Introduction

Higher education institutions should evaluate individuals on the basis of their academic merit, with no regard for race, ethnicity, sex, or membership in any other identity group. Unfortunately, colleges and universities have resorted to discrimination in affirmative-action admissions and hiring decisions, now usually justified as measures to achieve diversity, equity, or inclusion. Entire subunits of higher academic administration, especially Title IX offices and offices of diversity, appear to suffer from extreme discrimination in their staffing.

Colleges have also established a growing system of informal “neosegregation,” buttressed by effectively segregated events and academic subunits such as orientations, majors, financial awards, residential housing, administrative employment, faculty employment, student training, extracurricular activities, and graduations.

Such discrimination is wrong. It hurts America as a whole by damaging the efficient matching of qualified individuals to appropriate jobs, and by demoralizing and embittering qualified students denied admission solely because they fail to provide “diversity.” It also harms the supposed beneficiaries, by in some cases mismatching minority students to programs for which they are underqualified, and in which they therefore struggle and fail to graduate in disproportionate numbers.

Such discrimination is antithetical to the life of the mind, which higher education must foster. The life of the mind focuses on ideas, not on race, sex, or other physical traits. The federal government should encourage colleges and universities to cease to offer preferences for representatives of physical categories.

Policy Recommendations

Mandate Transparency About Discrimination

Congress should require colleges and universities to disclose transparently the effects of discriminatory policies such as affirmative action, diversity, equity, and inclusion on student admissions, faculty hiring, and administrative staffing.

Legislative Language: Add to 20 U.S.C. § 1011. (Antidiscrimination) a subsection requiring that

1. an institution must disclose and distribute annually, both to the Department of Education and to all enrolled students, on a reasonably accessible Internet website, statistics on the academic qualifications of accepted and matriculating students, differentiated by race and sex. These statistics should include information correlating students’ academic qualifications, quantity of Federal education loans and grants, and retention rates, differentiated by race and sex.

Mandate Assessable Discriminatory Policies

Congress should require colleges and universities to provide the Department of Education information so that it may assess the consequences and costs of their discriminatory policies.

Legislative Language: Add to 20 U.S.C. § 1011. (Antidiscrimination) a subsection stating that an institution must disclose and distribute annually, both to the Department of Education and to all enrolled students, on a reasonably accessible Internet website:

1. quantifiable measures of the benefits and costs of programs such as affirmative action, diversity, equity, and inclusion, which may be used to assess their effectiveness. These assessments should include quantification of the effects on applicants denied admission to a program as a consequence of these programs.
2. detailed summaries of their nonquantifiable admissions and hiring standards, defined by words including holistic, character-based, social justice, and diversity, along with assessments of the disparate impact by race and sex of each nonquantifiable admissions and hiring standard.

Mandate Dismantling Neo-segregation

Congress should make dismantling neo-segregation policies a condition of Title IV eligibility.

Legislative Language: Add to 20 USC §1087c. (Selection of institutions for participation and origination) a subsection mandating that

1. colleges and universities work to end neo-segregationist policies, and policies whose impact produces neo-segregationist results, in all events and academic subunits, including orientations, majors, financial awards, residential housing, administrative employment, faculty employment, student training, extracurricular activities, and graduations.

In addition, we urge regulatory reform by the Department of Education: Amend34 CFR § 100.5 (Nondiscrimination under programs receiving Federal assistance through the Department of Education, Effectuation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Illustrative application) a subsection stating: “In an administrative subunit of an institution of higher education, such as a Title IX office, an office of diversity, a student life office, a first-year experience office, a community engagement office, or a sustainability office, discrimination is prohibited in hiring, selection of student trainees, financial aid, grants, awards and disbursements, and any educational activity.”

Reframe Support for “Minority-Serving Institutions”

The Higher Education Act’s original support for Historically Black Colleges has since been expanded into a broad range of financial support for “Minority-Serving Institutions.” These expansions transform a limited set-aside for existing institutions into a system of race preferences in the allocation of Department of Education funds. While the National Association of Scholars generally opposes all race preferences in higher education, we are willing to accept carefully delimited support for institutions rooted in American history—Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Tribal Colleges and Universities. Should Alaskan Natives or Native Hawaiians establish their own equivalent of a Tribal College or University, we would also be willing to accept dedicated support for such an institution. The Department of Education, however, should not dedicate support to “minority-serving institutions.”

Legislative Language: The Department of Education catalogues support for different minority-serving institutions in different sections of the Higher Education Act. (E.g., 34 CFR § 607.2). While each stream of financial support should be amended individually, we support the following general reforms:

1. The Department of Education may condition eligibility for funds based upon qualifying as a Historically Black College or University (HBCU), as defined in 34 CFR § 608.2.
2. The Department of Education may condition eligibility for funds based upon qualifying as a Tribally Controlled College or University, as defined in 20 USC § 1059c(b)(3)(a).
3. The Department of Education may not condition eligibility for funds based upon qualifying as a Hispanic-serving institution, as defined in 20 USC § 1101a(a)(5).
4. The Department of Education may not condition eligibility for funds based upon qualifying as an Alaska Native-serving institution, as defined in 20 USC § 1059d(b)(2).
5. The Department of Education may not condition eligibility for funds based upon qualifying as a Native Hawaiian-serving institution, as defined in 20 USC § 1059d(b)(4).
6. The Department of Education may not condition eligibility for funds based upon qualifying as an Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-serving institution, as defined in 20 USC § 1067q(c)(2).
7. The Department of Education may not condition eligibility for funds based upon qualifying as Native American-serving nontribal institution, as defined in 20 USC § 1067q(c)(8).
8. The Department of Education may not condition eligibility for funds based upon qualifying as a Predominantly Black Institution, as defined in 20 USC § 1067q(c)(9).
9. The Department of Education may not condition eligibility for funds based upon the racial composition of an institution’s student body.