‘Caught in the middle’ Title VI federal vs. state

Socorro votes not to sign federal, Magdalena votes not to sign state

At their May 5 meeting, Socorro School Board discussed and voted not to sign the U.S. Department of Education request for certification of Title VI of the Civil Act of 1964.

“The issue before the district and before the board today is whether or not the district signs this certification,” Roxie De Santiago, lawyer, said. “And they didn’t give you a whole lot of time. They gave you less than 48 hours to make that certification before it was due.”

She said her office was receiving calls, so they did some background and current research on the issue.

“The other thing to consider is that the language of the certification itself references repeatedly the phrase DEI diversity, equity and inclusion. And that phrase can be interpreted in a lot of different ways. In New Mexico in particular, it’s important to remember the impact of the Indian Education Act, the Black Education Act, the Hispanic Education Act, and most importantly, for purposes of DEI, the Yazzi Martinez lawsuit and the impact that it has on education on a regular basis, which essentially is a way to ensure equity, not equality,” De Santiago said.

She told the board there are many unknowns in terms of how the DEI phrase is being used federally versus how it’s used at a practical level in Socorro schools.

She said three ongoing lawsuits, NEA, AFT, and NAACP, have essentially halted the certification requirement.

DeSantiago explained that the injunctions are based on several legal grounds: Fifth Amendment (vague government request), First Amendment (religious and race-based claims), Administrative Procedures Act (lack of proper public notification and feedback) and the main issue is the undefined and vague language around Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI).

She said the district is not required to sign the certification due to injunctions and that the current court rulings suggest no immediate consequences for signing or not signing, but the political landscape of the current administrations makes the outcome uncertain.

“We’re caught in the middle between the federal and the state level,” Dave Hicks, school board member, said. “I think it boils down to a risk reward. You know, we’re taking a risk. We don’t sign it, they come down on us. We sign it well, we’re covered from that perspective, and then we’re also covered from the injunctions. So that’s kind of double protection, and it takes a target off our back a little bit… I think we need to make sure that we don’t put ourselves in a position to potentially lose any funding at all.”

Board member Tara Jaramillo said that, from a special education background, she was concerned about the definitions of DEI that the federal level uses.

“At what cost? I think that that would be the question.” Jaramillo said. “Are we doing that at the cost of equity? Are we doing that at the cost of inclusion?... we are signing something that says you will not use DEI, and how, once you go there, how do you walk that back? And how do you define that? And I think that’s my fear in signing something. We don’t know what we’re signing.”

Rhiannon Crespin, director of human resources, reported that about 11% of the district’s budget comes from federal funds.

Superintendent Joyce Gormley told the board the district’s current practices include culturally responsive training, purchasing instructional materials with a culturally and linguistically responsive lens and ensuring inclusive practices. She said the district’s current way of doing business incorporates practices that might be flagged under the new DEI definition, raising questions about how to proceed without disrupting existing programs.

After numerous questions about how their decision could impact the school district, board member Sharon Session asked DeSantiago, “So we’re simultaneously protected and not protected, no matter what we do?”

“That’s the best way of saying that.” DeSantiago responded.

Hicks voted in favor of signing the certification with Pauline Jaramillo, Tara Jaramillo, Kathleen Ocampo and Sessions voting against.

Magdalena School Board

At the Magdalena School District budget meeting on April 24, the question of whether or not to sign the New Mexico PED’s response to the federal request was added to their agenda.

Lynn Major, Magdalena board president, explained that their district had already signed the Federal Title VI certification; the decision before them was if they wanted to sign the state’s response.

Major read the state of New Mexico’s response to the federal Title VI compliance request. The state’s letter argues against the federal government’s new requirements and requests clarification.

“So there are two letters: one from the federal government and one from the state of New Mexico. The state of New Mexico has some arguments on it that are going against the federal government,” Kelby Stephens, board member, said, “Because we just found out about it today, we still need to have some discussion and decide what we want to do based on the federal one.”

He said he felt the district was currently compliant with the federal Title VI.

The board discussed the implications of signing the state’s letter given they already signed the federal one. They unanimously decided not to sign the state’s letter, believing they already comply with federal requirements.