The Trump administration considers even race-blind college-admissions policies illegal if they’re intended to achieve racial diversity—but they don’t appear to have the law on their side, Rose Horowitch argues. theatln.tc/XBQ5ScPV
“Basing admissions preferences on socioeconomic or geographic factors rather than race was supposed to be the compromise that appeased everyone,” Horowitch writes. But the Trump administration has gone after universities using its own interpretation of the landmark 2023 Supreme Court ruling Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which ended race-based affirmative-action policies.
In February, the Education Department issued a “Dear Colleague” letter outlining its interpretation of the SFFA decision. The letter argued that universities cannot use race-neutral proxies in an effort to boost diversity. “For example, it claimed that schools’ eliminating standardized testing in order to achieve greater racial diversity would be illegal,” Horowitch writes. Organizations including the ACLU sued, arguing that the interpretation in the letter infringed on academic freedom. Courts have since blocked the department from enforcing its interpretation of SFFA.
“But whether universities would prevail in a hypothetical legal battle may be beside the point,” Horowitch argues. “The Trump administration has shown that it is willing to wield the government’s formidable power against educational institutions based on a mere accusation of wrongdoing.”
The administration has frozen universities’ funding for biomedical research and threatened Harvard’s nonprofit status without any official investigation. Columbia and Brown have proved themselves willing to settle with the administration even when they probably could have won a court fight. “To enact its vision,” Horowitch continues, “all the Trump administration needs is for universities to be unwilling to risk government retribution.”
The Atlantic
The Trump administration considers even race-blind college-admissions policies illegal if they’re intended to achieve racial diversity—but they don’t appear to have the law on their side, Rose Horowitch argues. theatln.tc/XBQ5ScPV
“Basing admissions preferences on socioeconomic or geographic factors rather than race was supposed to be the compromise that appeased everyone,” Horowitch writes. But the Trump administration has gone after universities using its own interpretation of the landmark 2023 Supreme Court ruling Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which ended race-based affirmative-action policies.
In February, the Education Department issued a “Dear Colleague” letter outlining its interpretation of the SFFA decision. The letter argued that universities cannot use race-neutral proxies in an effort to boost diversity. “For example, it claimed that schools’ eliminating standardized testing in order to achieve greater racial diversity would be illegal,” Horowitch writes. Organizations including the ACLU sued, arguing that the interpretation in the letter infringed on academic freedom. Courts have since blocked the department from enforcing its interpretation of SFFA.
“But whether universities would prevail in a hypothetical legal battle may be beside the point,” Horowitch argues. “The Trump administration has shown that it is willing to wield the government’s formidable power against educational institutions based on a mere accusation of wrongdoing.”
The administration has frozen universities’ funding for biomedical research and threatened Harvard’s nonprofit status without any official investigation. Columbia and Brown have proved themselves willing to settle with the administration even when they probably could have won a court fight. “To enact its vision,” Horowitch continues, “all the Trump administration needs is for universities to be unwilling to risk government retribution.”
🎨: Ben Kothe/The Atlantic
6 days ago | [YT] | 195