Opinion>Opinions - Education

The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of The Hill

New York’s race-based STEM programs face constitutional challenges

Comments:

by Erin Wilcox, opinion contributor - 04/18/26 3:00 PM ET

Comments:

Link copied

by Erin Wilcox, opinion contributor - 04/18/26 3:00 PM ET

Comments:

Link copied

Getty Images

For nearly 40 years, New York State’s Science and Technology Entry Program or STEP has offered middle and high school students extra preparation for college and careers in science, technology and health fields. About 11,000 students participate statewide each year.

But STEP’s admissions rules did something shocking: They imposed stricter income eligibility standards on white and Asian-American students than on other applicants, effectively using race to determine who qualified for help.

The result is perverse. An African-American student from an upper-middle-class family could qualify automatically, whereas a less-privileged white or Asian-American student would have to clear additional hurdles.

Last year, a federal lawsuit prompted an important shift. After Asian American families challenged the policy as discriminatory, New York officials issued guidance encouraging STEP schools to stop using race-based eligibility rules. Although these rules remain on the books, and not all schools have complied, the move signaled growing recognition that the program’s racial criteria are legally problematic.

Unfortunately, STEP is hardly unique. Across the country, education officials have adopted policies that sort students by race in the name of diversity or equity — even when doing so means treating children differently because of their skin color. A sister program in New York, the Collegiate Science and Technology Entry Program, still violates the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection by enforcing racial preferences.

The courts have made it clear that such policies are unconstitutional. In 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard that race-based college admissions violate the Constitution’s guarantees of equal protection. Subjecting students to different standards because of their race conflicts with the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection under the law.

To be sure, while recent court precedents have reinforced the argument that race-based eligibility schemes are unconstitutional, many education bureaucrats have sought to work around court rulings by using alternative selection criteria as a proxy for racial classifications. For example, in Boston, a new federal lawsuit challenges the city’s admissions plan for its elite exam schools. The plan replaces merit-based admissions with a tier system based on neighborhood income levels — a structure critics say was designed to achieve a predetermined racial balance. New York’s STEP program raises a similar concern.

The lawsuit was brought by Yiatin Chu, an Asian-American mother in Queens, whose middle-school daughter has a strong interest in STEM learning. Chu believed STEP could provide valuable academic opportunities. Instead, she discovered that her daughter faced extra admission requirements simply because of her race.

Chu filed her federal lawsuit in January 2024, represented by our organization and the Equal Protection Project. She and her co-plaintiffs argue that STEP’s eligibility rules violate the Constitution by discriminating on the basis of race. Chu simply wants her daughter and other students like her to be judged as individuals, based on their talents, effort and achievements.

Her case represents more than a dispute over one program. It is part of a broader effort to ensure that education policy treats students fairly and respects the Constitution’s promise of equal protection.

Education leaders should stop trying to engineer outcomes based on racial categories and instead focus on what truly helps students succeed: opportunity, hard work and academic excellence. The legal challenge to STEP is an important step toward restoring those principles.

Erin Wilcox is a senior attorney at Pacific Legal Foundation and represents the plaintiffs in Chu v. Rosa.

Add as preferred source on Google