Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Civil Rights Title Vi topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Savannah-Chatham lawyers warn new Title VI certification brings heightened federal scrutiny of DEI programs
Summary
Outside education attorneys told the Savannah‑Chatham County Board of Education during whole‑board training that a recent U.S. Department of Education demand to certify compliance with Title VI heightens enforcement risk for district DEI and affinity programs, though signing the certification may carry limited immediate legal exposure.
Nina Gupta, an education attorney with Parker Poe, told the Savannah‑Chatham County Board of Education on April 16 that the U.S. Department of Education (ED) and Department of Justice (DOJ) have signaled a stricter enforcement posture on Title VI and related guidance, and that districts nationwide received a rapid demand for a Title VI compliance certification.
Gupta said the April 3 notice required certification within days and was later extended to April 24; she described the certification as largely duplicative of existing obligations but said the current administration is taking an expansive view of what Title VI prohibits, and that the department has warned that some DEI practices may be scrutinized. “This certification, to my mind, is repetitive and duplicative of certifications that you have already provided,” Gupta said.
The presentation placed the certification in context: the administration’s position draws partly on language in the Supreme Court’s Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard decision and on a DOE “dear colleague” letter that initially framed some DEI activities as potentially discriminatory but that the department later modified. Gupta and co‑presenter Suzanne Wilcox urged boards and administrators to review DEI and equity policies for legal compliance, train leadership on evolving federal standards, and coordinate with state education officials and district counsel.
Attorneys warned of enforcement tools that could follow a false certification, including civil penalties under federal statutes such as the False Claims Act and the possibility of loss of federal funding, but noted ED’s April clarification said certifications would not be used as the sole basis for enforcement until after April 24. Gupta summarized the practical options: districts could sign the certification (the presenters said they saw limited immediate downside), revise policies to reduce use of contested terminology, or coordinate with other districts and counsel if they choose not to sign.
During Q&A, board members asked whether previously obligated or encumbered grant funds could be clawed back if a program were later found to violate Title VI; presenters said a clawback was possible in theory and stressed uncertainty about how aggressively the department would pursue different entities. The presenters recommended monitoring litigation around higher education and large districts and suggested subscribing to legal alerts; they also described low‑cost options such as retaining a federal lobby presence or subscribing to executive‑order trackers to help a district stay informed.
The trainers, who described their firm’s education practice and national work with districts, offered to provide model policy language, share client alerts, and coordinate with district counsel on tailored compliance steps. Gupta and Wilcox emphasized the distinction between legal obligations on the books and the administration’s current interpretive approach, urging careful review rather than immediate policy overreaction.
District officials said they would discuss next steps with counsel and the state department of education.
The training moved on to student discipline topics after the Title VI session ended.
