The letters warn of potential enforcement actions and loss of federal funds if institutions do not fulfill their obligations under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.

In recent days, the Department of Education has announced two sets of investigations stemming from the administration’s application of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard. The announced investigations are focused on institutional compliance within the context of the Supreme Court opinion and subsequent guidance from the Department of Education in the February 14, 2025, “Dear Colleague Letter” that sought to:

[C]larify and reaffirm the nondiscrimination obligations of schools and other entities that receive federal financial assistance from the United States Department of Education … and reiterate [ ] existing legal requirements under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution, and other relevant authorities.

On March 14, 2025, the Department announced that the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) opened investigations into 45 universities under Title VI civil rights obligations to end the use of racial preferences and stereotypes in education programs and activities. The Department characterized the investigations as focusing on (1) "the use of racial preferences and stereotypes in education programs and activities" related to graduate-level partnerships with "The Ph.D. Project" (45 institutions) and (2) "awarding impermissible race-based scholarships" (seven institutions).

On March 10, 2025, OCR sent letters to 60 institutions of higher education warning them of potential enforcement actions if they do not fulfill their obligations under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act to protect Jewish students on campus, including uninterrupted access to campus facilities and educational opportunities. The letters were addressed to all U.S. universities that are presently under investigation for Title VI violations relating to antisemitic harassment and discrimination. These investigations are being conducted under the purview of the Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism, comprised of the Departments of Justice, Health and Human Services and Education and the General Services Administration. 

On March 7, 2025, the Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism announced the cancellation of $400 million in federal grants and contracts to Columbia University “due to the school’s continued inaction in the face of persistent harassment of Jewish students.”

Potential Consequences of Noncompliance

The government took the foregoing actions pursuant to its authority to enforce Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibits any institution that receives federal funds from discriminating on the basis of race, color and national origin. The letters warn of potential enforcement actions and loss of federal funds if institutions do not fulfill their obligations under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.

Response

Based on our experience and the regulatory requirements, institutions subject to an investigation should carefully evaluate the scope of the investigation or inquiry, consider the legal rights and remedies available to OCR, as well as identify the procedural framework, including, but not limited to, agency hearings and appeals.

Consult with Experienced Education and Investigation Counsel

Upon receipt of a notice of investigation, request for information, civil investigative demand (CID) or similar investigative demand or subpoena, it is essential to consult with experienced counsel immediately. Given the potential complexities, risks and implications of responding to an investigative demand, having attorneys who are experienced in representing institutions in government investigations, and specifically the Department and its OCR, from the start of the process of evaluating and responding is critical to ensure compliance with the demand, protect your legal rights and minimize potential negative consequences. Having experienced counsel to support the process will allow you to focus on your institutional concerns and needs.

Evaluate the Scope of the Investigation or Inquiry

Institutions should immediately consult with their legal counsel to evaluate the scope of, and all bases for, the requests and to identify all relevant deadlines for responding or otherwise addressing the requests. Initial evaluation should ordinarily focus on understanding the potential issues that may be the subject of the investigation, identifying sources of information relevant to those issues, evaluating how the information requested may be relevant to the investigation, assessing the potential burdens of the requests, analyzing any potential privileges and/or confidentiality obligations, and evaluating any procedural issues or defects raised by the requests. Not all deadlines may be apparent from the face of the request. For example, the time to file a petition to modify or set aside a CID issued under the False Claims Act is 20 days, even if the time for compliance under the CID is longer.

Preserve Documents and Information

Upon receipt of any investigative notice, it is critical that institutions take immediate steps with the assistance of their counsel to preserve information that might relate to the investigation. It is essential to understand the scope of the request to ensure that information is preserved and remains available to the institution and the government. There can be serious consequences for destroying information related to a government investigation. Moreover, institutions that preserve information in a readily accessible way may find it easier to negotiate a more orderly—and potentially less burdensome—response to the government. The scope of preservation efforts is likely to evolve over the course of the investigation.

Engage and Negotiate with the Government

Effective and timely communication with the issuing agency is critical to establishing the right tone and position of the institution. Counsel experienced in education-related government investigations can engage with the government right away to gain additional information about the nature of the investigation and the institution’s role in it, address any immediate concerns about the requests for (or availability of) information, provide information about the institution and its operations that may help define the scope of the investigation, emphasize the institution’s commitment to compliance and cooperation where appropriate, and negotiate an agreement as to the scope and timing of responses.

Conduct an Internal Investigation/Inquiry

Retaining experienced counsel to conduct a privileged internal investigation of the subject matter of the government’s investigation is critical for avoiding the unintentional waiver of any rights or protections available to the institution and to advocate for the institution’s interest effectively in every step of the investigation. The scope of that internal investigation can and will vary, but in order for an institution to achieve the best possible outcome, counsel for the institution must undertake a sufficient inquiry to learn of facts and information necessary to respond fully and completely to the government’s investigation, identify facts and information necessary to assess risks and identify potential defenses, and cooperate and provide the government with information relevant to the investigation.

About Duane Morris

Duane Morris has extensive experience in representing colleges and universities facing government investigations and educational regulatory compliance issues. We have guided numerous public, private nonprofit and proprietary educational institutions through complex Department of Education inquiries and Office for Civil Rights investigations. Our proactive approach and deep knowledge of federal regulations and discrimination laws enable us to mitigate risks, protect institutional reputations and ensure compliance with applicable laws.

For More Information

If you have any questions about this Alert, please contact Katherine D. Brodie, Edward Cramp, Drew T. Dorner, Kristina Gill, Anthony J. Guida Jr., John M. Simpson, Daniel R. Walworth, Jen DeMay, any of the attorneys in our Higher Education Group or the attorney in the firm with whom you are regularly in contact.

Disclaimer: This Alert has been prepared and published for informational purposes only and is not offered, nor should be construed, as legal advice. For more information, please see the firm's full disclaimer.