Trump's war against DEI isn't going so well in Virginia
Trump officials claim Fairfax County violated federal law when it adopted an admissions policy designed to 'change the demographic make up' of its most competitive high school. This theory, which equates integration with segregation, dates back to Barry Goldwater, who remarked in 1964 that 'the Constitution is color-blind … and so it is just as wrong to compel children to attend certain schools for the sake of so-called integration as for the sake of segregation.'
It seems Trump agrees. Unfortunately for him, the Supreme Court does not.
Just last year, the court declined to overturn a ruling for Fairfax County. As I explained at the time, that decision made sense. Even as the Supreme Court has shifted hard right, decades of conservative case law — including from Chief Justice John Roberts — condone racial goals such as diversity, equality and inclusion.
The new investigation tracks Trump's disregard for courts and his tendency toward bluster over substance. But in important respects, it also exposes that Trump's war on DEI lacks any moral and legal basis.
Some context is helpful. For decades, Black advocates sought to desegregate Thomas Jefferson High School, one of the nation's top-ranked public schools. As recently as 2012, the NAACP filed a civil rights complaint alleging that the school's admissions policies discriminated against African American and Hispanic students and students with disabilities. Things shifted in 2020. As racial justice protests erupted across the globe, local leaders grappled with the fact that in a county with roughly 100,000 Black residents, Thomas Jefferson High School admitted so few Black students that the number was too small to report. The state convened a task force to examine the causes of this ongoing exclusion at Thomas Jefferson and other Virginia schools.
Following a series of hearings, the board revised the school's admissions process, eliminating a $100 application fee and a standardized testing requirement. Contrary to ongoing claims that the new policy compromised 'merit,' the board raised the minimum GPA for admission from 3.0 to 3.5 and added an honors course requirement. The new policy also implemented a holistic evaluation that included new 'experience factors,' such as whether the applicant qualified for reduced meals or is an English language learner. The updated process also ensured that each middle school receive a number of seats equal to 1.5 percent of its eighth-grade class.
The school board resolved that '[t]he admission process must use only race-neutral methods that do not seek to achieve any specific racial or ethnic mix, balance or targets.' This means that admissions officials are not told the race, ethnicity, sex or name of any applicant. In Supreme Court parlance, the entire admissions process was 'colorblind.'
The new process produced promising results. In its inaugural year, Thomas Jefferson High School received 1,000 more applicants than the prior cycle. This larger applicant pool also 'included markedly more low-income students, English-language learners, and girls than had prior classes at TJ.' Consistent with the heightened GPA requirement, the admitted class's mean GPA was higher than in the five preceding years.
The new process also yielded greater racial diversity. Black students comprised 10 percent of the applicant pool and received nearly 8 percent of offers and Hispanic students comprised 11 percent of the applicant pool and received over 11 percent of offers. The overall percentage of Asian American students decreased from the preceding year, but Asian Americans continued to enjoy the highest percentage yield of all racial groups. And as the Fourth Circuit detailed, Asian American students from historically underrepresented middle schools 'saw a sixfold increase in offers, and the number of low-income Asian American admittees to TJ increased to 51 — from a mere one in 2020.'
In short, Thomas Jefferson High School adopted a 'race-neutral' process to pursue a set of goals that included increasing Black and Hispanic representation. This is the precise type of practice the Trump administration denigrates as 'illegal DEI.'
Efforts to promote racial diversity do constitute DEI. But they are far from illegal. In fact, Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard — the 2023 decision striking down Harvard University's formal consideration of applicant race — supports most of the DEI policies Trump now targets.
Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Roberts deemed Harvard's underlying goals as 'worthy' and 'commendable.' Justice Brett Kavanaugh made the point more directly; writing for himself, Kavanaugh noted that 'racial discrimination still occurs and the effects of past racial discrimination still persist' and that 'universities still can, of course, act to undo the effects of past discrimination in many permissible ways that do not involve classification by race.'
The actions of the high school square with Kavanaugh's call for policies that attend to race but do not differentiate between individual students on this basis. This should short-circuit the Department of Education's investigation against Fairfax County. But it is unlikely to stall Trump's desire to outlaw integration.
The Pacific Legal Foundation, which initiated the lawsuit against Fairfax County and remains a force on the right, wants to revive Goldwater's hostile approach to integration. Consider the following FAQ on Pacific Legal's website: 'schools may use or not use standardized tests, essays, interviews, or auditions, as long as their reasons for using or not using them are not racial.' By this logic, a high school could lawfully eliminate an admissions fee if motivated by public relations concerns, but it would be unlawful to take that same action if done to decrease racial barriers that exclude low-income Black and Hispanic students.
Now consider higher education. Per Pacific Legal, Harvard University could eliminate admissions preferences for the children of alumni and wealthy donors if done to appease alumni pressure. But it would be unlawful for Harvard to take the same action if the goal is increasing the number of Asian American students or mitigate unearned racial preferences that flow to wealthy white applicants.
The upshot is that affirmative efforts to reduce racial inequality — everything Trump dubs 'illegal DEI' — remain legal and morally just. So, at least for now, integration does not equate to segregation.
Jonathan Feingold is an associate professor at Boston University School of Law. He is an expert in affirmative action, antidiscrimination law, education law, and critical race theory.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
5 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump moves to use the levers of presidential power to help his party in the 2026 midterms
President Donald Trump has made clear in recent weeks that he's willing to use the vast powers of his office to prevent his party from losing control of Congress in next year's midterm elections. Some of the steps Trump has taken to intervene in the election are typical, but controversial, political maneuvers taken to his trademark extremes. That includes pushing Republican lawmakers in Texas and other conservative-controlled states to redraw their legislative maps to expand the number of U.S. House seats favorable to the GOP. Others involve the direct use of official presidential power in ways that have no modern precedent, such as ordering his Department of Justice to investigate the main liberal fundraising entity, ActBlue. The department also is demanding the detailed voter files from each state in an apparent attempt to look for ineligible voters on a vast scale. And on Monday, Trump posted a falsehood-filled rant on social media pledging to lead a 'movement' to outlaw voting machines and mail balloting, the latter of which has become a mainstay of Democratic voting since Trump pushed Republicans to avoid it in 2020 — before flipping on the issue ahead of last year's presidential election. The individual actions add up to an unprecedented attempt by a sitting president to interfere in a critical election before it's even held, moves that have raised alarms among those concerned about the future of U.S. democracy. 'Those are actions that you don't see in healthy democracies,' said Ian Bassin, executive director of Protect Democracy, a nonpartisan organization that has sued the Trump administration. 'Those are actions you see in authoritarian states.' Trump has already tried to overturn an election Bassin noted that presidents routinely stump for their party in midterm elections and try to bolster incumbents by steering projects and support to their districts. But he said Trump's history is part of what's driving alarm about the midterms. He referenced Trump's attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, which ended with a violent assault on the Capitol by his supporters. 'The one thing we know for certain from experience in 2020 is that this is a person who will use every measure and try every tactic to stay in power, regardless of the outcome of an election,' Bassin said. He noted that in 2020, Trump was checked by elected Republicans in Congress and statehouses who refused to bend the rules, along with members of his own administration and even military leaders who distanced themselves from the defeated incumbent. In his second term, the president has locked down near-total loyalty from the GOP and stacked the administration with loyalists. The incumbent president's party normally loses seats in Congress during midterm elections. That's what happened to Trump in 2018, when Democrats won enough seats to take back the House of Representatives, stymieing the president's agenda and eventually leading to his two impeachments. Trump has said he doesn't want a repeat. He also has argued that his actions are actually attempts to preserve democracy. Repeating baseless allegations of fraud, he said Monday during a meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy that 'you can never have a real democracy with mail-in ballots.' Earlier this month, Trump said that, because he handily won Texas in the 2024 presidential election, 'we are entitled to five more seats.' An attempt to engineer GOP control of the US House Republicans currently have a three-seat margin in the House of Representatives. Trump pushed Texas Republicans to redraw their congressional map to create up to five new winnable GOP seats and is lobbying other red states, including Indiana and Missouri, to take similar steps to pad the margin even more. The Texas Legislature is likely to vote on its map on Wednesday. There's no guarantee that Trump's gambit will work, but also no legal prohibition against fiddling with maps in those states for partisan advantage. In response, California Democrats are moving forward with their own redistricting effort as a way to counter Republicans in Texas. Mid-decade map adjustments have happened before, though usually in response to court orders rather than presidents openly hoping to manufacture more seats for their party. Larry Diamond, a political scientist at Stanford University, said there's a chance the redrawing of House districts won't succeed as Trump anticipates — but could end up motivating Democratic voters. Still, Diamond said he's concerned. 'It's the overall pattern that's alarming and that the reason to do this is for pure partisan advantage,' he said of Trump's tactic. Diamond noted that in 2019 he wrote a book about a '12-step' process to turn a democracy into an autocracy, and 'the last step in the process is to rig the electoral process.' The Justice Department acts on Trump's priorities Trump has required loyalty from all levels of his administration and demanded that the Department of Justice follow his directives. One of those was to probe ActBlue, an online portal that raised hundreds of millions of dollars in small-dollar donations for Democratic candidates over two decades. The site was so successful that Republicans launched a similar venture, called WinRed. Trump, notably, did not order a federal probe into WinRed. Trump's appointees at the Department of Justice also have demanded voting data from at least 19 states, as Trump continues to insist he actually won the 2020 election and proposed a special prosecutor to investigate that year's vote tally. Much as he did before winning the 2024 election, Trump has baselessly implied that Democrats may rig upcoming vote counts against him. In at least two of those states, California and Minnesota, the DOJ followed up with election officials last week, threatening legal action if they didn't hand over their voter registration lists by this Thursday, according to letters shared with The Associated Press. Neither state — both controlled by Democrats — has responded publicly. Attempts to interfere with voting and elections Trump's threat this week to end mail voting and do away with voting machines is just his latest attempt to sway how elections are run. An executive order he signed earlier this year sought documented proof of citizenship to register to vote, among other changes, though much of it has been blocked by courts. In the days leading up to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol to reverse his 2020 loss, Trump's allies proposed having the military seize voting machines to investigate purported fraud, even though Trump's own attorney general said there was no evidence of significant wrongdoing. The Constitution says states and Congress, rather than the president, set the rules for elections, so it's unclear what Trump could do to make his promises a reality. But election officials saw them as an obvious sign of his 2026 interests. 'Let's see this for what it really is: An attempt to change voting going into the midterms because he's afraid the Republicans will lose,' wrote Ann Jacobs, the Democratic chair of the Wisconsin Elections Commission, on X. The president has very few levers to influence an election Derek Muller, a law professor at the University of Notre Dame, said the idea of seizing voting machines in 2020 was a sign of how few levers the president has to influence an election, not of his power. Under the U.S. Constitution, elections are run by states and only Congress can 'alter' the procedures — and, even then, for federal races alone. 'It's a deeply decentralized system,' Muller said. There are fewer legal constraints on presidential powers, such as criminal investigations and deployment of law enforcement and military resources, Muller noted. But, he added, people usually err in forecasting election catastrophes. He noted that in 2022 and 2024, a wide range of experts braced for violence, disruption and attempts to overturn losses by Trump allies, and no serious threats materialized. 'One lesson I've learned in decades of doing this is people are often preparing for the last election rather than what actually happens in the new ones,' Muller said. ___
Yahoo
5 minutes ago
- Yahoo
NH judge finds - once again - state is underfunding education
A New Hampshire judge has again ruled that the state is underfunding education. In a ruling issued Monday in the Rand School funding lawsuit, Rockingham Superior Court Judge David Ruoff found New Hampshire's varying education property tax rate violates Part II, Article 5 of the New Hampshire Constitution — but stopped short of ordering the state to increase funding levels. Monday's ruling comes less than two months after the New Hampshire Supreme Court ruling in the ConVal lawsuit — which upheld the 'minimum, conservative threshold' of $7,356.01 for base adequacy. In both cases, the courts left the question of how to fund New Hampshire schools and how should money be spent on education for state legislators to decide. Judge Ruoff's ruling in Superior Court involved funding provided by the state for special education services and property tax rates paid to cover that gap. Zack Sheehan, executive director for the NH School Funding Fairness Project, called Ruoff's ruling a 'huge win for New Hampshire students and taxpayers.' 'The court once again found that the state is failing its constitutional duty,' Sheehan said in a statement. 'The overall adequacy funding levels from the state are unconstitutionally low, special education is severely underfunded, and taxpayers are forced to pay wildly different property tax rates that violate our rights.' The lawsuit — Steven Rand, et al. v. The State of New Hampshire — focused on the widely varying rates of taxes used to fund schools, a responsibility spelled out in the New Hampshire Constitution and Claremont I (1993) and Claremont II (1997) decisions. The lawsuit named three plaintiffs who face high burdens to fund schools because their towns have low property values. For example, plaintiff Steven Rand lives in Plymouth. The town has only $942,600 in property values to fund the education for each one of its students; nearby Waterville Valley has taxes more than five times that value — $5.4 million. The statewide average is $1.3 million. Two of the other taxpayers involved in the suit are from Penacook, an incorporated village of Concord. Robert Gabrielli is a retired physician who owns commercial property in Penacook, while Jessica and Adam Russell also live there. Jessica Russell is an at-large member of the Merrimack Valley School Board. School property taxes in Penacook were $16.74 per $1,000 of assessed valuation for the 2020-2021 school year; the school taxes for the same year in the rest of Concord were $13.81, the lawsuit said. Sheehan said Judge Ruoff's ruling differs from the ConVal ruling in two important ways — the Rand suit was brought by taxpayer plaintiffs, not school districts; and the Rand case argued against the levels of special education differentiated aid provided by the state, not just base adequacy. Plaintiffs argued the low levels of funding from the state result in widely different property tax rates needed to provide an adequate education for our public-school students. For example, in fiscal 2023, New Castle's school property tax rate was just $0.19 per $1,000 of value — while Brookline's was $14.98. At the time the lawsuit was filed in 2022, the state provided an additional $2,100 per student for special education services. The plaintiffs proved that evaluations alone averaged $1,667 per student — leaving almost nothing for actual services. 'The math does not lie,' Ruoff wrote. In 2024, local property taxes funded 83% of special education services. That same year, 70 school districts spent over 25% of their budgets on special education related services, up 10 districts from 2023. During the trial, plaintiffs presented witnesses who spoke to the inability of school districts to educate their students with only adequacy aid, and the financial realities of running a school district and providing necessary and mandated services to students. 'I said it with the ConVal ruling, and I will say it again: it is past time for the Legislature to act,' Sheehan said. 'What will they do? What is their plan to comply? The Legislature has a duty to fix our school funding system to ensure that every child, regardless of their zip code or family income, has access to a high-quality public education and that taxpayers are treated fairly.' Solve the daily Crossword
New York Post
6 minutes ago
- New York Post
Russia launches largest strike on Ukraine in weeks following Trump's call with Putin — as war's civilian death toll nears 13,000
WASHINGTON — Russian dictator Vladimir Putin ordered the largest drone strike on Ukraine in a month on Monday night — just as he hung up the phone with President Trump in a call discussing next steps for peace. As Trump celebrated his significant progress toward ending Russia's war on Ukraine in White House meetings with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and European leaders on Monday, Moscow launched 270 drones and 10 missiles into the war-torn neighbor's territory. It came after at least 14 civilians were killed and more than 50 others were injured in a similar Russian strike ahead of the Monday meeting. Advertisement Among the dead was an entire family, including two children — ages one and 15 — their parents and grandmother, according to the Ukrainian government. They were at home in Kharkiv — roughly 15 miles from the Russian border — in the middle of the night when the fatal blast happened. 'An ordinary apartment block … families with small children, a children's playground, a residential compound,' neighbor Olena Yakusheva told Reuters on Monday while fighting back tears. 3 Ukrainian firefighters search for survivors in a damaged building after a Russian airstrike on Aug. 18, 2025. Anadolu via Getty Images Advertisement That assault added to the war's already horrifying death toll of nearly 13,000 civilians — including 569 children — since Russia invaded in February 2022, according to the Ukrainian Prosecutor General's Office data shared with The Post. Put in perspective, that's more than four times the civilian toll of the Sept. 11, 2011 attacks. 'Several children were killed,' Zelensky's top advisor Andriy Yermak told The Post on Monday. 'How is that possible if [Putin] sat and committed to Trump: 'Yes, I am ready for peace.'' 3 An elderly woman stands with her dog near a damaged brick wall in Kostiantynivka, Ukraine, after a Russian airstrike Monday night. Anadolu via Getty Images Advertisement '[Putin] is a liar — a professional liar,' he added. Trump has previously expressed frustration over Putin launching aerial attacks hours after promising the US president of his desire for peace, but he had not spoken out about the latest attack as of Tuesday afternoon. 'I go home, I tell the first lady, 'You know, I spoke to Vladimir today. We had a wonderful conversation.' She said, 'Oh, really? Another city was just hit,'' he said in July, recounting a call earlier this summer. 'We get a lot of bulls–t thrown at us by Putin, if you want to know the truth,' he said another time. Advertisement Last month was the deadliest since Putin launched his full-scale war on Ukraine three and a half years ago. In July alone, 286 civilians were killed and another 1,388, according to official data. 3 Ukrainian firefighters search for survivors after a Russian air strike on a residential building after a Russian airstrike in Kostiantynivka, Ukraine on Aug. 19. 2025. Anadolu via Getty Images It was the second month in a row that Russia had reached an all-time high in the number of civilians killed during the course of its full-scale war. Also in July, Russia set a new record of 728 drones launched in a single night, blasting past its prior record of 337 set in March. While roughly 60% of the civilian deaths have occurred in communities near the front lines, the remaining 40% have happened far from the war's center, including in the capital city of Kyiv, according to a Monday United Nations report.
