By Ethan Cohen
Cultural graduations, thematic housing and financial aid are all at risk under President Donald Trump’s potential plans to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education, arguing that control over education policy should be left to individual states.
With few details on how the proposal would actually work, the White House’s push has sparked confusion among education officials and college administrations who would be responsible for filling the gaps left by a disbanded or downsized department.
The uncertainty has only grown in the wake of a Feb. 14 letter from the department’s Office of Equity instructing universities to eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion programs.
Schools that fail to comply by the beginning of March face federal investigations and potential funding cuts, leaving administrators scrambling to assess the impact on scholarships, student services and faculty positions.
The letter, sent out in mid-February by the Office of Equity’s Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Craig Trainor, laid out a broad interpretation of the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which struck down affirmative action in college admissions.
While limited to admissions practices, the Trump administration argues it applies to all race-conscious funding, programs and initiatives at campuses nationwide.
“These institutions’ embrace of pervasive and repugnant race-based preferences and other forms of racial discrimination have emanated throughout every facet of academia,” Trainor said in the letter. “In a shameful echo of a darker period in this country’s history, many American schools and universities even encourage segregation by race at graduation ceremonies and in dormitories and other facilities.”
It is unclear how the California State University system plans to navigate this growing debate, especially as challenges to race-based policies continue to intensify.
In response to Trump’s initial proposal on the Department of Education, CSU Chancellor Mildred García initially emphasized the university system’s preparedness in a Feb. 7 email, assuring students the CSU would act if federal actions negatively impacted the community.
“The landscape is indeed evolving– and it is vast. But please be assured that if federal action is taken that negatively impacts the CSU community, we will be prepared and we will respond quickly and appropriately,” García said in the email.
William Jeynes, a professor of education at Long Beach State, said there is a general uncertainty behind the Trump administration’s efforts to both shift federal power away from education but also reign in DEI.
“It’s really difficult to know precisely how this is going to play out, because [Donald Trump] told us what he wants to do generally, but the specifics are definitely lacking,” Jeynes said.
Jeynes, who has spoken for the White House, the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Department of Education on previous occasions, said administrators are doing the best they can in addressing the flurry of executive orders coming from the White House.
However, despite the Trump administration’s efforts to curb federal spending and shift education policy back to the states, he remains skeptical about the long-term viability of these changes.
“I doubt very much that he can totally pull this off because it requires the approval of Congress,” Jeynes said. “I would imagine, even if he does, some other president– and not merely Democrats, but Republicans– will resurrect it at some point.”
Nevertheless, he sees an opportunity for issues like education funding and DEI initiatives to be debated more openly in the public sphere, potentially leading to meaningful solutions.
“I think, on a lot of issues, people talk past each other, and whether it be on student loans, [we need] to have a broader approach on this conversation,” Jeynes said. “I think we need to really not just talk at each other, but really listen to each other.”
