The future of college student groups based on race or ethnicity could be in jeopardy.
As the Trump administration ramps up its efforts against diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI), the Department of Education (DOE) is signaling that it will seek to expand the Supreme Court’s ruling forbidding affirmative action in college admissions to all aspects of campus life, potentially going after organizations such as Black fraternities or honor societies, which are found at most schools.
At her Senate confirmation hearing last week, Education Secretary-nominee Linda McMahon, who saw her nomination advance on Thursday, would not say if race-based groups — such as Yale University’s Black Student Alliance or the Latino Business Association at the University of California at Santa Barbara — would be safe under her department.
“There is legitimate concern that the new administration may seek to restrict student organizations, including registered student organizations, and perhaps even fraternities and sororities with a nondiscriminatory focus on race, ethnicity, gender, religion and other cultural identities that the DOE determines are prohibited,” said Paulette Granberry Russell, CEO and president of the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education (NADOHE).
During McMahon’s confirmation hearing, she would not directly answer a question from Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) regarding if President Trump’s order to ban DEI at publicly funded universities would affect student clubs.
“You’re saying that it’s a possibility that if a school has a club for Vietnamese American students or Black students where they meet after school, that they could be potentially in” danger of losing federal funding, Murphy said.
“That’s pretty chilling. I think schools all around the country are going to hear that,” he added.
A day after the hearing, the Education Department sent out a Dear Colleague letter (DCL) to colleges saying they have 14 days to ensure compliance with Trump’s DEI purge.
In the letter, DOE expands upon the 2023 Supreme Court ruling that outlawed affirmative action in college admissions, saying the implications go well beyond how schools admit students.
“Although SFFA [Students for Fair Admissions] addressed admissions decisions, the Supreme Court’s holding applies more broadly. 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,” the letter says.
Craig Trainor, the acting assistant secretary for civil rights at the Education Department, said in the letter this refers to hiring practices, financial aid, scholarships, graduation ceremonies and all other aspects of college life.
When The Hill asked if the letter also covers student groups, DOE would not give a direct answer.
“The Department of Education will no longer allow education entities to discriminate on the basis of race. This isn’t complicated. When in doubt, every school should consult the SFFA legal test contained in the DCL: ‘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.’ Additional guidance on implementation is forthcoming,” Trainor said a statement.
While the DCL is not legally binding, opponents say the department’s interpretation of the high court ruling is flawed and schools need to be prepared to fight if this is the route the federal government chooses.
“In SFFA, the high court ruled specifically on race-conscious admissions, but this letter extends that ruling beyond its original scope and targets financial aid, student support, hiring, DEI programs and campus culture,” said Marybeth Gasman, executive director for Rutgers University’s Center for Minority Serving Institutions. “As footnote 3 of the letter notes, it does not have the force of law. However, it does represent a hostile approach toward any efforts to increase diversity and address the systemic barriers in education — which are real.”
“I am concerned that the Trump administration could target student organizations that are racial affinity groups. They will claim they are enforcing ‘race neutrality’ — which makes no sense,” Gasman said, adding that “legal precedent strongly protects the right of free association per the First Amendment, which means that any attempts to end these organizations would end up in the courts.”
Proponents of abolishing student groups based on race say freedom of association applies on an individual level, such as Latino students seeking to gather on their own, but it is a different story when a school is sponsoring these sorts of clubs.
“The question is whether publicly supported institutions ought to be recognizing or organizing those activities, much less mandating them. At that point, it seems those institutions which have an obligation to abide by the Civil Rights Act of the 14th Amendment, seem to be to be clearly discriminating on the basis of race, ethnicity or religion,” said Rick Hess, senior fellow and the director of education policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI).
“I think the idea that schools, our colleges, are in the business of sponsoring groups and activities which organize students on the face of race or ethnicity, is a flagrant violation of the Civil Rights Act. I mean, that is the kind of behavior that I tend to associate with the Jim Crow South, not with educational institutions in 2025,” Hess added. Schools “organizing students into different groups based on race or ethnicity to talk about policy questions or to hold graduation ceremonies seems deeply troubling.”
There are nine national Black sororities and fraternities, together composing the National Pan-Hellenic Council, which was created in 1930. The organization says it was formed “during a period when African Americans were being denied essential rights and privileges afforded others” and its purpose “remains community awareness and action through educational, economic, and cultural service activities.”
NADOHE has already sued President Trump over his executive order banning DEI in the federal government, saying he exceeded his authority.
Trump’s threats to move against the funding of schools found to be in violation of his orders could prove difficult to enact in practice.
“Typically, following a civil rights complaint, the Office of Civil Rights does an investigation. If they conclude that a violation has occurred, institutions are given the opportunity to voluntarily amend their policies,” said Sara Partridge, associate director of higher education at the Center for American Progress.
“So, the dramatic step of actually taking federal financial aid away from institutions would be very harmful to students, but historically, there has been a process for institutions to remedy any issues before it gets to that point,” Partridge said. “So, it’s yet to be seen how this administration will use the Office of Civil Rights in the Department of Education, but to take away federal funding as a result of civil rights violations as this letter frames them would be completely unprecedented”
