{shortcode-916011fb1b2783b511bca07c35bcade3bd47dc44}

The clock is ticking on Harvard’s ability to withhold the Class of 2029’s admissions statistics from the federal government.

On Oct. 9, the University will hit a public deadline to turn over documents on its admissions process to the Department of Education, which has been investigating Harvard since May to determine whether it has illegally used race to evaluate applicants.

In October or November, Harvard will run up against a federal deadline to turn over demographic data on its incoming class to the National Center for Education Statistics — a division of the Education Department. And before the end of the school year, the Education Department will impose new reporting requirements that compel universities to release admissions data broken down by race, sex, grades, and test scores.

When the deadlines roll around, the Trump administration may be ready to pounce. Since the Supreme Court issued a 2023 decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard that ruled race-conscious admissions policies unconstitutional, Harvard has tried to keep its demographic data discreet — wary that either a drop in its Black and Latino enrollment or a steady level could be construed as discrimination.

Now, the White House says it will use its new access to admissions data to verify that colleges have not replaced race-conscious admissions with “overt and hidden racial proxies.” Officials have not said how they will use the data to determine whether schools are breaking the law. But both the Justice and Education Departments have warned universities that they would seek punishments if they were found to continue considering race in any way.

When it comes to analyzing the racial composition reported in the admissions data, University of New Mexico law professor Vinay Harpalani said it ultimately may not matter what percentage of Black and Latino students Harvard admits.

“The Trump administration could say, ‘Okay, even if the number of Black students dropped, we think it should have dropped more,’” said Harpalani, who studies constitutional law and race in law.

He added that the administration may turn to statistical models used in the SFFA case to argue that any shifts in Harvard’s demographics were too moderate relative to the change that would be expected if its admissions office was not considering race. Harvard argued before the Court that if it did not consider race when deciding the Class of 2019, the proportion of Black admits would drop from 14 percent to 6 percent.

Especially with access to extensive data on the characteristics of applicants, admits, and enrollees, the Education Department has plenty of tools at its disposal to argue that Harvard’s admissions policies violate the law, Harpalani said.

If the Trump administration accuses Harvard of racial discrimination, it could sue the University or strip its funding under Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which bans race-based discrimination in federally funded programs. But to do so, the administration would have to prove in court that its accusations hold up.

So far, the Trump administration has not substantially changed the law on the use of race in admissions, but it has suggested that it intends to enforce an aggressive interpretation of federal civil rights law and the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling.

The SFFA decision explicitly permits colleges and universities to consider an applicant’s own discussion of experiences related to race, “so long as that discussion is concretely tied to a quality of character or unique ability that the particular applicant can contribute to the university.”

But in March guidance, the Education Department wrote that universities that “require” students to disclose their race on essays “are likely illegally attempting to do indirectly what cannot be done directly.” The guidance did not change the letter of the law — but it signaled that the Trump administration may crack down on essay prompts added by many universities after the SFFA decision that require students to discuss their cultural background or experiences with adversity.

Harvard’s application currently asks applicants to describe the “life experiences that shaped who you are,” noting that the school “has long recognized the importance of enrolling a student body with a diversity of perspectives and experiences.”

Harvard spokesperson Sarah E. Kennedy O’Reilly wrote in a statement that “Harvard continues to comply with the Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions.”

The Education Department also wrote in February that it would consider it illegal “for an educational institution to eliminate standardized testing to achieve a desired racial balance or to increase racial diversity.” That could rule out a broad set of tactics that universities might use to maintain diversity in their incoming classes.

Some advocates have suggested that universities should switch to class-based affirmative action following the SFFA decision — like the lawyer Richard D. Kahlenberg ’85, a vocal proponent of the idea that prioritizing socioeconomic diversity could increase schools’ racial diversity without involving racial preferences.

Peter F. Lake ’81, a law professor at Stetson University and Director of the Center for Excellence in Higher Education Law and Policy, said that “a lot of folks thought that following Richard Kahlenberg’s advice after the SFFA decision might be the way to go.”

Now, he expects that the Trump administration may be “suspicious of even that type of maneuver.”

Northwestern University law professor Paul A. Gowder said that the SFFA decision ruled out using class-based preferences to bolster racial diversity, but that it remains “absolutely permissible for Harvard to say one of the things that we sincerely, sincerely want to do is have most people who aren’t rich showing up in our classrooms.”

But even admissions changes that are not linked to race may not keep Harvard in the clear, Gowder said.

“They’re going to view anything that Harvard does as a racial proxy,” he said. “This is not sincere policymaking. This is score-settling.”

Harvard and other universities may decide to preemptively cede ground on their admissions practices, rather than taking the Trump administration to court again, or negotiate resolutions outside of the courtroom.

By the time the Justice Department issued a July 29 memo describing “recruitment strategies targeting specific geographic areas, institutions, or organizations chosen primarily because of their racial or ethnic composition” as potentially unlawful, Harvard had already backed off from one program that could have drawn scrutiny. The Undergraduate Minority Recruitment Program, which was quietly ended in May, had conducted outreach to potential applicants from underrepresented groups for more than 50 years.

Since Trump took office, the White House has targeted higher education, and Harvard has notably fought back against targeted initiatives that it believes are unlawful for the administration to be advancing.

“I think we’re at a very interesting pivot point in trying to figure out exactly how the rule of law operates, and I think Harvard is ground zero,” Lake said.

—Staff writer Cassidy M. Cheng can be reached at cassidy.cheng@thecrimson.com. Follow her on X @cassidy_cheng28.

—Staff writer Elias M. Valencia can be reached at elias.valencia@thecrimson.com. Follow him on X @eliasmvalencia.