Latest news with #affirmativeaction
Forbes
a day ago
- Business
- Forbes
Affirmative Action Was Just The Start—Now Racial Progress Is Reversing
The end of affirmative action marked a turning point—but the deeper erosion of racial equity in higher education is just beginning. Among the many threats facing higher education today, the steep declines in Black student enrollment caused by the Supreme Court's 2023 decision to eliminate race-conscious affirmative action continue to be a challenge most competitive universities are struggling to overcome. The alarming decline in Black student enrollment these last two years coupled with the dismantling of support programs, open a veil to what's ahead: a devastating setback in economic mobility and progress for Black communities. The effects of this decision are already being felt. In Fall 2025, Black student enrollment dropped from 9% to 3% at Boston University, 15% to 5% at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), 7% to 3% at Tufts University, and the trend is similar at most top schools around our nation. Diverse perspectives in classrooms and boardrooms aren't just a moral imperative—they are essential for building a workforce prepared to address the rapid evolution and challenges of a global society. Education is a tool many must use to overcome systemic barriers and create generational prosperity for themselves, their families, and their communities. Education drives social, career, and economic mobility. These significant enrollment declines not only jeopardize the future of Black families but also diminish the diversity of our workforce. The U.S. Senate Joint Economic Committee states in a 2022 report that during most of the past 50 years, Black Americans have faced unemployment rates that would be considered recessionary if they applied to the whole population. The SCOTUS ruling threatens to deepen this inequity. The progress made over the past 60 years has suffered a damaging setback, and this is only year one with Fall 2025 quickly approaching. But with mounting pressure from multiple directions, will elite universities rise to the moment or allow progress to slip away?
The Independent
27-05-2025
- Business
- The Independent
Trump plans to cut last $100 million worth of contracts with Harvard and remove all government funding
The Trump administration is directing agencies to consider ending or transitioning about $100 million worth of contracts with Harvard University, effectively severing the remainder of the federal government's financial relationship with the university after months of threatening funding cuts worth billions. In a letter on Tuesday, the administration's General Services Administration recommended that agencies review existing contracts and avoid making new deals with Harvard. The message, obtained by The Independent, accuses the university of a 'deeply troubling pattern' of potential discriminatory hiring, tolerating antisemitism, and continuing to use race-based affirmative action in admissions, despite the Supreme Court striking the practice down in a 2023 ruling. As evidence, the letter points to the addition of a remedial math class for incoming freshmen, claiming the course is among the 'direct results of employment discriminatory factors, instead of merit, in admissions decisions.' (After the 2023 ruling, Black enrollment at Harvard declined from 18 to 14 percent.) The contract review applies to about 30 deals, and critical contracts might not immediately be terminated but rather transitioned elsewhere at an appropriate time, a government official familiar with the letter told The Independent. The Independent has contacted Harvard for comment. The funding review comes after months of tension between the university and the administration, with the White House accusing the Ivy League school of violating civil rights law over its handling of campus antisemitism and pro-Palestine protests, and Harvard arguing the administration is trying to undermine its academic independence. On Monday, President Trump complained that the university had not provided the government information on foreign students the president said were 'radicalized lunatics' and 'troublemakers' who 'should not be let back into our Country.' In a separate post, Trump said he was 'considering taking Three Billion Dollars of Grant Money away from a very antisemitic Harvard' and giving it to trade schools. Last week, the administration attempted to block Harvard's ability to enroll international students, prompting the university to sue. A judge temporarily reinstated the school's ability to enroll such students, and a hearing is scheduled in the case on Thursday. The administration has also threatened to end Harvard's tax-exempt status and has frozen billions in federal funds to the university. Last month, the university sued to restore its funding, rather than agree to a series of sweeping demands from the administration to make changes like cooperating with federal immigration officials, overhauling its admissions policies, and agreeing to a viewpoint diversity audit.
Mail & Guardian
27-05-2025
- Business
- Mail & Guardian
Ramaphosa: Racial redress is not stunting growth
President Cyril Ramaphosa.(@PresidencyZA/X) Racial redress is not a hindrance to Ramaphosa told Freedom Front Plus leader Corné Mulder he failed to understand how those who questioned affirmative action could not see the real problem is black people do not own a big enough share of the means of economic production in the country. 'I am rather surprised and taken aback when I hear that policies of black economic empowerment militate against the growth of our economy. That, I find quite surprising because I work from the starting point that our economy was held back over many years by the racist policies of the past,' he said. Apartheid prevented the majority of South Africans from playing a meaningful role in the economy, he continued. 'Black people were brought in as hewers and wood and drawers of water and they were just brought in as labourers. They were not even seen as consumers. They were not seen as active players in the economic landscape of our country.' Mulder had suggested that the government should rewrite economic policy to create growth, and in that process abandon affirmative action and the concept of expropriation without compensation because it was not serving the country. Ramaphosa countered that the reality of apartheid, including the wholesale exclusion of black South Africans from the economy, could not be forgotten as if it were merely 'a bad dream'. 'You would never see a black person being made to advertise either soap or milk or anything. Today every advert you look at has got black people because it is now being realised that it is black people who are the consumers.' But, he added, there must be a realisation that black South Africans must moreover command the levers of the economy to reduce inequality and poverty. 'So I am really baffled, I am baffled by people who still hanker for policies of the past and to have you, Sir, say black economic empowerment is holding our economy back,' he said. 'It is the partial and exclusive ownership of the means of production in our country that is holding this economy from growing. 'Why can't black people be made to own productive aspects of our economy, why can't they be rich as well?' The national debate about affirmative action has been revived by the The Democratic Alliance's court challenges to the In Tuesday's question session, MPs from the Patriotic Alliance (PA), uMkhonto weSiswe party and African Christian Democratic Party challenged the president about the racial classification in South Africa 30 years after the end of apartheid. The PA's Marlon Daniels demanded to know why coloured, Indian, Khoisan and white South Africans were not deemed African. Ramaphosa said it was regrettable that racial classification endured, but that the very aim of redress was creating a society where it no longer had any place. 'It is most unfortunate that the classifications that we have inherited from apartheid have tended to continue and our clear intent that we should see those classifications of our people withering away because we are all Africans, we are all South Africans. 'To rid ourselves of that form of classification we do need to take steps to say this group, and that group and that group were previously disadvantaged and we therefore have to take steps to ensure they are put in a better position.' It did not imply discrimination, he said. 'There should never be a sense that there is any group that is more special than any other, we are all equal. As we move forward, our objective is to consolidate the unity of our people as one people, as Africans.' He said those who argued against affirmative action were trying to put a plaster on the deep wound inflicted by apartheid. 'That sore does need to be lanced, it needs to be properly repaired and to repair it you need to go to the depth of it … you've got to name everything for what it is because unless you do so, you will never be able to rid our country of the legacy of the past.'
Forbes
25-05-2025
- Forbes
AI For College Admissions Essays: A Proposed Ethical Framework
CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA - JUNE 29: People walk on the campus of the University of North Carolina ... More Chapel Hill on June 29, 2023 in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that race-conscious admission policies used by Harvard and the University of North Carolina violate the Constitution, bringing an end to affirmative action in higher education. (Photo by) Across the country, students are turning to AI for help drafting one of the most personal pieces of their college applications: the personal statement and college supplemental essays. According to Acuity Insights' 2024 survey of over 1,000 applicants, 35% of students said they used AI tools like ChatGPT or Grammarly to support their applications, and 76% of those users relied on these tools for the majority of their work. Yet 63% said they didn't know how much AI use was permissible, and only 42% received clear guidance from schools. Rather than banning these tools or ignoring them, we need a shared framework that helps students use AI ethically and responsibly while preserving the integrity of the application process. Here's a simple framework I propose, adapted from my research on AI literacy and admissions strategy. It's called SAGE: Source, Analyze, Generate, Edit. Each step guides students through a thoughtful, transparent process in using AI in the essay writing phase of college admissions. Rule#1: Source your story, not someone else's. Before using any tool, reflect. What is the story only you can tell? AI can help you identify themes in your narrative, but it shouldn't replace your voice. Use journaling, voice memos, or trusted conversations to identify experiences that define who you are. In my book Get Real and Get In, I encourage students to engage in the 'When I Was Little' exercise. This activity prompts you to recall your childhood dreams and interests, like wanting to be a roller coaster test-rider or a superhero. These early passions can reveal underlying values and motivations that are still relevant today. By tapping into these authentic experiences, students can craft essays that truly reflect their unique identities. Avoid asking AI to 'write my college essay about X.' Instead: Use AI to brainstorm questions or themes based on your own experiences. Use AI to help uncover what to write about, not how. My custom College Admissions X-Factor GPT is designed specifically for this purpose. The GPT guides you through a series of reflective questions to help identify your unique experiences, values, and intellectual passions. For example, you might prompt it with: AI becomes a powerful tool when it reflects you back to yourself. That's how it adds value to the writing process by acting as a mirror, not a mouthpiece. Rule #2: Analyze the prompt and your intention. Each essay prompt asks something different and reflects the unique values of each college or university. What is the college truly looking for? Use AI as a thinking partner to understand what the prompt is really asking and what part of yourself you want to highlight. Try asking AI: Rule #3: Generate with caution. AI can be a helpful creative partner, but like any collaborator it should follow your lead. Used wisely, AI can help you get unstuck. It can suggest structure, compare tones, rephrase awkward transitions, or offer a few ways to start a paragraph. This is especially useful if writing isn't your strongest skill, or if you're staring at a blinking cursor and don't know where to begin. But there's a difference between using AI to clarify your message and asking it to invent your story. Letting AI generate full paragraphs or entire drafts can lead to several problems: Start with your own ideas. Free-write, bullet-point, record a voice memo; whatever helps you capture your thoughts honestly. Then, invite AI into the process as a second set of eyes, not a ghostwriter. Once AI gives you suggestions, rewrite them in your own voice. Keep what works, revise what doesn't, and delete what feels off. Never submit anything you haven't reviewed, rewritten, and fully made your own. Rule #3: Edit for voice, accuracy, and authenticity. Generative AI can improve grammar, streamline wordiness, and suggest more polished phrasing. But only you can ensure the essay reflects your actual experience, values, and tone. If you let AI overwrite your voice, you risk sounding generic or inauthentic. So what is 'voice,' exactly? It's the unique way you communicate your own perspective. It shows up in the details you choose, the metaphors that feel natural to you, the rhythm of your sentences, and the level of vulnerability you're comfortable with. Admissions officers are attuned to what it doesn't feel real. If your essay reads like it was written by a 35-year-old data analyst, but you're a 17-year-old aspiring biology major, that mismatch can work against you. Think of this step as closing the loop: AI may have helped you get started or stay organized, but now it's your job to make sure the final product is unmistakably yours. If you're a teacher, counselor, or admissions officer, now is the time to create clear, proactive guidance. College essays remain one of the most personal components of an application. That hasn't changed. What's changed is the tools that students have available to arrive at that voice. By offering students a framework like SAGE, we can help students gain additional support in the application process and help them to amplify, not muffle, their unique voices.
New York Times
25-05-2025
- Politics
- New York Times
For Trump, Civil Rights Protections Should Help White Men
In his drive to purge diversity efforts in the federal government and beyond, President Trump has expressed outright hostility to civil rights protections. He ordered federal agencies to abandon some of the core tenets of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, on the basis that they represented a 'pernicious' attempt to make decisions based on diversity rather than merit. But in recent weeks, Mr. Trump has turned to those same measures — not to help groups that have historically been discriminated against, but to remedy what he sees as the disenfranchisement of white men. The pattern fits into a broader trend in the administration, as Trump officials pick and choose which civil rights protections they want to enforce, and for whom. Across the government, agencies that have historically worked to fight discrimination against Black people, women and other groups have pivoted to investigating institutions accused of favoring them. 'The plain message that they are conveying is: If you even think about, talk about or claim to be in favor of diversity, of equity, of inclusion, of accessibility, you will be targeted,' said Maya Wiley, the president and chief executive of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. 'They're conveying that white men are the most discriminated against people in American society,' she added, 'and therefore entitled to affirmative action.' The White House has defended its actions as part of an effort to put merit ahead of diversity. 'The Trump administration is dedicated to advancing equality, combating discrimination and promoting merit-based decisions, upholding the rule of law as outlined in the U.S. Constitution,' said Harrison Fields, a White House spokesman. During his campaign for president, Mr. Trump expressed concern about what he called 'a definite anti-white feeling in this country.' Now in his second term, he has made quick work of addressing it. He has made a major push to root out programs that promote diversity, which he has suggested lead to the hiring of incompetent people. In recent weeks, agencies have launched investigations that signal the administration's shift in its civil rights enforcement. On Monday, the administration said it had opened a civil rights investigation into the city of Chicago to see if its mayor or others had engaged in a pattern of discrimination by hiring a number of Black people to senior positions. The investigation came after Chicago's mayor, Brandon Johnson, praised the number of Black people in top city jobs during remarks at a local church. Speaking to congregants, Mr. Johnson said some of his detractors had claimed he only ever talks about 'the hiring of Black people.' 'No,' he continued. 'What I'm saying is when you hire our people, we always look out for everybody else. We are the most generous people on the planet.' The head of the civil rights division at the Justice Department, Harmeet K. Dhillon, said the comments justified investigating the city's hiring practices to see if they discriminated against people who are not Black. The Office for Civil Rights at the Education Department is investigating whether Chicago's public school system is violating the Civil Rights Act with its 'Black Students Success Plan,' alleging that it favors one group of academically underperforming students over others. And last month, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission launched an investigation at Harvard University, alleging that the school had engaged in discriminatory hiring because it showed a significant increase in the percentage of minority, female and nonbinary faculty earning tenure over the past decade while the rates for white men declined. In a letter sent to the university on April 25, the acting chairwoman of the E.E.O.C., Andrea R. Lucas, said she had started the investigation based on the university's expressed desire for 'demographic diversification of the faculty.' Ms. Lucas said she believed the university may have violated the Civil Rights Act by intentionally treating individuals of certain groups differently from another protected class. While she wrote that other groups could have been discriminated against, including Asians, men, or straight people who applied for jobs or student training programs, her justification was focused almost exclusively on the outcomes of white men. In her letter, Ms. Lucas cited now-deleted statistics retrieved from the university's archives that showed that the percentage of tenured white male faculty dropped from 64 percent in 2013 to 56 percent in 2023. She also noted that while white men made up 56 percent of tenured faculty, they represented only 32 percent of tenure-track faculty. The data, she wrote, gave her 'reason to believe that these trends and the underlying pattern or practice of discrimination based on race and sex have continued in 2024 and are ongoing.' The E.E.O.C. investigation, which was first reported by the conservative news site The Washington Free Beacon, is one of several the administration has launched in its battle to get the nation's oldest university to bend to the president's agenda. Both the E.E.O.C. and Harvard declined to comment for this article. Ms. Lucas's letter to Harvard was sent two days after Mr. Trump issued an executive order banning the use of 'disparate impact,' a legal theory that helps determine whether certain policies disadvantaged certain groups, even unintentionally. Conservatives have denounced disparate impact because it relies on outcome data to allege and prove discrimination — the basis on which Ms. Lucas lodged her charge against Harvard. Even those who have criticized the use of disparate impact in the past said the E.E.O.C. investigation smacked of hypocrisy and retribution. 'This is obviously hypocritical on its face,' said Michael J. Petrilli, the president of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, a conservative think tank and a vocal critic of disparate impact analyses. 'Here the administration is using statistics to launch an investigation, and just two weeks ago, they said that they were going to ban this practice. So, which is it?' The E.E.O.C., the nation's primary litigator of workplace discrimination, has become a powerful tool for the Trump administration as it tries to pressure institutions that do not align with the president's agenda. Last month, it began questioning the hiring practices of 20 of the country's biggest law firms, claiming that their efforts to recruit Black and Hispanic lawyers and create a more diverse work force may have discriminated against white candidates. The E.E.O.C. investigation into Harvard was also unusual, former E.E.O.C. officials said. Using diversity statements and data as evidence is extremely rare, as was a charge of this nature being initiated by a commissioner rather than an individual claiming workplace discrimination. Jenny R. Yang, a former chairwoman of the commission, said that the basis for the investigation would not make for a strong case on either disparate impact or disparate treatment theory. 'Aspiring to promote diversity is not the same at all as considering race and gender in an individual hiring decision,' Ms. Yang said. 'They're essentially doing what they falsely disparaged disparate impact of doing.' In a statement, Mr. Fields, the White House spokesman, reiterated the administration's position on Mr. Trump's civil rights goals, and the president's grievances against Harvard. 'The Trump administration is committed to advancing equality, combating antisemitism, promoting merit-based decisions and enforcing the basic terms of government contracts,' Mr. Fields said. But civil rights experts said the administration's goals are clear. Catherine E. Lhamon, who previously served as the head of the Office for Civil Rights at the Education Department, said the investigations showed a pattern of 'performative misapplication of federal civil rights law.' 'The Trump administration's transparently vendetta-driven investigations categorically do not focus on fulfilling Congress's guarantee that federal nondiscrimination protections apply equally,' Ms. Lhamon said. 'Civil rights, properly understood, do not pit one group against another but protect all of us.'
