Maryland Attorney General Joins Coalition Opposing Federal Data Collection on College Admissions

Attorney General Anthony G. Brown of Maryland has joined forces with 17 other state attorneys general to formally oppose a proposal from the Department of Education that would mandate colleges and universities to collect and submit extensive data linking race to various aspects of student enrollment and academic performance. The attorneys general argue that this federal initiative, stemming from a directive by President Trump, is a misdirected attempt to address postsecondary admissions and could potentially be used to undermine lawful diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts on campuses, rather than to enforce existing anti-discrimination laws.

The Department of Education has stated its intention to enhance the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), a survey already required of educational institutions, to gather information concerning race in admissions, financial aid, and student outcomes. This directive follows the Supreme Court’s decision in *Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College*. The proposed data collection would require institutions to report detailed breakdowns of their applicant, admitted, and enrolled cohorts, disaggregated by race and sex, alongside factors such as admission test scores, GPAs, family income, Pell Grant eligibility, and parental education levels. Further data on early admissions, financial aid, graduation rates, and student GPAs would also be solicited.

The coalition contends that the proposed data collection will not effectively achieve its stated goal of identifying racial discrimination. While acknowledging the Supreme Court’s ruling against race-conscious admissions, the attorneys general emphasize that this decision does not prohibit universities from pursuing diversity through other lawful means. They assert that the complex nature of admissions and student success, influenced by a multitude of factors beyond race, makes it improbable that the requested data will accurately reveal discrimination. Instead, concerns have been raised that the data could be exploited to target institutions that do not align with the current administration’s ideology or that are actively engaged in promoting DEI initiatives. The coalition also points to a perceived lack of stakeholder consultation, a rushed process, and the proposal’s alignment with anti-DEI sentiments as indicators that the data may be intended for purposes other than rigorous enforcement of anti-discrimination statutes.

Furthermore, the participating attorneys general have voiced strong objections regarding the practical burdens and the likely quality of the data that would result from the proposal. They argue that requiring four-year colleges and universities to compile thousands of new data points, often with vague definitions and unclear instructions, is an unreasonable demand. The mandate to submit this data within a compressed timeframe, in addition to data from the previous five years, is seen as particularly onerous. The coalition highlights that much of the requested information is not consistently available across different institutions and student populations, which would impede meaningful comparative analysis. The extensive disaggregation of data into smaller subgroups is also expected to hinder the drawing of statistically significant conclusions and raises potential privacy concerns for students.

Attorney General Brown is participating in this opposition alongside the attorneys general of California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawai‘i, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin. The collective stance underscores a significant legal and administrative challenge to the federal government’s proposed data collection policies in higher education.

Article by Mel Anara, based upon information from the Maryland Attorney General’s Office.

---