Diversity, equity and inclusion programs at Misericordia and other universities across the nation are in jeopardy after the department of Education gave universities a two-week deadline to rid themselves of DEI polices or else they risk losing federal funding.

The sternly worded warning came in the form of a four page letter released on Valentine’s Day by Craig Trainor, who is the Department of Education’s Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights.

The letter, addressed, “Dear Colleague,” highlights the specific practices that Trump’s Department of Education deems unacceptable, which the letter claims is supported by federal law.

“Federal law thus prohibits covered entities from using race in decisions pertaining to admissions, hiring, promotion, compensation, financial aid, scholarships, prizes, administrative support, discipline, housing, graduation ceremonies, and all other aspects of student, academic, and campus life.”

Trainor’s letter also specifically calls out the Department of Education’s perceived less definitive and “Covert racial discrimination that has become widespread in this Nation’s educational institutions.”

“The law is clear: treating students differently on the basis of race to achieve nebulous goals such as diversity, racial balancing, social justice, or equity is illegal under controlling Supreme Court precedent,” the letter states.

Universities around the country, including Misericordia, are scrambling to interpret the letter’s extent and potential massive impacts, which has brought the legality and enforceability of it into question.

“[Misericordia] is carefully reviewing the very recent guidance issued by the acting assistant secretary of the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights late last week. We are assessing its implications while consulting with trade associations and other relevant entities to fully understand the scope and potential legal and other impacts of the guidance on our operations and campus community,” said James Roberts, Chief of Staff.

Certain aspects of campus life, academic curriculums, admissions procedures and administrative policies could be threatened under the directive. These aspects include but are not limited to: standardized testing, minority centered clubs and campus events, mental health support, universities’ DEI departments, any official messaging that promotes diversity and social justice, scholarships and financial aid.

The letter goes as far as stating that institutions may not use student essays written around their own experiences pertaining to their race when evaluating admissions, financial aid, and scholarships.

Juliana Lawrence, a sophomore pyschology major, is particularly concerned about the threat to DEI programs because she is a member of the Women with Children program at Misericordia, a program that is directly in conflict with the Department of Education’s directive.

“Without DEI policies, I probably would not be [at Misericordia]. Period,” she said.

Lawrence, who is biracial, also feels DEI departments and programs are important psychologically for members of the DEI community.

“I feel like DEI programs benefit universities on many levels, it gives students a sense of acceptance and belonging in their communities, especially African Americans and Latino and Latinas, it just makes us feel more accepted because it hasn’t even been 100 years since a lot of us have had our rights. DEI policies are important to us and our mental health.”

Lawrence is also concerned about life after college if DEI polices don’t exist, “My skin is darker and my hair is nappy. So, a couple years from now, I don’t want to go to a job interview and not get it because I’m a woman or I’m Black.”

Lawrence was particularly hurt by the harsh language in President Trump’s Jan. 20 Executive Order on DEI, which is entitled “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI programs and Preferencing.”

“For him to say it’s wasteful, its so ignorant, because if it’s wasteful then I am wasting my life,” she said.

As of Feb. 24, the directive has been temporarily halted by a federal judge, but that is likely to be appealed in higher courts.