Education advocates are afraid that the administration’s getting hold of admissions racial data could make colleges a more hostile place for students of color.
“The student data could be used to challenge the admission of Black students in particular under assumptions that they are presumptively unqualified because of their race,” Janel George, a law professor at Georgetown University, told HuffPost.
“Woke is officially DEAD at Brown. Thank you for your attention to this matter!” Donald Trump declared in a Truth Social post last week.
He was celebrating the fact that the prestigious Providence, Rhode Island, university had just agreed to a settlement with him. In order to restore its federal funding, the school agreed to implement anti-transgender policies and hand over its race and admissions data.
It was similar to a deal the federal government had struck with Columbia University in New York after Trump relentlessly attacked the school in the wake of on-campus pro-Palestinian protests.
And then on Thursday, Trump went further: He signed an executive order demanding that every college in the country hand over its admissions data, citing a 2023 Supreme Court decision prohibiting the use of race as a factor in college admissions. “Greater transparency is essential to exposing unlawful practices and ultimately ridding society of shameful, dangerous racial hierarchies,” the order reads.
Already, there is growing fear from legal experts and higher education advocates that he could weaponize this data in order to get higher education institutions to fall in line with his administration’s goals.
“They can misuse the data, they can interpret it in any way they want,” said Mariam Rashid, the associate director for the Center for American Progress’ racial equity and justice program. “And they can misuse it in order to misinform the public, too.”
For example, the Trump administration could use the racial data to claim a university is discriminating against a certain race, or infer that not enough Trump supporters are being admitted because the freshman class doesn’t have a high enough percentage of students from red states.
Trump’s latest strike on American institutions connects his war on diversity and his administration’s assault on colleges across the country in a way that could turbocharge both. It’s not just that Trump will have an extraordinary amount of information about colleges; it’s how he’s likely to use it to further his false narrative about both race and higher education. And it’s students who will bear the brunt of the consequences.
“Given the administration’s flawed interpretation of our civil rights law, they might use this data to accuse schools of discrimination and threaten universities,” Donya Khadem, an attorney at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, told HuffPost.
“It’s unprecedented scrutiny by the federal government.”
– Donya Khadem, attorney at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund
Some schools refused to play the game. In April, Harvard University wrote a letter to Trump saying that his demands flew in the face of free speech laws and would stifle the kind of learning and research that happens at a place of higher education. But other schools, like Columbia and Brown, bent the knee and gave Trump what he wanted.
“It’s very concerning because it’s unprecedented scrutiny by the federal government,” Khadem said.
This time, the administration is taking aim at an aspect of educational life that has long been a bugbear for conservatives. There is a widespread belief among conservatives that colleges and universities have given advantages to students of color at the expense of white students.
By allowing race to be a factor in admissions, the claim goes, schools are taking spots away from certain groups of students and instead admitting students they claim are less qualified, based solely on their race. (In reality, race has been one of many factors admissions officers consider when choosing between fully qualified applicants.)
“This is all motivated by a racist myth that Black people don’t deserve to be in these elite spaces,” Khadem said.
And now that Trump is back in office, getting his hands on this data is likely just the beginning of his attempt to turn back the clock on admitting students of color.
Asked for comment about how it intends to use the admissions data, the Department of Education directed HuffPost to a press release about the new executive order Trump signed on Thursday.
“We will not allow institutions to blight the dreams of students by presuming that their skin color matters more than their hard work and accomplishments,” Education Secretary Linda McMahon said.
Students pass the statue of John Harvard in Harvard Yard on their way to baccalaureate services ahead of commencement at Harvard University on June 17, 1951.
Photo by Sam Hammat/The Boston Globe via Getty Images
Conservatives celebrated when the U.S. Supreme Court struck down race-conscious college admissions processes in Students For Fair Admissions v. Harvard in 2023, saying that schools can not use race as a factor in college admissions.
Harvard, together with fellow defendant the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, had argued that schools needed to be able to consider race as one factor among many to ensure the educational benefits of a diverse student body. The high court disagreed, saying the schools did not have a “compelling interest” in considering race as a factor and thus violated the 14th Amendment.
But education law experts say that the federal government is using that ruling and expanding it far beyond its original intent.
In the same ruling, the court expressly said that “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.”
Now, Trump’s order undermines that.
“They’re using the Students For Fair Admissions [decision] in ways that are not what the justices meant when they wrote it,” Khadem said.
Education advocates are afraid that the administration’s getting hold of admissions racial data could make colleges a more hostile place for students of color.
“The student data could be used to challenge the admission of Black students in particular under assumptions that they are presumptively unqualified because of their race,” Janel George, a law professor at Georgetown University, told HuffPost.
“This is all motivated by a racist myth that Black people don’t deserve to be in these elite spaces.”
– Khadem
It could also turn off otherwise qualified students from attending some of these colleges. “I think it’s a big deterrent,” Khadem said. “Columbia’s campus has become and will continue to become less welcoming to Black students.”
Columbia and Brown did not immediately respond to HuffPost’s request for comment.
Systemic racism and inequality are already significant barriers to college attendance. Research shows that Black students and other people of color are more likely to be from low-income families and struggle to afford college. Then there’s the fact that standardized tests frequently used in college admissions are biased toward white students and those from wealthier families.
Studies have shown that race-neutral admissions processes lead to a drop in diversity. In 1996, after California voters approved a measure that would ban affirmative action at the state’s public universities, the state’s most prestigious schools saw a drastic drop in diversity. Indeed, one of the arguments made by Harvard during its legal fight was that no race-neutral admissions process offers the same diversity benefits.
The first college classes to be enrolled after the Students for Fair Admissions ruling varied in their diversity. Some schools, like the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Tufts University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, saw a decrease in Black and Hispanic enrollment, while other schools’ racial compositions stayed roughly the same.
Not only could these changes further hinder access to higher education for nonwhite students, but there’s a question of how making this data public could harm students. If the Trump administration publicly calls out a school for having a certain number of nonwhite students, that could become a problem for people on campus.
“I do think it’s harmful,” Rashid said. “[The data] is not going to be attached to a name, but they can make up whatever narrative they want.”
Experts warn that it could create a hostile environment on campuses, where nonwhite students feel as if their peers believe that they’re unqualified to be there. “At schools with higher admissions of Black students or faculty, some people are going to feel a certain way about how they’re perceived at school,” Khadem said.
There is a direct line from Trump’s attacks on colleges to his administration’s larger anti-diversity campaign.
In an attempt to begin removing people of color from public life, Trump signed an executive order in January that sought to end diversity, equity and inclusion programs at different institutions, including nonprofit organizations receiving federal grants, law enforcement agencies and institutions of higher education. The penalty for not ending DEI, though vague, was the loss of crucial federal funding.
The Department of Education followed up with guidance for educational institutions, telling them they must end “racial preferences” and restore “merit.”
The Department of Justice joined the crusade too, launching investigations of colleges and universities it alleged were not complying with the Supreme Court’s ruling on using race in college admissions under the pretense of combating “illegal discrimination.”
“The [DOJ] will put an end to a shameful system in which someone’s race matters more than their ability,” acting Associate Attorney General Chad Mizelle said in a press release in March.
To the Trump administration, American society, and colleges in particular, have been beset by a racial regime that disfavors white conservatives — and this executive order was intended to combat that. Others, though, see a very different agenda.
“What they want to do is make everything race-neutral,” Rashid said. “In other words, make everything white.”
I know this is old but I worked hard on it. Now that I got the issues between computers worked out and I am in the process of reinstalling all the programs I need to make the computer do what I want, checking to make sure the issue that came up a week ago from reappearing. The issues of full acceptance and equality for the full LGBTQ+ community. Hugs
Please notice that the entire campaign to erase LGBTQ+ from society started with the false premise that the LGBTQ+, especially children need to be protected from trans people and drag queens. But the same people claim to be grand Christians yet they never address sexual abuse of children in churches or other organizations like foster homes / orphanages. These same people support a man for president that was credibly accused of violently raping a 13, how many more did not report the abuse? They support a man who bragged about barging into the changing rooms of teen girls as they were in different states of being undressed some of them nude during the teen pageants claiming it was his right as the owner. He is a child sex predator by his own words claiming he would date / have sex with his own young not adult daughter. They supported a man convicted of sexually assaulting a woman with the commonly understood phrase raped her. But they claim the real problem is women being raped in bathrooms if trans women are in there also. They support Pete Hegseth for Sec. Of Def. He also has been accused of sexually assaulting / raping a woman and assaulting other women. It was reported that he was often drunk and enjoyed going to places where women take off their clothing and at least one occasion needed to be restrained from going on stage with the nude women. Tell me where is the effort to removed white men from the social media and from the military? Sorry but when they say woke it means anything they dislike just as CRT did. When they say DEI it is them saying the “N” word and that females are inferior to males. Well let me get to separating the posts. Hugs.
Please notice the part of the story that talks about Robby Starbuck, if you don’t know of him clicking on his blue highlighted name leads to another story of how he coerced John Deere. McDonald’s claims they are doing this because of the SCOTUS actions on school admissions, but sorry they are not colleges or universities. They are a private business and have the right to set their own no discrimination goals and policies. By blaming the court ruling they are trying to divert attention from the real reason.
Back to Robby Starbuck, This sub human pond scum is winning because he uses threats of hurting the profit of these companies. Now maybe the shareholders are predetermined to be racist bigots. But if we want this coercion to stop, we must be as loud, willing to band together, and use our money even when it hurts. So far only one company has stood against him and Stephen Miller’s white power legal company. We must rise up as we once did, make the haters ashamed again like we did over 1970s to 1990s. We can retire meekly to our self-imposed prisons of our homes and acting straight or cis, but that will only encourage them. This is how it went down in Russia and the Russian controlled influenced nations. The maga cultist and fundamentalist Christian bigots are following the Putin playbook in lockstep. We have to show them the playbook won’t work here. And trust me it is easier to do now than in a future where they have removed all sign of the LGBTQ+ people from society. Hugs
Four years after launching a push for more diversity in its ranks, McDonald’s is ending some of its diversity practices, citing a U.S. Supreme Court decision that outlawed affirmative action in college admissions.
McDonald’s is the latest big company to shift its tactics in the wake of the 2023 ruling and a conservative backlash against diversity, equity and inclusion programs. Walmart, John Deere, Harley-Davidson and others rolled back their DEI initiatives last year.
McDonald’s said Monday it will retire specific goals for achieving diversity at senior leadership levels. It also intends to end a program that encourages its suppliers to develop diversity training and to increase the number of minority group members represented within their own leadership ranks.
McDonald’s said it will also pause “external surveys.” The burger giant didn’t elaborate, but several other companies, including Lowe’s and Ford Motor Co., suspended their participation in an annual survey by the Human Rights Campaign that measures workplace inclusion for LGBTQ+ employees.
McDonald’s, which has its headquarters in Chicago, rolled out a series of diversity initiatives in 2021 after a spate of sexual harassment lawsuits filed by employees and a lawsuit alleging discrimination brought by a group of Black former McDonald’s franchise owners
“As a world-leading brand that considers inclusion one of our core values, we will accept nothing less than real, measurable progress in our efforts to lead with empathy, treat people with dignity and respect, and seek out diverse points of view to drive better decision-making,” McDonald’s Chairman and CEO Chris Kempczinski wrote in a LinkedIn post at the time.
But McDonald’s said Monday that the “shifting legal landscape” after the Supreme Court decision and the actions of other corporations caused it to take a hard look at its own policies.
A shifting political landscape may also have played a role. President-elect Donald Trump is a vocal opponent of diversity, equity and inclusion programs. Trump tapped Stephen Miller, a former adviser who leads a group called America First Legal that has aggressively challenged corporate DEI policies,as his incoming deputy chief of policy.
Vice President-elect JD Vance introduced a bill in the Senate last summer to end such programs in the federal government.
Robby Starbuck, a conservative political commentator who has threatened consumer boycotts of prominent consumer brands that don’t retreat from their diversity programs, said Monday on X that he recently told McDonald’s he would be doing a story on its “woke policies.”
McDonald’s said it had been considering updates to its policies for several months and planned to time the announcement to the start of this year.
In an open letter to employees and franchisees, McDonald’s senior leadership team said it remains committed to inclusion and believes a diverse workforce is a competitive advantage. The company said 30% of its U.S. leaders are members of underrepresented groups, up from 29% in 2021. McDonald’s previously committed to reaching 35% by the end of this year.
McDonald’s said it has achieved one of the goals it announced in 2021: gender pay equity at all levels of the company. It also said it met three years early a goal of having 25% of total supplier spending go to diverse-owned businesses.
McDonald’s said it would continue to support efforts that ensure a diverse base of employees, suppliers and franchisees, but its diversity team will now be referred to as the Global Inclusion Team. The company said it would also continue to report its demographic information.
The McDonald’s Hispanic Owner-Operators Association said it had no comment on the policy change Monday. A message seeking comment was left with the National Black McDonald’s Operators Association.
Durbin is an Associated Press business writer focusing on the food and beverage industry. She has also covered the auto industry and state and national politics in her nearly 30-year career with the AP.
Finally a company showing how to stand up to the bigot racist and calling out the real reasons these groups are demanding these changes. I hope the shareholders stand firm on inclusion and diversity. Hugs
The Costco Board pushed back against its anti-diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) shareholders, who had suggested the wholesale corporation re-evaluate its “illegal discrimination” program.
The Costco board responded to a group of shareholders, unanimously recommending a vote against the proposal to “report on the risks of maintaining DEI efforts.”
The shareholders had suggested Costco employees would potentially become victim to “illegal discrimination because they are white, Asian, male or straight,” which could create “tens of billions of dollars” in legal costs to the company.
In its response to the proposal, Costco called out the group for “inflicting burdens” on companies through “policy bias” and said their proposal did not aim to address financial risks but to strike down DEI efforts.
“The proponent’s broader agenda is not reducing risk for the Company but abolition of diversity initiatives,” the board of directors added.
The annual meeting where shareholders will vote on the matter will take place in late January. Earlier this year, Lowe’s, Harley Davidson and Walmart announced the repeal of DEI practices after facing similar pushback from conservative groups.
This paragraph says it all. They want the LGBTQ+ removed from society. They are willing to be violent and obnoxious, hurting people, property, and staff. They attack other customers demanding to know if they support the LGBTQ+ and they then badger the customer.
Target pulled some LGBTQ-themed merchandise linked to Pride Month last year, citing increased confrontations between shoppers and employees and incidents of products being thrown on the floor.
The goal is being driven by this guy. He feels the idea of anyone not a white straight cis male shouldn’t be in any position of authority or corporate rank. His view is that women and the LGBTQ+ shouldn’t be in the work force or seen and the non-white males should be in menial jobs with little or no authority. Just be base workers. He and his ilk see great dangers to the white “race” people if they can not maintain a super majority of a male dominated white straight cis society. Notice in the quote below, his calling DEI and ESG programs a risk implying some nefarious harm. Hugs
America First Legal, the conservative group that filed the lawsuit last year, in a statement on Wednesday called the court ruling a “warning to publicly traded corporations’ boards and management.” The group said the risk of DEI programs and environmental, social, and governance (ESG) initiatives “cannot be whitewashed with boilerplate language or ignored.”
(Reuters) -Target has failed to persuade a judge in Florida to dismiss a lawsuit that accused the retailer of deceiving shareholders after its sales of LGBTQ-themed merchandise for Pride Month sparked a backlash and a customer boycott.
U.S. District Judge John Badalamenti in Fort Myers ruled that the plaintiffs had presented enough information for now to pursue claims that Target misled investors about its efforts to guard against social and political risks.
The lawsuit from investor Brian Craig claims that Target’s board focused only on activist groups’ calls for diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) measures and overlooked potential negative responses to the Pride campaign in May 2023.
Target did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Wednesday.
America First Legal, the conservative group that filed the lawsuit last year, in a statement on Wednesday called the court ruling a “warning to publicly traded corporations’ boards and management.” The group said the risk of DEI programs and environmental, social, and governance (ESG) initiatives “cannot be whitewashed with boilerplate language or ignored.”
Target had urged Badalamenti to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that there was no evidence backing the allegations, that it had warned investors about a potential DEI backlash, and that the complaint was based merely on Craig’s disagreement with the company’s business decisions.
America First filed the lawsuit in Florida federal court in August 2023. The nonprofit group is headed by Stephen Miller, a close adviser to U.S. President-elect Donald Trump.
America First and other conservative groups have accused some major U.S. companies of undertaking diversity and inclusion efforts at the expense of shareholders.
Target pulled some LGBTQ-themed merchandise linked to Pride Month last year, citing increased confrontations between shoppers and employees and incidents of products being thrown on the floor.
(Reporting by Mike Scarcella; Editing by David Bario, Mark Porter and Diane Craft)
He feels the idea of anyone not a white straight cis male shouldn’t be in any position of authority or corporate rank. His view is that women and the LGBTQ+ shouldn’t be in the work force or seen and the non-white males should be in menial jobs with little or no authority. Just be base workers. He and his ilk see great dangers to the white “race” people if they can not maintain a super majority of a male dominated white straight cis society. Notice in the quote below, his calling DEI and ESG programs a risk implying some nefarious harm. Hugs
Scottie's Playtime 