The Trump administration never ceases to amaze with its far-rightwing policies and its uncontrolled militarism. Trump ran as an anti-war candidate, yet here we are in another war in the Middle East. Trump said no one has done more for Black peoples than himself, yet Jan Resseger shows that he is reversing civil rights policies in every arena. To no one’s surprise, Trump appointed Harmeet K. Dhillon, a lawyer who has litigated against civil rights policies, to lead the Justice Department’s Office for Civil Rights.

Resseger writes:

At the Brookings Institution’s Brown Center on Education Policy, Rachel Perera disdains the Trump administration’s, “unprecedented effort to repurpose federal anti-discrimination law to reverse longstanding efforts to promote equality in public life… Federal laws prohibiting racial and sex-based discrimination are being used to withhold federal funding from schools  and colleges without even the facade of an investigation… (C)olleges that didn’t crack down on student protests against the war in Gaza are being punished for ‘antisemitism’; school districts with transgender-inclusive policies are being denounced for sex-based discrimination against girls; and schools and colleges pursuing racial equity… are being accused of racial discrimination against white and Asian students. All the while, legitimate complaints of discrimination are piling up (at the Office for Civil Rights).”

Vague federal threats to scrub hiring practices and programming said to promote “diversity, equity, and inclusion” have produced a McCarthy-era level of fear that has undone academic freedom, undermined hiring practices, threatened the jobs of school teachers, college professors, and even university presidents, and resulted in significant cuts to federal dollars that we all count on to pay for essential programs in the nation’s public schools and colleges and universities.

Last week Laura Meckler and a team of Washington Post reporters surveyed the impact of Trump administration policies on university hiring practices: “When President Donald Trump took office last year, America’s research universities were in the midst of an aggressive quest to hire more Black and Latino professors. All but three of the 187 most prominent schools had made public commitments…. Now most of these efforts are on ice or abandoned…. Of the 184 universities that made faculty pledges at least 108 have fully or partially rolled them back…. In 2020, the University of Virginia vowed to double the number of underrepresented faculty… ‘We must be a community that is diverse, inclusive, and equitable,’ Jim Ryan, then-president of U-Va., wrote at the time. ‘Diverse because talent exists all around the globe and within every demographic, and because the very best ideas emerge from the consideration of diverse viewpoints and perspectives.’  Under pressure from the Trump administration and the state, U-VA. ended its DEI programs last year…. Ryan resigned.”

Meckler and her colleagues describe how slowly racial and ethnic diversity has increased among the faculty at American universities: “Before the concentrated push began, the share of Black and Hispanic professors at top research universities barely moved—inching up 1.7 percentage points between 2005 and 2015.  There was slightly more growth after the wave of university commitments. Between 2015 and 2024, the most recent year for which data is available, the share of Black and Hispanic professors increased by 3.1 percentage points. Absent focused diversity effort, faculties will remain overwhelmingly white, said Freeman Hrabowski, president emeritus of the University of Maryland at Baltimore County and a national leader on faculty recruitment. ‘People tend to choose people who look just like themselves,’ he said. ‘That’s just nature.’ “

While most job openings at the nation’s colleges and universities continue to be filled by white candidates, in a lawsuit that would have been unheard of a year ago, a white biologist, with legal representation from the America First Policy Institute (where Education Secretary Linda McMahon was formerly president of the board), recently sued Cornell University for violating the Civil Rights Act by favoring candidates of color and discriminating against him for being white. Meckler reports: “Colin Wright, the plaintiff, was a postdoctoral researcher… at the time. He said he was seeking an academic job and was well qualified for the tenure-track position that Cornell allegedly filled without ever posting the job publicly, as was required by university policy. Attorneys for the America First Policy Institute… contend that internal documents classified a list of candidates by race, ethnicity, disability status, and sexual orientation.”

The impact of the Trump administration’s rollback of civil rights protections is not limited to faculty hiring. In late January, the NY Times‘ Sarah Mervosh tracked a lawsuit filed by “the 1776 Foundation, a group that opposes racial preferences in education,” against the Los Angeles City School District: “A decades-old policy meant to combat the harms of school segregation in Los Angeles was challenged in federal court by a conservative group that says the policy discriminates against white students. The policy dates back to the 1970s, when the Los Angeles school district… was under a court order to desegregate and improve conditions for students of color… The plaintiffs argue that students at schools with more white students receive ‘inferior treatment and calculated disadvantages’… A 2023 Supreme Court decision outlawing race-based affirmative action in college admissions has galvanized conservative groups and the Trump administration, which has pushed to apply the ruling beyond college admissions.”

Finally, there is the Trump administration’s fight with the nation’s universities and especially with Harvard, which has refused to capitulate to the President’s demands.  For refusing to cave in, Harvard University has reaped the Trump whirlwind. The conflict began as the Trump administration attempted to punish the university for failing to contain demonstrations during the war between Israel and Palestine. The Department of Education subsequently launched an attempt to force a number of universities to comply with the Trump administration’s redefinition of the meaning of the 2023 Supreme Court decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard by insisting that it ban not just affirmative action in student admissions but also now eliminate all programs that promote ‘diversity, equity and inclusion.’ Several universities and a mass of public school districts have submitted to the President’s demands, but Harvard, so far, has stood firm.

The NY Times‘ Alan Blinder summarizes the Trump administration’s year-long attack on Harvard: “The Trump administration’s biggest target has been Harvard…. The dispute erupted after Harvard rejected Trump administration proposals, including one for the use of an outsider to audit ‘programs and departments that most fuel antisemitic harassment or reflect ideological capture.’ The government also wanted Harvard to curb the power of its faculty and report international students who commit misconduct. The Trump administration almost immediately began cutting off billions in funds… Harvard sued the administration over the cuts. In September, a federal judge in Boston broadly ruled in Harvard’s favor, and research money is largely flowing again. The administration filed a notice of appeal in December. But the administration’s onslaught goes beyond research funding… Mr. Trump has also threatened Harvard’s tax-exempt status. His administration has also tried repeatedly to bar the university from enrolling international students. A federal judge in Boston has blocked those efforts. In June, Harvard and the White House began discussing the possibility of a settlement… Harvard told the government that it is willing to spend $500 million… to go toward work force programs. But the Trump administration shifted its demands… demanding that $200 million be paid directly to the government.”

Last week in a pair of reports, here and here, a team of NY Times reporters covered the latest developments in the President’s attack on Harvard.  The Times reporters described what appeared perhaps to be Trump’s willingness to backtrack “on a major point in negotiations with Harvard, dropping his administration’s demand for a $200 million payment to the government in hopes of finally resolving the administration’s conflicts with the university.” The reporters added: “The White House’s concession comes amid sagging approval ratings for Mr. Trump, and as he faces outrage over immigration enforcement tactics and the shooting deaths of two Americans by federal agents in Minnesota.”  The president responded with outrage on Truth Social: “Strongly Antisemitic Harvard University has been feeding a lot of ‘nonsense’ to The Failing New York Times… We are now seeking One Billion Dollars in damages, and want nothing further to do, into the future, with Harvard University.”

No one believes the Trump administration is permanently backing off its attack on Harvard University and the Trump administration’s attack more broadly on equity, diversity, and academic freedom.  However, Harvard’s dogged refusal to capitulate to the Trump administration has proven a model for other university leaders who are realizing that conceding to the Trump administration’s demands erodes academic freedom, undermines their autonomy, undermines the rights of their faculty, and threatens programs that protect equity and inclusion among their students.

In late January the American Council on Education (ACE) joined 22 other national higher education associations to file “an amicus brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit supporting  Harvard University in its lawsuit challenging a Trump administration effort to bar international students from attending.”  The American Council on Education explains why it is urgently important to support Harvard University in this case:

“ACE and the other higher education associations focus on the extraordinary implications of the case for colleges and universities nationwide, not just Harvard. The brief argues that the First Amendment protects the autonomy of educational institutions to govern themselves free from unwarranted federal intrusion, and that this autonomy is essential to the nation’s academic, scientific, and civic interests… The (presidential) proclamation reflects an effort to punish a single institution for perceived viewpoints by leveraging immigration policy in a manner that would chill speech and academic decision-making across higher education… International students would remain eligible to enter the United states to study at any institution other than Harvard—underscoring, the associations argue, that the measure is punitive rather than regulatory in character… ACE and its co-signatories warn that allowing the proclamation to stand would have consequences far beyond this single case, creating a chilling effect on institutional governance, campus expression, and the free exchange of ideas. Colleges and universities, they argue, could face pressure to alter academic programs, research priorities, or campus policies to avoid becoming targets of similar executive action.”