this post was submitted on 04 Apr 2025
84 points (98.8% liked)

politics

22750 readers
3101 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

U.S. Education Department threatens to withhold Title I funds from K-12 schools if they continue DEI programs that it views as discriminatory.

The agency insists that civil rights laws prohibit using race as a factor in education, requiring state officials to certify compliance within 10 days.

The warning affects schools reliant on over $18.38 billion in Title I funding, impacting nearly 90% of U.S. districts and low-income communities.

Critics, including the American Federation of Teachers, call the move political bullying, while some leaders support stricter federal oversight for fund usage.

top 7 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] newthrowaway20@lemmy.world 30 points 4 days ago

You're talking their funding either way though.

[–] Einstein@sh.itjust.works 16 points 4 days ago

Wish we would eliminate billionaires instead. Fastest way to make improvements in this world.

[–] letsgo2themall@lemmy.world 16 points 4 days ago

they want to use the hard "R" in public again so bad they are drooling.

[–] Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world 6 points 4 days ago

Just want to throw this out there for context.

In the urban districts I used to work for, Title I funding amounted to $5,000 per child per year.

So a small, rural district of say 1000 students would be looking at funding cuts in the $5,000,000 range. Your average urban district (15,000 kids or so)? You're looking at a funding cut of $75 million.

This isn't a case of losing some funding and having to lay off a couple of teachers and cancel the after-school art club. This is literally an amount of funding that determines whether a district functions at all. Expect many school districts to bend the knee even if only out of self-preservation and the fear that losing that much funding would lead to even worse outcomes.

[–] PointyReality@lemmy.world 4 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

I have still yet to hear a valid argument against DEI that was not racist and or mysognistic. All of the talking points against it is fabricated boogeyman stories without any factual evidence supporting it.

[–] Akasazh@feddit.nl 0 points 4 days ago (1 children)

They should revolt and opt to lose funding. If every school does that it's not tenable

[–] Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago

They should revolt and opt to lose funding. If every school does that it’s not tenable

Just want to point out my comment above in response to this. This isn't a situation like the universities where they have billions in endowments that can make up for the loss of funding. Title I funding is about $5000 per student per year. Those schools don't receive that money, those schools just close.

I'm not saying I like the situation. I'm just saying that what your suggesting is even less tenable to most communities.