Trump's next battle with universities: races -' -folied' in admissions

Copyright © HT Digital Streams Limit all rights reserved. Matt Barnum, The Wall Street Journal 5 min Read 24 Aug 2025, 03:33 IST Columbia University has agreed not to use the essays of applicants to institute discrimination in admissions, which according to him reflects an ‘continued commitment’ to follow the law. (AFP) Summary The Trump administration warns colleges against the use of application essays, geography and other “illegal proxies” for race to achieve different student lights. After months of the target of universities on the allegations of anti -Semitism, the Trump administration uses a new focus: Whether schools use proxies for race in admissions to diversify student light games. This emphasis is emerging in recent edicts of federal agencies and in the White House’s investigation into specific universities. At the end of July, the attorney -General Pam Bondi warned in a memo against the use of ‘illegal proxies’ for race – such as geography or applicant essays on the overcoming of hardships – in admissions. Shortly thereafter, the US Education Department announced that it requires universities to report new data on applicants, broken down by race, to “ensure that race -based preferences are not used.” Universities have been prohibited from using racial preferences in admission since the Supreme Court in 2023 hit affirmative action. The Trump administration suggests that schools may strive for the ban, although universities say they comply. For conservatives and the administration, the current push is a common sense strategy to enforce and extend the Supreme Court ruling. Others say this approach distorts the court’s decision and may have printed black students’ entries, which have already fallen to some top colleges. “There is an attempt to say that the law is something it is not. There is an attempt to say that it is illegal to have a diverse student body,” said Peter McDonough, general advocate of the American Council on Education, a university group. In the ruling of the Supreme Court, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that a “student in college admissions should be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual – not on the basis of race.” “In this opinion, nothing should be interpreted as the ban on universities to consider an applicant’s discussion on how race has affected his or her life,” Roberts added. “However, universities cannot just settle through essays or others mean the regime we keep illegal today.” Since the decision, university leaders have promised to delete explicit considerations of race, while also taking on strategies, such as broader recruitment, to maintain racial diversity. In 2024, the part of the black young people in some – although not all – fell significantly. It is difficult to interpret this shift as a result of an increase in students who refused to mention their race and technical challenges with that year’s financial aid form. Some conservatives question schools where black entries do not fall. “I suspect a good percentage of illegal proxies,” said Edward Blum, an activist who helped bring the case against affirmative action to the Supreme Court. He noted that many universities said it would be impossible to maintain racial diversity without affirmative action. ‘Cross-cultural skills’ The Trump administration did not provide direct evidence of widespread efforts to face the ban on confirmation action. Blum said such evidence could emerge in future litigation. In their recent resolutions with the administration on a number of issues, Columbia and Brown agreed not to use the personal statements of applicants to institute or justify “discrimination”. “Brown spokeswoman Amanda McGregor said the university’s agreement with Trump should not be” misinterpreted as any indication of any finding related to our dedication to fair and legal admissions. ” Columbia spokesman, Virginia Lam Abrams, said the federal agreement reflected a ‘continuous commitment to the existing law related to admission. ‘The administration also penetrates $ 1 billion from UCLA and a promise to eliminate’ identity -based preferences’ for admissions, bursaries and rent. The system of the University of California has been complying with California’s ban on affirmative action for decades, spokeswoman Omar Rodriguez said. “At the same time, we remain committed to expanding access for all qualified students,” he said. In the memo of the Justice Department in July of Bondi, the Trump administration warned against “seemingly neutral criteria operating as substitutes for explicit consideration of race.” For example, it noted that ‘diversity statements’, or ask applicants about ‘cross -cultural skills’ or ‘obstacles they have overcome’, may be illegal if used to benefit certain breeds. The National Association for COLLEGE ADDITION COUNSELING HAS EMPLOYED TO its members that the memo is not legally binding, said Angel Pérez, CEO of the group. “I don’t think most institutions jump and change immediate practices.” The memo also said that measures to benefit low-income students cannot be directed in ‘areas or population groups to achieve racial or sex-based outcomes.’ A doj spokesman refused to expand. For some, the suggestion that racial neutral measures can be illegal if they try to reach racial diversity, a striking goal shift of what opponents of affirmative action has previously argued. Conservative judges have long suggested that schools be able to maintain racial diversity by non -breed strategies, have Yale law professor Justin. “Universities that are prohibited from participating in racial discrimination by constitutional law still hold racial-different classes on racial neutral means,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in a consensus in affirmative action. Richard Kahlenberg testified in the case as an expert witness and argued against traditional affirmative action on the grounds that schools can achieve racial diversity through other methods, such as by preferences for students from poor families. “The Justice Department cannot change the law, but the fear is that it may intimidate some universities,” says Kahlenberg, who works at the Center-Left Progressive Policy Institute. The doj memo is a ‘very aggressive interpretation of the law’, says David Bernstein, a legal professor at George Mason University. The Trump administration has previously faced legal challenges to limit efforts to the diversity of the campus. In February, the education department set out its interpretation of the affirmative action decision and said that universities could not eliminate standardized test requirements to increase racial diversity. But three federal courts have stopped maintaining this guidance. Legal cases have stabbed the Supreme Court in 2023 since the ruling. In a closely folder case, a conservative legal group has dispute the admission policy of a high school in Virginia. Although the policy did not consider the breed explicitly, it led to more black and Spanish students and less Asian students. Plaintiff claimed that the policy shift was race motivated. The district said it has no discriminatory intention. A federal appeal court stood at the school district and the Supreme Court refused to grant review – although the Trump administration recently launched its own investigation into the school’s admission practices. Erin Wilcox, a lawyer who argued the Virginia case, said similar suits were underway and noted that the Supreme Court did not weigh the new breed of diversity efforts. “If you are not allowed to do so using a direct racial decision, you may not do so with the help of a racial effect,” Wilcox of the Pacific Legal Foundation said. Write to Matt Barnum at [email protected], catch all the business news, market news, news reports and latest news updates on Live Mint. Download the Mint News app to get daily market updates. More Topics #Donald Trump Read Next Story