What Trump really wants from colleges

Let me take you back to June of 2023.

Good morning.

We're coming on the air because the Supreme Court has just released a major decision concerning one of the most defining cases brought before the justices this term.

The Supreme Court today struck down race-conscious admissions policies, often called affirmative action, at Harvard and the University of North Carolina.

For too long, many universities have wrongly concluded that the touchstone of an individual's identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned, but the color of their skin.

Our constitutional history does not tolerate that choice.

When colleges and universities were told to stop factoring race into admissions, many of them started asking applicants to instead describe obstacles that they'd overcome.

The Trump administration thinks this is a sneaky way of getting around the Supreme Court's ruling and says it's going to require colleges to start submitting data proving that they are not breaking the rules.

Coming up on Today, Explain from Fox

with a spark cash plus card from capital one you earn unlimited two percent cash back on every purchase and you get big purchasing power so your business can spend more and earn more capital one what's in your wallet find out more at capital one.com slash spark cash plus terms apply

Avoiding your unfinished home projects because you're not sure where to start?

Thumbtack knows homes, so you don't have to.

Don't know the difference between matte paint finish and satin, or what that clunking sound from your dryer is?

With thumbtack, you don't have to be a home pro.

You just have to hire one.

You can hire top-rated pros, see price estimates, and read reviews all on the app.

Download today.

Adler?

Here.

Anderson?

Here.

Today.

Explained.

Um, he's sick.

I'm Noel King with Eric Hoover.

He's a senior writer with the Chronicle of Higher Education, where he covers college.

All right, so last week, President Trump signed a memo that makes an ask or makes a demand of colleges and universities.

What's the ask?

So colleges will now have to report data disaggregated by race and gender for three subgroups.

And those subgroups are all applicants in a given year, all the admitted students in a given year, and then the cohort of enrolled students, right?

In other words, the freshman class that ends up attending each college.

President Trump taking aim at higher ed again.

Thursday, signing a memorandum ordering all colleges submit data to prove they don't consider race in the admissions process.

This is a continued pattern of the government probing into universities' practices in admissions.

Legal experts say the new order could have a chilling effect on universities, And experts say the order could wind up making wealth even more influential in admissions.

We don't know exactly what data the government is going to be asking colleges for.

They haven't spelled that out.

All we know is that colleges will have to include what the government has called quantitative measures of applicants, admitted students, and enrolled students, academic achievements, and those measures will include standardized test scores, high school grade point averages, and other applicant characteristics.

We don't know what other applicant characteristics beyond grades and test scores will end up being.

That remains to be seen.

A clue to what all colleges will be asked to hand over now perhaps lies in the terms of the agreements that Columbia University and Brown University recently signed with the Trump administration.

And what Columbia and Brown have agreed to do already is those institutions are now required for the next three years to turn over to the federal government disaggregated data by race and ethnicity on all applicants who applied,

all of those applicants who were admitted, and then all of those admitted students who end up enrolling.

So is it possible that Columbia and Brown cutting these deals actually emboldens the Trump administration to say, okay, everybody else now has to do it too?

I think it's possible.

I don't have any knowledge of whether things would have gone differently if Columbia and or Brown had dug in.

But I do think it's likely, though, that this pot was already boiling, that this was already something being cooked up, right?

The Trump administration has all year long been kind of giving it to higher ed, right?

students can't add two and two and they go to Harvard.

They want remedial math and they're going to teach remedial math at Harvard.

Now wait a minute.

So why would they get in?

How can somebody that can't add or has very basic skills, how do they get into Harvard?

Why?

And has been, I would say, almost obsessively hunting down details about colleges' diversity, equity, and inclusion strategies and programs and trying to eradicate those.

And so I think some people felt like this was going to be the next shoe to drop, doing something big, broad, and bold to peer into the college admissions process and ask colleges to do something that they had never been asked to do before.

In 2023, the Supreme Court hands down a ruling that basically ends race-based affirmative action.

The Trump administration with this memo seems to be suggesting we don't believe that you guys, you elite colleges, really stopped doing it.

That is exactly right.

There is a, there's suspicion, I would say deep suspicion on the part of the government and many conservative activists who scrutinize admissions all the time.

Yes, you can no longer consider an applicant's race per se as one of many factors in admissions.

Colleges have said, we have stopped doing it to comply with the law.

And now you have an administration that seems to be saying, nope, we're shaking our heads.

We don't believe you.

We believe that you are secretly, quietly, behind closed doors, trying to get around the impact of that ruling and that you are in some way giving an advantage to underrepresented minority students and flouting the Supreme Court decision.

We have not seen proof.

or evidence that colleges are violating the law in that regard.

I think it's it's fair to say that the Trump administration is hunting for that evidence.

All right.

So the Trump administration says we're looking for evidence that you guys are not playing by the rules as determined by the Supreme Court two years ago.

What has actually happened in the past two years?

Do we have evidence that fewer black and Hispanic students are being accepted to colleges?

And do we see colleges trying in ways to get around this?

Yeah, well, we just have one year of data that would even begin to help us make sense of the immediate impact of the Supreme Court's ruling on affirmative action.

About a year ago is when we started to see colleges releasing, as they do every year,

publishing the enrollment data, broken down by race and ethnicity.

And this was the first admission cycle to be completed for which the Supreme Court ruling had an effect, right?

And you saw among elite, so-called elite institutions, the most selective colleges and universities, in many, if not most cases, they saw a decline, right?

A drop, small or large, in the number of African-American students who were enrolling and or the number of Hispanic students who were enrolling.

But you did not see that.

at every single institution, right?

There are a handful of private colleges where the numbers of underrepresented minority students held steady or in some cases actually increased slightly.

And I think that was a key point, that was a key development, right?

Students for Fair Admissions, which is the group that sued Harvard and the University of North Carolina, which led us up to the Supreme Court ruling, they pounced on a small handful of colleges that had not seen declines in underrepresented minority students.

Private colleges and universities are under no

FOIA requirement to explain what they're doing.

Now, the University of Louis, LSU, the University of Florida could get a FOIA request and say, tell us exactly what you're doing in detail.

You can't do that at Princeton.

You can't do that at Rice.

And they basically pointed a finger at those institutions and said, aha.

You must be doing something illegal to have not seen the same outcomes, the same declines in black and or Hispanic students that many other elite colleges saw.

And so I think from that moment, right, suspicions that were already there became even more intense.

There is some real tension in the assumptions that the Trump administration is

engaging in here.

In particular, the idea that if the numbers of black and Hispanic students didn't go down at a particular college, it means that college must be doing something to get around the rules

without considering that maybe a lot of black and Hispanic students applied to these colleges and just had really darn good test scores, right?

How do you see both colleges and the administration trying to square this tension?

Look, there are plenty of smart people who believe that, hey, you know what?

The best way to do college admissions would really be to just look at two factors.

A student's performance and score on the SAT or ACT exam for one, and then their high school grades, their high school grade point average for another.

But once you have a huge group of applicants who light up the board on both metrics,

you have to look at other things, right?

Because you have way too many students to, you know, to possibly enroll them all who have that going for them.

And this is where colleges want the public to understand, and the message often doesn't get through.

Hey, we're looking at those.

Yes, you've got to bring that to the table in most cases.

But beyond that, we're trying to do all kinds of other things in admissions.

We're trying to look at other aspects of a student's record, for one.

But as a college, we have all these wants and needs that if we're only looking at grades and test scores, there's no way to meet all those needs, right?

I think there's a disconnect there between a rather simplistic setup that the government is proposing here, which is that, hey, you know what really matters?

Grades and test scores.

And colleges are saying, like it or not, that's not how we operate.

What ultimately do you think this means for the amount of power that the Trump administration has over higher education?

Like, is this an expansion?

Is it maybe less of an expansion than it might at first seem?

It's just a bunch of names and numbers and details.

What does it all mean?

We're all trying to figure that out, what it all means.

I think one thing is colleges and universities have been told that they have 120 days from the release of this executive memorandum to

comply with a long list of data requests.

And what do we know about the National Center for Education Statistics, the part of the education department that oversees the collection and analysis and presentation of all this data?

Well, that part of the education department got gutted recently.

So who's going to

Who's going to take all this data and do whatever it is that is meant to be done with it and then spit it out in a way that the public, that the government can make sense of however they plan to do that, right?

So this is a huge logistical challenge.

Just because you put on paper that something must be done within 120 days doesn't mean that that will actually happen or happen on time.

I guess the next thing I would say is why this matters, why people should care, even if they don't care about the nitty-gritty of how elite colleges work, it's clear that in this executive order, the Trump administration and the Secretary of Education are emphasizing metrics, GPAs and standardized test scores that we know correlate with families' wealth.

And if you are incentivizing colleges in any way right now to consider these metrics, these two measures, to consider them as being even more important than they were before, you're essentially incentivizing colleges to to admit even more of the students who excel on those two measures.

Does this take us down a road of elite colleges pulling back or rolling back their commitments to enrolling lower-income students over time?

We don't know, but I think that's a definite fear.

Eric Hoover of the Chronicle of Higher Education, coming up, a lefty lawyer argued for years that race-conscious admissions should be overturned.

He ended up siding with conservatives in that 2023 Supreme Court case.

We're going to ask whether he has any regrets about how things have turned out.

Support for the program comes from Indeed.

Hiring can feel like shouting into the void, but sometimes shouting into the void can be fun, like that scene in Garden State or when you visit the Grand Canyon.

Anyway, when your listing is just one of thousands all competing for attention, Indeed says they can offer a way to cut through the noise and connect with the right candidate fast.

According to data from Indeed, sponsored jobs posted directly on Indeed have 45% more applications than non-sponsored jobs.

Plus, with Indeed sponsored jobs, there are no monthly subscriptions and no long-term contracts.

You pay for results.

There is no need to wait any longer.

Speed up your hiring right now with Indeed.

And listeners of this show will get a $75 sponsored job credit to get your jobs more visibility at Indeed.com/slash today explain.

Just go to indeed.com/slash today explained right now and support our show by saying that you heard about Indeed on this podcast.

Indeed.com slash today explained.

Terms and conditions apply.

Hiring, Indeed, is all you need.

support for today's show comes from hims erectile dysfunction is more common than you think and with the right help it can be simpler to treat than ever through him

with a licensed provider to access personalized treatment options they say you can do it discreetly and on your terms They offer access to ED treatment options, including trusted generics that cost 95% less than brand names if prescribed.

And HIMS says they bring expert care straight to you with online access to personalized treatments.

They put your health and goals first, with real medical providers making sure you get what you need to get results.

You can get simple online access to personalized affordable care for ED, hair loss, weight loss, and more by visiting HIMS.com/slash explained.

That's hims.com/slash explained for your free online visit.

HIMS.com/slash explained.

Actual price will depend on product and subscription plan.

Feature products include compounded drug products, which the FDA does not approve or verify for safety, effectiveness, or quality.

Prescription required, see website for details, restrictions, and important safety information.

Ah, smart water.

Pure crisp taste.

That's really good water.

It's the kind of water that says, I have my life together.

I do feel more sophisticated.

Smart water, for those with a taste for taste.

Grab yours today.

This is Today Explained.

Action.

I'm Richard Collenberg and I am director of the American Identity Project at the Progressive Policy Institute.

The Progressive Policy Institute, I would take it to mean that you are a progressive?

So it's complicated these days.

I'm left of center.

I think of myself more as liberal than progressive.

I ask because you testified as an expert witness witness for the plaintiffs in the case Students for Fair Admission.

This is the case that essentially gutted race-based affirmative action.

It doesn't sound like a progressive or even a left-of-center position.

What was going on?

Explain what you're thinking.

So, I've long been a supporter of racial diversity in colleges.

I think that's enormously important.

But I've been troubled that elite colleges were racially integrated but economically segregated.

And so I think there's a better way of creating racial diversity,

a more liberal way, if you will, which is to give economically disadvantaged students of all races, you know, low-income and working-class students who are black, Hispanic, white, or Asian, a leg up in the admissions process in order to create both racial and economic diversity.

What was the data that you looked at that led you you to believe that

it was primarily

wealthy black and Hispanic students that were benefiting from affirmative action?

So there had been a number of studies over the years that had

come to that conclusion, including from supporters of race-based affirmative action.

It was primarily

more privileged black and Hispanic students who benefited from race-based affirmative action.

And then in the litigation, further evidence came out.

So at Harvard, 71%

of the black and

Hispanic students came from the most socioeconomically privileged, 20%

of the black and Hispanic population nationally.

Now, to be clear, the white and Asian students were even richer.

But for the most part, this was not a program that was benefiting kind of who many Americans would think of as the most deserving applicants for, you know, special consideration.

That is working-class students and low-income students.

All right, so the Supreme Court in 2023 hands down this decision that says essentially we're done with race-based affirmative action.

Was there a difference in how progressives interpreted the Supreme Court ruling and how conservatives interpreted the Supreme Court ruling?

I would say there's a difference between how progressives interpreted it and how kind of extreme conservatives interpreted it, because

most mainstream conservatives have always said they were opposed to racial preferences, but of course they were for economic affirmative action.

But now some on the extreme, including the Trump administration, saying that economic affirmative action is also illegal if part of the rationale for the policy is seeking to increase racial diversity.

Yeah, what do you make of that?

That was your team once upon a time, right?

Well, I think

it's troubling when people shift the goalposts.

And it was clear that in a number of the Supreme Court concurring opinions in the case, that conservatives said that

economic affirmative action made a lot of sense.

Justice Gorsuch, for example, said if Harvard got rid of legacy preferences and

preferences for faculty and instead gave economic affirmative action,

that

that would be perfectly legal.

So there would been a long-standing conservative position in favor of economic affirmative action.

And now some extremists are

shifting their position and

saying they're opposed to any kind of affirmative action, whether race-based or economic-based.

Aren't you surprised by that shift?

I don't know that I'm surprised.

I'm confident, however, that a majority of the U.S.

Supreme Court won't go that far.

The Supreme Court,

to some degree, looks to public opinion, and racial preferences were always unpopular.

But economic affirmative action is broadly supported by the public.

The Supreme Court has had two cases come before it subsequent to the Students for Fair Admissions versus Harvard decision.

One involved a challenge to class-based affirmative action at Thomas Jefferson High School in Northern Virginia, and the other involved an attack on a similar class-based affirmative action program at Boston, the Boston exam schools, like Boston Latin.

And in both cases, the U.S.

Supreme Court said, we're not going to hear those cases over the vehement dissent of a couple of extremely conservative justices.

So I think I'm fairly confident that the U.S.

Supreme Court will not go down the path of striking down economic-based preferences.

What do you make of this move by the Trump administration to ask colleges for data?

And as we heard it described earlier in the show, maybe catch colleges secretly doing affirmative action anyway.

Yeah, so I'm of two minds about it.

I do think transparency is good in higher education.

These institutions are receiving lots of taxpayer money.

We want to make sure they're following the law, following the Supreme Court ruling, which said you can't use race, because

we don't know whether institutions are cheating or not.

And so

we don't want institutions to break the law.

Having said that, I'm quite nervous about how the Trump administration will use the data.

Because if a college discloses

the average SAT scores and grades by race

of applicants,

of those admitted, and then those enrolled, one of two things can be going on.

One is that the university is cheating and they're using racial preferences, and that would be a violation of the law.

The other possibility is that they did shift to economic affirmative action, which is perfectly legal.

And because black and Hispanic students are disproportionately low-income and working class,

they will disproportionately benefit from a class-based affirmative action program.

And so the average SAT score is going to look somewhat lower.

And so I'm worried that the Trump administration will go after both race-based and class-based affirmative action.

Because class-based affirmative action still might mean a college is admitting more black and Hispanic students.

And what the Trump administration seems to have the issue with is that fact.

Yes, increasingly that's what it looks like.

I mean

as long as

the Trump administration was focused on

counting race and deciding who gets ahead, he had the American, you know, the administration had the American public

on their side.

But Americans

also support.

the idea of racially integrated student bodies.

They just don't like racial preferences as the means for getting there.

So if Trump says, no matter how you achieve this racial diversity, I'm just opposed to racial diversity, he'll have lost the public.

And I don't think he will be consistent with the legal framework under Students for Fair Admissions either.

Do you think he cares?

Well,

I think he ought to care if he cares about the future of

his political party, because

under class-based affirmative action,

it is true that black and Hispanic Hispanic students will disproportionately benefit, but it will also benefit white working-class students.

And those are the students who are coming from families that form the base of the Republican Party.

So I think it would be a big mistake if the Trump administration were to really push hard on that angle.

Richard Collenberg is the director of the American Identity Project at the Progressive Policy Institute.

Guess where Richard went to college?

Gabrielle Burbay produced today's show.

Amina El Saadi edited.

Laura Bullard checks the facts.

Patrick Boyd and Andrea Kristen's daughter are our engineers.

And I'm Noelle King.

It's Today Explained.