The future of higher education braces for a new and refined Trump administration.
By Milan Rafaelov, Staff Writer
Within his first month in office, Donald Trump has unleashed a deluge of executive orders that threaten to defund colleges and universities who fail to comply.
The new Trump administration and its political appointees aim to leverage the Supreme Court’s interpretation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act to advance its campaign promises, including dismantling the Department of Education, eliminating diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, and enforcing America First policies that would mandate mass deportations.
“The Department will no longer tolerate the overt and covert racial discrimination that has become widespread in this nation’s educational institutions,” Craig Trainor, acting assistant secretary for civil rights, wrote in a nationwide letter to schools. “The law is clear: treating students differently on the basis of race to achieve nebulous goals such as diversity, racial balancing, social justice, or equity is
illegal under controlling Supreme Court precedent.”
The Department of Education’s Feb. 14 “Dear Colleague” letter reinforces the 2023 Supreme Court ruling that federally struck down affirmative action in college admissions. The letter sets a Feb. 28 deadline for “measures to assess compliance,” but established programs and student protections will remain unless the Republican-led Congress makes legislative changes to existing laws.
As part of its effort to curb diversity initiatives, The Department of Education launched the “End DEI” portal on Feb. 27, allowing students, faculty and parents to report programs that they believe discriminate based on race or violate the administration’s new policies. The portal is part of a broader push to monitor and restrict DEI efforts, raising concerns that institutions may be forced to dismantle long-standing programs.
“While the letter mentions a potential loss of federal funding for noncompliance, it's crucial for our faculty and staff to understand that this letter does not change existing law nor carry legal force,” said Dr. Alberto J. Román, Interim Chancellor for the LACCD. “For our day-to-day operations, you should know that LACCD will continue adhering to all applicable state and federal laws.”
This is not the first time California has faced contentious legal restrictions on race-conscious policies. The Prohibition Against Discrimination or Preferential Treatment by State and Other Public Entities, known as Proposition 209, passed in 1996, bars public educational institutions from considering race, ethnicity, or gender in admissions, scholarships and programing. This measure ended affirmative action in the UC and CSU systems, which led to declines in enrollment among underrepresented groups.
Since then, universities and colleges have adapted to create race-neutral programs that support the needs of underrepresented students through “diversity-focused” initiatives that do not specifically use race as criterion.
“In California, because higher education was already sued in the federal courts and in state court for, what they felt was race based admissions or race based programming, we've gone through the process of identifying what is allowable and what is not allowable.” Said Martin De Mucha Flores, dean of student equity at Valley.
Dean De Mucha Flores is not shaken by the “Dear Colleagues” letter or its implications. He explains that most programs consisting within the Mosaic Village, such as the Umoja Black Scholars, Rainbow Pride, or the Dream Resource Center, are state-funded and financially secure. Some federally funded programs, like student work-study or EOPS may be exposed to cuts, but the extent is still unclear. However, his primary concern is the potential “chilling effect,” a phenomenon in which uncertainty and ambiguity cause people to refrain from exercising their legal rights due to fear of retaliation or repercussions.
Though most programs remain safe, the vague language used by the Trump administration and its appointees has left legal experts debating what is and is not enforceable.
"From the behavior of the administration, they’re gonna try to be as broad as they can to enforce compliance,” Said Dean Martin. “This administration is gonna throw everything out there, but that's done as a strategy. It is not done recklessly. It’s like if I do something over here, you stop paying attention over there.”
As colleges and universities brace for potential cuts and work to maintain student support programs while avoiding confrontation, judicial challenges and strategic adaptations are expected.
Whether the administration succeeds in broadly reshaping policies affecting education is yet to be determined, but one thing is clear: institutions of education are preparing for a prolonged battle to protect their students, faculty, and core values.
Comments