"you know what we mean" certification from U.S. Ed

There's much to be said about the U.S. Department of Education's Thursday demand that states and districts sign that they "aren't doing DEI" to continue to receive federal funds, but the thing that keeps coming to mind for me is this Monty Python skit: 

You know, DEI! You know what we mean!
No, we don't, Secretary McMahon. Please be more specific!

Anyway, the  U.S. Department of Education form that was sent out last week states the following:

Given the text of Title VI and the assurances you have already given, any violation of Title VI—including the use of Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion (“DEI”) programs to advantage one’s race over another—is impermissible. 

Note that they're basing this not on Title VI (of the Civil Rights Act) on its own, but on their interpretation of Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard. The Guardian (linked above) quotes Craig Trainor, the acting assistant education secretary for civil rights

“When state education commissioners accept federal funds, they agree to abide by federal anti-discrimination requirements. Unfortunately, we have seen too many schools flout or outright violate these obligations, including by using DEI programs to discriminate against one group of Americans to favor another based on identity characteristics.”

You can read NPR here and New York Times here (gift link). For the full legal rundown, I as always highly recommend the Education Civil Rights blog.
The state of New York quickly said they'd sign no such thing. 

The best response I have seen so far--and let it be noted that we're four days on and so far haven't heard a word from Massachusetts, so far as I know--is from Minnesota, which takes apart this argument piece by piece in their refusal. The full text is here, but I'm going to share the screenshots here, too.

Note that this takes apart both their process--changes such as these are subject to federal rulemaking requirements--as well as their interpretation of the above. They even echo (in much more mature and lawyerly language) my own objection: 

It is unclear which specific programs or activities ED seeks to regulate by this certification. Although the letter references “certain DEI practices” or “illegal DEI,” it does not define it, and there are no federal or applicable state statutes prohibiting diversity, equity, or inclusion.

 It also calls out something I thought rather odd: this simply isn't how U.S. Ed interacts with districts:

We are unaware of any legal authority permitting ED to require MDE to obtain individual certifications from each of its LEAs, report on their signature status, and propose enforcement plans to ED for approval in connection with a Request for Certification of this nature.

And, okay, if we're going to quote, let's include their closing: 

ED does not have the authority to unilaterally overrule the will of Congress. The current uncertainty and threats would penalize the most vulnerable children in Minnesota and are a distraction from the good work we need to do to ensure every student has access to a world-class education.

As noted at the outset, MDE has already provided the requisite guarantee that it has and will comply with Title VI and its implementing regulation, and that includes our assurance that we do and will comply with Supreme Court cases interpreting the same. We submit this letter to serve as our response to this specific request.

Awaiting similar from Massachusetts and elsewhere.