Trump Demands the Truth About Affirmative Action

Whatever your opinion on affirimative action, it's against the law. Do I want my tax dollars supporting institutions that still practice it? Not particularly.

Trump Demands the Truth About Affirmative Action

He requires colleges to submit data proving they don’t engage in racial discrimination.

By Jason L. Riley, WSJ

Aug. 12, 2025 4:38 pm ET

One reason it took so long for the Supreme Court to ban the consideration of race in university admissions, which it finally did two years ago in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, is that the justices previously took college administrators at their word. It is a mistake that the Trump administration doesn’t intend to repeat.

A memorandum President Trump signed last week directs colleges that receive federal funding to submit admissions data to the Education Department to ensure that schools aren’t skirting the 2023 decision. Colleges are already required to submit certain data to the government about students they enroll. Now they’ll be compelled to submit detailed information on those who apply.

According to the memo, “the lack of available admissions data from universities—paired with the rampant use of ‘diversity statements’ and other overt and hidden racial proxies—continues to raise concerns about whether race is actually used in admissions decisions in practice.” A majority of Americans from all racial and ethnic backgrounds supported the Supreme Court ruling, and the administration understands that secrecy in the admissions process undermines trust. “American students, parents, and taxpayers should have confidence that our Nation’s institutions of higher education are recruiting and training our next generations with fairness and integrity.”

In the controlling opinion in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), Justice Lewis Powell concluded that numerical racial quotas were unconstitutional, but race could be used as a factor in the admissions process for the purpose of attaining a diverse student body. In Grutter v. Bollinger (2003), the court upheld this so-called diversity rationale and continued to give great deference to claims by elite schools that they were narrowly tailoring their use of race. “We take the Law School at its word that it would ‘like nothing better than to find a race-neutral admissions formula’ and will terminate its race-conscious admissions program as soon as practicable,” Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote for the majority.

Meanwhile, colleges went out of their way to hide the selection process from public view. In the 1990s, a student whistleblower working in the registrar’s office at Georgetown University discovered that black students were admitted to the law school with significantly lower academic credentials than white students. According to multiple accounts, when the results were reported in a student newspaper, Georgetown officials ordered the confiscation of every copy.

When Students for Fair Admissions sued Harvard and other prestigious universities for discriminating against Asian applicants, it sought data used in the selection process. Even though names, addresses and other personal details could have been redacted to preserve student privacy, the schools resisted turning over the information about Asian enrollment on the grounds that admissions processes are “trade secrets.”

During the discovery process, Harvard was compelled to reveal the information it was hiding, and the data showed what many opponents of racial preferences long suspected: Black applicants received a significant admissions boost based solely on their racial background, while Asian applicants were penalized for being Asian. It was also revealed that elite schools like Harvard had been lying about their use of numerical racial quotas.

“Before the litigation was instigated in late 2014, Harvard’s admitted class consistently ranged between 18 percent and 20 percent Asian American,” wrote legal scholar Richard Kahlenberg, who served as an expert witness for the plaintiffs. “After the lawsuit was filed and Harvard came under intense scrutiny for anti-Asian bias, Asian admissions steadily rose. By the class of 2027 (admitted in 2023), the Asian American population had risen to 30 percent.” The Trump administration’s continued vigilance is warranted because this history tells us that higher-education officials can’t be trusted to implement colorblind admissions policies.

Proponents of racial preferences fear that if schools allow objective measures such as high-school grades and standardized test scores to dominate the admissions process, racial diversity on elite campuses will suffer. That’s a possibility, at least in the short run, given that Asian and white students tend to outperform black students academically. But lowering standards to produce more racial balance on the quad isn’t helping black students so much as it’s using them for aesthetic purposes.

Students tend to do best in college when surrounded by other students with similar academic credentials. Large gaps in SAT scores and other objective measures can lead to lower grades and higher dropout rates. That’s true whether you’re black, white, a star athlete or the daughter of a dean.

Speaking of which, Mr. President, why not pressure schools who take federal money to also divulge how many slots they reserve for the children of donors and alumni?

Copyright ©2025 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8