The Education Department warned schools in a letter on Friday that they risked losing federal funding if they continued to take race into account when making scholarship or hiring decisions, or so much as nodded to race in “all other aspects of student, academic and campus life.”
The announcement gave institutions 14 days to comply. It built on a major Supreme Court ruling in 2023 that found that the use of race-conscious admissions practices at colleges and universities was unlawful. But it went far beyond the scope of that decision by informing schools that considering race at all when making staffing decisions or offering services to subsets of students would be grounds for punishment.
The letter was the latest step in the Trump administration’s push to recast programs intended to level the playing field for historically underserved populations as a form of racial discrimination. It also appeared to be an extension of the broadsides President Trump has delivered to purge diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives from the federal government, which critics have assailed as veiled racism.
Craig Trainor, the Education Department’s acting assistant secretary for civil rights, said related programs and scholarships, many of which have historically sought to help Black and Latino students attain college degrees or find community, had come at the expense of “white and Asian students, many of whom come from disadvantaged backgrounds.”
“At its core, the test is simple: If an educational institution treats a person of one race differently than it treats another person because of that person’s race, the educational institution violates the law,” Mr. Trainor wrote.
“Put simply, educational institutions may neither separate or segregate students based on race, nor distribute benefits or burdens based on race,” he said.
On Monday, the department said it had also canceled $600 million in grants focused on training teachers in “inappropriate and unnecessary topics” such as critical race theory, social justice activism, antiracism and “instruction on white privilege.”
The warning in the letter applies to any institution that receives federal funding, including K-12 schools. But it could fall harder on higher-education institutions.
The sweeping guidance caused alarm in academic circles and raised pressing questions about how much it would disrupt campuses.
Many colleges offer scholarships and grants specifically for students of certain ethnic backgrounds or maintain program houses, professional societies and fraternities and sororities on campus tailored to students of specific ethnic heritages or races. In some cases, the decision to fund those programs is not necessarily made by the university, but by student governments or outside organizations.
But the guidance appeared to touch all of those areas and more, barring schools from “using race in decisions pertaining to admissions, hiring, promotion, compensation, financial aid, scholarships, prizes, administrative support, discipline, housing, graduation ceremonies and all other aspects of student, academic and campus life.”
Some colleges have already preemptively taken steps to bar any clubs or student organizations that could run afoul of the department’s interpretation of civil rights law.
This month, West Point moved to immediately disband 12 affinity groups, including the National Society of Black Engineers Club, the Asian-Pacific Forum Club and the Vietnamese-American Cadet Association.
Other colleges suspended a ceremony marking the Lunar New Year, canceled a forum on race and ended degree requirements for students to take classes touching on D.E.I. to graduate.
The letter on Friday specified that even graduation ceremonies that honored Black students separately from larger commencement ceremonies, for example, could be considered discriminatory.
“In a shameful echo of a darker period in this country’s history,” Mr. Trainor wrote, “many American schools and universities even encourage segregation by race at graduation ceremonies and in dormitories and other facilities.”
Adding to confusion for schools, legal experts have pointed out that despite the sweeping nature of the Education Department’s threat, it did not touch on a number of areas like college recruitment or retention programs that target certain demographics that may transfer or drop out at higher rates than others.
Other aspects of the letter appeared certain to run into legal challenges, particularly the guidance on changing hiring practices, which were not at issue in the Supreme Court’s decision on affirmative action.
Jeff Weimer, a partner in the higher education practice at the law firm Reed Smith, said the letter raised more questions for schools than it was immediately possible to untangle under the current understanding of civil rights laws.
“Well, what if it’s an affinity group, for example, for Asian students, that promotes Asian culture and has events that are centered around holidays that are important for various Asian cultures and so forth — but the organization is open to all students, regardless of your race or ethnicity?” Mr. Weimer asked. “Is that prohibited or permitted under this administration’s interpretation of the Supreme Court decision and Title VI and otherwise?”
“There’s no clear answer to that question, or to any number of different variations on the same question,” he said.
