Hochul Warned to End State Program That Excludes Students Based on Race or Face Federal Lawsuit

Here’s something that should make every American uncomfortable, regardless of where you sit politically. New York State is running a taxpayer-funded college program that explicitly treats students differently based on their race. Not allegedly. Not in some roundabout way. The eligibility rules are right there in black and white.

The Collegiate Science and Technology Entry Program sounds noble enough on paper. It helps students pursue careers in STEM fields through tutoring, financial aid, and summer courses. Who could argue with that? Except there’s a catch that reveals just how far we’ve drifted from the principles this country was built on.

If you’re Black, Hispanic, American Indian, or Alaskan Native, you’re automatically eligible. No questions asked about your family’s income or circumstances. But if you’re White or Asian? Well, you better hope your parents are struggling financially because that’s the only way you’re getting through the door. Two legal groups, the Pacific Legal Foundation and the Equal Protection Project, have had enough of this arrangement and they’re giving Governor Kathy Hochul a choice. Fix it or see her in court.

This isn’t some fringe program operating in the shadows. It’s sponsored by the New York State Department of Education and funded by taxpayers, including the very families whose kids are being excluded based on nothing more than their ethnicity. The sheer audacity of it is breathtaking when you stop and think about it for more than five seconds.

You know what’s particularly galling? We’ve already settled this question as a nation. The Equal Protection Clause exists precisely to prevent government from sorting people into categories based on immutable characteristics. It doesn’t say “equal protection except when we really mean well” or “equal protection unless you’re trying to help historically underrepresented groups.” It says equal protection, period.

The argument from defenders of these programs usually goes something like this: we’re just trying to level the playing field, to correct historical wrongs, to give opportunities to communities that have been left behind. Fine sentiments, perhaps. But since when does fighting discrimination require more discrimination? Since when does achieving equality mean treating people unequally under the law?

There’s something deeply patronizing about the whole enterprise too. The implicit assumption is that minority students can’t compete without a thumb on the scale, that they need special carve-outs and separate tracks. That’s not empowerment. That’s soft bigotry dressed up in the language of social justice, and it does a disservice to everyone involved.

Cornell Professor William Jacobson has been documenting these patterns nationwide, including California’s “Young Males of Color Consortium” which operated on similar principles. Discriminating against White male students, as he noted, isn’t some unfortunate side effect of these programs. It’s baked into their design. It’s the whole point.

The Pacific Legal Foundation and Equal Protection Project aren’t asking for anything radical here. They’re simply demanding that New York follow the Constitution. Treat applicants as individuals. Consider economic disadvantage if you want to help students who genuinely need support. But stop using race as a shortcut, as if skin color tells you everything you need to know about a person’s circumstances or merit.

This matters beyond New York. Similar programs exist across the country, all operating under the assumption that the ends justify the means, that we can build an equal society through unequal treatment. That’s backwards thinking, and it’s corrosive to the principles of individual liberty and equal justice that conservatives have always championed.

Governor Hochul has a decision to make. She can do the right thing and reform CSTEP to comply with constitutional principles, or she can dig in and defend a program that explicitly discriminates based on race. One path upholds American values. The other leads to a courtroom where those values will be vindicated whether she likes it or not.