From Inside Higher Ed, February 24, 2025 –
The Dear Colleague letter published on Valentine’s Day by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights was shocking on one hand, but predictable on the other, based on what we have witnessed in the first month of this new administration. Among other things, it suggests that it is against the law to infer race from personal essays, writing samples and participation in extracurricular activities.
While this clearly goes beyond the intent and purpose of the 2023 Supreme Court ruling on the use of race in college admissions and will likely be challenged in the courts, the letter, which signals that all manner of race-conscious programming from cultural centers to graduation ceremonies could be subject to OCR investigation, sends a clear message: This administration seeks to erase any mention or celebration of race in our colleges and universities.
Do we really want to eliminate from our college campuses the African American Club, South Asian Society or Latino Cultural Center? And if yes, then what is to follow? Do we eliminate other cultural and identity-based entities such as women’s centers, Hillel Houses and Italian American clubs? The OCR guidance suggests that the celebration of one’s heritage is “discrimination.” We couldn’t disagree more.
In 2016, the Character Collaborative was founded as an organization of like-minded schools and colleges that sought to signal the importance of considering a student’s character in the admissions process. Both of us served on the board of the collaborative for much of its existence, prior to it being subsumed under the National Association for College Admission Counseling. The Character Collaborative encouraged viewing students in a holistic manner—considering the character traits that define them beyond test scores, grade point averages, socioeconomic status, gender or race.
Members of the Character Collaborative believed that a student’s character mattered and that personality traits such as grit, resilience, responsibility and others contributed to an individual’s potential and success. Much of this was context-based, regardless of race. But cultural backgrounds (influenced by race in many cases) help to define us as individuals. A student from a single-parent family who denied herself the opportunity to participate in school activities because she had to care for a younger sibling; a young man who had to work after school to help support his family after his father was placed on disability; the top student athlete who spent as much time helping his teammates as he did practicing himself: These are examples of students exhibiting character traits in the context of their environment.
Schools and colleges that work to promote character in admissions decisions understand that some students need to have an “anchor” on campus that will help them be successful in college. That is why we see clubs of all sorts—including religious, gender, race and culture-based organizations, to name a few—as essential to a student’s overall college experience. In fact, nonstudents value this, too. We have our church groups, and other groups based on age, gender and culture. It is a natural human tendency to congregate with those who share similar backgrounds—not to the exclusion of joining other groups, but to feel a heightened sense of belonging and identification.
The Character Collaborative advocated for the belief that individuals have much to offer beyond normed measures or biographical indicators, and that these additional traits need to be recognized with opportunity. Creating opportunity results not only in access to higher education, but in fostering an environment where all students, regardless of race, are supported toward success. This will lead to a better prepared workforce and a more functional society—both of which are essential to a thriving nation.
We understand how passionate this administration is about racial discrimination, and we would agree that checking a box on an application showing a student’s race should not result in a bump or dip in the chances of admission. But life is never that simple. Students are more than test scores or their racial backgrounds. What makes them tick? How do they use the resources they had available to them to achieve? How do they step up in school or home to help others? And how will we support them—each of them—when they enroll in our schools and colleges? For access to college is one thing; graduating is another. Turning our backs on affinity groups that support students is a huge mistake. We must do everything we can to help students succeed academically and socially, creating an environment for each student that is conducive to learning and to developing lifelong relationships. Our nation deserves no less.