Concerns Over College Discrimination Efforts
The Trump administration’s initiatives to combat discrimination on college campuses have seen some victories, yet Ivy League academics believe more action is necessary.
William Jacobson, a long-time professor at Cornell Law School, pointed out in a recent conversation that the Republican leadership must prioritize their agenda on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) if they want these changes to stick, especially when Democrats regain power.
“It’s all a bit of a show. I think most people are aware of what’s happening. … They know the schools are just biding their time, waiting for the Trump administration to change,” Jacobson expressed.
Jacobson heads the Equal Protection Project, which is part of a nonprofit he established called the Legal Riot Foundation. This organization monitors university practices and files civil rights complaints with the Departments of Justice and Education, occasionally engaging in litigation.
His team actively targets what they consider discriminatory DEI initiatives, having challenged over 700 programs across various universities. To date, Jacobson reports around 175 successful instances where universities either altered or discontinued programs they deemed non-compliant with civil rights.
DEI frameworks are meant to ensure equal treatment and representation of minority groups in schools, businesses, and government entities. However, opponents argue that DEI can become discriminatory by offering preferential treatment to certain groups.
Jacobson typically seeks administrative solutions, though some cases escalate to federal court. A notable ongoing lawsuit involves claims against several educational institutions in New York regarding racially preferential treatment in a state program, which Jacobson argues violates the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause.
On the federal side, the Justice Department is dealing with lawsuits aimed at countering efforts that would cut funding from various states and educational institutions, alleging that such actions mask discrimination under the guise of DEI.
Jacobson believes these legal challenges are strategic—noteworthy, considering the often-lengthy nature of court proceedings.
“Every month they stall actions from the Trump administration is a month less for them before new aid comes in,” he noted.
He recommends that efforts to reduce federal funding and establish enduring regulations are essential for dismantling what he perceives as discriminatory DEI programs in higher education.
President Trump has issued several executive orders aimed at using funding levers to reverse DEI-related initiatives. For instance, in January, he signed a directive called “Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling,” which instructs federal agencies to examine public schools and potentially cut funding for those not adhering to these measures.
Jacobson views these executive orders as significantly impactful in preventing such practices within federal systems, citing a notable shift in a longstanding culture.
Nonetheless, he emphasizes a key concern: “We can’t fully grasp how much of this DEI originates from the federal level,” and suggests a more thorough government rulemaking process would be more effective in the long run than temporary executive actions.
“They really need to focus on formal rulemaking since it tends to be more stable… Changing established rules is challenging, while reversing an executive order is relatively easy,” he explained.
He concluded by noting that passing new legislation would be the most efficient way to eliminate preferences based on race or gender in educational programming. However, he remains skeptical about the current Congress’s ability to achieve this goal.
