Over 50 universities are under investigation as part of Trump's anti-DEI crackdown

Npr - Mar 14th, 2025

The U.S. Department of Education has initiated investigations into 52 universities across 41 states for allegedly using racial preferences and stereotypes in their educational programs. The probe targets graduate programs at institutions partnering with The PhD Project, a nonprofit supporting underrepresented groups in the pursuit of doctoral degrees in business. The Department contends these partnerships and certain scholarships are race-exclusionary, violating the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Schools under scrutiny include state universities, Ivy Leagues like Cornell and Yale, and private institutions such as Duke and MIT. The investigations follow a directive warning against race-based preferences in various institutional practices.

This wave of investigations aligns with the Trump administration's broader agenda to eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, perceiving them as discriminatory against white and Asian students. The move has sparked legal challenges by major teacher unions, criticizing the Education Department's stance as ambiguous. Concurrently, the Department is also investigating universities over antisemitic discrimination, with some schools facing dual inquiries. These developments emerge amidst significant staffing cuts within the Department's Office for Civil Rights, potentially impacting its capacity to manage the growing caseload of complaints and investigations.

Trump Administration Higher Education Civil Rights Act Teacher Unions Diversity Programs U.S. Department Of Education The Ph D Project Racial Preferences Legal Investigations Graduate Programs

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

6.4

Moderately Fair

Read with skepticism

The article offers a timely and relevant examination of the Department of Education's investigations into alleged racial preferences at universities. It effectively highlights key issues, such as the involvement of prominent institutions and the potential impact on diversity programs. However, the story's reliance on a single perspective limits its balance and depth. The lack of responses from the universities or The PhD Project and the need for further verification of specific claims affect the article's overall accuracy and source quality. Despite these limitations, the article remains clear and engaging, with the potential to spark public interest and debate on significant educational policy issues.

Accuracy

The story presents several factual claims that align with the reported actions of the U.S. Department of Education investigating universities for alleged racial preferences. The article accurately mentions the number of universities involved and the nature of the allegations, such as partnerships with The PhD Project. However, specific details about how The PhD Project operates and the exact nature of the alleged violations require further verification. The mention of staff cuts at the Department of Education and their potential impact on investigations is another area needing confirmation. Overall, while the article is largely accurate, it would benefit from additional verification of specific claims and more detailed sourcing.

Balance

The article provides a predominantly one-sided view by focusing on the allegations and actions of the Department of Education without offering substantial input from the affected universities or The PhD Project. While it mentions lawsuits filed by teacher unions against the department's memo, the perspectives of the universities under investigation are not adequately represented. This lack of diverse viewpoints could lead to a perception of bias, as the article primarily reflects the stance of the Department of Education and its critics. Including responses from the universities or The PhD Project would enhance the balance and provide a fuller picture of the situation.

Clarity

The article is generally clear and well-structured, providing a coherent narrative of the events. It effectively outlines the key points, such as the number of universities involved and the nature of the allegations. The language is straightforward, making the content accessible to a general audience. However, the article could benefit from clearer differentiation between confirmed facts and claims that require further verification. Overall, the story is presented in a logical and understandable manner.

Source quality

The article relies on information from the Department of Education and mentions statements from Education Secretary Linda McMahon. However, it lacks direct quotes or responses from the universities involved, The PhD Project, or other independent experts. The absence of these voices limits the depth and reliability of the reporting. The reliance on a single perspective, primarily that of the Department of Education, without corroborating sources, affects the overall credibility and impartiality of the article.

Transparency

The article does not sufficiently disclose the methodology behind the Department of Education's investigations or the criteria used to determine violations. While it mentions the 1964 Civil Rights Act as a legal basis, it lacks detailed explanation of how the act is being interpreted in these cases. Additionally, the article does not clarify any potential conflicts of interest or biases that may influence the reporting. Greater transparency regarding the sources of information and the context of the allegations would improve the article's clarity and trustworthiness.