand-ins for protected traits
• Relying on DEI statements or “overcoming adversity” prompts used to indirectly favor certain races or sexes

Segregation

• Offering DEI training or spaces (e.g., BIPOC-only lounges) that separate based on race or sex
• Requiring individuals to identify their race, gender, or ethnicity to participate in programs

Discriminatory Selection Criteria

• Mandating racial or gender quotas for hiring
• Mandating vendor selection or contracting favoring “minority-owned” or “women-owned” without legal justification
• Creating race or gender-targeted internships, fellowships, or programs

Hostile or Discriminatory Training

• Requiring trainings that stereotype or shame participants based on race, sex, or other protected characteristics
• Promoting concepts like “inherent privilege” tied to race or sex

4. Best Practices (Non-Binding)

The Memo also outlines recommended, but not binding, best practices that schools, districts, and institutions should consider adopting to avoid compliance risk:

• Focus on merit: Use clearly defined qualifications, not demographic targets, when selecting candidates or recipients
• Avoid quotas and benchmarks: Refrain from establishing numerical diversity goals that could imply discriminatory intent
• Scrutinize proxies: Ensure that neutral criteria (e.g., first-generation status, economic background) do not serve as backdoors to race- or sex-based preferences
• Promote open access: Do not limit access to programs or spaces based on protected traits, even when the intent is to foster inclusion
• Build safe reporting structures: Provide clear avenues for individuals to report discriminatory practices and protect them from retaliation
• Monitor vendors and partners: Include nondiscrimination clauses in contracts and evaluate external programming for compliance risks

5. Implications for Compliance

Now is the time for K-12 schools and districts and higher education institutions to revisit and review their DEI-related policies and materials. The Memo makes it clear that:

• Programs that give preference or limit access based on race or sex, even unintentionally, may be unlawful
• DEI programs must be implemented in ways that do not restrict or segregate access
• Institutions are responsible not only for their own programs but also those delivered by third-party partners
• Increased investigations and enforcement are already underway. Proactive review and adjustment of DEI-related initiatives will help schools mitigate legal risk and maintain their eligibility for federal funding

Need Support Reviewing Your Programs?

ICS offers training, policy support, and more to help schools, districts, and institutions remain compliant with federal civil rights laws while supporting student access. If you need help, our team is ready. Contact us to learn more.