The University of Virginia and Cornell deals with Trump set a dangerous precedent  – Serena Mayeri and Amanda Shanor – The Guardian

The University of Virginia and Cornell deals with Trump set a dangerous precedent

By Serena Mayeri and Amanda Shanor

The bespoke agreements are full of peril for the universities, allowing the federal government to quietly exert control

Sun 23 Nov 2025 09.00 EST

In October, President Trump proposed a compact for higher education, a federal takeover of state and private institutions thinly disguised as an offer of preferential funding consideration. Most of the initially targeted universities rightfully have rejected Trump’s unlawful and unconstitutional compact, but some schools, including the University of Virginia and Cornell, have since signed separate agreements with the federal government. Initial media coverage largely portrayed the deals as compromises that allowed the universities to preserve institutional autonomy and resolve outstanding federal investigations. But subsequent revelations about the coercive ouster of UVA’s former president underscore how, in fact, “deals” like these represent a dangerous new front in the Trump administration’s war on higher education.

UVA’s settlement, announced on 22 October, appeared to focus narrowly on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, to safeguard academic freedom, and to avoid external monitoring or monetary penalties. Cornell paid $60m and made various promises related to admissions, DEI, antisemitism, and foreign financial ties in exchange for a restoration of federal funding. UVA’s leaders hailed “a constructive outcome” that “uphold[s] the university’s principles and independence”, while Cornell’s declared that federal funding would be restored without sacrificing academic freedom. But the reality is very different.

UVA’s deal is not a deal at all. It provides that if UVA makes unspecified changes on “DEI” to the federal government’s satisfaction and provides it with data through 2028, the administration will close currently open investigations into the university. The federal government can open new inquiries at any time.

What the agreement does do is contractually bind UVA to the Trump administration’s definition of discrimination. That definition outstrips anything the law requires and, in fact, may force UVA to violate statutory and constitutional law. Far from extricating the university from government oversight, the agreement subjects UVA to federal monitoring and the risk of draconian financial penalties if the federal government decides, at its sole discretion, that the university has not complied.

UVA pledged to adhere to the drastically over- and under-inclusive definition of discrimination contained in non-binding July Department of Justice guidance. That guidance goes far beyond the supreme court’s 2023 decision in SFFA v Harvard, which prohibited certain uses of race in college admissions. SFFA explicitly allows schools to consider, for example, how an individual’s race – “through hardship, inspiration, or otherwise” – has affected their lives, and acknowledges diversity as a laudable goal. The government guidance, by contrast, prohibits the use of race, sex, or other protected characteristics “no matter the program’s labels, objectives, or intentions.”

UVA’s student body has never looked like Virginia; in particular, Black students have been severely underrepresented. Under UVA’s recently deposed president, the university made important strides toward greater inclusion. But the agreement forecloses all efforts to pursue the perfectly constitutional goal of increasing racial diversity in a state with a long history of discrimination and exclusion. The DoJ guidance also bans race-neutral “proxies” – including indicia of socioeconomic status as well as “cultural competence”, “lived experience”, “first generation” status, or “underserved geographic areas” – if they are used to increase the representation of racial or other minorities.

The administration’s guidance is riddled with ambiguities and internal contradictions. For example, its broad definitions of unlawful discrimination could be read to prohibit reliance on virtually any criteria other than those that tend to decrease diversity, such as standardized test scores. Practically speaking, if UVA gives an admissions boost–or even a scholarship–to students who have experienced economic hardship, or to first-generation college students, would that violate its agreement?

Continue/Read Original Article Here: The University of Virginia and Cornell deals with Trump set a dangerous precedent | Serena Mayeri and Amanda Shanor | The Guardian