Commitment to Exclusion - How Trump Is Forcing Universities to Account for the Role of Origin

What appears to be a bureaucratic directive is in truth an attack on the heart of American education: President Donald Trump wants to force universities across the country to disclose how much a person's origin influences their admissions decisions. With a new directive he plans to sign this Thursday, the president is announcing nothing less than a vote of no confidence in an education system that, for decades, has at least attempted to correct social inequalities at the threshold of higher education. Now that door is to be closed again - under the guise of justice.

The announced measure follows a months-long power struggle with two symbolically significant elite universities: Columbia and Brown. Both agreed in July to settlements with the federal government, committing to disclose data on the ethnic background of their applicants - in addition to test scores and academic metrics. The price for this step was high, as the agreements came under pressure from the threat of losing federal funding. But what began as an isolated case is now to become policy: anyone who wants taxpayer money must disclose to the government how “race-neutral” they really are - according to the standards of an administration that has repeatedly shown it holds no regard for diversity. The political context is clear: in 2023, the Supreme Court declared the decades-long practice of affirmative action unconstitutional. The rulings against Harvard and the University of North Carolina targeted the central idea that race - among other factors - could be a permissible criterion in admissions decisions if it served to address structural disadvantage. For conservatives, the ruling was a triumph: finally an end to “reverse racism,” as they called it - with advantages for Black, Latino, or Indigenous applicants at the expense of white and Asian students. For proponents of inclusive education, it was a regression to a time when equality existed only on paper. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson captured it in her dissenting opinion: “Deeming race irrelevant in law does not make it so in life.” Her words struck a chord - because they reflected what many in academia feel: that the reality of social origin, racist discrimination, and educational inequality cannot be erased by legal decrees. And that it is dangerous to punish universities for taking that reality seriously.

But Trump’s agenda reaches far beyond a court ruling. In his first week back in office, he issued an executive order abolishing all Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs across federal agencies. What is sold as a fight against “illegal preferences” is in truth an attempt to eliminate any form of institutional correction of historical inequality from the system. With the new directive forcing universities to disclose data, this course is now being expanded to the academic landscape - accompanied by the threat of financially starving out critical voices. The idea of independent scholarship that does not bow to political control is once again being damaged. When universities are forced to disclose their admissions processes according to the views of a government that considers diversity ideological poison, the red line has long been crossed. The power to allocate federal funds becomes a tool of discipline - and political control over education becomes an instrument of social rollback. In many faculties, concern is growing that this is only the beginning. That data disclosure will soon lead to content control. That faculty will begin to self-censor, students will no longer dare to reveal their biographies, and admissions processes will turn into anonymized competitions that erase all context. Because that is exactly what this is about: silencing context. Silencing history. Silencing origin. Silencing struggle. The United States is no longer merely on the path to eliminating social support measures. It is well on its way to erasing every memory of their purpose.

Investigative journalism requires courage, conviction – and your support.