With a change in administration comes policy changes—no matter how drastic. It was no different when President Donald J. Trump got into office for a second non-consecutive term. Among the many fulfilled and unfulfilled promises he made to his voters was the promise to end DEI programs. Not long after being inaugurated, President Trump signed several executive orders directed at dismantling DEI programs across the nation. Accordingly, schools across the country have begun to restructure their programs to comply with the executive orders, and the University of Michigan is among one of many to do the same.
On March 27th, University of Michigan’s President Ono sent an email across the school announcing the discontinuation of the Office of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (ODEI) and the Office for Health Equity and Inclusion (OHEI). The email cited two appeals court cases, executive orders, and other federal developments as the reasons for the change in programs. The email came shortly after the university ended its merit-based LEAD Scholars program, a merit-based scholarship program aimed at helping underrepresented students.
How did everything come to be the way it is now, and can President Trump do this? The answer exists in Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Congress’s Spending Clause.
Simply put, Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution states that Congress has the power to collect taxes and spend the money. Title VI of the CRA states that any institution that receives money from the federal government must not partake in discriminatory practices. Thus, noncompliance results in the funds being revoked. Historically, conditional aids have been contested; for example, when South Dakota contested Congress’s ability to withhold federal funds for highways if the state didn’t lower the drinking age. The Supreme Court of the United States in South Dakota v. Dole (1987) agreed with the federal government, stating that the conditions were not forceful enough that it could not be considered the federal government overpowering states. This case strengthened the federal government’s ability to utilize the Spending Clause to force states (and institutions) to comply with federal standards.
For schools specifically, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals argued that schools receiving federal funds and failing to comply with Title VI could have funds withheld. Later in Grove City University v. Bell, the Supreme Court expanded the scope of conditional federal funds to private schools that did not directly apply to receive federal funds. If the students of private schools receive federal scholarships or grants, the school is indirectly benefiting by having these students. Because of this, the school must comply with federal regulations. However, this case restricted the compliance to just programs or activities that are relevant to the case. In response, Congress passed the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987, forcing the entire institution, rather than mere parts of it, to comply.
Why do these matter? Schools are outside the scope of the federal government, constitutionally speaking. Congress’ powers are limited to those spelled out in Article 1, Section 8 of the federal constitution, and school is nowhere mentioned. Therefore, under the state police power doctrine, schools fall squarely under states. They have broad powers in dealing with schools and universities. However, with the aforementioned statutory and common law precedents, universities across the country have come to be under the influence of federal regulations. The University of Michigan, for example, is a federal contractor; it produces products and research that are useful to the government, and the school receives money in return. It risks losing federal funding when the federal government deems it noncompliant with their regulations and orders. In just the season of FY ‘24, the university received around $1.17 billion from the federal government.
One more relevant case comes from the Supreme Court’s summer 2023 docket: The infamous Students for Fair Admission, Inc. v. Harvard.
The Supreme Court overturned the long-practiced precedent of affirmative action in college admission. There had been a few Supreme Court cases on affirmative action prior to the Harvard case: California v. Bakke (1978) and Grutter v. Bolinger (2003). In Bakke—a highly fractured decision—Justice Powell opined that the consideration of race in college admission in certain cases was permissible. Then, in Grutter in 2003, the court upheld Michigan’s affirmative action in its Law School. However, this time, the court showed signs of reluctance in letting it happen indefinitely. For affirmative action to hold, the Court asserted that it must serve a compelling state interest and be temporary. Justice O’Connor wrote, “The Court expects that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today.” Exactly twenty years and six days later, the Court in Harvard overturned the constitutionality of affirmative action.
It signaled a significant shift in the political and social climates of the United States. Both affirmative actions and DEI programs have received mounting criticism. Ideally, affirmative action and DEI programs should help historically disadvantaged and underrepresented groups without harming others. In Grutter, the Supreme Court’s qualifier in allowing schools to use affirmative action is that it must serve a compelling state interest: to help the historically disadvantaged. However, to critics, these policies inherently harm the remaining groups—like Asians having a harder time getting into Harvard than their African American peers with similar statistics.
Now, with the dismantling of the Department of Education as well, the current socio-political climates of the United States and the University of Michigan seem bleak. Nevertheless, Michigan students must stay resilient, strong, and hopeful. We must realize that our voices do matter and can make a difference. Vote in the local elections, partake in activism, and stay in touch with your representatives. There is a midterm election coming up in 2026. If we wish to see change, we must take the one power we have and go vote as we did in 2022 as a response to the 2022 abortion case, Dobbs v. Jackson. Justice Gorsuch, in 2005, the Associate Deputy Attorney General at the time, wrote that liberals tend to over-utilize courts to get the result they want; this leads to the under-utilization of the legislative process (the body that creates laws—the body the populace directly votes on) and circumvention of democratic processes. Perhaps it is time we listen and start utilizing the legislative branch, change the saw-tooth pattern; and raise voter turnout rates for gubernatorial, presidential, and local elections at every level.
