51³Ô¹Ï

¡°Divide and conquer¡± is a well-known tactic used by the powerful to subdue opposition. And given the Trump administration¡¯s opposition to DEI, it is perhaps unsurprising that the administration sees minority-serving higher education institutions (MSIs) as something of an ideological foe.

On 10 September, the Trump administration announced it would for grant programmes that require race- or ethnicity-based eligibility thresholds at MSIs. That resulted in funding cuts to the nation¡¯s over 600 Hispanic-serving institutions (HSIs), as well as on Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-serving institutions (AANAPISIs), Predominantly Black institutions (PBIs), Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian-serving institutions (ANNHs), and Native American-serving non-tribal institutions (NASNTIs).

Yet excluded from the list were Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) and Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCUs). Indeed,?only five days later, the administration pledged $500 million in ¡°new¡± funding exclusively to these two older categories of MSIs.

MSIs collectively half of undergraduate students of colour in the US and nearly 30 per cent of all undergraduates. HBCUs and TCUs have been historically underfunded and deserve robust support. Yet so do the other MSIs ¨C which, unlike HBCUs and TCUs, are defined by Congress by the percentage of a specific demographic on their campus, rather than because they were specifically founded to serve certain minority communities.

HBCUs were created in direct response to profound segregation and exclusion at historically white institutions (HWIs), which African American students well into the 20th?century. TCUs emerged amid the which gave Tribal nations authority over their own programmes and educational entities following centuries of federal neglect and discrimination against Native people. Both sets of institutions, then, are rooted in resistance to exclusion and cultural erosion. But that resistance draws its strength from coalitions with other minority groups, served by different MSIs.

The designations of the other MSIs ¨C which have enjoyed in Congress over the past few decades ¨C recognise in other communities of colour. HSIs serve of the nation¡¯s Latinx undergraduates, for instance. PBIs ¨C institutions with at least 40 per cent Black students ¨C provide of Black students in urban areas; and AANAPISIs serve low-income Asian American and Pacific Islander students and challenge the dangerous myth, which assumes that Asian American students don¡¯t face educational disadvantages.

By redirecting funds away from these institutions, the Trump administration is not addressing inequities; instead, it is creating new ones ¨C and doing so divisively. It is a false choice to suggest that the much-needed advancement of HBCUs and TCUs must come at the expense of other MSIs. This approach undermines the collective mission of these institutions ¨C and the that MSIs have built over the past few decades.

Inevitably, HBCUs and TCUs will be very wary of speaking up for the other MSIs, given that the Trump administration often retaliates when it perceives itself to have been criticised. Meanwhile, the other MSIs will now have to draft complex legal and general arguments for funds that were taken away from them and given to the HBCUs and TCUs. Once destroyed, the solidarity needed to push for comprehensive and equitable funding will be hard to rebuild.

Education secretary Linda McMahon has justified the cuts by citing spurious concerns about ¡°race-based quotas¡± and framing the new approach as ¡°race-neutral¡±. The new focus will be on ¡°underprepared or under-resourced students¡±, she added.

This kind of language is a reflection of a broader trend in US policy discourse: the invocation of race-neutrality to sidestep the realities of structural racism. In practice, race-neutral funding dilutes the effectiveness of MSI programmes by expanding eligibility for funding to institutions that may not have the same histories, missions, or . Programmes designed specifically for first-generation students of colour will close, including mentoring programmes, academic support programmes, and undergraduate research opportunities.

We should also consider the administration¡¯s decision in the broader context of Trump¡¯s political strategy. By directing more resources to HBCUs and TCUs, he is positioning himself as a champion of Black and Native communities, as opposed to Latinx and others. But even that positioning is uncut by the administration¡¯s work to that focus on the history of slavery, segregation, and .

While the immediate funding cuts are concerning, the long-term risks are even more severe. If the Trump administration narrows its support for MSIs by arguing that ¡°race-neutral¡± models are the only legitimate approach, state lawmakers and philanthropic organisations could be motivated to do the same and cut their own funding for MSIs.

For policymakers and higher education leaders, then, the challenge is clear. Push back against the manufactured scarcity and advocate for sustained and equitable investment into all of the MSIs ¨C or risk seeing the reopening of the very opportunity gaps that such institutions have spent decades working to close.

?is the Samuel DeWitt Proctor endowed chair and distinguished professor at Rutgers University and executive director of the Rutgers Center for Minority Serving Institutions.