At least one Mississippi university is taking steps to evaluate its policies on diversity and race in light of a recent directive from the Trump administration that left students and faculty concerned about the future.
On Feb. 14, the U.S. Department of Education sent a “Dear Colleague” letter to education institutions across the country. The letter said that federal funding was at risk for any academic institutions that consider race as a factor in admissions, hiring, promotion, compensation, scholarships, prizes, sanctions, discipline or other institutional practices.
“Put simply, educational institutions may neither separate nor segregate students based on race nor distribute benefits or burdens based on race,” the letter says.
It applies to K-12 districts, preschools, state educational agencies, colleges and universities that receive federal financial assistance. However, higher education institutions are likely to be the most affected.
“It’s an attempt to control and interfere in the way universities do their job, basically, which is education,” United Campus Workers Southeast Executive Mississippi Representative Dr. James Chamberlain told Mississippi Free Press on Feb. 20. “It’s an attempt to impose a political agenda on what universities are doing.”
He said the directive could leave universities with a conundrum.
“If the universities actually attempt to comply with the letter, what sorts of programs would that mean cutting?” he said. “But then, on the other hand, if they don’t comply, and if the federal funds are withdrawn as a result of that, what effects that would have on the university?”
Trump Admin Claims Discrimination Against White, Asian Students
In the letter, Acting Assistant Secretary for the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights Craig Trainor specifically cites discrimination against white and Asian students and accuses educational institutions of using diversity, equity and inclusion to justify “smuggling racial stereotypes and explicit race-consciousness into everyday training, programming, and discipline.”
“In recent years, American educational institutions have discriminated against students on the basis of race, including white and Asian students, many of whom come from disadvantaged backgrounds and low-income families,” Trainor said. “These institutions’ embrace of pervasive and repugnant race-based preferences and other forms of racial discrimination have emanated throughout every facet of academia.”
The document applies a broad interpretation of the 2023 U.S. Supreme Court decision in the Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard case. The court’s ruling in that case overturned affirmative action in college admissions, stating that colleges and universities can no longer use race as a specific basis for granting admission.
Chief Justice John Roberts said in the majority opinion that Harvard and University of North Carolina admissions programs violated the Equal Protection Clause. Roberts said in the majority opinion that the court was not overturning prior cases authorizing race-based affirmative action and suggested that race’s effect on a person’s life could still be considered.
“Nothing prohibits universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected the applicant’s life, so long as that discussion is concretely tied to a quality of character or unique ability that the particular applicant can contribute to the university,” the majority opinion stated.
The three dissenting justices said the ruling, even without formally ending race-based affirmative action in higher education, would make it nearly impossible for colleges and universities to use race as a consideration. The judges who read their dissents from the bench, a rare occurrence, said the ruling was a step backward.
“Ignoring race will not equalize a society that is racially unequal. What was true in the 1860s, and again in 1954, is true today: Equality requires acknowledgment of inequality,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor said in her dissent.
Trainor said in the “Dear Colleague” letter that the Supreme Court decision in that case applies more broadly to higher education.
“At its core, the test is simple: If an educational institution treats a person of one race differently than it treats another person because of that person’s race, the educational institution violates the law,” Trainor said in the letter.
Chamberlain argued that diversity is much more complex.
“Obviously the Supreme Court ruled on affirmative action in admissions. But DEI programs are a lot more than that. They’re not just about race. They are targeted to first-generation students, to students with disabilities, to women, to all kinds of different groups, many of whom also consist of a lot of white people,” Chamberlain said. “So it sort of treats DEI as though it’s only about race when actually it’s about ensuring there’s a fair opportunity for students of all backgrounds to succeed and that is, I think you know what universities at the end of the day care about.”
MSU ‘Assessing Our Compliance’
Mississippi State University released a statement on its website on Feb. 19 stating that it was “assessing (the) impact of new federal directives.”
“MSU will be assessing our compliance in light of these new interpretations over the next few days. As we always do, we will include leadership from across our campus community throughout this process. While some changes and adjustments will be required, our people—our students, faculty and staff—will remain our top priority as we work together through any needed changes and adjustments required by these new federal directives,” the statement said in part.
Mississippi State University Vice President for Strategic Communications Sid Salter said MSU had no further comment. Neither the University of Southern Mississippi nor the University of Mississippi responded to requests for comment.
Jackson Public Schools Executive Director of Public Engagement Sherwin Johnson said the district was in the “process of analyzing all relevant information and awaiting further guidance from state and federal entities” but declined to comment further.
The letter indicated that the Department of Education will begin an assessment of compliance no later than Feb. 28. However, it acknowledged in a footnote that the “guidance doesn’t have the force and effect of law and does not bind the public or create new legal standards.”
Comments are closed.