The university is required to provide evidence that President Donald Trump won’t factor race into admissions, following new directives issued on Thursday.
In 2023, the Supreme Court ruled against affirmative action in admissions, but noted that if applicants choose to discuss their experiences in their essays, the university could still consider how these experiences were influenced by their education.
Trump has accused the university of utilizing personal statements and other methods that, in the eyes of conservatives, effectively constitute discriminatory practices based on race.
This issue of racial considerations in admissions is part of the broader legal tussle involving some of the country’s most prestigious universities, which are often viewed as leaning liberal by Republicans.
The new policy is similar to recent agreements made with institutions like Brown and Columbia University, which were necessary to restore federal research funding.
The university has consented to share information regarding the races of applicants, their GPAs, standardized test scores, and data related to hospitalized students. They also agreed to governmental audits and to disclose their admissions statistics publicly.
Trump Claims University May Be Ignoring Ruling
Critics have claimed that the university continues to consider race, despite the Supreme Court’s ruling.
“The ongoing absence of accessible data—alongside the prolonged reliance on ‘diversity statements’ and other veiled racial metrics—raises serious questions about whether race is genuinely being left out of admission decisions,” reads the memorandum signed by Trump.
This memo instructs Education Secretary Linda McMahon to mandate more data reporting from universities “to ensure transparency in admissions processes.”
The National Center for Educational Statistics is expected to gather fresh data on the race and gender of applicants, enrolled students, and other relevant demographics, according to a statement from the Education Department.
If the university fails to provide timely and complete data, McMahon has the authority to take measures under Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, which dictates conditions for universities benefiting from federal student aid, as mentioned in the memo.
It remains ambiguous how this executive order will impact the university.
Current interpretations of federal law suggest they cannot collect racial data during admissions processes, according to John Funsmith, senior vice president of government relations for the American Council of Education, which represents university presidents.
“Does this mean anything significant? Probably not,” Funsmith commented.
“Yet, the administration continues to propagate the narrative that some students are favored in admissions to the detriment of others.”
He added that while universities cannot ask for race during the application phase, they can inquire after students enroll, with the stipulation that students are informed of their right to decline to answer.
In reality, many students opt not to disclose their race, leading to incomplete demographic data when it’s published.
Diversity Trends Vary Across Universities
Initial admission statistics following the Supreme Court ruling have not shown consistent trends regarding shifts in diversity across universities.
The changes have varied significantly from one institution to another.
Some universities, like the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Amherst College, experienced notable declines in their black student populations in the following year.
Conversely, top-tier schools such as Yale, Princeton, and the University of Virginia saw minimal changes, less than 1 percentage point annually.
Some institutions are incorporating additional essays or personal statements into their admissions to better evaluate an applicant’s background—something the Supreme Court’s ruling seemed to permit.
“As long as an applicant’s unique background contributes to their potential value to the university, there isn’t a prohibition against considering how race has shaped their experiences,” stated this line of reasoning.
In lieu of affirmative action, universities have explored multiple strategies over the years to enhance diversity, which they argue is crucial for their campuses.
Many are now placing greater emphasis on applicants from low-income families.
Others are looking to recognize top talent from every community in the state.
Since 1996, nine states, starting with California, have enacted bans on affirmative action.
This led the University of California to revise its admissions policies.
Within just two years of implementing the statewide ban, enrollment of black and Hispanic students plummeted by half at Berkeley and UCLA, the system’s most selective campuses.
The University of California is investing over $500 million in programs dedicated to supporting low-income and first-generation college students.
The system has introduced a program that promises admission to the top 9% of students from each high school across California, aiming to attract capable students from diverse backgrounds.
Similarly, programs in Texas have received praise for enhancing racial diversity, with opponents of affirmative action citing it as a successful approach.
In California, even though initiatives attracted students from a broader geographic area, they did little to improve racial diversity, as recognized by the system in discussions with the Supreme Court.
No significant effects were observed at Berkeley or UCLA, where numerous applicants still vie for slots.
At present, Hispanic students make up 20% of UCLA and Berkeley’s undergraduates, which is a slight improvement since 1996 but is significantly lower than 53% of California’s high school graduates.
In contrast, black representation at Berkeley has declined since 1996, now constituting only 4% of undergraduates.
Following an unsuccessful attempt to enact affirmative action in Michigan in 2006, the University of Michigan pivoted its focus to low-income students.
The university has started employing graduates as counselors in low-income high schools and is providing college prep programs in Detroit and Grand Rapids.
Additionally, it offers full scholarships to low-income Michigan residents and has begun accepting early admissions from students who might predominantly be white.
Despite these efforts, the share of black and Hispanic students at the University of Michigan has not bounced back to pre-2006 levels.
While Hispanic enrollment has seen an increase, black student numbers continue to decline, from 8% in 2006 to just 4% in 2025.
