A Kansas school board Monday rejected a resolution to ensure compliance with President Trump’s executive order banning DEI in federally funded schools – after legal guidance from a state association saying it doesn’t need to comply.

Lansing USD 469 school board member Amy Cawvey proposed the resolution. Although she says the district has worked to weed out diversity, equity and inclusion-style programming in recent years, she fears such racially charged curricula are still embedded in such things as Social Emotional Learning (SEL).

“I know for sure it was, and I suspect it still is,” she tells The Heartlander.

“Educational institutions have toxically indoctrinated students with the false premise that the United States is built upon ‘systemic and structural racism’ and advanced discriminatory policies and practices,” a Feb. 14 letter from the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) advises school districts.

“Proponents of these discriminatory practices have attempted to further justify them – particularly during the last four years – under the banner of ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ (“DEI”), smuggling racial stereotypes and explicit race-consciousness into everyday training, programming, and discipline.

“But under any banner, discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin is, has been, and will continue to be illegal.”

Still, the Lansing school board voted 4-3 against Cawvey’s resolution to do a deeper dive to ensure federal compliance, despite concerns noncompliance could put $2 million in federal funding at risk for the district according to Cawvey.

Cawvey says she will now do her own research – and will report the district to the U.S. Department of Education if she finds anything out of compliance with Trump’s executive order.

Compliance ‘probably unnecessary’

Cawvey shared emails with The Heartlander showing that a lawyer for the Kansas Association of School Boards (KASB) advised that her resolution to comply with Trump’s order is “probably unnecessary.”

Executive orders, the lawyer writes to Cawvey, “should not change the underlying law. That would create a separation of powers issue in most cases unless the President’s office has superior legal authority in a specific area.”

The question is, does Trump’s EO on DEI really change the law, or does it merely interpret it – which all presidential administrations are charged with doing?

“My understanding is Trump‘s executive order is the administration’s interpretation of current law and if we do not follow current law, then we can lose funding,” Cawvey says.

“It should be very rare that an executive order would directly order a school district to do something,” the KASB lawyer continues, “and, if it did, it would likely be swiftly challenged in the court system for being overreaching.”

But is the EO a “direct order,” or is it merely one of various conditions of receiving federal funds?

Such questions may ultimately be decided by the courts – one reason the KASB lawyer suggests the school district do nothing for now.

“Saying you will ‘adhere to the current Presidential executive orders’ is probably unnecessary and somewhat misleading,” the lawyer continues. “If you’re not ordered to do something, you are not required to adhere to anything in particular. …

Adhere to CDC but not president?

“Unless there is legislation passed at the federal level or new regulations are promulgated clarifying what Title IX means/giving marching orders otherwise, we will be in a bit of a stall pattern,” the KASB lawyer adds.

“Until we know more, I would not recommend making a splash with unnecessary resolutions that might put a target on your board and district for legal challenge.  Therefore, I would not recommend passing this resolution. …

“I wouldn’t call attention to yourselves with policy, resolution, or public proclamation until it is required for legal compliance. At this point, I do not believe these EOs direct any action on a school district unless there are presently discriminatory practices or policies in place. I’d look into that piece locally and quietly, so you all can make adjustments and be ready for how this situation develops.”

Reaction to the Lansing board’s rejection of the resolution was swift online, with one Facebook poster writing, “We had to adhere to CDC for covid but we do not have to follow a Presidential Executive Order?”

The OCR letter seems to advise schools to perform the kind of review Cawvey suggests:

“All educational institutions are advised to: (1) ensure that their policies and actions comply with existing civil rights law; (2) cease all efforts to circumvent prohibitions on the use of race by relying on proxies or other indirect means to accomplish such ends; and (3) cease all reliance on third-party contractors, clearinghouses, or aggregators that are being used by institutions in an effort to circumvent prohibited uses of race.

“Institutions that fail to comply with federal civil rights law may, consistent with applicable law, face potential loss of federal funding.”

Lansing Board President Jeff Bollin and board members Aaron Yoakum, Kerry Brungardt and Peter Im voted no on the resolution to comply, while Cawvey, Mary Wood and Kirsten Workman voted yes.