Editor’s Note: All opinion section content reflects the views of the individual author only and does not represent a stance taken by The Collegian or its editorial board. Letters to the Editor reflect the view of a member of the campus community and are submitted to the publication for approval.
Tony Frank, chancellor of the Colorado State University System, recommended that CSU campuses follow the new Department of Education directives eliminating diversity, equity and inclusion programs. Perhaps he should tell CSU to stand by the laws and vision that has guided this vital land grant institution since 1862.
On Feb. 21, Frank delivered a message directing the CSU community to follow new DOE directives on DEI. These new directives and supporting rationale were laid out by Craig Trainor, the acting assistant secretary for civil rights in the DOE on Feb. 14 in what is generally referred to as the Dear Colleague Letter. Trainor reinterprets DEI programs as illegal and a form of discrimination. He wrote that these programs should be eliminated and threatened to withhold federal funds to schools that do not comply.
It struck me that Frank’s letter was difficult to write. He shared his musings and challenges as he grappled with what amounts to a moral dilemma. It’s long, heartfelt and carefully considered. While he didn’t necessarily agree with the new DOE policy or interpretation of law, he felt that his responsibility was first to protect the funding and jobs of the CSU System. Normally, general guidance or policy positions from leaders are not explained or justified, and I felt comforted to witness his candid deliberation process.
However, after sitting with Frank’s message for a few days, I have come to a different conclusion. Frank tied himself in knots to justify doing the easy thing.
Trainor’s letter distorts civil rights law and the language of Title VI. Trainor intimates that DEI programs are intended to discriminate against Asian and white people, and are therefore immoral, repugnant and a throwback to a darker time.
These new DOE requirements are a reversal of decades of generally accepted academic practices and deny the reality that segments of our society have been systematically disadvantaged and still are. Trainor used the language of Title VI and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 but ignores its intent.
“Regarding the broader impact of the legislation, then-Senator Humphrey” — author of Title VI — “articulated that ‘Title VI is simply designed to ensure that federal funds are spent in accordance with the Constitution and the moral sense of the nation. Moreover, the purpose of Title VI is not to cut off funds but to end racial discrimination.'”
I watched Gov. Janet Mills of Maine stand up to Trump when he threatened to withhold federal funds based on his interpretation of civil rights law. Like Frank, Gov. Mills has a large workforce to protect. But she didn’t waiver in the face of an impossible demand. Her oath to the U.S. Constitution and her unrelenting moral compass made her response, “I’ll see you in court,” an easy retort. Frank might poll the students, staff and faculty of the CSU System and hear what their views are. I suspect the majority will encourage Frank to see Donald Trump in court.
John Perzow, Colorado State University alumnus
Send letters to letters@collegian.com. When submitting letters, please abide by the guidelines listed at collegian.com.
