Comments
EDUCATION WATCH—In a rare and striking rebuke of the U.S. Department of Education, an anonymous district superintendent has penned a powerful open letter refusing to comply with the federal government’s demand to eliminate Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs in public schools.
This comes in response to a controversial memo issued by the Department of Education under Secretary Linda McMahon, giving public school districts just ten days to certify that they are not engaging in what the Department now deems “discriminatory” DEI practices. The penalty for noncompliance? Loss of critical federal funding—funding that, in many school systems, is essential for supporting low-income students, students with disabilities, and English learners.
But one superintendent isn't having it.
The letter, shared anonymously on Facebook by community advocate Clair Hochstetler, has since gone viral—amassing over 150,000 shares in just days. It outlines in unsparing detail how DEI programs directly serve real students, particularly those who are most vulnerable. And it doesn’t mince words.
“You’ve asked me to sign a ‘certification’ declaring that we are not violating civil rights law—by, apparently, acknowledging that civil rights issues still exist. That’s not just legally incoherent—it’s a philosophical Möbius strip of bad faith,” the letter reads.
In their impassioned response, the superintendent challenges the twisted logic behind the federal directive: that offering targeted help to marginalized students is itself a form of discrimination. The letter walks readers through concrete examples: translation services for English learners, IEP accommodations for students with disabilities, extended testing time, and teacher training on bias. All now seemingly under scrutiny.
“If we acknowledge racial disparities, that’s racism. If we help English learners catch up, that’s favoritism… Your letter paints equity as a threat. But equity is not the threat. It’s the antidote to decades of failure.”
The most scathing section takes aim at the memo’s tone and timing. “A national directive sent to thousands of districts with the subtlety of a ransom note,” the superintendent writes, noting the cruel irony that the funding being threatened primarily supports the very students DEI was designed to uplift.
“We are not interested in gutting equity programs that serve actual children in exchange for your political approval.”
The anonymous leader closes with a vow to resist—“in the courts, in the press, in the community, in Congress if need be”—declaring that this district “will be remembered as the one that stood its ground—not for politics, but for kids.”
Public response has been swift and emotional. Educators and parents flooded the post with praise.
“As a retired teacher, I applaud you and thank you. Getting rid of DEI makes it impossible for many children to live life at its fullest,” wrote one.
Another added, “If they ALL have the guts to do this, then maybe we’ll get somewhere.”
Whether more superintendents will follow suit remains to be seen. But this letter has drawn a line in the sand—and started a conversation that shows no signs of quieting down.
Here is the full Facebook post:
To Whom It May (Unfortunately) Concern at the U.S. Department of Education:
Thank you for your April 3 memorandum, which I read several times — not because it was legally persuasive, but because I kept checking to see if it was satire. Alas, it appears you are serious.
You’ve asked me, as superintendent of a public school district, to sign a "certification" declaring that we are not violating federal civil rights law — by, apparently, acknowledging that civil rights issues still exist. You cite Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, then proceed to argue that offering targeted support to historically marginalized students is somehow discriminatory.
That’s not just legally incoherent — it’s a philosophical Möbius strip of bad faith.
Let me see if I understand your logic:
If we acknowledge racial disparities, that’s racism.
If we help English learners catch up, that’s favoritism.
If we give a disabled child a reading aide, we’re denying someone else the chance to struggle equally.
And if we train teachers to understand bias, we’re indoctrinating them — but if we train them to ignore it, we’re “restoring neutrality”?
How convenient that your sudden concern for “equal treatment” seems to apply only when it’s used to silence conversations about race, identity, or inequality.
Let’s talk about our English learners. Would you like us to stop offering translation services during parent-teacher conferences? Should we cancel bilingual support staff to avoid the appearance of “special treatment”? Or would you prefer we just teach all content in English and hope for the best, since acknowledging linguistic barriers now counts as discrimination?
And while we’re at it — what’s your official stance on IEPs? Because last I checked, individualized education plans intentionally give students with disabilities extra support. Should we start removing accommodations to avoid offending the able-bodied majority? Maybe cancel occupational therapy altogether so no one feels left out?
If a student with a learning disability receives extended time on a test, should we now give everyone extended time, even if they don’t need it? Just to keep the playing field sufficiently flat and unthinking?
Your letter paints equity as a threat. But equity is not the threat. It’s the antidote to decades of failure. Equity is what ensures all students have a fair shot. Equity is what makes it possible for a child with a speech impediment to present at the science fair. It’s what helps the nonverbal kindergartner use an AAC device. It’s what gets the newcomer from Ukraine the ESL support she needs without being left behind.
And let’s not skip past the most insulting part of your directive — the ten-day deadline. A national directive sent to thousands of districts with the subtlety of a ransom note, demanding signatures within a week and a half or else you’ll cut funding that supports... wait for it... low-income students, disabled students, and English learners.
Brilliant. Just brilliant. A moral victory for bullies and bureaucrats everywhere.
So no, we will not be signing your “certification.”
We are not interested in joining your theater of compliance.
We are not interested in gutting equity programs that serve actual children in exchange for your political approval.
We are not interested in abandoning our legal, ethical, and educational responsibilities to satisfy your fear of facts.
We are interested in teaching the truth.
We are interested in honoring our students’ identities.
We are interested in building a school system where no child is invisible, and no teacher is punished for caring too much.
And yes — we are prepared to fight this. In the courts. In the press. In the community. In Congress, if need be.
Because this district will not be remembered as the one that folded under pressure.
We will be remembered as the one that stood its ground — not for politics, but for kids.
Sincerely,
District Superintendent
Still Teaching. Still Caring. Still Not Signing.
###
