In response to an increase in discrimination complaints, the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) issued a letter to colleagues: “Letter to Colleagues: Discrimination, including harassment based on race, color, or national origin, including common ancestry or ethnic characteristics.” “Protecting Students” was published. May 7, 2024.
Although the Dear Colleague Letter (DCL) is not legally enforceable and does not create new legal standards, the DCL provides useful guidance for complying with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
OCR states that in the DCL, protections under Title VI extend to characteristics of common ancestry, ethnicity, or national origin, such as Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, Arabs, Israelis, Palestinians, or South Asians. We emphasize that it extends to All educational facilities receiving federal financial aid must comply with Title VI. Title VI does not protect students from discrimination based solely on religion, so while the Department of Justice may address certain religious discrimination complaints regarding public schools, OCR does not address such complaints .
The DCL highlights two legal frameworks that courts and OCR use to determine whether a school has engaged in discrimination in violation of Title VI: hostile environment and discriminatory treatment. Additionally, we discuss related First Amendment considerations.
First, OCR notes that schools have several tools to respond to hostile environments that do not restrict First Amendment rights. For example, schools may (1) express opposition to stereotypical and derogatory views, (2) provide counseling and support to students affected by harassment, or (3) provide a welcoming and respectful Steps can be taken to establish a school campus. DCL emphasizes that while schools may be limited in their response to situations where speech is involved, they still have appropriate means to meet their legal obligations. OCR advises that compared to universities, elementary and middle schools have more leeway to regulate student speech.
Second, OCR requires schools to (1) take steps reasonably calculated to (a) end the harassment, (b) eliminate the hostile environment and its effects, and (c) prevent recurrence of the harassment. It points out that there is an obligation to take prompt and effective measures to address the situation. The school has actual or constructive notice of (3) a hostile environment based on race, color, or national origin; OCR measures hostility objectively and subjectively to determine whether it limits or denies an individual's ability to participate in or benefit from educational programs or activities. Harassment can exist even when individuals are not individually targeted. OCR examines both the prevalence and severity of harassment.
DCL includes many factual scenarios that are subject to OCR investigation. These included (1) a swastika drawn on a whiteboard on a Jewish student's dorm room door and negative stereotypes and adjectives posted as comments on her social media; Masu. (2) Protesters at a screening of an Israeli filmmaker chanted epithets about Jews, verbally abused Jewish attendees, and defaced the hosting student organization's building with swastikas. (3) students use slurs or negative stereotypes against Jewish students, accusing them of supporting genocide simply because they identify as Jewish; (4) Dozens of students surrounded Arab students, calling them “terrorists” and “supporters of jihad,” and disrupting student group meetings. (5) Counter-demonstrators shouting “terrorists” and “a second Nakba” at Jewish, Arab, Muslim, and other students who had gathered to “show solidarity with Gaza.” In each of these examples, the university had no choice but to simply issue a statement supporting the peaceful protests and condemning the violence, or to tell the complaining students that “university is difficult and things are tense.'' We have a duty to take action, not just to denounce acts of violence, vandalism of school property, or just rallies. With students who complain.
Third, OCR investigates allegations of discriminatory treatment and determines whether a school (1) limits or denies educational services, benefits, or opportunities to students in a protected class by treating them differently than other students; and (2) whether educational services, benefits, or opportunities can be provided differently to other students. and (3) used that explanation as a pretext for discrimination.
Examples of disparate treatment that resulted in OCR investigations include (1) disciplining Somali Muslim students more harshly than white students based on concerns that they exhibit greater safety concerns; This can be mentioned. (2) Professors grade Jewish students more harshly than non-Jewish students in order to downplay negative stereotypes about Jewish students. (3) The filing of claims of national origin discrimination by students from Kurdish, Hmong, or other stateless ethnic groups based on the improper view that protections against national origin discrimination apply only to discrimination based on a particular national origin. Refuse investigation. (4) ignoring allegations of ethnic origin harassment from Sikh students while investigating similar allegations by Greek Orthodox, Chaldean, or Coptic Christians;
Finally, OCR notes that while speech about the policies and practices of a particular country is protected by the First Amendment, targeting criticism of people associated with or from that country is protected by the Sixth Amendment. It has been pointed out that this may have an impact on the edition. For example, professors and students who criticize the Israeli, Saudi, or Indian governments should not target Israeli, Jewish, Saudi, Muslim, Indian, or Hindu students.
OCR emphasizes that all students, whether Jewish, Israeli, Muslim, Arab, Palestinian, Sikh, Hindu, or South Asian, have the right to a school environment free of discrimination. are doing.