The Trump administration has issued a directive mandating that schools and universities across the United States must eliminate diversity programs within a fortnight or risk losing federal funding. This decision elevates the administration’s ongoing campaign against what it terms “wokeness.”
In a memo released on Friday, the Department of Education outlined an ultimatum for educational institutions to cease the practice of considering “racial preferences” in admissions, financial assistance, hiring, and related areas. Schools have been granted a strict deadline of 14 days to dismantle any initiatives that differentiate treatment based on race.
Educational leaders at colleges nationwide are currently evaluating potential risks and contemplating whether to uphold practices they believe to be legally justified. This directive could significantly disrupt various aspects of campus life, affecting everything from college application essays to classroom teachings and extracurricular activities.
The memo characterizes the initiative as a necessary step to address what it describes as pervasive discrimination in educational settings, often aimed at white and Asian students. Craig Trainor, the acting assistant secretary for civil rights, stated, “Schools have been operating under the assumption that selecting students for ‘diversity’ or similar terms is separate from racial selection. That notion is no longer tenable. Students should be evaluated based on their merit, achievements, and character.”
Opposition to the guidance has been robust, with civil rights and university associations expressing concerns over its ambiguous language, which they argue may intimidate schools into abolishing any program related to race, even if such initiatives could withstand legal scrutiny. Jonathan Fansmith, the senior vice president for government relations at the American Council on Education, noted that the intention appears to create an environment of fear surrounding efforts to encourage diversity on campus.
This memo expands upon President Trump’s executive order that prohibits diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, referencing the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling that bars the consideration of race in college admissions as a point of legal rationale. The memo asserts, “Simply put, educational institutions cannot segregate or differentiate students based on race, nor can they allocate benefits or disadvantages based on race.”
Furthermore, the Department of Education announced the termination of $600 million in grants intended for organizations that provide teacher training, citing their promotion of what they described as divisive concepts linked to DEI, critical race theory, and social justice activism.
At a recent confirmation hearing for education secretary nominee Linda McMahon, uncertainty surrounding the implications of Trump’s order became evident when she was unable to confirm whether classes on African American history would violate the initiative. In response, the School Superintendents Association reassured its members that the latest guidance is not legally binding and that any funding cuts would likely require extensive investigations. Sasha Pudelski, the advocacy director of the group, recommended that districts avoid hastily eliminating programs.
In light of this new directive, attention has turned to college admissions processes, with the guidance suggesting that institutions may have attempted to circumvent the Supreme Court’s decision. For instance, the memo states that college essays cannot be crafted in a manner that implies predictions about a student’s race. Although the Supreme Court allowed for discussions of how race influenced a student’s life, it warned that colleges could not leverage essays as an indirect means to assess racial identity.
Moreover, the memo prohibits colleges from discarding standardized testing requirements for the sake of achieving a desired racial demographic or enhancing racial diversity. A significant number of U.S. colleges have recently eliminated SAT and ACT prerequisites, arguing that the tests disproportionately benefit students from affluent backgrounds.
Long-standing practices, such as targeting underrepresented areas for recruitment or acquiring lists of prospective students based on specific academic and demographic data, may now expose institutions to legal risks, according to Angel B. Pérez, CEO of the National Association for College Admission Counseling. He expressed that colleges may find themselves in a precarious situation, knowing their current practices might be lawful but fearing the loss of federal funding could be detrimental.
Some universities, however, predict minimal impact from the directive. At Oregon State University, for example, a legal review indicated that their existing programs comply with all applicable state and federal regulations, as expressed in a communication from Rob Odom, vice president of university relations and marketing.
The memo appears particularly targeted at scholarships that benefit students of specific racial backgrounds, and there have been ongoing legal discussions regarding whether the Supreme Court’s ruling pertains to financial aid as well. Some institutions have opted to eliminate racial criteria from certain scholarships in light of the ambiguity.
The National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators mentioned that there is no widespread agreement on the implications of the memo for student aid, stressing the discomfort this uncertainty brings for students planning their college funding.
Trump has advocated for the dissolution of the Education Department, while Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency has terminated numerous contracts considered superfluous.
Recently, the DOGE team achieved a legal victory when a federal judge refused to block its access to federal student loan records, stating that the University of California Student Association failed to demonstrate harm from this access.
