Trump orders colleges to prove they don’t consider race in admissions as three UCs face probe
- Share via
- Trump signed an order requiring colleges to submit data to the Department of Education to prove they do not consider race in admissions.
- The order comes as the government accuses UCLA and other California campuses of illegally considering race in admissions.
- The issue of admissions is among the charges federal agencies made against UCLA when pulling $584 million in grant funding.
President Trump on Thursday signed an executive order requiring colleges to submit data to prove they do not consider race in admissions, echoing admissions accusations his administration has made against UCLA, UC Irvine, UC Berkeley, Stanford and other universities.
In 2023, the Supreme Court ruled against the use of affirmative action in admissions but said colleges may still consider how race has shaped students’ lives if applicants share that information in their admissions essays. But the decision — and varied results in admissions data a year later — has not assuaged conservative concerns that colleges are still considering an applicant’s race.
The order said that “greater transparency is essential to exposing unlawful practices and ultimately ridding society of shameful, dangerous racial hierarchies.” The Department of Education has three months to establish reporting requirements for colleges to submit admissions data to the National Center for Education Statistics that will later be made public.
UCLA Chancellor Julio Frenk and UC President James B. Milliken on Wednesday said that federal grants suspensions total $584 million to the campus and university leaders will negotiate with the Trump administration to restore the funds.
California banned the consideration of race in admissions to public education institutions with the passage of Proposition 209 in 1996.
The University of California, which includes several highly selective campuses, said it does not consider race as a factor when deciding who is offered a seat. Campuses recruit for diversity using outreach to underrepresented regions of the state and have a comprehensive review process that looks at special talents, how a student compares with peers in their high school, and geographic location, in addition to grades and coursework.
The Trump administration is accusing colleges of using personal statements and other proxies to consider race, which conservatives view as illegal discrimination.
Trump cites UCLA admissions as a factor in grant suspensions
Letters from federal agencies last week that led to the suspension of $584 million in research grants to UCLA accused the university of “discrimination” in admissions, antisemitism related to campus protests in 2024 and illegally allowing transgender people to play on sports teams that match their gender identity.
“The University of California–Los Angeles continues to engage in race discrimination including in its admissions process, and in other areas of student life,” a letter from the National Science Foundation to UCLA said.
In a statement Thursday, a UC spokesperson said that officials are “reviewing” Trump’s order and that the university already publishes detailed admissions data online.
“UC undergraduate admission process does not discriminate against, or provide preferential treatment to, any individual on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin, consistent with federal and state law,” said Stett Holbrook, the associate director of strategic and critical communications.
A spokesperson said California State University also publishes “transparent” admissions data online.
UC admitted more first-year California students for 2025 than ever, according to new data, but campus-by-campus numbers vary widely, with Merced and Riverside taking the lead.
“CSU’s student population reflects California’s rich diversity, and our admission practices provide equal opportunity in education to all without unlawful discrimination or preferential treatment based on race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin,” said Amy Bentley-Smith, CSU director of media relations and public affairs.
A USC spokesperson did not respond to a request from The Times on the issue.
The Department of Justice said in March that it would investigate UCLA, UC Irvine, Stanford and UC Berkeley for “illegal DEI” in admissions, suggesting the schools flouted state law and U.S. Supreme Court precedent regarding diversity, equity and inclusion.
In that notice, Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi said she and Trump were “dedicated to ending illegal discrimination and restoring merit-based opportunity across the country.” The Department of Health and Human Services also said it was investigating UCLA’s medical school to determine whether it “discriminates on the basis of race, color, or national origin in its admissions.”
The role of race in admissions has featured in the administration’s battle against some of the nation’s most elite colleges — viewed by Republicans as liberal hotbeds.
Thursday’s executive order is similar to parts of recent settlement agreements the government negotiated with Brown and Columbia universities, restoring their federal research money. The universities agreed to give the government data on the race, grade point average and standardized test scores of applicants, admitted students and enrolled students. The schools also agreed to an audit by the government and to release admissions statistics to the public.
UCLA is also negotiating with the Trump administration in hopes of restoring its federal funding but has not indicated what’s on the table to secure a deal.
The Justice Department is investigating four California universities over possible ‘illegal DEI’ in admissions. The universities say they do not illegally consider race when accepting students.
Conservative arguments — including lawsuits against UC — accuse universities of continuing to consider race through proxy measures.
The executive order makes the same argument.
“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,” said a fact sheet shared by the White House ahead of the Thursday executive order signing.
How admissions changed after Supreme Court case
The first year of admissions data after the Supreme Court ruling showed no clear pattern in how colleges’ diversity changed. Results varied dramatically from one campus to the next.
Last fall, the number of Black students enrolled at Johns Hopkins University fell by 66.1% and Latino students by 51.2% compared with the average during the previous two years. Both demographic groups declined at MIT by 64.3% and 26.7%, respectively, and at Stanford by 37.5% and 11.8% during the same time.
At Pomona College, USC and Harvard, Black student enrollment dropped, but that of Latinos grew. Yale and Northwestern also saw increases in both Black and Latino students in last fall’s class.
Some colleges have added more essays or personal statements to their admissions process to get a better picture of an applicant’s background, a strategy the Supreme Court invited in its ruling.
“Nothing prohibits universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected the applicant’s life, so long as that discussion is concretely tied to a quality of character or unique ability that the particular applicant can contribute to the university,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote in 2023 for the court’s conservative majority.
It is unclear what practical impact the executive order will have on colleges, which are prohibited by law from collecting information on race as part of admissions, says Jon Fansmith, senior vice president at the American Council on Education, an association of college presidents.
“Ultimately, will it mean anything? Probably not,” Fansmith said. “But it does continue this rhetoric from the administration that some students are being preferenced in the admission process at the expense of other students.”
Colleges for years have tried a range of strategies to achieve the diversity they say is essential to their campuses. Many have given greater preference to low-income families. Others started admitting top students from every community in their state.
California’s history with race in admissions
Prior to the ruling, nine states had banned affirmative action, starting with California. UC saw enrollment change after the statewide ban. Within two years, Black and Latino enrollments fell by half at Berkeley and UCLA. The system would go on to spend more than $500 million on programs aimed at low-income and first-generation college students.
The system of nine undergraduate campuses also started a program that promises admission to the top 9% of students in each high school across the state, an attempt to reach strong students from all backgrounds. A similar promise in Texas has been credited with expanding racial diversity, and opponents of affirmative action cite it as a successful model.
In California, the promise drew students from a wider geographic area but did little to expand racial diversity, the system said in a brief to the Supreme Court. It had almost no effect at Berkeley and UCLA, where students compete against tens of thousands of other applicants.
Today at UCLA and Berkeley, Latino students make up 20% of undergraduates, higher than in 1996, but lower than their 53% share among California’s high school graduates. Black students, meanwhile, have a smaller presence than they did in 1996, accounting for 4% of undergraduates at Berkeley.
Associated Press writers Annie Ma and Jocelyn Gecker contributed to this report.
More From the Los Angeles Times
Podcasts
On screen, Errol Flynn played a series of daredevils, fortune hunters, and suave romantics. Off screen, he lived a life of outsize debauchery and recklessness, including a persistent interest in underage girls. In 1943, at the height of his fame, he faced trial in Los Angeles on charges of statutory rape.
In our first episode, the L.A. Times columnist George Skelton sizes up the governors he’s known, what made them successful and whether the next one can measure up.
How do you get more people to care about climate change — and tell riveting stories along the way? Boiling Point explored that question at a live event during this year’s New York City Climate Week at Columbia University’s Climate School.
