Kentucky State student vows to fight for scholarship stopped by Elon Musk, Donald Trump
Growing up on the north side of Lexington, Anthony Jackson Jr. didn't have an agriculture background, but his education at Carter G. Woodson Academy and the Locust Trace AgriScience Center soon changed that.
He started in veterinary science, but soon turned to food systems, like how to wrestle with the food deserts in rural and urban America. He was such an exemplary student —with a 4.0 GPA and ACT score of 27 — that as a student at Kentucky State University, he won an 1890 National Scholars program award from the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Only 94 students at 19 schools currently have the prestigious full-ride scholarship, all of them attending 1890 land grant institutions, sometimes known as Historically Black Colleges and Universities. In his three-and-a-half years at Kentucky State, the program allowed Jackson to intern with the USDA, travel to Rwanda, meet politicians and policy makers and research food systems all over the world.
Then this weekend, he was alerted to a message on the USDA site: 'The 1890 Scholars Program has been suspended pending further review.'
'I was shocked,' Jackson told me.
He was relieved to find out that USDA authorities believe his scholarship, and those of other current students, will be honored. But now he's worried the program that has supported so many students into important agriculture work will be axed.
He's starting a social media campaign to get the program reinstated. As he said in one statement: 'I have promoted the possibilities of my scholarship to so many that I cannot imagine not passing the baton to the next eager scholar ready to feed the world.'
Like so many other things right now, the program is a victim of an unelected South African billionaire's slash and burn rampage through the federal government. It's all a game to Elon Musk and Donald Trump, part of what looks like an attempt to purge women and people of color — and the programs that might help them — out of the government.
'Throughout history, African-Americans have been significantly cut out of agriculture,' Jackson said. 'This program gives people who have equal qualifications this platform they need to be successful. I would say that I feel as if every single person who has the scholarship has qualified for the opportunity at hand.'
HBCUs were created as part of the Morrill Act of 1890 to force Southern states practicing Jim Crow segregation to offer educational opportunities to Black citizens, who in the post-Reconstruction South, were treated as second-class citizens.
Aaron Thompson, president of the Kentucky Council on Postsecondary Education, said it's important to remember that over time, those schools have widely opened up to everyone, along with the 1890 Scholars.
'It's a prestigious scholarship, and these young people are going into essential places that USDA felt were important to nation and the state,' Thompson said. 'So those scholarships have helped tremendously to get more kids interested in agriculture, to be scientists and business leaders.'
The USDA website describes the program as being aimed at 'increasing the number of students from rural and under-served communities who study food, agriculture, natural resource and other related sciences.
'Scholars attend one of the 1890 land-grant universities and pursue degrees in agriculture, food, natural resource sciences, or related academic disciplines. The scholarship may also include work experience at USDA.'
The Kentucky General Assembly is still trying its own path of eliminating diversity, of course. So far, the bills that failed last year and are back again this session, are mostly aimed at organizational structures like DEI offices in public higher education.
But at the federal level, it appears that the DEI purge could be significantly more dire.
On Feb. 14, the U.S. Department of Education sent a letter to get rid of any programs that even might be related to helping historically marginalized groups. The letter said 'Educational institutions have toxically indoctrinated students with the false premise that the United States is built upon 'systemic and structural racism' and advanced discriminatory policies and practices.'
Some have concluded these policies and practices could include Black fraternities and sororities, or an Asian club. Or they could start to come after curriculum, like classes in the history of the civil rights movement, which is, in fact, predicated on the very real premise of 'system and structural racism.'
'We want all students to be able to come on our campuses and explore the opportunities we offer to see themselves belonging there,' Thompson said. 'I would not want any law or bill to stop closing gaps, or stop us from the ability to move our state, and all of our students, forward as a whole.'
In a way, it's brilliant. Take programs that were aimed at helping historically marginalized people and say instead the programs are discriminatory, not the world itself.
In Trump World, there's only room for white men, men like Darren Beattie, a Trump hire in the State Department who wrote on X: 'Competent white men must be in charge if you want things to work. Unfortunately, our entire national ideology is predicated on coddling the feelings of women and minorities, and demoralizing competent white men.'
That's why we end up with mediocre white men like Pete Hegseth, the least qualified Defense Secretary in U.S. history who just fired the Black chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Navy's top officer, who is female.
But why stop there? If you want to go after expensive programs that get federal funds and help minorities, why wouldn't you go after historically Black schools themselves?
It's not hard to see what's going on here.
As writer Adam Serwer noted in The Atlantic this week: 'The nostalgia behind the slogan, 'Make America Great Again,' has always provoked the obvious questions of just when America was great, and for whom. Early in the second Trump administration, we are getting the answer.'
And the answer is that young people like Anthony Jackson, Jr. are going to pay the price for this cruel war on imaginary demons. Jackson himself will be OK. He'll graduate, get a great job and be an asset in our world by trying to fix food deserts.
He's worried about everyone else.
As he said, 'DEI doesn't hand out opportunities to the unqualified. It ensures that the qualified individuals, who have historically been excluded, get the recognition, access and opportunities they have rightfully earned.
'I stand firm in my request for Secretary Rollins and President Trump to reconsider this abrupt suspension.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Vox
2 hours ago
- Vox
The Supreme Court hands down some incomprehensible gobbledygook about canceled federal grants
is a senior correspondent at Vox, where he focuses on the Supreme Court, the Constitution, and the decline of liberal democracy in the United States. He received a JD from Duke University and is the author of two books on the Supreme Court. Late Thursday afternoon, the Supreme Court handed down an incomprehensible order concerning the Trump administration's decision to cancel numerous public health grants. The array of six opinions in National Institutes of Health v. American Public Health Association is so labyrinthine that any judge who attempts to parse it risks being devoured by a minotaur. As Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson writes in a partial dissent, the decision is 'Calvinball jurisprudence,' which appears to be designed to ensure that 'this Administration always wins.' SCOTUS, Explained Get the latest developments on the US Supreme Court from senior correspondent Ian Millhiser. Email (required) Sign Up By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. The case involves thousands of NIH grants that the Trump administration abruptly canceled which, according to Jackson, involve 'research into suicide risk and prevention, HIV transmission, Alzheimer's, and cardiovascular disease,' among other things. The grants were canceled in response to executive orders prohibiting grants relating to DEI, gender identity, or Covid-19. A federal district court ruled that this policy was unlawful — 'arbitrary and capricious' in the language of federal administrative law — in part because the executive orders gave NIH officials no precise guidance on which grants should be canceled. As Jackson summarized the district court's reasoning, ''DEI'—the central concept the executive orders aimed to extirpate—was nowhere defined,' leaving NIH officials 'to arrive at whatever conclusion [they] wishe[d]' regarding which grants should be terminated. According to Jackson, 'the court found, as a factual matter, 'an unmistakable pattern of discrimination against women's health issues' and 'pervasive racial discrimination'—indeed, 'palpable' racial discrimination of a sort the judge had 'never seen' in 40 years on the bench.' The question of whether this judge was correct to deem the Trump administration's policy arbitrary and capricious, however, was not before the Supreme Court. Instead, the case hinged on a jurisdictional dispute. Which court is supposed to hear this case? As a general rule, lawsuits alleging that a federal policy is illegal are heard by federal district courts, while suits alleging that the federal government breached a contract are heard by the Court of Federal Claims. In NIH, the plaintiffs alleged that the broader policy that led to their grants being canceled was illegal, so that suggests that this case should have been brought in a district court (which is where it was actually brought). But the case also bears some superficial similarity to a breach of contract suit, because it involved the government's decision not to pay money that it had previously agreed to pay. Four justices — the three Democrats plus Chief Justice John Roberts — concluded that these plaintiffs were right to bring their suit in the district court. Four other justices — Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh — concluded that the case must be brought in the Court of Claims. That would mean that these plaintiffs would have to start over again in the claims court, and possibly that they would have to bring individual suits seeking to reinstate individual grants, rather than seeking a broad order attacking the entire grant cancellation policy. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, meanwhile, cast the deciding vote. She claims that this suit must be split between the two courts. In her view, the district court was the proper venue for the plaintiffs to argue that the overall policy is illegal, but the claims court is the proper venue for them to actually seek the money they would have received if the grants are not canceled. If that sounds confusing, it gets worse. Barrett's opinion states that federal law bars the claims court from hearing 'claims pending in other courts when those claims arise from 'substantially the same operative facts.'' So these plaintiffs likely must wait until after they have fully litigated the question of whether the Trump administration's broad policy is illegal in district court, before they can actually try to get any money in the claims court. That could take years, especially if the first question is heard by the justices again. Moreover, as Jackson warns in her opinion, by the time the first round of litigation is finished, the plaintiffs may be unable to seek relief in the claims court because the statute of limitations for doing so will have expired. The bottom line is that, because there are five votes for the proposition that some parts of this case go to the district court, and also five votes for the proposition that other parts of it go to the claims court, Barrett's opinion controls the case. By the time this mess gets sorted out, it is likely that most — if not all — of the research at issue in NIH will be lost, even if the plaintiffs do prevail. As Jackson writes, without any money to fund their operations, the grant recipients will need to 'euthanize animal subjects, terminate life-saving trials, and close community health clinics.' There are actually even more complexities in this case, but rather than engage in the Sysiphean task of trying to list all of them, I will simply repeat Jackson's summary of what appears to be going on here: In a broader sense, however, today's ruling is of a piece with this Court's recent tendencies. '[R]ight when the Judiciary should be hunkering down to do all it can to preserve the law's constraints,' the Court opts instead to make vindicating the rule of law and preventing manifestly injurious Government action as difficult as possible. This is Calvinball jurisprudence with a twist. Calvinball has only one rule: There are no fixed rules. We seem to have two: that one, and this Administration always wins.
Yahoo
9 hours ago
- Yahoo
US farm agency plan to close flagship research site threatens critical research, critics warn
By Leah Douglas WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The U.S. Department of Agriculture's plan to close its flagship laboratory near Washington, D.C., could undermine research on pests, blight and crop genetics crucial to American farms, according to lawmakers, a farm group, and staff of the facility. The USDA has already lost thousands of research staff to President Donald Trump's effort to shrink the federal government, even as Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins has said farm research is a pillar of national security. Rollins said in July that the USDA will close the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center, which occupies nearly 7,000 acres in the Maryland suburbs outside Washington, as part of an agency reorganization effort that will also move roughly half of its Washington-area staff to hubs in North Carolina, Utah and elsewhere. The agency has said it is closing BARC and several other USDA buildings because of costly necessary renovations and underutilized space. Workers at BARC in 2023 filed whistleblower complaints about unsafe working conditions there. But critics of the plan to close BARC say it could backfire by interrupting the facility's ongoing research, and by pushing the scientists conducting it to resign. "It is unlikely that senior scientists of this caliber with mature research partnerships and rich professional lives will simply move somewhere else," said Donnell Brown, president of the National Grape Research Alliance, which depends on BARC research into vine stress and water usage. U.S. Senator Chris Van Hollen, a Maryland Democrat, also slammed the plan. "You have a lot of people who have invested their time and effort in research for farmers across the country, and this plan would destroy that ongoing research," he said. Three staff at the facility, who requested anonymity out of fear of retribution, said the co-location of many labs at BARC allows for economies of scale and cost savings, and that the proximity to Washington enables researchers to easily brief lawmakers or other parts of the USDA. The USDA did not immediately respond to questions about the criticisms. Rollins said in a July memo outlining the relocation effort that the BARC facility would be closed over several years to avoid disruptions to critical research. The USDA on July 25 told the House and Senate agriculture and appropriations committees that it did not have data or analysis underpinning its reorganization plan to share with members of Congress or their staff, according to a letter sent from Democrats on the House Agriculture Committee to Rollins on August 14. "Ostensibly they're saying it would save money, but I haven't seen any study that suggests that's the case," said U.S. Representative Glenn Ivey, whose Maryland district contains the BARC site.
New York Times
9 hours ago
- New York Times
Trump's Attacks on Fed Overshadow a Critical Moment for Central Bank
Six years ago, President Trump shocked attendees at an exclusive economics conference held annually in Jackson, Wyo. by calling Jerome H. Powell, the chair of the Federal Reserve, 'an enemy' of America, and likening him to China's president, Xi Jinping. Mr. Trump's attacks came just after Mr. Powell addressed the world's leading central bankers, current and former government officials and top academics, in a keynote speech on the economic outlook. Mr. Powell is once again set to speak at the conference, which is hosted by the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, amid a new barrage from Mr. Trump. The threat this time, however, is much more than just harsh rhetoric. The president and his allies are taking aim at the inner workings of the institution, going after its top officials in a bid to install their own loyalists at the central bank. The goal is to lower borrowing costs, which Mr. Trump has said will boost the economy, and to make repayments on the government's debt less expensive. The White House's strategy has pushed the Fed into a defensive crouch as it tries to keep its longstanding independence from the executive branch from being chipped away. The administration on Wednesday broadened its attacks beyond Mr. Powell to Lisa Cook, who has served as a member of the Board of Governors since 2022. Mr. Trump called on Ms. Cook to resign after Bill Pulte, the director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, said his office had investigated Ms. Cook and found that she appeared to have falsified bank documents to obtain favorable terms on a mortgage. Mr. Pulte said the F.H.F.A. had referred the matter to the Justice Department for a criminal inquiry. Ms. Cook responded in a statement that she would not be 'bullied to step down from my position because of some questions raised in a tweet.' But she said she would take 'questions about my financial history seriously' and gather the facts. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
