Education

What the OCR’s Valentine’s Day “Dear Colleague” Letter Means for Higher Education

On Valentine’s Day, just before the President’s Day weekend, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) issued a Dear Colleague letter that takes a much broader interpretation of the landmark Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard decision (SFFA). While the Supreme Court ruling was primarily focused on race-conscious college admissions, the OCR has now extended its scope, signaling broader implications across all educational institutions receiving federal funding.

The letter is directed to every aspect of the US educational system, “all preschool, elementary, secondary, and postsecondary educational institutions, as well as state educational agencies, that receive financial assistance.” It reiterates that race-based decision-making remains impermissible, citing “The Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (SFFA), which clarified that the use of racial preferences in college admissions is unlawful, sets forth a framework for evaluating the use of race by state actors and entities covered by Title VI.”

What’s Changing in Admissions?

At its core, the SFFA ruling does not change the foundational framework of university admissions. Universities were already prohibited from explicitly considering race in admissions decisions, as acknowledged by the letter: “U.S. The Supreme Court ruled against the deliberate use of race by schools in college admissions.” Many schools responded to the ruling by modifying their applications to allow students to discuss their lived experiences, particularly how race has shaped their character, talents, or perspectives. Supported by the clause in the SFFA Syllabus, “… 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.”

However, the OCR letter explicitly warns against using personal statements as a “proxy” for race:

“Race-based decision-making, no matter the form, remains impermissible. A school may not use students’ personal essays, writing samples, participation in extracurriculars, or other cues as a means of determining or predicting a student’s race and favoring or disfavoring such students.”

“Relying on non-racial information as a proxy for race, and making decisions based on that information, violates the law. That is true whether the proxies are used to grant preferences on an individual basis or a systematic one. It would, for instance, be unlawful for an educational institution to eliminate standardized testing to achieve a desired racial balance or to increase racial diversity.”

While this clarification does not mandate a major shift in admissions processes, it raises questions about how institutions should interpret and implement policies and that has the potential to confuse applicants and their families.

Potential Impact on Enrollment

While the letter does not explicitly prohibit institutions from considering lived experiences, it does limit how those narratives can be evaluated. This may cause uncertainty and concern among prospective students and their families, potentially affecting application trends.

For enrollment marketers, it’s important to assure applicants that college admissions remain holistic and inclusive. Schools must clearly communicate their enrollment criteria, ensuring that students understand their potential pathways to admission without being discouraged by legal complexities.

Beyond Admissions: A Broader Interpretation of SFFA

One of the most consequential aspects of the letter is how it expands the SFFA ruling beyond admissions, encompassing scholarships, administrative support, housing, and “all other aspects of student, academic, and campus life.”

Many universities have support programs, scholarships, and housing initiatives aimed at fostering diverse and inclusive communities. These initiatives could now face legal scrutiny if they involve “race-conscious decision-making.”

For students from historically underrepresented backgrounds, this could pose new challenges in finding supportive communities within academic settings. Many institutions may need to rethink how they structure and communicate these initiatives, especially if they rely on university funding.

For prospective students and their families, institutions will need to decide whether and how to communicate support for these communities in order to assure access to the most qualified students, regardless of background.

Messaging Considerations for Admissions & Marketing Teams

The broadening of the SFFA interpretation may lead to concern and confusion among students who are seeking community, support, and a sense of belonging on campus.

Key Enrollment Messaging Strategies:

1. Reassure prospective students
   • Clarify that holistic admissions remain intact and that universities still value diverse perspectives.
   • Emphasize that merit, talent, and lived experiences are still crucial in the admissions process.
2. Communicate clearly about institutional support
   • If scholarships or diversity-based programs are affected, universities should transparently update students on available resources.
   • Highlight external community partnerships that provide additional support.
3. Anticipate and address concerns about inclusion
   • Prospective students may wonder, “Will I find people like me here?”
   • Institutions in geographically diverse areas may have built-in community support, but others may need to actively promote external resources.
4. Maintain a focus on institutional mission
   • If an institution has a commitment to equity and inclusion, it should find lawful ways to uphold these values, such as outreach programs, partnerships, and pipeline initiatives that do not rely on race-based preferences.
5. Increase proactive outreach
   • Have a presence in, and actively recruit from, high schools and communities which have high proportions of students from a wide range of backgrounds.

Final Takeaways: The Path Forward

While the OCR’s letter does not directly change admissions practices, it introduces legal ambiguities that universities must navigate carefully.

For Enrollment Teams:

• Stay proactive in communicating with prospective students.
• Refine messaging to highlight merit-based admissions while maintaining a commitment to an inclusive learning environment.
• Anticipate concerns about campus diversity and support services, ensuring students feel confident in their decision to apply.

For University Leadership:

• Evaluate current policies regarding scholarships, housing, and student support programs.
• Seek legal guidance to ensure compliance while maintaining institutional values.
• Strengthen non-race-based diversity initiatives, such as socioeconomic outreach programs and first-generation student support.

For Prospective Students & Families:

• Don’t let fear or confusion deter applications—universities still value diverse perspectives and experiences.
• Ask institutions directly about their diversity efforts and support systems.

Ultimately, academic institutions want to provide the best possible educational experience to qualified students from all backgrounds. The shifting regulatory framework does not change that.