California’s K-12 schools are getting some clarity on how to handle the Trump administration’s sweeping orders to abolish diversity, equity and inclusion programs.

The answer is: Do nothing. Not yet, anyway.

“Time to take a breath. Just because Trump ordered it, doesn’t mean it’s going to happen,” Noelle Ellerson Ng, a legislative advocate for the ,  last week. “Executive orders on their own can’t really accomplish much … There’s a distinct difference between activity and productivity.”

Last week, the U.S. Department of Education  for any school that has programs focused on race. That could include clubs, activities, prizes, graduation ceremonies “and all other aspects of student, academic and campus life,” .

“With this guidance, the Trump Administration is directing schools to end the use of racial preferences and race stereotypes in their programs and activities — a victory for justice, civil rights laws, and the Constitution,” Craig Trainor, acting assistant secretary for civil rights for the education department, said in a .   

Schools have until Feb. 28 to end the programs.

On Friday, a judge  some of Trump’s orders related to diversity, equity and inclusion. The ruling prevents the federal government from cutting funding, but it doesn’t stop it from investigating schools’ race-related programs – at least for now.

Nearly every high school in California has at least some programs focused on students’ race. Black, Latino and Asian student clubs are common, as are celebrations like Chinese New Year or Cinco de Mayo. In recent years, more students — particularly Native American students — have worn ethnic regalia to graduation ceremonies, or even held separate ceremonies.

About 8% of California’s K-12 funding comes from the federal government, mostly as payments for special education and Title I grants for schools where at least 40% of the student population is low-income. If the federal money disappears, those schools and students will be most affected.

Attorney General Rob Bonta said he was reviewing the Department of Education’s directive, but in general, he said that DEI programs are legal and schools have a right to promote them.

In a  in January with 12 other state attorneys general, Bonta called Trump’s anti-DEI efforts “unnecessary and disingenuous.”

“The administration is targeting lawful policies and programs that are beneficial to all Americans,” they wrote. “These policies and programs are not only consistent with state and federal anti-discrimination laws, they foster environments where everyone has an opportunity to succeed.” 

Attorney General weighs in

State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment, but earlier in February he urged schools to “stay focused” and not get distracted by Trump’s orders.

“Now is not the time to be distracted by external efforts to demean and divide,” Thurmond wrote to school authorities. “Please continue to stay the course with local programs that are producing results. Now is the time when our students need consistency, support, and community more than ever.” 

Some parents were dismayed at the directive, saying it would limit their children’s exposure to other cultures. Katie Walton, a mother of three Native American children, said she worried how it would impact Native American programs and curriculum, particularly a  requiring schools to teach about the genocide of Native Californians during the Spanish and Gold Rush eras.

“Me and my husband will teach our kids what they need to know, but I’m worried about all the other kids who might not get this information,” said Walton, who lives in Madera County and whose children are part of the North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians. “It makes me sad.” 

Angie Barfield, executive director of , said she’s received calls from school administrators throughout the state who are unsure whether to disband their campus Black student clubs.

She tells them to “stand firm.”

“This is not the time to run,” Barield said. “The governor is going to fight, the attorney general is going to fight, and we’re going to fight, too.”

Black student clubs began decades ago

At least 3,000 high school students in California belong to Black student clubs, although the number is probably much higher, Barfield said. The groups date from the late 1960s, when students at San Francisco State started the first Black student union, and have spread to high schools and colleges nationwide.

Traditionally open to everyone, the clubs give students a chance to socialize, discuss issues and advocate for the needs of Black students. The students in Barfield’s organization also go on college tours, run a youth senate and advocate for student health.

“These clubs have a long track record of supporting not just Black students, but all students,” Barfield said. “This order is taking us backwards.” 

Ng and her colleagues are advising school administrators to consult with school boards, lawyers and community members to see what their options are, and how to respond. But, she said, it’s important to stay calm until there’s more specific information from Washington, D.C., such as a Congressional order.

“Regardless of what the Trump administration does, public school doors are still open and kids still show up,” Ng said. “So quitting is not an option, and we have to figure out how to respond.”

Since taking office in January, Trump has made a  to reshape public schools, some of which are already moving forward. He vowed to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education, legalize vouchers for parents to use public money to send their children to private school, and overhaul Title IX, which bans discrimination based on gender.

Earlier this month, the so-called Department of Government Efficiency , which paid for reviews of teaching strategies, literacy programs and special education support, among other services. 

Trump also eliminated a law enforcement provision that protected schools, hospitals and other “sensitive locations” from immigration enforcement. That move has thrown immigrant communities into panic, with parents in some areas .

This story was originally published on CalMatters.

Education activists are expressing disappointment with a judge’s long-awaited ruling that found a racial imbalance in numerous New Jersey school districts, but not widespread segregation statewide.

Retired Supreme Court Justice Gary Stein, chairman of the New Jersey Coalition for Diverse and Inclusive Schools, which launched the , called Friday’s ruling “hard to understand.”

“It’s like saying to a patient, you have cancer in your lungs, but not the rest of your body, so we’re not going to do anything about it,” Stein told the New Jersey Monitor.

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for ĂŰĚŇÓ°ĘÓ Newsletter

Mercer County Superior Court Judge Robert Lougy’s  agrees with the plaintiffs — a coalition of students, school districts, and organizations including the NAACP and Latino Action Network — that they “demonstrated marked and persistent racial imbalance” in schools across the state that the state has failed to remedy. But he also found that they “fail to prove the state’s entire education system is unconstitutionally segregated because of race or ethnicity.”

The plaintiffs sought to have Lougy rule before trial that the state was liable for school segregation. The defendants, which include the state Board of Education, asked him to dismiss the case. He largely declined both requests.

Larry Lustberg, attorney for Latino Action Network, said in a statement to the New Jersey Monitor that the matter might be set for trial, but it’s unclear what facts would be tried because the court rejected most of the state’s defenses.

He said there are four options: a trial, a settlement discussion, either party could file a motion for reconsideration, or either party could file a motion to have an appeal heard.

“We are trying to sort that through,” he said.

The state Attorney General’s Office, which argued the case on behalf of the defendants, said it is still reviewing the decision and declined to comment further.

The lawsuit hinges on the accusation that because of a state requirement mandating children attend the schools in towns where they live, schools in New Jersey are heavily segregated. The plaintiffs cite examples like Paterson, where the public schools are nearly 70% Latino and 20% Black, and West Milford, where students of color make up less than 15% of the school population.

In the 674 public school districts serving 1.3 million students, about 585,000 Black and Latino students attend public schools with student populations that are more than 75% non-white, the lawsuit says, citing 2017 data. More than half of those students attend schools that are more than 90% non-white.

Julie Borst is the executive director of Save Our Schools, a nonprofit school advocacy organization that was not involved in the lawsuit but supports its mission. She said she was disappointed but not surprised by Lougy’s opinion.

She argued that a trial could be good for the public to better understand this issue. Potential remedies to school segregation — like busing students to other districts or specialized magnet schools — are complicated, and could confuse parents, she said.

“Maybe this ends up being better because now it becomes more public. People will get to learn about it,” Borst said. “Maybe that hopefully spurs more discussion about what this looks like and what resources are really needed.”

Stein criticized the lengthy process it took to arrive at an opinion that does not plainly lay out what the next steps are. He called the delays “very difficult to understand.”

The case was first filed in 2018 following a  that alleged New Jersey’s public schools are among the most segregated in the nation. Oral arguments did not begin until March 2022, and the judge released his opinion 18 months later. New Jersey’s courts dealt with a backlog throughout the pandemic and continue to face a shortage of judges across the state, contributing to some delays in cases like this.

“I believe that the New Jersey Judiciary has to move much more quickly than it has been on this very, very significant issue for our state’s African American and Latino students,” he said. “Some of the students in this case have graduated from high school and moved on.”

And now that this may go to trial, it could drag on for months or years. Borst worries about what this means for another generation of students attending segregated schools. She doesn’t think the state will seek out a solution or overhaul school residency requirements without an order from a judge.

“I feel like we’re in the status quo. They’ve been safe and very comfortable not doing anything for all this time, so I can’t imagine that this decision is going to move the needle on that at all,” she said.

is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. New Jersey Monitor maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Terrence McDonald for questions: info@newjerseymonitor.com. Follow New Jersey Monitor on and .