Case 1:25-cv-00628-SAG Document 51-4 Filed 04/17/25 Page 1 of 11
`Case 1:25-cv-00628-SAG Document51-4
`Filed 04/17/25
`Page1of11
`
`EXHIBIT 49
`EXHIBIT 49
`EXHIBIT 38
`
`

`

`Case 1:25-cv-00628-SAG Document 51-4 Filed 04/17/25 Page 2 of 11
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
`OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS
`
`
`
`
`
`Frequently Asked Questions About Racial Preferences
`and Stereotypes Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act
`
`This frequently asked questions document is intended to anticipate and answer questions that may be
`raised in response to the Dear Colleague Letter: Title VI of the Civil Rights Act in Light of Students
`for Fair Admissions v. Harvard issued by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil
`Rights (OCR)1 on February 14, 2025. This document seeks to provide helpful information about
`how the decision in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College,
`600 U.S. 181 (2023) (“Students v. Harvard” or “SFFA”), applies to racial classifications, racial
`preferences, and racial stereotypes2 as well as how OCR interprets the ruling in its enforcement of
`Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its implementing regulations.3
`
`Question 1: Where can I report discriminatory conduct?
`Answer 1: Anyone who believes that a school has engaged in discrimination may file a complaint
`with the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights. Information about filing a complaint
`with OCR, including a link to the online complaint form, is available at How to File a
`Discrimination Complaint with the Office for Civil Rights on the OCR website.
`
`Question 2: What did the U.S. Supreme Court decide in Students for Fair Admissions v.
`Harvard?
`Answer 2: The U.S. Supreme Court held that the admissions programs of the University of North
`Carolina and Harvard College violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to
`the U.S. Constitution and, coextensive with the Equal Protection Clause, Title VI of the Civil Rights
`Act, by impermissibly considering students’ race when making admissions decisions. The Court
`
`
`1 OCR is responsible for determining whether entities that receive federal financial assistance from the U.S. Department
`of Education comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits race, color, or national origin
`discrimination; Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which prohibits sex discrimination; Section 504 of the
`Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which prohibits disability discrimination; and the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, which
`prohibits age discrimination. OCR also shares in the enforcement of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of
`1990 (Title II) with the U.S. Department of Justice. Title II prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities
`by public entities, regardless of whether they receive federal financial assistance. Throughout this FAQ, “school” is used
`generally to refer to recipients of federal financial assistance and public entities, including elementary, secondary, and
`postsecondary institutions.
`2 Racial classifications, racial stereotypes, racial preferences, and policies that distinguish among individuals based on
`race are all forms of discrimination in that they intentionally treat people as members of racial groups, rather than as
`individuals. For the purpose of this document, these terms refer to policies and conduct that are motivated by racial
`considerations.
`3 The contents of this Q&A document do not have the force and effect of law and do not bind the public or impose new
`legal requirements, nor do they bind the Department of Education in the exercise of its discretionary enforcement
`authority. The purpose of this document is to provide clarity about existing law for the benefit of the public.
`400 MARYLAND AVE. S.W., WASHINGTON, DC 20202-1100
`www.ed.gov
`
`The Department of Education’s mission is to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering
`educational excellence and ensuring equal access.
`
`

`

`Case 1:25-cv-00628-SAG Document 51-4 Filed 04/17/25 Page 3 of 11
`
`Page 2
`
`The Supreme Court has held that Title
`VI is coextensive with the Equal
`Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
`Amendment. In other words,
`discrimination based on race, color, or
`national origin by a public institution
`that violates the Equal Protection
`Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
`also violates Title VI if committed by
`a private institution that accepts
`federal funds.
`
`articulated a broad principle: “Eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it.”4 The
`Court emphasized that students must be treated based on their experiences as individuals and not
`based on their race.5 It declared the admissions programs were unlawful because they employed
`racial stereotypes, disadvantaged members of particular races, were not sufficiently measurable, and
`lacked a logical endpoint.6
`
`Question 3: What did the Supreme Court say about
`racial preferences in Students for Fair Admissions v.
`Harvard?
`Answer 3: While the facts of the case before the Supreme
`Court were specifically about racial preferences in
`university admissions, the Court applied broad reasoning to
`its decision, which has implications for race-based policies
`in education generally. Citing several of its previous
`rulings, the Court articulated two rules about school
`policies or programs that use race:
`First, a school may never use a student’s race as a
`“stereotype or negative.”7 This means schools cannot
`assume that a person’s race necessarily implies something
`about that person, including something about that person’s
`perspective, background, experiences, or socioeconomic
`status. It also means that, in any competitive admissions process, (and by the same logic any other
`competitive process for a benefit at an educational institution) a school cannot legally treat
`membership in any racial group as a plus factor. This is because a plus factor for one racial group is
`necessarily a negative factor for those not in that racial group. As the Court stated: “College
`admissions are zero-sum, and a benefit provided to some applicants but not to others necessarily
`advantages the former at the expense of the latter.”8
`Second, in quoting an earlier ruling, the Court stated: “Distinctions between citizens solely because
`of their ancestry are by their very nature odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon
`the doctrine of equality.”9 Therefore, even when racial classifications or distinctions do not
`necessarily involve making conscious stereotypes about members of a particular race or placing
`members of a particular race at a disadvantage in a zero-sum process by treating their race as a
`
`You can find more information about
`OCR’s enforcement of Title VI on the
`Department’s website.
`
`
`4 Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard Coll., 600 U.S. 181 (2023).
`5 Id. at 206.
`6 Id. at 230.
`7 Id. at 218.
`8 Id. at 27.
`9 Id. at 208 (quoting Rice v. Cayetano, 528 U.S. 495, 517 (2000)).
`
`

`

`Case 1:25-cv-00628-SAG Document 51-4 Filed 04/17/25 Page 4 of 11
`
`Page 3
`
`“negative” consideration, they still raise constitutional concerns under the Fourteenth Amendment,
`triggering the highest level of judicial review known as “strict scrutiny.”10
`Strict scrutiny is a “daunting” two-part test.11 First, the racial classification must serve a “compelling
`government interest.”12 Second, it must be “narrowly tailored” to achieve that interest.13 Satisfying
`both parts of the test is very difficult. The SFFA Court recognized one interest as sufficiently
`compelling in the educational context to justify race-based preferences: “remediating specific,
`identified instances of past discrimination that violated the Constitution or a statute”14 committed by
`the specific educational institution in question.15 Finally, to satisfy strict scrutiny, an interest must be
`“sufficiently measurable to permit judicial review,” rather than amorphous, general, or intrinsically
`unmeasurable.16
`For these reasons, the asserted compelling interest in “diversity” at issue in Students v. Harvard
`failed strict scrutiny because “the question whether a particular mix of minority students produces
`‘engaged and productive citizens,’ sufficiently ‘enhance[s] appreciation, respect, and empathy,’ or
`effectively ‘train[s] future leaders’ is standardless.”17 Equally, schools may not grant preferential
`benefits to members of certain races for the purpose of achieving a student-body composition that
`mirrors the racial makeup of the country, remedying general societal discrimination, or otherwise
`rectifying societal injustice.18
`Even if a racial classification furthers a compelling government interest, it must pass the second part
`of the strict scrutiny test: the method used to achieve the compelling interest must be “narrowly
`tailored” or “necessary” to achieve that compelling objective.19 This requires that, even if a school’s
`goal qualifies as compelling, the school must have engaged in a “serious, good faith consideration of
`workable race-neutral alternatives” to achieve that goal without using race and found that none were
`available.20 In addition, a policy “is not narrowly tailored if it is either overbroad or underinclusive
`
`
`
`10 Id. at 206.
`11 Id.
`12 Id. at 207.
`13 Id.
`14 Id.
`15 In Regents of Univ. of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265, 301 (1978), the Supreme Court plurality recognized that
`“various types of racial preferences” might remedy “past discrimination,” where those preferences would “rectify th[at]
`discrimination”; and applying Bakke’s logic in Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306, 328 (2003), the Court explained that
`Michigan Law School might justify race-based admissions based on an effort to “remedy[] past discrimination.” See also
`id. at 329 (concluding that the Law School had “a compelling interest in a diverse student body”). But in SFFA, the
`Court cabined Grutter’s holding, explaining that “race-based admissions” are permitted “only within the confines of
`narrow restrictions”—any such admissions policy “must comply with strict scrutiny,” it can “never use race as a
`stereotype or negative,” and “at some point [it] must end.” SFFA, 600 U.S. at 213. But in each of those cases, the
`Supreme Court made clear that it evaluated all race-based preferences under the rubric of strict scrutiny. See also Vitolo
`v. Guzman, 999 F.3d 353, 361 (6th Cir. 2021) (summarizing the Supreme Court’s criteria for satisfying a compelling
`remedial interest as held in City of Richmond v. J. A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469 (1989) and Adarand Constructors, Inc. v.
`Pena, 515 U.S. 200 (1995)).
`16 Students for Fair Admissions, Inc., 600 U.S. at 214 (internal quotations and brackets omitted).
`17 Id. at 215.
`18 Id. at 226.
`19 Id. at 207.
`20 Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306, 339 (2003).
`
`

`

`Case 1:25-cv-00628-SAG Document 51-4 Filed 04/17/25 Page 5 of 11
`
`Page 4
`
`in its use of racial classifications.”21 In SFFA, the Court held that the policies were not narrowly
`tailored because they were overbroad in grouping together all Asian students, underinclusive in not
`accounting for students from Middle Eastern countries, and arbitrary or undefined in using
`“Hispanic” to refer to different nationalities that were cobbled together in a classification that
`changed over time.22 As a result, race cannot be used as a proxy for socioeconomic disadvantage.
`Even if there is a correlation between race and socioeconomic status, there are race-neutral
`alternatives by which to assess socioeconomic status.
`Finally, the SFFA Court stated that policies based on racial classifications must be time-bound.23
`Schools may not engage in race-based policies in perpetuity. This means that a school’s use of racial
`preferences, even if narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest, must come with a
`concrete “logical endpoint.”24
`
`Question 4: What does the Supreme Court’s decision regarding the Equal Protection Clause
`mean for Title VI?
`Answer 4: Title VI prohibits recipients of federal funding from discriminating on the basis of race,
`color, or national origin. In Students v. Harvard, the Supreme Court reiterated that “discrimination
`that violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment committed by an institution
`that accepts federal funds also constitutes a violation of Title VI.”25 This generally means that
`public institutions, which are directly subject to the Equal Protection Clause, and private institutions
`that accept federal financial assistance, which are subject to Title VI, are subject to the same legal
`standard. All educational institutions, including pre-K, elementary, and secondary public schools
`and school districts, and public and private colleges, universities, and other postsecondary
`institutions that receive federal financial assistance, are required to comply with Title VI.26
`
`Question 5: What did the Supreme Court mean by using a student’s race as a stereotype?
`Answer 5: In its SFFA decision, the Court referred to race qua race, or “race for race’s sake”—that
`is, the belief that a person’s race necessarily implies that an individual has a certain personality trait,
`viewpoint, characteristic, or value simply by virtue of being a member of that race.27 That can
`involve treating members of a racial classification as fungible, assuming that a member of a
`particular racial classification will think the same way, reflect a particular culture, or contribute to
`
`21 Vitolo v. Guzman, 999 F.3d 353, 362–63 (6th Cir. 2021) (citing J.A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. at 507–08 and Gratz v.
`Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244, 273–75 (2003)).
`22 Students for Fair Admissions, Inc., 600 U.S. at 207.
`23 Id. at 212.
`24 Id. at 221–25.
`25 Id. at 198 n.2.
`26 Title VI provides that “No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be
`excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity
`receiving federal financial assistance.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000d, et seq.; 34 C.F.R. § 100, et seq. Throughout this document,
`“race” is used generally to refer to all three protected bases, race, color, and national origin.
`27 Students for Fair Admissions, Inc., 600 U.S. at 220.
`
`

`

`Case 1:25-cv-00628-SAG Document 51-4 Filed 04/17/25 Page 6 of 11
`
`Page 5
`
`diversity in the same predictable manner as another member of that race. And, as discussed above,
`racial classifications further risk devolving into unlawful racial stereotypes when they lump students
`into categories that are overbroad, underinclusive, or arbitrary and undefined.
`
`Question 6: What did the Supreme Court mean by using a student’s race as a negative?
`Answer 6: The SFFA Court meant that when there is a limited number or finite amount of
`educational benefits or resources—such as, inter alia, admissions spots in an incoming class,
`financial aid, scholarships, prizes, administrative support, or job opportunities—a school may not
`take account of a student’s race in distributing those benefits or resources, even if race is only being
`considered as a positive or plus factor, because to advantage members of one race in a competitive
`or zero-sum process would necessarily disadvantage those of a different race. As the Court reasoned:
`“College admissions are zero-sum, and a benefit provided to some applicants but not to others
`necessarily advantages the former at the expense of the latter.”28 Likewise, schools may not
`administer scholarships, prizes, or other opportunities offered by third parties based on race.
`
`Question 7: Can schools separate students by race if they treat all students equally?
`Answer 7: Racial segregation is illegal. As the Supreme Court held in Brown v. Board of Education,
`a school cannot engage in any programming, graduation ceremonies,
`housing, or any other aspect of school life that allows one race but not
`another or otherwise separates students, faculty, or staff based on
`race.29 Intentional segregation or exclusion based on race remains
`legally indefensible if the programming, graduation ceremonies,
`housing, or other aspects of campus life are putatively equal or
`intended for a putatively beneficent purpose: that is simply an updated
`version of the “separate but equal” rationale of Plessy v. Ferguson30
`that the Court overruled in Brown.
`Therefore, school-sponsored or school-endorsed racially segregated
`aspects of student, academic, and campus life, such as programming,
`graduation ceremonies and housing, are legally indefensible under the
`same “separate but equal” rationale that the Court rejected in Brown. In other words, these
`segregationist activities violate Title VI.
`
`
`
`
`OCR has previously issued
`guidance explaining how
`racially segregated
`extracurricular activities,
`proms, honors, awards, and
`superlatives are inconsistent
`with Title VI:
`
`Joint DOJ/OCR Guidance
`on Segregated Proms
`
`
`
`28 Id. at 218–19.
`29 Id. at 204 (citing Brown v. Brown v. Bd. of Ed. of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483, 494 (1954)).
`30 163 U.S. 537 (1896).
`
`

`

`Case 1:25-cv-00628-SAG Document 51-4 Filed 04/17/25 Page 7 of 11
`
`Page 6
`
`Question 8: Are Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs unlawful under SFFA?
`Answer 8: Schools may not intentionally discriminate on the basis of race, color, or national origin
`in their programs or activities. Many schools have advanced racially discriminatory policies and
`practices under the banner of “DEI” initiatives. Other schools have sought to veil racially
`discriminatory policies with terms like “social-emotional learning” or “culturally responsive”
`teaching. But whether an initiative constitutes unlawful discrimination does not turn solely on
`whether it is labeled “DEI” or uses terminology such as “diversity,” “equity,” or “inclusion.” OCR’s
`assessment of school policies and programs depends on the facts and circumstances of each case.
`Schools may not operate policies or programs under any name that intentionally treat students
`differently based on race, engage in racial stereotyping, or create hostile environments for students
`of particular races. For example, schools with programs focused on interests in particular cultures,
`heritages, and areas of the world would not in and of themselves violate Title VI, assuming they are
`open to all students regardless of race. Nor would educational, cultural, or historical observances—
`such as Black History Month, International Holocaust Remembrance Day, or similar events—that
`celebrate or recognize historical events and contributions, and promote awareness, so long as they do
`not engage in racial exclusion or discrimination. However, schools may not sponsor programming
`that creates a hostile environment based on race for students who do participate.
`
`Question 9: The February 14, 2025, Dear Colleague Letter states that many DEI programs
`“deny students the ability to participate fully in the life of a school” when they “stigmatize
`students that belong to particular racial groups” based on “crude racial stereotypes,” and
`teach that students of those racial groups “bear unique moral burdens that others do not.”
`Does this mean that students, teachers, and school employees may not discuss topics related to
`race or DEI under Title VI?
`Answer 9: OCR enforces federal civil rights law consistent with the First Amendment of the U.S.
`Constitution. Nothing in Title VI or its implementing regulations, authorizes a school to restrict any
`rights otherwise protected by the First Amendment, nor does the Dear Colleague Letter indicate as
`much.
`Additionally, the Department of Education Organization Act, 20 U.S.C. § 3403(b), and the
`Elementary and Secondary Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 7907(a), prohibit the Department from
`exercising control over the content of school curricula. However, the First Amendment rights of
`students, faculty, and staff, and the curricular prerogatives of states and local school agencies do not
`relieve schools of their Title VI obligations to refrain from creating hostile environments through
`race-based policies and stereotypes; nor does it relieve them of their duty to respond to racial
`harassment that creates a hostile environment.
`In determining whether a racially hostile environment exists, OCR will examine the facts and
`circumstances of each case, including the nature of the educational institution, the age of the
`students, and the relationships of the individuals involved. For example, an elementary school that
`sponsors programming that acts to shame students of a particular race or ethnicity, accuse them of
`
`

`

`Case 1:25-cv-00628-SAG Document 51-4 Filed 04/17/25 Page 8 of 11
`
`Page 7
`
`being oppressors in a racial hierarchy, ascribe to them less value as contributors to class discussions
`because of their race, or deliberately assign them intrinsic guilt based on the actions of their
`presumed ancestors or relatives in other areas of the world could create a racially hostile
`environment, by interfering with or limiting the students’ ability to participate in or benefit from the
`school’s program or activity. But exploration of similar themes in a class discussion at a university
`or other college-level programs or activities would be less likely to create a racially hostile
`environment. In all cases, the facts and circumstances of the discussion or activity will dictate the
`answer to that inquiry.
`However, the more extreme practices at a university—such as requiring students to participate in
`“privilege walks” that are designed to make them feel guilty about being part of a certain race,
`segregating them by race for presentations and discussions with guest speakers, pressuring them to
`participate in protests or take certain positions on racially charged issues, investigating or
`sanctioning them for dissenting on racially charged issues through DEI or similar university offices,
`mandating courses, orientation programs, or trainings that are designed to emphasize and focus on
`racial stereotypes, and assigning them coursework that requires them to identify by race and then
`complete tasks differentiated by race—are all potential forms of school-on-student harassment that
`could create a hostile environment under Title VI. Specifically, such conduct could be deemed to
`create a hostile environment if, viewed by a reasonable person, of the same race and age, under
`similar circumstances, it is sufficiently severe, pervasive, or persistent so as to interfere with or limit
`the ability of an individual to participate in or benefit from the school’s program or activity.31
`Moreover, schools must not discriminate against students based on race in how they discipline or
`sanction students in response to complaints or allegations of harassment, or in response to speech
`that would be protected under the First Amendment, whether through use of “bias response teams,”
`mandatory trainings, or compelled statements. Nor can schools use race as a reason not to discipline
`or sanction a student for conduct that would otherwise warrant these corrective measures if applied
`to members of another race.
`
`For more information about these topics:
`
`OCR, Dear Colleague Letter: First Amendment (July 2003)
`
`OCR, Racial Incidents and Harassment against Students at Educational Institutions:
`Investigative Guidance (Mar. 1994)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`31 See OCR, Racial Incidents and Harassment against Students at Educational Institutions: Investigative Guidance, 59
`Fed. Reg. 11,448, 11,449 (Mar. 1994).
`
`

`

`Case 1:25-cv-00628-SAG Document 51-4 Filed 04/17/25 Page 9 of 11
`
`Page 8
`
`Question 10: As part of their admissions process, may schools include application essay
`prompts that invite discussions of race?
`Answer 10: In Students v. Harvard, the Court held that race-based admissions policies that fail strict
`scrutiny are illegal but added that “nothing prohibits universities from considering an applicant’s
`discussion of how race affected the applicant’s life, so long as that discussion is concretely tied to a
`quality of character or unique ability that the particular applicant can contribute to the university.”32
`However, the Court cautioned in the same paragraph that schools “may not simply establish through
`application essays or other means the regime we hold unlawful today[,]” adding that “[w]hat cannot
`be done directly cannot be done indirectly.”33
`Schools that craft essay prompts in a way that require applicants to disclose their race are likely
`illegally attempting to do indirectly what cannot be done directly, as with admissions policies that
`hold brief interviews in order to visually assess an applicant’s race. It is ultimately racial preferences
`that are illegal, however accomplished. OCR is aware that certain schools and universities are
`attempting to circumvent SFFA’s holding by engaging in what some commentators call the “essay
`loophole.” Schools can credit what is unique about the individual in overcoming adversity or
`hardship but may never make an admissions decision based on the person’s race.
`
`Question 11: The February 14, 2025, Dear Colleague Letter advises schools to take steps to
`ensure compliance with Title VI, including by reviewing their policies and by “ceas[ing] all
`reliance on third-party contractors, clearinghouses, or aggregators that are being used by
`institutions in an effort to circumvent prohibited uses of race.” What is the scope of Title VI
`coverage as it applies to schools?
`Answer 11: Title VI applies to “any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance from
`the Department of Education,”34 and a school’s responsibility not to discriminate against students
`applies to the conduct of everyone over whom the school exercises some control, whether through a
`contract or other arrangement.35 A school may not engage in racial preferences by laundering those
`preferences through third parties.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`32 Students for Fair Admissions, Inc., 600 U.S. at 230.
`33 Id.
`34 34 C.F.R. § 100.1.
`35 The nondiscrimination requirements of Title VI extend to conduct undertaken by entities that carry out some or all of
`the schools’ functions through “contractual or other arrangements.” 34 C.F.R. § 100.3(b)(1), (2).
`
`

`

`Case 1:25-cv-00628-SAG Document 51-4 Filed 04/17/25 Page 10 of 11
`
`Page 9
`
`Question 12: How does Title VI apply to a school’s procurement of goods and services?
`Answer 12: A school that receives federal financial assistance is subject to Title VI’s
`nondiscrimination mandate in how it selects contractors to carry out its many functions. In other
`words, a school may not discriminate based on race, color, or national origin in choosing its
`provision of after-school programs, substitute teachers, cafeteria services, and special education
`service providers.
`
`Question 13: Aside from express racial classifications, the February 14, 2025, Dear Colleague
`Letter refers to policies that appear neutral on their face but are made with a racially
`discriminatory purpose. How will OCR investigate allegations of covert discrimination?
`Answer 13: To determine whether a school acted with a racially discriminatory purpose, OCR may
`analyze different types of circumstantial evidence that, taken together, raise an inference of
`discriminatory intent. A non-exhaustive list may include (1) whether members of a particular race
`were treated differently than similarly situated students of other races; (2) the historical background
`or administrative history of the policy or decision; (3) whether there was a departure from normal
`procedures in making the policy or decision; (4) whether there was a pattern regarding policies or
`decisions towards members of a particular race; (5) statistics demonstrating a pattern of the policy or
`decision having a greater impact on members of a particular race; and (6) whether the school was
`aware of or could foresee the effect of the policy or decision on members of a particular race.36 A
`school’s history and stated policy of using racial classifications and race-based policies to further
`DEI objectives, “equity,” a racially-oriented vision of social justice, or similar goals will be
`probative in OCR’s analysis of the facts and circumstances of an individual case.
`OCR may also apply a three-step test to assess indirect evidence of intentional discrimination.37
`First, did a school treat a student or group of students of a particular race differently from a similarly
`situated student or group of students of other races? Then, if so, can the school provide a legitimate,
`nondiscriminatory reason for the different treatment that isn’t pretextual? Finally, if the school is
`unable to offer a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason, or if the offered reason is found to be a
`pretext or cover for discrimination, OCR may conclude that unlawful discrimination has occurred.
`
`
`
`36 See Village of Arlington Heights v. Metro Housing Development Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 266–68 (1977).
`37 See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973).
`
`

`

`Case 1:25-cv-00628-SAG Document 51-4 Filed 04/17/25 Page 11 of 11
`Page 10
`
`You can learn more about OCR’s
`process by reviewing its updated
`Case Processing Manual:
`
`Question 14: How will OCR proceed with schools that it determines are out of compliance with
`Title VI?
`Answer 14: If OCR determines that a school failed to
`comply with the civil rights laws that it enforces, OCR will
`contact the school and will attempt to secure its willingness
`to negotiate a voluntary resolution agreement. If the school
`agrees to resolve the complaint, OCR and the school will
`negotiate a written resolution agreement to be signed by the
`school that describes the specific remedial actions it will
`take to address the area(s) of noncompliance identified by
`OCR. OCR will monitor implementation of the resolution agreement’s terms. If a school is
`unwilling to negotiate a resolution agreement, OCR will inform the school of the consequences,
`which may result in OCR initiating enforcement through administrative proceedings or referring the
`case to the Department of Justice for judicial proceedings.
`
`2025 Case Processing Manual
`
`
`
`Question 15: Where can I learn more about this topic?
`Answer 15: To learn more, you can visit OCR’s website or contact the OCR regional enforcement
`office serving your area, by phone or email, to request technical assistance about the laws OCR
`enforces and about OCR’s complaint process. You can find contact information for local OCR
`regional offices on OCR’s Contact OCR website.
`
`
`
`