By Royce West
Texas Senate

On Thursday - September 11, a day that could have been better spent in remembrance of a tragic day in American history, news spread on the announcement of President Donald Trump’s latest policy that will cut funding for ‘Minority-Serving Institutions” (MSI) and limit opportunities that will feed America’s future workforce.

The U.S. Department of Education said it will redirect $350 million in discretionary grant funds currently awarded to colleges and universities, because MSI programs, authorized by The Higher Education Act of 1965, restricts funding to institutions where program eligibility is determined by race or ethnicity-based preferences and quotas.

U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon said in a statement, “Discrimination based on race or ethnicity has no place in the United States. To further our commitment to ending discrimination in all forms across federally supported programs, the Department will no longer award Minority-Serving Institutions grants that discriminate by restricting eligibility to institutions that meet government-mandated racial quotas.”

For the current, 2025 academic year, funding cuts will impact 58 Texas 2-year and 4-year colleges and universities who received grant funding through MSI discretionary grants, including Dallas College, Texas Women’s University and the Tarrant County Community College District locally.

According to the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, grant funds go directly to schools, making awards difficult to track. However, through eligibility under the Developing Hispanic Serving Institutions Program alone, seven Texas colleges and universities received nearly $3.8 million in MSI grants in 2024.

These actions fall in line with the tone of recent changes in state and federal laws that proponents say are designed to eliminate preferential treatment based on race. Opponents like me say certain laws that date back to the Civil Rights Era were put in place to address centuries of America’s differential treatment of citizens based on race, ethnicity and even gender.

This rollback of hard-won rights surfaced in Texas with the debate and passage of HB3979 during the 2021 Legislative Session, which introduced to many, the concept of Critical Race Theory (CRT), which had previously been limited to college and university curriculum, but never taught in public schools.

CRT law in Texas says classroom study of listed historical events, topics and documents are fine, but any course that says that one race or sex is superior to another, or make individuals feel discomfort or guilt due to actions committed in the past connected to race or sex are prohibited. Nationally, CRT laws say discussion of systemic racism and America’s structural inequities are now legal taboos.

The CRT law was followed by equally obtuse, but more targeted attacks on laws that shepherded gains made by minorities. In 2023, Texas passed SB17 that put more teeth into CRT theories. Supporters rigidly maintain that DEI programs create an unlevel playing field, saying diversity, equity and inclusion programs create preferential and discriminatory advantages.

Despite overwhelming opposing testimony taken in days of Senate and Texas House hearings, SB17 dismantles existing programs in Texas’ colleges and universities that were designed to assist students, who due to race, gender, sexual identity, disabilities, culture, or background, faced challenges to their academic success.

SB12, passed into law this year, bans practices in school hiring and employment policy that provide differential treatment based on race, sex, or gender identity, unless they are necessary to comply to state or federal law.

This Trump funding cut somewhat reverses the 45th President’s, 2020 campaign claim that, “I saved Historically Black colleges and universities” through passage of the bipartisan, 2019 Future Act, which according to PolitiFact, provided $255 million in annual funding for minority-serving colleges, including $85 million earmarked for HBCUs under federal Title III regulations.

My non-rhetorical question begs an answer. How can the under-represented and disenfranchised discriminate against the entrenched, majority power structure? What more do they need?

###