A federal investigation has found that Providence Public School District’s “Educator of Color Loan Forgiveness Program” unlawfully excluded white teachers. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) concluded that the district violated Title VII by restricting up to $25,000 in student-loan forgiveness exclusively to non-white educators. The district now faces federal demands to correct the violation.
The program, funded with about $3.1 million raised by the Rhode Island Foundation, offered loan forgiveness to teachers who identify as Asian, Black, Indigenous, Latino, biracial, or multiracial. White teachers were barred from eligibility, prompting complaints from the Legal Insurrection Foundation in November 2022. The program was designed to run from the 2021–22 through 2025–26 school years and required recipients to serve three consecutive years in the district.
In early 2023, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights referred the matter to the EEOC, which later involved the Department of Justice. On July 24, 2025, the EEOC issued a final determination finding “reasonable cause” to believe Providence discriminated against white teachers based on race, color, and national origin. Under Title VII, the district must respond within ten days and enter into conciliation to resolve the violation.
The investigation noted that the program was intended to address disparities in teacher demographics. Providence schools serve a student body that is approximately 80% non-white, while educators of color make up only about 20% of staff. However, the EEOC determined that excluding applicants based on race constituted unlawful discrimination, even with diversity goals in mind.
Providence Public Schools stated it is reviewing the EEOC’s findings with legal counsel and will cooperate fully. Officials emphasized the district’s commitment to non-discrimination while awaiting further instructions.
The ruling places new scrutiny on race-based initiatives tied to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) efforts. Legal experts note that the case could become a precedent for future challenges to programs that limit benefits based on racial categories.
