On July 29, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a memo titled “Guidance for Recipients of Federal Funding Regarding Unlawful Discrimination,” clarifying the DOJ’s position on how federal anti-discrimination laws apply to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives. This memorandum continues the current administration’s aggressive shift in federal oversight by warning that many so-called “DEI practices” may violate federal law, even when implemented under the banner of inclusion. The DOJ memo identifies specific practices such as race-based scholarships, hiring preferences, segregated programming, and DEI training content that could trigger investigations or lead to the revocation of federal funding for colleges. It is important to note that the DOJ memo does state that the recommendations are “non-binding” (meaning they do not carry the force of law), but they give insight into the current DOJ leadership’s views on issues of diversity and discrimination.
Provided below is a comparative analysis of the DOJ's statements with the framework Stonehill has currently outlined on its Civil Rights webpage.
Commitment to Anti-Discrimination Laws
DOJ Memo Stance: The federal government will not tolerate discrimination by recipients of federal funds. Institutions must ensure that their programs comply with federal law and do not discriminate based on protected characteristics (race, color, national origin, sex, religion, or other protected characteristics), regardless of program labels or intentions. The DOJ memo emphasizes significant legal risks for initiatives that involve discrimination.
Stonehill Stance: Stonehill's DEI definition states that its policies and practices ensure fair, equal, and meaningful access to opportunities “in full compliance with federal civil rights laws… [Stonehill] take[s] seriously the need to uphold and adhere to federal and state civil rights laws.” The College's mission aligns with federal and state anti-discrimination laws, including Title VI, Title IX, and the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Evaluation: Green Light. Both documents explicitly state their commitment to upholding federal anti-discrimination laws and ensuring compliance with civil rights principles. Stonehill's statement directly echoes the DOJ's core requirement that DEI programs must comply with the law, not operate outside of it.
Preferential Treatment and the Use of Protected Characteristics as Criteria
DOJ Memo Stance: Using race, sex, or other protected characteristics as criteria for employment, program participation, resource allocation, or other benefits is unlawful except in rare, narrowly defined cases. Preferential treatment is defined as providing opportunities or advantages based on protected characteristics that disadvantage others, and such practices violate federal law. Examples of unlawful practices include race-based scholarships or programs exclusively for specific racial groups; preferential hiring or promotion based on “underrepresented groups” if determined by a protected characteristic; race-exclusive “safe spaces;” “diverse slate” policies requiring a minimum number of candidates from specific racial groups; sex-based selection for contracts; race- or sex-based program participation quotas.
Stonehill Stance: Stonehill states that its DEI efforts do not include: “explicit preferences in hiring or admission based on race, gender, or other similar groupings.” It also does not include “setting quotas in hiring or admission based on groupings.” Furthermore, Stonehill's DEI efforts do not include “providing internship, leadership, scholarship, enrollment, employment, or mentorship opportunities that are only open to specific groupings.” Stonehill defines “Equity” as ensuring fair treatment, access, and opportunity for all, specifically stating it “does not mean providing preferential treatment based on protected characteristics.” Stonehill strives to “actively recruit students, faculty, and staff based on their individual merits, experiences, and talents, ensuring that all applicants are considered fairly and equally.”
Evaluation: Green Light. We are currently evaluating specific scholarships to ensure compliance and anticipate that any changes that need to be made will be. Additionally, Stonehill's specific exclusions directly address the DOJ memo's prohibitions on preferential treatment, quotas, and the use of protected characteristics as criteria for opportunities or benefits. Stonehill's emphasis on individual merit and fair, equal consideration for all applicants is consistent with the DOJ's guidance.
Prohibition on Proxy Discrimination
DOJ Memo Stance: Unlawful proxies occur when facially neutral criteria are intentionally used as substitutes for explicit consideration of protected characteristics or implemented to advantage/disadvantage individuals based on them. DOJ Examples: “cultural competence,” “lived experience,” or “cross-cultural skills” used to evaluate racial/ethnic backgrounds. Astonishingly, the DOJ memo also attempts to negate long-standing race-neutral criteria (e.g., targeting “geographic areas” or “first-generation students”), but they do qualify their statement by saying this is only unlawful if intended to increase participation by specific racial/sex-based groups.
Stonehill Stance: Stonehill's documentation does not explicitly use the term “proxies” or list specific examples of criteria that could function as proxies. However, our general commitments include: “[to] actively recruit students, faculty, and staff based on their individual merits, experiences, and talents, ensuring that all applicants are considered fairly and equally.” We also state goals to “remove unnecessary barriers to admission, employment, or advancement,” “ensure equal access to education and consistent criteria for academic evaluation for all students,” and to “ensure fair and consistent criteria for the hiring, promotion, and compensation of employees.”
Evaluation: Yellow Light. We do not explicitly address “proxies,” but we articulate strong statements against preferences and quotas and focus on “individual merits, experiences, and talents” and “fair and consistent criteria.” This does align with the DOJ's intent to prevent discrimination through indirect means. There is, however, the potential for issues around geographic and first generation as proxies. However, despite the DOJ memo there is very little legal support for the DOJ’s argument on these race-neutral factors.
Sex-Separated Spaces, Athletic Competitions, Segregated Spaces
DOJ Memo Stance: Segregation based on protected characteristics is generally unlawful. It is “typically unlawful” to compel employees to share intimate spaces with the opposite sex or allow men to compete in women's athletic competitions. Allowing males (including those self-identifying as “women”) into single-sex spaces for females (bathrooms, showers, locker rooms, dormitories) or allowing males to compete in women's athletic events undermines women's privacy, safety, and equal opportunity. Organizations “should affirm sex-based boundaries rooted in biological differences.”
Stonehill Stance: Stonehill does not currently explicitly mention sex-separated intimate spaces (bathrooms, locker rooms) or athletic competitions for men and women. We instead focus on general principles of “equal access to education” and fostering “an inclusive and welcoming community.” We do articulate a ban on general segregation (e.g., opportunities “only open to specific groupings”).
Evaluation: Yellow Light. This specific area (sex-separated spaces) is highly emphasized in the DOJ memo as a key legal risk and compliance requirement for recipients of federal funds. Stonehill's documentation is silent at to our position on sex-separated spaces at this point. This could be interpreted as a lack of alignment with the law from the perspective of the DOJ.
Training Programs That Promote Discrimination or Hostile Environments
DOJ Memo Stance: Unlawful DEI training programs are those that stereotype, exclude, or disadvantage individuals based on protected characteristics or create a hostile environment. Examples include trainings with statements like “all white people are inherently privileged” or “toxic masculinity.” The memo admonished institutions to avoid exclusionary training programs and states that trainings should not require participants to affirm specific ideological positions or confess personal biases or privileges based on a protected characteristic.
Stonehill Stance: Stonehill states that its DEI efforts do not include “promoting mandatory training or educational programs which state that one group is inherently unfair to another group.” Instead, Stonehill provides “voluntary educational opportunities that foster mutual respect, open inquiry, and ethical leadership, ensuring alignment with federal civil rights standards.”
Evaluation: Green Light. Stonehill directly addresses the DOJ's concerns regarding discriminatory and coercive training programs. Our commitment to voluntary education that promotes mutual respect does not contradict the DOJ's interpretations of best practices.
Scrutiny of Third-Party Funding
DOJ Memo Stance: Recipients of federal funds should ensure federal funds do not support third-party programs that discriminate. DOJ states that best practices incorporate explicit nondiscrimination clauses in agreements with third parties and monitor their compliance, terminating funding for noncompliant programs.
Stonehill Stance: Stonehill currently does not mention any specific commitments regarding the scrutiny of third-party funding or the inclusion of nondiscrimination clauses in contracts with external entities although we do, in fact, include nondiscrimination clauses in our agreements.
Evaluation: Yellow Light. This is another key point in the DOJ memo. The absence of any mention of it on our Civil Rights page could be construed as non-compliance. Again, we maintain an expectation that third party contractors comply with Civil Rights laws, so we could certainly include such language.
Protection Against Retaliation
DOJ Memo Stance: Individuals who object to or refuse to participate in discriminatory programs, trainings, or policies are protected from adverse actions like termination or exclusion. DOJ advises that institutions should establish clear anti-retaliation procedures and create safe reporting mechanisms.
Stonehill Stance: While Stonehill's Civil Rights page does not explicitly mention protection against retaliation for individuals who raise concerns, file complaints, or refuse to participate in potentially discriminatory programs, we do have strong non-retaliation statements in our policies. These could easily be incorporated into the Civil Rights page.
Evaluation: Green Light. Stonehill has strong protections against retaliation, but we should highlight them on the Civil Rights page.
Steps Taken
My office has revised the Civil Rights webpage to address key areas as follows:
- Added language which makes it clear that we comply with Title IX regulations and NCAA rules with respect to sex-separated spaces.
- Indluded statements emphasizing our use of nondiscrimination clauses in third-party funding agreements.
- Referenced our existing anti-retaliation policies.
```