San Francisco—Discrimination in schools rarely announces itself. It can hide in policies that look neutral on paper and land unevenly on students in practice. Today, the U.S. Department of Education finalized a rule eliminating disparate impact liability from its regulations implementing Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Public Advocates condemns this action in the strongest of terms.

The rule removes the provisions that for six decades have barred federally funded schools and colleges from using criteria or methods of administration that have the effect of subjecting students to discrimination based on race, color, or national origin. It also deletes the requirement that recipients of federal funds “take affirmative action to overcome the effects of prior discrimination,” allowing education officials to ignore racial harms they have caused in the past.

As it did at the Department of Justice and the Department of Transportation before it, the Department published this as a final rule effective immediately, without a public comment period to avoid hearing from the students, families and educators who will bear the consequences.

“The Department is slamming the door on the face of students who are denied equitable treatment,” said Guillermo Mayer, President and CEO of Public Advocates. “Without disparate impact liability, school officials cannot be held accountable by the federal government for decisions that produce serious racial disparities—no matter how severe, and even when workable, less discriminatory alternatives exist.”

Disparate impact liability involves a practical test. When a policy disproportionately burdens students of a protected class, the district must show that the policy actually serves a legitimate educational purpose, and that no less discriminatory alternative would achieve that purpose. If it meets that test, the policy survives. If it doesn’t, the policy is invalid.

Consider a district under budget pressure that concentrates school closures in predominantly Black and Latino neighborhoods, with no articulated justification for why it selected those particular campuses, and no consideration of a less harmful path. Or a discipline policy, an enrollment practice, or an advanced-course placement rule that funnels students of color away from educational opportunities. Disparate impact exists precisely to require that justification. Without it, the harm remains and the recourse vanishes.

Going forward, for the Department to intervene, families must prove intentional discrimination—a standard that is, by design, nearly impossible to meet. Officials rarely leave a record of racial animus. They leave a record of decisions. 

The Trump administration’s framing gets it backwards. The Department claims it is restoring fairness—casting  disparate impact as a backdoor racial preference that forces schools to engage in racial balancing rather than treating students as individuals. That is not what disparate impact does. It does not mandate outcomes or impose quotas. It asks whether a policy that disadvantages a protected group serves a real purpose, and whether a fairer option exists. A genuinely necessary policy survives that test. What it cannot do is hide behind neutral-sounding language while producing exclusion that serves no legitimate end. This is not preferential treatment—its accountability.

“It is a shame that this accountability tool no longer exists at the federal level, when discrimination remains rampant in our nation’s schools,” said Alicia Virani, Senior Staff Attorney at Public Advocates.

The Trump administration’s pattern of systematically dismantling civil rights protections is unmistakable. The burden now shifts to the states to protect students, and California must act. 

The state has already built civil rights infrastructure that does not depend on federal willingness to enforce, including Government Code section 11135, which prohibits discrimination by recipients of state funding. Improved education data and analyses are needed to make disparities visible. But visibility is not enforcement, and the state must provide the robust oversight needed to ensure that students’ civil rights are honored when a district’s decisions land hardest on students of color. Enforcement by private parties in state courts is also essential.

We call on the governor and the legislature to close the gap with protections that are stronger and more comprehensive than the ones the Department has just rescinded. California did exactly this in 2018, when Assembly Bill 686 backfilled the void left by the first Trump administration’s suspension of the affirmatively furthering fair housing rule. The state must do it again, this time for students. 

“Californians have spent decades fighting to ensure our public education institutions center equitable access for low-income, Black, Latinx, Native American, Asian American and Pacific Islander students,” said Jetaun Stevens, Deputy Director of Higher Education and Senior Staff Attorney at Public Advocates. “This unprecedented attack on our civil rights by the federal government puts all of that progress at risk. The legislature must step up to ensure our public education institutions remain accountable to the people they serve.” 

This is the fight Public Advocates has waged for more than five decades—in districts, in courtrooms, in statehouses, and alongside the families these protections were built to serve. Discrimination has not ended. We will keep making rights real for every student and family in California. 

###

About Public Advocates Inc.
Public Advocates Inc. is a nonprofit law firm and advocacy organization that challenges the systemic causes of poverty and racial discrimination by strengthening community voices in public policy and achieving tangible legal victories advancing education, housing, transportation equity, and climate justice.

.