Today, one month after the acting assistant secretary for civil rights with the United States Department of Education alerted administrators at California State University San Bernardino and 44 other institutions of higher learning that they needed to end the use of racial preferences and stereotypes in education programs and activities, the U.S. Department of Education has opened an investigation into why those sought-after reforms were not implemented.
According to documentation generated by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights, California State University San Bernardino is among 45 colleges and universities that have violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by partnering with “The Ph.D. Project,” an organization that purports to provide doctoral students with insights into obtaining a Ph.D. and networking opportunities, but limits eligibility based on the race of participants.
The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights is also investigating six universities for allegedly awarding impermissible race-based scholarships and one university for allegedly administering a program that segregates students on the basis of race.
“The Department is working to reorient civil rights enforcement to ensure all students are protected from illegal discrimination. The agency has already launched Title VI investigations into institutions where widespread antisemitic harassment has been reported and Title IX investigations into entities which allegedly continue to allow sex discrimination; today’s announcement expands our efforts to ensure universities are not discriminating against their students based on race and race stereotypes,” said U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon. “Students must be assessed according to merit and accomplishment, not prejudged by the color of their skin. We will not yield on this commitment.”
As academic associations go, California State University San Bernardino is in good company.
Other universities now under investigation by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights for allegedly engaging in race-exclusionary practices in their graduate programs include Arizona State University – Main Campus, Boise State University, Cal Poly Humboldt, Carnegie Mellon University, Clemson, Cornell, Duke, Emory, George Mason University, Georgetown, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Montana State University-Bozeman, New York University, Rice, Rutgers, Ohio State – Main Campus, Towson University, Tulane University, the University of Arkansas – Fayetteville, the University of California Berkeley, the University of Chicago, the University of Cincinnati – Main Campus, the University of Colorado – Colorado Springs, the University of Delaware, the University of Kansas, the University of Kentucky, the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor, the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities, the University of Nebraska at Omaha, the University of New Mexico – Main Campus, the University of North Dakota – Main Campus, the University of North Texas – Denton, Notre Dame, the University of Nevada – Las Vegas, the University of Oregon, the University of Rhode Island, the University of Utah, the University of Washington-Seattle, the University of Wisconsin-Madison, the University of Wyoming, Vanderbilt, Washington State University, Washington University in St. Louis and Yale.
In addition, Grand Valley State University, Ithaca College, the New England College of Optometry, the University of Alabama at Birmingham, the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, the University of South Florida, the University of Oklahoma and the Tulsa School of Community Medicine are under investigation for alleged impermissible race-based scholarships and race-based segregation.
On February 14, Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Craig Trainor, writing on behalf of the United States Department of Education, contacted California State University San Bernardino President Tomás D. Morales by email.
“Discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin is illegal and morally reprehensible, Trainor wrote. “Accordingly, I write to clarify and reaffirm the nondiscrimination obligations of schools and other entities that receive federal financial assistance from the United States Department of Education.
“In recent years, American educational institutions have discriminated against students on the basis of race, including white and Asian students, many of whom come from disadvantaged backgrounds and low-income families,” Trainor, who addressed Morales as a colleague, wrote. “These institutions’ embrace of pervasive and repugnant race-based preferences and other forms of racial discrimination have emanated throughout every facet of academia. For example, colleges, universities, and K-12 schools have routinely used race as a factor in admissions, financial aid, hiring, training, and other institutional programming. In a shameful echo of a darker period in this country’s history, many American schools and universities even encourage segregation by race at graduation ceremonies and in dormitories and other facilities.”
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. Proponents of these discriminatory practices have attempted to further justify them—particularly during the last four years—under the banner of ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion,’ smuggling racial stereotypes and explicit race-consciousness into everyday training, programming, and discipline. But under any banner, discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin is, has been, and will continue to be illegal.”
“The Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which clarified that the use of racial preferences in college admissions is unlawful, sets forth a framework for evaluating the use of race by state actors and entities covered by Title VI,” Trainor wrote. “The Court explained that ‘[c]lassifying and assigning students based on their race” is lawful only if it satisfies ‘strict scrutiny,’ which means that any use of race must be narrowly tailored—that is, ‘necessary’—to achieve a compelling interest. To date, the Supreme Court has recognized only two interests as compelling in the context of race-based action: (1) ‘remediating specific, identified instances of past discrimination that violated the Constitution or a statute’; and (2) ‘avoiding imminent and serious risks to human safety in prisons, such as a race riot.’ Nebulous concepts like racial balancing and diversity are not compelling interests. As the [Supreme] Court explained in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, ‘an individual’s race may never be used against him’ and ‘may not operate as a stereotype’ in governmental decision-making.”
Title VI refers to that section of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that prohibits discrimination on the basis of race color, and national origin in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance.
“Federal law thus prohibits covered entities from using race in decisions pertaining to admissions, hiring, promotion, compensation, financial aid, scholarships, prizes, administrative support, discipline, housing, graduation ceremonies, and all other aspects of student, academic, and campus life,” Trainor wrote. “Put simply, educational institutions may neither separate or segregate students based on race, nor distribute benefits or burdens based on race. Although some programs may appear neutral on their face, a closer look reveals that they are, in fact, motivated by racial considerations. And race-based decision-making, no matter the form, remains impermissible.”

Trainor threatened to revoke federal funding to California State University San Bernardino because of its support of diversity, equity and inclusion efforts. He said the Department of Education was giving the university until the end of February to abolish the programs aligned with diversity, equity and inclusion programs.
“The department will no longer tolerate the overt and covert racial discrimination that has become widespread in this nation’s educational institutions,” Craig Trainor stated in the emailed letter.
It is the Trump Administration’s contention that during the Biden Administration and previous administrations, with the active connivance of those within the U.S. Department of Education, colleges and universities across the country violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by associating with the New Jersey-based Ph.D. Project.
The Ph.D. Project founded in 1994 by the multinational professional services and accounting network KPMG International Limited, Citibank, the Global Business Education Network and the Graduate Management Admission Council, maintains it is devoted to the “goal of creating more role models in the front of business classrooms” and exists “to increase diversity in the business world.” According to the Ph.D. Project’s website, it uses “its unique model” as a “nonprofit organization” to assist “Black/African American, Latinx/Hispanic American and Native American members pursue business PhDs with the intent to become university faculty, teaching and guiding students who aspire to a career in business.”
The Trump Administration has implied that the student recruitment and academic acceptance polices at California State University San Bernardino have intimidated white residents within the region from applying there. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, overall in San Bernardino County, 56 percent of residents are Latino or Hispanic, 25 percent white, 9 percent Black, 9 percent Asian, 3 percent Native American/Alaskan Native or Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, and 4 percent are two or more races.
Roughly 90 percent of the students at California State University San Bernardino identify as being a member of a race other than white.
Just about 70 percent of Cal State University San Bernardino students identify as Hispanic, 10 percent as white, 6 percent as Asian, 5 percent as African American, 3 percent as non-resident foreign students, 3 percent as two or more races, and less than 1 percent as Native American/Alaskan Native or Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander.

Some consider the Trump Administration’s focus on withdrawing federal funding from California State University San Bernardino to be misplaced, as the Ph.D. Program’s penetration at the university is negligible. Fewer than one percent of California State University San Bernardino students are on a study path toward doctorates, while 13 percent are master’s degree candidates, according to the university’s statistics.
According to a University of California San Bernardino spokeswoman, “Cal State San Bernardino has done nothing wrong in supporting higher education opportunities for people from all kinds of backgrounds in a way that meets the expectations of, and is beneficial to, all California residents.”