*WEB CONTINUATION: This article originally appeared in Volume 105 Issue 4 of our news magazine, Amplifier.

On April 25, Oregon and 18 other states filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration over the removal of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs from public schools under the threat of $13.8 billion in cuts to federal funding.

Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines DEI as values and policies meant for the equitable and inclusive treatment of a diverse group of people, including those who have been historically discriminated against. 

In our school district, DEI is often executed by integrating cultural and historical examples of diversity into the curriculum, making the teacher hiring process more equitable, funding for students with disabilities, and more. This may differ from other schools, as schools typically have flexibility regarding what and how they realize DEI programs.

Filed by attorneys general in Democratic-leaning states such as California, Hawaii, and Colorado, the suit was filed in response to an April 3 memo released by the Trump Administration that required public schools, districts, and states to certify their compliance with the order not to have certain DEI programs in schools. 

However, what constitutes “illegal DEI” programs cited in the memo is vague, which is part of the reason that states are contesting the measure. 

The certification was to have been signed on April 24, and after the 19 states refused to comply, the lawsuit was filed the next day in Massachusetts.

The memo was based on recent precedents established by Supreme Court Cases such as Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which stated that their affirmative action programs did not comply with the Fourteenth Amendment. The recent memo attempted to extend the implications of that decision into public schools.

Kyle Rumrey, history teacher, has taught Advanced Placement United States Government and Politics at the school for two years, covering politics and current events.

“Where this lawsuit is coming from, they probably view it as fundamental to a solid public education, making it equitable and accessible for everyone,” Rumrey said. “They’re probably filing these lawsuits and resisting it based on that fundamental belief about the nature of what public education should be.”

Of the policies that would be at risk at our school, one less-seen aspect is the teacher hiring process.

When teachers are trained and hired, schools look for the candidates’ familiarity with DEI, such as their knowledge of its definition and implementation in a classroom setting, especially in recent years. 

“It was a big part of my interview [and] application process, maybe my essays as well before I even got an interview, responding to questions related to [DEI] and my understanding of it, how it shapes my pedagogy, and how I think about education, teaching, curriculum design, classroom management, and all of those things,” Rumrey said. “They wanted to know how it filtered through every aspect of my professionalism.”

If Oregon were to be affected by these measures, this emphasis on DEI during the hiring process wouldn’t be the only thing that would change, with others, such as curriculum and funding allocations, to follow.

“At multiple school districts and multiple schools here in Oregon, [there’s] been a big emphasis [on] what we’re trained to do and how we approach our jobs as teachers with students, and making sure that we’re creating the most equitable space possible to feel included,” Rumrey said. “That’s what DEI is.”

At present, the situation has not progressed following the initial suit, but the results of the suit have the potential to impact our district.