On April 8, 2025, Washington superintendent, Chris Reykdal, issued a press release stating he will not comply with the US Department of Education Office of Civil Rights (OCR) letter enforcing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 – which requires equal treatment of all Americans regardless of skin color. The OCR letter is also enforcing a US Supreme Court ruling clarifying the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution. So what Reykdal is really saying is that he will not comply with the US Constitution!
This comes on the heels of Reykdal’s refusal to comply with the the OCR February 2025 letter enforcing another important federal civil rights law called Title IX – which requires fair treatment of biological girls in academic and sports programs. This is the same Chris Reykdal who, in June 2924, refused to comply with an important Washington state civil rights law called the Parents Rights Initiative – which requires keeping parents informed about what is happening to their kids while their kids are in school. Reykdal falsely claimed that the “Parents Rights Initiative was illegal” – a claim that a King County judge ruled was not true in January 2025. In February, 2025, Reykdal falsely claimed that Washington state civil rights laws (which requires allowing males to participate in girls sports) override the federal Title IX law (which prohibits allowing males to participate in girls sports). Previously, I wrote an article explaining why Washington laws do not override Title IX (an article you can read at this link). In this article, we will review why Washington laws do not override the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution.
Why Reykdal’s Legal Theory is Crazy
Here is a quote from Reykdal’s April 8, 2025 press release: “Last Thursday, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights asked states to certify their compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as well as the Department’s interpretation of the decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College (“SFFA v. Harvard”). This is the latest attack against the rights of states to have civil rights frameworks that exceed the federal minimum standards.”
In plain English, Reykdal is falsely claiming that Washington State civil rights laws - which require special treatment of some people based on their skin color - have priority over federal civil rights laws (as well as the US Constitution) that prohibit special treatment based on skin color.
Reykdal bases his claim on his crazy legal theory that “states can have civil rights laws that exceed federal minimum standards.” There are at least three reasons why Reykdal’s legal theory is crazy.
First, Reykdal’s claim that Washington civil rights laws “exceed federal minimum standards” is false and misleading (and an abuse of the English language). Instead of exceeding federal minimum standards, what Washington civil rights laws really do is directly contradict federal civil rights laws. Imagine that the Washington legislature passed a state civil rights law allowing slavery and that there was a federal civil rights law, such as the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, prohibiting slavery. According to Reykdal’s crazy legal theory, the state civil rights law would have priority over the federal civil rights law because the state civil rights law allowing slavery “exceeds the federal minimum standards”!
Second, Reykdal’s crazy legal theory is contrary to Article VI, Section II of the US Constitution which clearly states that federal laws have priority over state laws when the state laws directly contradict federal laws. States do have the right to pass their own laws. But state laws are not allowed to directly contradict federal laws.
When a state law conflicts with federal law, the U.S. Supreme Court can void the state law. The US Supreme Court has stated that state laws will be found to violate the Supremacy Clause if compliance with both federal and state laws is impossible or if the state law defeats the purpose of a federal law. Thus, state laws that are contrary to Title IX are null and void. Also state laws that are contrary to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are null and void.
Third, the Washington state civil rights laws requiring schools to discriminate on the basis of skin color are not merely contrary to the US Department of Education “interpretation” of the US Supreme Court decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College (“SFFA v. Harvard”). They are blatant violations of the US Supreme Court decision in Students for Fair Admissions v Harvard. We will take a closer look at SFFA v Harvard in a moment. First, we need to review the background and problems of the Washington state civil rights laws that Reykdal falsely claims “exceeds the federal minimum standards.”
Why Washington State DEI Laws violate the Civil Rights Act of 1964
In the past few years, the Washington legislature has passed some radical civil rights laws which claim to promote “Diversity, Equity and Inclusion” aka DEI. These laws attempt to legalize teaching radical theories like “Critical Race Theory” in our public schools. Critical Race Theory aka CRT teaches children as young as age 5 that all white people are racist “oppressors” while non-white people are “oppressed.” The cure for this oppression is for white people to publicly admit their racism and for society to make reparations for past and current racism.
Proponents of Critical Race Theory have claimed that virtually everything historically taught in our schools from reading to math has hidden racist components that need to be weeded out in the name of racial justice. But far from promoting diversity, equity or inclusion, CRT divides students into groups and discriminates against students based purely on their skin color. This is why CRT and DIE violates the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
While CRT proponents claim CRT and DIE are needed to promote racial justice, many parents object to CRT claiming that it is indoctrination that harms children’s self esteem. They call CRT “Critical Racist Theory.”
The US Supreme Court ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v Harvard is not merely about College Admissions Racial Quotas
In his April 8, 2024 press release, Reykdal falsely claimed that “the SFFA v. Harvard case was specific to the use of race-conscious college admissions policies.”
Clearly Reykdal has not read the Supreme Court ruling. Anyone who has actually read the Supreme Court opinion in SFFA v Harvard would immediately understand that it is about a lot more than Harvard’s racial quotas which required admitting a certain number of non-white students. Here is a direct link to the US Supreme Court decision which was published on June 29, 2023. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdf
The first thing you will notice when you click on this link is that the decision is 237 pages long. The second thing you will notice is that the decision was a 6 to 3 decision with Chief Justice Roberts writing the majority opinion. While I have read the entire 237 pages, you can get a pretty good idea of what Justice Roberts is saying by reading the first 20 pages. He goes into great detail about the history and meaning of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He concludes that this important federal civil rights law requires complete “color blindness” and that all Americans must be treated equally regardless of their skin color.
Justice Roberts also found that the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution also requires complete “color blindness” and that all Americans must be treated equally regardless of their skin color. To me, he seems to be saying that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is merely a clarification of the 14th Amendment and that this color blindness was always the intention of the 14th Amendment (which was passed just after the Civil War).
But regardless of whether you agree with Justice Roberts interpretation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or not, or whether you agree with his interpretation of the 14th Amendment or not, or whether you love or hate the US Supreme Court, this 2023 US Supreme Court ruling is the “law of the land.” Many legal commentators have called this ruling the most important US Supreme Court Civil Rights decision since Brown versus Board of Education way back in 1954.
So when Reykdal says he does not have to comply with the US Department of Education OCR letter, what he is really saying is that he does not have to comply with the 2023 US Supreme Court ruling. Somehow is Reykdal’s magical world, Washington state civil rights laws that directly contradict the 2023 US Supreme Court ruling have priority over the US Supreme Court ruling.
What the US Civil Rights Laws actually say
Before we quote Justice Roberts interpretation of the US Civil rights laws, let’s begin by reading the actual words of the two civil rights laws in question. The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution, ratified in 1868, states:
“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Note that the 14th Amendment does not even mention the words “race” or “skin color”. Instead, it states that all citizens in the US are to be treated equally and that there are no exceptions.
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 states: “No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color or national origin, be excluded from participation in, denied the benefit of, or be subjected to discrimination in any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”
Comparing these two important federal civil rights laws, on page 129 of his concurring opinion, Justice Gorsuch states:
“Consider just some of the obvious differences. The Equal Protection Clause operates on States. It does not purport to regulate the conduct of private parties. By contrast, Title VI applies to recipients of federal funds—covering not just many state actors, but many private actors too. In this way, Title VI reaches entities and organizations that the Equal Protection Clause does not.”
“In other respects, however, the relative scope of the two provisions is inverted. The Equal Protection Clause addresses all manner of distinctions between persons… By contrast, Title VI targets only certain classifications—those based on race, color, or national origin. Under Title VI, it is always unlawful to discriminate among persons even in part because of race, color, or national origin.”
Yet Justice Roberts sees the end result of the 1964 Civil Rights Act as being the same as the 14th Amendment, namely that all citizens in the US are to be treated equally and that there are no exceptions.
Quotes from Justice Roberts Majority Opinion
Here are a few quotes from Justice Roberts very long majority opinion so you can see for yourself that Justice Roberts is really calling for “color-blindness” to be the law of the land:
ROBERTS , C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which THOMAS, ALITO, GORSUCH, KAVANAUGH, and BARRETT, joined.
(In Brown versus Board of Education, the US Supreme Court stated:)
“The mere act of separating children . . . because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority.”
“The conclusion reached by the Brown Court was thus unmistakably clear: the right to a public education “must be made available to all on equal terms.” As the plaintiffs had argued, “no State has any authority under the equal-protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to use race as a factor in affording educational opportunities among its citizens.”
“Eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it. And the Equal Protection Clause, we have accordingly held, applies “without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality.”
“For the guarantee of equal protection cannot mean one thing when applied to one individual and something else when applied to a person of another color… If both are not accorded the same protection, then it is not equal.”
“The race-based admissions systems that respondents employ fail to comply with the twin commands of the Equal Protection Clause that race may never be used as a “negative” and that it may not operate as a stereotype.”
“One of the principal reasons race is treated as a forbidden classification is that it demeans the dignity and worth of a person to be judged by ancestry instead of by his or her own merit and essential qualities.”
Quotes from Concurring Opinions
Beginning on Page 49, JUSTICE THOMAS, concurred added the following comments: “In the wake of the Civil War, the country focused its attention on restoring the Union and establishing the legal status of newly freed slaves. The Constitution was amended to abolish slavery and proclaim that all persons born in the United States are citizens, entitled to the privileges or immunities of citizenship and the equal protection of the laws. Because of that second founding, “our Constitution is color-blind.”
“The Constitution continues to embody a simple truth: Two discriminatory wrongs cannot make a right.”
“The Fourteenth Amendment—ensures racial equality with no textual reference to race whatsoever. The history of these measures’ enactment renders their motivating principle as clear as their text: All citizens of the United States, regardless of skin color, are equal before the law.”
“Any statute which is not equal to all, and which deprives any citizen of civil rights which are secured to other citizens,” is “an unjust encroachment upon his liberty” and a “badge of servitude” prohibited by the Constitution. “
“The Fourteenth Amendment was understood to make the law “what justice is represented to be, blind” to the “color of one’s skin.”
The Amendment employed a wholly race-neutral text, extending privileges or immunities to all “citizens”… Put succinctly, “our Constitution is color-blind.”
“The duty of the law-maker is to know no race, no color, no religion, no nationality, except to prevent distinctions on any of these grounds, so far as the law is concerned.”
“The Court thus made clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s equality guarantee applied to members of all races, including Asian Americans, ensuring all citizens equal treatment under law.”
“Despite the extensive evidence favoring the colorblind view, as detailed above, it appears increasingly in vogue to embrace an “antisubordination” view of the Fourteenth Amendment: that the Amendment forbids only laws that hurt, but not help, blacks. Such a theory lacks any basis in the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. “
“The plain text of Title VI reinforces the colorblind view of the Fourteenth Amendment… all racial stereotypes harm and demean individuals. “
“In an effort to salvage their patently unconstitutional programs, the universities and their amici pivot to argue that the Fourteenth Amendment permits the use of race to benefit only certain racial groups—rather than applicants writ large. Yet, this is just the latest disguise for discrimination. The sudden narrative shift is not surprising, as it has long been apparent that “ ‘diversity was merely the current rationale of convenience’ ” to support racially discriminatory admissions programs. “
“Purchased at the price of immeasurable human suffering,” the Fourteenth Amendment recognizes that classifications based on race lead to ruinous consequences for individuals and the Nation.”
“Both experience and logic have vindicated the Constitution’s colorblind rule.”
“Respondents and the dissents argue that the universities’ race-conscious admissions programs ought to be permitted because they accomplish positive social goals. I would have thought that history had by now taught a “greater humility” when attempting to “distinguish good from harmful uses of racial criteria… In fact, slave-holders once “argued that slavery was a ‘positive good’ that civilized blacks and elevated them in every dimension of life,” and “segregationists similarly asserted that segregation was not only benign, but good for black students.”
“Even taking the desire to help on its face, what initially seems like aid may in reality be a burden, including for the very people it seeks to assist… Those students who receive a large admissions preference are more likely to drop out of STEM fields than similarly situated students who did not receive such a preference.”
“To start, these programs are overinclusive, providing the same admissions bump to a wealthy black applicant given every advantage in life as to a black applicant from a poor family with seemingly insurmountable barriers to overcome. In doing so, the programs may wind up helping the most well-off members of minority races without meaningfully assisting those who struggle with real hardship.”
“Finally, it is not even theoretically possible to “help” a certain racial group without causing harm to members of other racial groups. “It should be obvious that every racial classification helps, in a narrow sense, some races and hurts others.”
“Whatever their skin color, today’s youth simply are not responsible for instituting the segregation of the 20th century, and they do not shoulder the moral debts of their ancestors. Our Nation should not punish today’s youth for the sins of the past.”
“It has become clear that sorting by race does not stop at the admissions office. In his Grutter opinion, Justice Scalia criticized universities for “talking of multiculturalism and racial diversity,” but supporting “tribalism and racial segregation on their campuses,” including through “minority only student organizations, separate minority housing opportunities, separate minority student centers, even separate minority-only graduation ceremonies.”
“Meanwhile, these discriminatory policies risk creating new prejudices and allowing old ones to fester. I previously observed that “there can be no doubt” that discriminatory affirmative action policies “injure white and Asian applicants who are denied admission because of their race.”
“What, then, would be the endpoint of these affirmative action policies? Not racial harmony, integration, or equality under the law. Rather, these policies appear to be leading to a world in which everyone is defined by their skin color, demanding ever-increasing entitlements and preferences. Not only is that exactly the kind of factionalism that the Constitution was meant to safeguard against, but it is a factionalism based on ever-shifting sands.”
“In fact, all racial categories are little more than stereotypes, suggesting that immutable characteristics somehow conclusively determine a person’s ideology, beliefs, and abilities. Of course, that is false.”
“Rather than forming a more pluralistic society, these policies thus strip us of our individuality and undermine the very diversity of thought that universities purport to seek.”
“The solution to our Nation’s racial problems thus cannot come from policies grounded in affirmative action or some other conception of equity. Racialism simply cannot be undone by different or more racialism. Instead, the solution announced in the second founding is incorporated in our Constitution: that we are all equal, and should be treated equally before the law without regard to our race. Only that promise can allow us to look past our differing skin colors and identities and see each other for what we truly are: individuals with unique thoughts, perspectives, and goals, but with equal dignity and equal rights under the law.”
“If an applicant has less financial means (because of generational inheritance or otherwise), then surely a university may take that into account. If an applicant has medical struggles or a family member with medical concerns, a university may consider that too. What it cannot do is use the applicant’s skin color as a heuristic, assuming that because the applicant checks the box for “black” he therefore conforms to the university’s monolithic and reductionist view of an abstract, average black person.”
“This vision of meeting social racism with government-imposed racism is thus self-defeating, resulting in a never-ending cycle of victimization. There is no reason to continue down that path. In the wake of the Civil War, the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment charted a way out: a colorblind Constitution that requires the government to, at long last, put aside its citizens’ skin color and focus on their individual achievements.”
Page 107 Justice Gorsuch opinion concurring and added the following comments: “For some time, both universities have decided which applicants to admit or reject based in part on race. Today, the Court holds that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not tolerate this practice. I write to emphasize that Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not either.”
“We can safely say that Title VI forbids a recipient of federal funds from intentionally treating one person worse than another similarly situated person on the ground of race, color, or national origin.”
“While Harvard professes interest in socioeconomic diversity, for example, SFFA points to trial testimony that there are “23 times as many rich kids on campus as poor kids. Harvard could nearly replicate the current racial composition of its student body without resorting to race-based practices if it: (1) provided socioeconomically disadvantaged applicants just half of the tip it gives recruited athletes; and (2) eliminated tips for the children of donors, alumni, and faculty.”
“By any measure, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 stands as a landmark on this journey and one of the Nation’s great triumphs. We have no right to make a blank sheet of any of its provisions. And when we look to the clear and powerful command Congress set forth in that law, these cases all but resolve themselves. Under Title VI, it is never permissible “ ‘to say “yes” to one person . . . but to say “no” to another person’ ” even in part “ ‘because of the color of his skin.’ ”
Summary of the Harvard Supreme Court opinion
Once again Chris Rekdal is wrong about an important civil rights law and an important federal court ruling. The dissenting opinions of Justices Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson begin on page 140 and continue to page 237. They advocate for continuing a racial quote system that assumes that all white people are oppressors and all black people are victims. In other words, they advocate for critical race theory and DEI quotas to “level the playing field.” In other words, the advocate for the same agenda as Chris Reykdal. But they are clearly in the minority on the US Supreme Court.
While I am not a legal scholar, and I often do not agree with the majority on the US Supreme Court, in this case, I think the majority are right. But it is important to note that, under our current system of law, it does not matter what I think or what Chris Reykdal thinks. All that matters is what the 6 to 3 majority on the US Supreme Court think. Clearly, they think that both the 14th amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 require that all people in the US be treated with “color-blindness” and that this “color-blindness” must be applied not only in college admissions but in our public schools and in many other aspects of life.
Quotes from the US Department of Education Office of Civil Rights Dear Colleague Letter
Now that we know what the US Supreme Court said in Students for Fair Admissions v Harvard, let’s see if the 4 page February 14, 2025 Dear Colleague letter from the Office of Civil Rights describes the decision accurately. Here is a link to this Dear Colleague letter: https://www.ed.gov/media/document/dear-colleague-letter-sffa-v-harvard-109506.pdf
Here are quotes from this letter: “Discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin is illegal and morally reprehensible. Accordingly, I write to clarify and reaffirm the nondiscrimination obligations of schools and other entities that receive federal financial assistance from the United States Department of Education (Department). This letter explains and reiterates existing legal requirements under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,2 the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, and other relevant authorities.”
“In recent years, American educational institutions have discriminated against students on the basis of race, including white and Asian students, many of whom come from disadvantaged backgrounds and low-income families. These institutions’ embrace of pervasive and repugnant race-based preferences and other forms of racial discrimination have emanated throughout every facet of academia. “
“Educational institutions have toxically indoctrinated students with the false premise that the United States is built upon “systemic and structural racism” and advanced discriminatory policies and practices. Proponents of these discriminatory practices have attempted to further justify them—particularly during the last four years—under the banner of “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (“DEI”), smuggling racial stereotypes and explicit race-consciousness into everyday training, programming, and discipline. But under any banner, discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin is, has been, and will continue to be illegal.”
“The Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (SFFA), which clarified that the use of racial preferences in college admissions is unlawful, sets forth a framework for evaluating the use of race by state actors and entities covered by Title VI. “
“As the Court explained in SFFA, “an individual’s race may never be used against him” and “may not operate as a stereotype” in governmental decision-making.”
“Federal law thus prohibits covered entities from using race in decisions pertaining to admissions, hiring, promotion, compensation, financial aid, scholarships, prizes, administrative support, discipline, housing, graduation ceremonies, and all other aspects of student, academic, and campus life. Put simply, educational institutions may neither separate or segregate students based on race, nor distribute benefits or burdens based on race.”
“Other programs discriminate in less direct, but equally insidious, ways. DEI programs, for example, frequently preference certain racial groups and teach students that certain racial groups bear unique moral burdens that others do not. Such programs stigmatize students who belong to particular racial groups based on crude racial stereotypes. Consequently, they deny students the ability to participate fully in the life of a school.”
“The Department will no longer tolerate the overt and covert racial discrimination that has become widespread in this Nation’s educational institutions. The law is clear: treating students differently on the basis of race to achieve nebulous goals such as diversity, racial balancing, social justice, or equity is illegal under controlling Supreme Court precedent.”
“Institutions that fail to comply with federal civil rights law may, consistent with applicable law, face potential loss of federal funding.”
Comparing the Dear Colleague Letter to the April 8, 2025 Reykdal Letter
I think the Office of Civil Rights Dear Colleague letter accurately summarizes the Supreme Court decision. About all they could have added to make it clearer is the part about how educational programs are supposed to be “color-blind” and not even bring up the skin color stuff. But here is what Reykdal said about the Dear Colleague Letter and the Supreme Court ruling in his April 8, 2025 letter:
“The Department does not have the legal authority to break protocol in this manner. Recognition of our diversity is a cornerstone of public education. It makes us stronger, more civil, and it empowers groups of students who have historically been marginalized or denied equal opportunities.”
“Washington will not suppress its core values or cede our right to determine our own education system to the federal government… In response to the Department’s request, I sent a letter affirming that Washington has already provided our assurances and met the requirements under Title VI. We will not sign additional certifications that lack authority, lack clarity, or are an assault on the autonomy of states and local school districts by misapplying a higher education admissions case.”
In fact, Washington can not possibly meet the “requirements under Title VI” because Washington requires schools to teach race and DEI curriculum where white students are oppressors and all black students are victims.
Instead, what Reykdal is really saying is that he intends to ignore the US Supreme Court ruling and ignore the Presidential Order based on that ruling and ignore the Office of Civil Rights Letter enforcing that ruling by continuing with his DEI and Critical Race Theory indoctrination of students where even 5 year old white students are automatically the oppressors and black students are automatically the victims. But how does it empower white children to be told that they are racist oppressors? How does it empower black children to be told they are victims?
Other recent federal court decisions that also ruled against Racial Preference Programs
The US Supreme Court has not been the only court to find racial preference programs to be unconstitutional. In 2021, the Biden American Rescue Plan alloted $29 billion for grants to small restaurant owners. During the first 21 days, the Biden administration only gave grants only to restaurants at least 51% owned by women, veterans, or the “socially and economically disadvantaged” owners including: “Black Americans,” “Hispanic Americans,” “Asian Pacific Americans,” “Native Americans,” and “Asian Americans.” The funds ran out before white male owners were even able to apply. Vitolo (white) and his wife (Hispanic) owned a restaurant and submitted an application which was denied despite his timely application. Vitolo sued, seeking an injunction to prohibit the government from disbursing grants based on race or sex. The Sixth Circuit ordered the government to fund his application, before all later-filed applications, without regard to the applicants’ race or sex. See Vitolo v. Guzman (6th Cir. 2021)
Another Biden relief program forgave 120 percent of federal loans to farmers and ranchers, but only if they qualified as racial minorities. The beneficiaries did not even have to be currently in arrears in their United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) loans. These loan preferences were struck down by four federal district courts all over the county. See Wynn v. Vilsack, (Fla. 2021); Faust v. Vilsack, (Wisc. 2021); Miller v. Vilsack, (Tex. 2021); and Holman v. Vilsack, (Tenn. 2021).
In 2024, the Southeastern Legal Foundation and the Mountain States Legal Foundation represented Texas farmers challenging a USDA program of allocating enhanced disaster relief to “socially disadvantaged farmers,” defined to encompass farmers who are “(1) American Indians or Alaskan Natives; (2) Asians or Asian-Americans; (3) blacks or African-Americans; (4) Hispanics or Hispanic-Americans; (5) Native Hawaiians or other Pacific Islanders; and (6) women.” On 7, June 2024, a federal court granted an injunction against this racial preference program. See Strickland v. Vilsack, (N.D. Tex. June 7, 2024) Citing SFFA v Harvard and other Equal Protection Clause cases, such as Vitolo, the court found that USDA’s race- and sex-based policy was not supported by a compelling interest. Here is a link to this 22 page decision.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.388105/gov.uscourts.txnd.388105.26.0_1.pdf
Here are quotes from this decision:
“lt is a sordid business, this divying us up by race, and consistent Supreme Court precedent bears little tolerance for the practice. The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race. (See Students for Fair Admissions v Harvard, 2023). “
“Eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it. That is because, as applied to the individual, distinctions between citizens solely because of their ancestry are by their very nature odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality.”
Washington State Housing Program violates the US Constitution
On October 29, 2024, the Foundation Against Intolerance & Racism (FAIR) challenged a Washington State Housing Finance Commission program that provides zero-interest secondary mortgage loans to first-time home buyers. See Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism (FAIR) v. Walker, No. 2-24-cv-01770 (W.D. Wash. filed Oct. 29, 2024). Here is a link to their 8 page complaint: https://pacificlegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/FAIR-Complaint-stamped.pdf
The State-sponsored housing program benefits are only available to “an applicant whose parent, grandparent, or great-grandparent is black, Hispanic, Native American/Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, Korean or Asian Indian.” FAIR’s complaint notes that the housing program uses race as a “negative” and a “stereotype,” both of which violate the US Constitution. Here are quotes from this complaint:
“The Covenant Homeownership Program (Program) provides zero-interest secondary mortgage loans to first-time homebuyers. The state will give eligible first-time homebuyers downpayment and closing cost assistance in the form of a zero-interest secondary mortgage loan. But this opportunity to own a home isn’t available to all. The Commission restricts eligibility to the Program on the basis of race… The Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause requires the government to treat its citizens as individuals—not as members of a racial group. By providing benefits expressly on the basis of race, the Program’s eligibility criteria violate the Constitution.”
The FAIR complaint was filed in the 9th Circuit in Seattle and is being heard by John H. Chun. In December 2013, Chun was appointed by Governor Jay Inslee to serve as a Judge of the King County Superior Court. In 2018, Governor Inslee appointed Chun to serve as a Judge on the Washington State Court of Appeals. On September 30, 2021, President Joe Biden nominated Chun to serve as a judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington.
Prior to Chun’s appointment, the Western District of Washington Seattle federal court had several vacant seats which Trump was blocked from filling by Washington Senator Patty Murray. When Biden became President in 2021, he filled these Seattle federal court seats with politically biased judges like Chun.
During his confirmation hearing, Chun was questioned about his stance on Grutter v. Bollinger. This was a 2003 Race Based College Admissions case that preceded and was overtrned by Students for Fair Admissions v Harvard. Chun had submitted an amicus brief supporting the ability of universities to have race-based admissions processes. Here is a link to Chun’s 18 page brief in favor of racial discrimination:
https://www.findlawimages.com/efile/supreme/briefs/02-241/02-241.mer.ami.kcba.pdf
In his brief, Chun claimed that Initiative 200 which banned Racial Preferences and was passed by the voters of Washington in 1998, reduced the ability of the University of Washington Law School and the King County Bar Association to become “more diverse.” The King County Bar Association offered scholarships to minority students which were not available to white students.
In his brief, Chun stated: “a diverse student body contributing to a ‘robust exchange of ideas’ is a constitutionally permissible goal on which a race-conscious university admissions program may be predicated.”
In short, Chun sounds exactly like Chris Reykdal where “racial diversity” is more important than the “equality” required by the US Constitution. Both fail to realize that dividing people up based on the color of their skin is not only unconstitutional, it is toxic to the goal of empowering all children. It is based on the false assumption that all white people think the same and all black people think the same (what the US Supreme Court refers to as racial stereotyping). Skin color based discrimination is also toxic to our legal processes as the case of FAIR v Walker illustrates.
Despite the 2023 US Supreme Court Harvard ruling banning skin color based discrimination of any kind, in response to the FAIR complaint, Walker claimed that FAIR did not have a right to bring the complaint and filed for summary judgement. On January 24, 2025, FAIR filed a 23 page response to the motion for summary judgement which you can read at this link:
https://pacificlegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Foundation-Against-Intolerance-Racism-v.-Steve-Walker_PLF-Opposition-to-MTD_1.24.25.pdf
Here is a quote from their response complaint.
“When sued for injunctive relief, a state official in his or her official capacity is a person under Section 1983, Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 n.10 (1989), and an official-capacity suit pleads an action against an entity of which the state official is an agent, Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 165 (1985). FAIR sufficiently identifies the Commission’s Covenant Homeownership Program as the policy that violates the Equal Protection Clause, and Mr. Walker can enjoin it as someone who oversees the Commission’s programs.”
Here is a link to all of the legal proceedings of this case:
https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/55642058/Foundation_Against_Intolerance_and_Racism_Inc_v_Walker
On January 23, 2025, Judge Chun stated: “The Court acknowledges the requirements of FRCP 16(b), but finds good cause to defer entry of a case scheduling order pending its ruling on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.”
Put in plain English, Chun does not see the need for a case schedule as he intends to dismiss the case.
Despite the fact that the program is clearly contrary to the US Constitution and to the 2023 US Supreme Court Harvard ruling, the only option left for FAIR will be to spend thousands of dollars to take the case to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals where they will likely take a year or more to bury the case. The Ninth Circuit like the Seattle Court has been extremely politized by Patty Murray and others in the Senate. So FAIR is likely to lose there too. But then they can take the case to the US Supreme Court where they will almost certainly prevail. But it may take two or more years before the US Supreme Court even hears the case. In the meantime, this clearly illegal race-based housing program will continue here in Washington state.
In the meantime, there is currently a bill being voted on in the Washington State Senate (House Bill 1696) that will explain the Covenant Homeownership Program to people with perferred skin colors to get home tax-payer funded home loans – even if their annual income is over $112,000. Here is a link to this bill:
https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary/?billNumber=1696&year=2025&initiative=False
The bill will likely be passed by the Washington Senate in the next few days and then signed into law by Ferguson and go into effect on July 1, 2025 – despite the fact that it is clearly against the US Constitution. So much for the “rule of law.”
Seattle Times agrees with Reykdal that Skin Color based Discrimination is Legal
On April 10, 2025, the Seattle Times published an article commending Reykdal for standing up to Donald Trump. Entitled “Washington Schools Superintendent resists Trump DEI order”, the article did not specifically name the 2023 US Supreme Court decision that the Trump DEI order was based on. Nor did it quote a single sentence in the Supreme Court ruling. Instead, the article repeated Reykdal’s false claim that the case “only banned affirmative action in college admissions.” Here is a quote from the only paragraph in the article about the 2023 Supreme Court decision:
“Federal officials cite a 2023 Supreme Court decision banning race-based affirmative action in college admissions to argue that DEI programs violate federal civil rights law, which prohibits discrimination based on race. While the case did not address K-12 schools, the Trump administration argues that it is illegal to consider race in schools in any way, including programs that provide extra academic support for students of color.”
The above paragraph could not be more misleading. Our article provides 5 pages worth of quotes from the 237 page decision in Students for Fair Admissions v Harvard confirming that the Supreme Court banned all race-based programs – not merely race-based college admissions.
The second sentence in the Seattle Times paragraph is just as bad. DEI programs and Critical Race Theory curriculum are in no way “Extra academic support for students of color.” In fact, they are not academic at all. Instead, they are harmful propaganda intended to demean white students while turning all black students into powerless victims.
The Seattle Times spends most of the article attempting to justify Reykdal’s claim that “states have the authority to adopt their own learning standards, curriculum, and instructional materials.”
This claim is only partially true. States cannot adopt racially charged learning standards, curriculum and instructional materials that violate the US Constitution by making claims that white skinned students are oppressors and black skinned students are victims. Nor can states adopt curriculum requiring allowing boys in girls private spaces and boys in girls sports as that is clearly contrary to Title IX. Imagine a state after the Civil War adopting a curriculum promoting slavery. Would that be legal?
The Seattle Times apparently thinks it would. And they found a “legal expert” named Derek Black to agree with them. In 2024, Derek wrote an article on his blog promoting Presidential candidate Kamala Harris. Regarding the Trump Executive Order, Derek claimed that “Under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the federal government is explicitly prohibited from dictating or requiring curriculum to states or school districts”.
Derek is only partially correct. While the federal government can not dictate any specific curriculum, it has always reserved the right to prohibit curriculum that violate federal civil rights laws. Here is a quote from a January 2025 article about this subject:
“these prohibitions would not allow for the creation of a hostile learning environment in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972, or Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (the civil rights laws prohibiting discrimination based on race, color, national origin, sex, or disability)… The existence of a hostile environment based on race, color, national origin, or disability that is created, encouraged, accepted, tolerated, or left uncorrected by a school can constitute discrimination in violation of these statutes...The Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR), which enforces these civil rights statutes in schools, could find a violation of civil rights law in its enforcement work if: (1) a hostile environment based on race, color, national origin, sex, or disability existed; (2) the school had actual or constructive notice (in other words, the school knew or should have known) of the hostile environment; and (3) the school failed to take prompt and effective steps reasonably calculated to (i) end the harassment, (ii) eliminate any hostile environment and its effects, and (iii) prevent the harassment from recurring. From “Resource: Resolving a Hostile Environment Under Title VI: Discrimination Based on Race, Color, or National Origin, Including Shared Ancestry or Ethnic Characteristics.” US Department of Education Office for Civil Rights. January 2025.” See https://www.ed.gov/media/document/resolving-hostile-environment-under-title-vi
The fact that DEI and CRT are creating a hostile learning environment is exactly what the US Supreme Court and the Trump administration are trying to stop.
Derek also claimed that the 1943 Supreme Court case West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette establishes that the First Amendment prohibits state and federal authorities from dictating what shall be established in schools. Here is a link to this case: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/319/624/
What the Supreme Court held was that the state of West Virginia could not require local school districts to force students to say the Pledge of Allegiance as this would violate the students First Amendment rights to Freedom of Speech. This case actually supports the Trump Order and the 2023 US Supreme Court ruling because it ruled that a State law to compel student speech was against the federal rights of the students and was therefore unconstitutional. This is exactly what the Trump order does – it enforces a federal law protecting students civil rights.
A More Constitutional Way to Achieve Diversity
As the US Supreme Court has pointed out, there are ways to achieve diversity without basing educational or other state or federal programs on race. The most obvious example is to direct funds or support to low income families. For years, the US Department of Agriculture has funding free school lunch programs for low income students who can not afford to pay for their lunch. It is well know that if a kid is given a meal, they are more likely to learn. Note that the program is offered to all American children regardless of their skin color.
School curriculum and teacher training can also include discussions on how to lift all students out of poverty – regardless of the student’s skin color. It is a well known fact that student test scores on standardized tests are directly related to their family income. This is likely because parents of students from high income families are better able to pay for books and for tutors. In addition, students living in better quality higher income school districts perform better than students from high poverty school districts. In fact, it has been shown that higher income leads to higher test scores for black college bound students as it does for white college bound students. For example, increasing family annual income from $30,000 to $90,000 for black students leads to a math SAT score increase of 461-419 = 42 points for black students and a increase of 539 to 502 = 37 points for white students. There is still a difference of 539 – 461 = 78 points between the two groups. But these difference are due to a huge variety of factors such as the income level of the parents to the quality of the school and experience of the teachers in the school as well as many other community factors. Here is a quote from the study conclusions:
“The differential effect for high school achievement, along with the differential and large poverty effect, in part, suggests an effect of schooling where Black test-takers, especially those living in poverty, are likely attending poorer quality schools.”
https://www.cs.jhu.edu/~misha/DIReadingSeminar/Papers/DixonRoman13.pdf
A 2019 study by Stanford University found that School poverty – not racial composition – limits educational opportunity. “ Here is a quote:
It is not the racial composition of the schools that matters. What matters is when black or Hispanic students are concentrated in high-poverty schools in a district.”
https://cepa.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/wp17-12-v201803.pdf
In addition, it has been shown that children in single parent households do not score as high as children from two-parent households. The bottom line is that skin color is not a significant determinate of outcome when the cumulative effect of environmental factors are considered.
There are many ways to close the Opportunity Gap without violating the Equal Protection clause of the US Constitution. For example, schools can also offer smaller class sizes to all students as small class sizes have been shown to increase graduation rates of low income students. If we want low income kids to do better in school, other options include that the school can provide low income kids with books or tutors or computers and Internet access. It should be up to each local school board to decide how to handle the problem of low income kids. But the point is that we can achieve more diversity by basing help on income level rather than on skin color.
If we want to do something about the housing crisis, we can help low income parents with the down payment. It is revolting for tax payer dollars to go to relatively wealthy minority applicants while much lower income white-skinned applicants are left out in the cold simply because they have the wrong color of skin.
Alternately, we can prioritize offering interest-free loans to low income folks with small children. It is well known that children living in stable homes do much better in school than children who are homeless. Again, I am not advocating for any given policy. I am simply pointing out that there are ways to achieve social improvement goals without discriminating against people based on the color of their skin.
What is likely to happen as a result of Reykdal’s ongoing violations of federal civil rights laws and the US Constitution?
Numerous groups, including the Washington Parents Network, have filed Title IX complaints against Chris Reykdal and his accomplices. It is likely that in the next few months, the US Title IX Taskforce is likely to come to Washington state and rule that Reykdal is violating Title IX. They may also rule that Reykdal is violating Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and also violating the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution. All of these violations can lead to withholding federal educational funding in the amount of hundreds of millions to two billion dollars per year.
Based on his past statements, Reykdal is likely to ignore federal orders to comply. The case will then be transferred to the Department of Justice who will then file a complaint against Reykdal in federal court. This is the same Seattle centered Ninth Circuit federal court dominated by Biden appointees. The case will likely take several months and likely lead to a ruling in favor of Reykdal. It may take several more months to be confirmed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. But then it will go to the US Supreme Court which will almost certainly agree that Reykdal is violating the US Constitution as well as Title VI and Title IX.
The US Supreme Court will rule that the Trump administration can withhold federal funding from Washington state. At that point, it is likely that Reykdal will finally agree with comply with the US Constitution and federal law as to do otherwise would not only cost Washington state students billions of dollars in federal educational funding but would also be a clear violation of his Oath of Office. The good news is that some day, the insanity and harm inflicted on our kids by Chris Reykdal will end and the yolk of DEI and CRT and boys in girls bathrooms and boys in girls sports will also end.
As always, I look forward to your questions and comments.
Regards,
David Spring M. Ed.
Washington Parents Network
