Our Work
Letter Addressing Higher Education Compact
The OCR Alumni Collective wrote to U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi to explain how the “Compact For Academic Excellence in Higher Education” is harmful to the education of university students, will likely reduce civil rights law compliance, and is not grounded in a defensible reading of the civil rights statutes and judicial case precedent. The Compact also intrudes on numerous rights of universities by imposing limitations on decisions which serve to define the very core mission and purpose their learning environment.
Letter Addressing Antisemitism in Higher Education
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.
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 Robert 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
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.
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
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.
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)
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.
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.