Our Work
General Documents
Safegaurding Access and Protection: A Blueprint for Restoring the Office for Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Education
The OCR Alumni Collective created these documents to provide broad information to the public and to parties in litigation against ED challenging the current Administration’s attacks on OCR and ED as a whole. The full document, and its summary, highlight the mission of OCR; its formation; its responsibilities for investigating, redressing, and monitoring compliance with the laws it enforces; how it coordinates with and supports other offices that are part of ED to accomplish this work; and the impacts of cuts to OCR. In addition, because the OCR Alumni Collective believes that the strongest and most immediate possible intervention by the courts is necessary to protect and restore OCR, this document provides several possible remedial strategies to ensure that the actions of the current Administration do not undermine OCR’s mission.
Letter of Support to Career OCR Staff
March 5, 2025
A letter of support to OCR career staff from about 65 former OCR career staff thanking them for all that they do, and recognizing the incredible challenges they face.
Lawsuit Filings
Amicus Brief in Support of Preliminary Injuction to Restore OCR
July 8, 2025
In National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, et al. v. U.S.A., the OCR Alumni Collective led a group of 75 former career OCR staff spanning 11 presidential administrations in filing an amicus brief in support of a preliminary injunction attempting to end the dismantling of OCR. The amicus brief describes: the history of the critical statutes that OCR enforces, including Title VI, Title IX, and Section 504; the operationalization of the statutorily mandated role of OCR staff to enforce the civil rights of our nation’s students; and how the dismantling of OCR violates these mandates which, in turn, harms students and denies them equal opportunity in their education.
Regulatory Responses
Comment on IDEA “Significant Disproportionality” Reporting Requirements
October 16, 2025
The OCR Alumni Collective filed objections to the U.S. Department of Education’s proposal to eliminate state reporting of “Significant Disproportionality” under the IDEA.Eliminating the reporting requirement does not eliminate states’ obligation to track significant disproportionality and address it; this eliminating no burden to states. Instead, it simply makes it more difficult for others — including the federal government, states, school districts, educators, and parents — to identify and address the problem.
Comment on the Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC)
September 8, 2025
The OCR Alumni Collective filed objections to changes to the CRDC, including to the end of data collection about gender identity. It also provided information about the necessity of conducting an accurate and valid data collection and sharing the information in a timely manner.
Comment on the Department of Energy’s Direct Final Rules
June 16, 2025
The OCR Alumni Collective filed objections to the Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) direct final rules which impermissibly and unlawfully attempted to alter longstanding regulations implementing Title VI, Title IX, and Section 504. Specifically, the Collective objected to: (1) DOE’s attempt to no longer hold recipients of federal funding accountable when their actions have the effect of excluding individuals based on their race, color, national origin, or sex; (2) DOE’s attempted recission of legally necessary provisions to protect persons with limited English proficiency; (3) DOE’s attacks on sports which would limit, not enhance, opportunities for girls and women; and (4) DOE’s attempts to upend access to buildings for persons with disabilities by rescinding access standards applicable to new construction and alterations.
Letters to the Trump Administration
Letter Addressing Antisemitism in Higher Education
November 10, 2025
The OCR Alumni Collective wrote to U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi, U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon, and U.S. Secretary of Health & Human Services Robbert F. Kennedy, Jr. to provide guidance on the application of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its regulatory framework to address antisemitism in colleges and universities.
Response to Federal Cuts to Services for Students with Disabilities
November 6, 2025
The OCR Alumni Collective wrote to U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon objecting to the cuts to special education and children’s disability services, benefits, and nondiscrimination enforcement by the Trump Administration. The letter outlines the statutory and regulatory requirements of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and the critical role of the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) and Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) in implementing and enforcing these laws. The letter urges the Administration to restore staffing and funding to ensure that the benefits of these laws are realized to support this nation’s students with disabilities.
Response to Attorney General Bondi’s Guidance Attacking the Civil Rights Laws
September 10, 2025
The OCR Alumni Collective responded to Attorney General Bondi’s July 29, 2025, “Guidance for Recipients of Federal Funding on Unlawful Discrimination.” Specifically, the Collective clearly explained how the Guidance: (1) runs contrary to the civil rights laws and protections; (2) incorrectly limits efforts to promote diversity; (3) incorrectly limits the use of race neutral means to promote diversity; (4) incorrectly limits applicants’ discussion of their race and/or ethnicity; and (5) incorrectly mandates sex segregation.
Response to Acting Assistant Secretary Craig Trainor’s Misinterpretation of Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (SFFA)
February 27, 2025
The OCR Alumni Collective led a response, signed by over 70 former OCR career employees, to Acting Assistant Secretary’s February 14, 2025, Dear Colleague Letter (DCL). This DCL took too expansive an interpretation of SFFA. Specifically, the Collective’s response explains how SFFA is limited to “whether a university may make admissions decisions that turn on an applicant’s race” and does not apply to a host of other school practices, including (1) affirmative recruitment for admissions and hiring designed to increase the pool of qualified candidates; (2) affinity groups and themed housing which have a focus on a particular group or identity and are open to all students; (3) academic support and other retention programs or policies that focus on the experience and barriers most often faced by students from specific groups but are available to all students; and (4) classes and courses examining the role of discrimination in American history. Additionally, SFFA continues to laud the values of diversity and permits race to be considered to the extent it impacts an individual student’s lived experiences. Finally, the response explains how the DCL’s attack on race-neutral means is inconsistent with well-established policies and case law.