Comment on FR Doc # 2026-13248

I have served as the director of the Title VI National Resource Center at U-M for two grant cycles, and as the PI of numerous other grants including the Big Ten Academic Alliance in Korean Studies and the National Endowment for the Humanities. Based on my extensive experience administering grants, I strongly oppose the proposal to rescind the existing rules concerning Title VI for the following reasons: Clear and publicly available regulations ensure fair competition. The competition rules, which took shape over decades, are essential for building consistent expectations, transparency and trust, and accountability. They allow us to plan in advance, and to align our own institutional priorities with ED’s priorities. When it was eliminated in 2025, IFLE, in fact, had just completed an extensive review and revision of the grant priorities in light of changing global climate and national needs. The recission of the competition rules will turn the competition itself into a guessing game, and negatively impact the quality of the applications. Less publicly available information and accountability about how the grantees will be selected means that the new competition will run the risk of becoming less open, not more, by rewarding connections rather than standards. Flexibility is not antithetical to transparency and accountability. The proposal cites geopolitical and technological changes taking place in the world today as a reason to introduce greater “flexibility” to the grant competition. The cost of “administrative burdens” is another. But concrete evidence is lacking on how the recission of the rules will lead to gains in these areas. The elimination of IFLE created massive confusion—has there been full accounting of what the move has cost and whether it created greater efficiency in administration? Please provide specific data on how the proposed recission will ease ED’s administrative burdens. ED already has flexibility to set and define priorities, areas of national need, languages of national need, and specific competition requirements. “Nimbleness” should not be mistaken for freedom from the requirements of transparency and accountability. Clarification is needed on how the proposal will meet statutory requirements. Once the existing rules are rescinded, what is the plan for administering these programs in a manner that would ensure effective oversight of federal funds? Will programs continue as competitive discretionary grants? If so, how will applications be evaluated? If not, will the funds be granted as contracts or subgrants? How will these contracts meet the statutory requirements authorized and reauthorized by Congress in Title VI of the Higher Education Opportunity Act (PUBL315.PS)? Consequences for Less Commonly Taught Languages (LCTL) may be dire. Federal investment is essential for less commonly taught languages. At the University of Michigan, for example, we have relied on federal funding to continue to offer instruction in some fifty foreign languages ranging from Nahuatl to Uzbek even when these languages do not meet the enrollment minimum requirement set by the university. The statutory purpose of Title VI recognizes the importance of LCTL instruction at institutions of higher learning in ensuring American leadership in the world. This is an aspect that must remain a clear mandate in Title VI administration and which faces a great risk in the move to broadly deregulate the programs. Revision, not wholesale recission, is the proper course of action to adopt. ED states that the “Department did consider alternatives to rescinding the regulations, such as partial deregulation and not rescinding at all and waiting until next fiscal year. However, after considering these alternatives, the Department has tentatively concluded that the proposed rule is best aligned to meet the goals of maximizing flexibility based on current need and return to the original statutory authority of the program.” But what were these alternatives and why were they ultimately sidelined? What is the current need that requires such maximization of flexibility even if it means the introduction of so much uncertainty? With so many questions unanswered about what will take place once the existing regulations are rescinded, it would make sense to propose more streamlined regulations rather than just a wholesale rescission. Recission is an extremist measure that throws out the baby with the bathwater. Revision and streamlining of the competition rules would also lower the barrier for new potential grantees. Making the selection process and criteria more opaque would not since newcomers would be disproportionately disadvantaged in such an environment.