Trump Moves to Strip Tax Exemption From Schools That Aid Minority Students

Diogenes said:
Nobody would be "exempt from paying taxes" to anyone.


The proposed rules would not strip tax-exempt status from all schools.


They apply only to private schools that hold (or seek) 501(c)(3) status—private K–12 schools, colleges, universities, professional schools, and trade schools. Public schools are government entities and are not 501(c)(3) organizations in the first place.


A private school would lose or be ineligible for that exemption only if it “adopts, maintains, or enforces a policy or practice that discriminates on the basis of race, color, or national or ethnic origin” in admissions, scholarships, financial aid, programs, athletics, or other school-administered activities.


Schools that do not use race as a criterion keep their status. Race-neutral criteria remain allowed: family income, first-generation status, geography, individual hardship, military family status, and academic achievement. Religious schools may still select students based on genuine religious affiliation.


Treasury/IRS said the proposal may affect as many as 18,000 private institutions—meaning those that currently have race-based policies, not that every private school automatically loses exemption. Many already operate without explicit racial preferences.


This is still a proposed rule, not a final one. Comments will be taken, a final regulation would follow, and the effective date would be taxable years beginning after May 31, 2027, giving schools time to change policies if they want to keep 501(c)(3) status.


So the rule is conditional: keep race-based preferences and you risk the exemption; drop them (or never had them) and you do not. It is not a mass revocation of tax-exempt status for every school.
Click to expand...
The point it the fact that they have tax exempt status means the federal govt is involved and Ive already shown where the aid they receive comes from.
 
Yakuda said:
The point it the fact that they have tax exempt status means the federal govt is involved and Ive already shown where the aid they receive comes from.
Click to expand...

Category error. In this thread it does not decide the issue.


Yes: tax-exempt status is federal involvement.

A 501(c)(3) exemption is a federal tax rule. Treasury and IRS write and enforce it. That has been true since the exemption existed. Diogenes already said the same thing: IRS would be in the tax-exemption business whether the organization is a school, a hospital, or a soup kitchen. That is not in dispute.


No: that fact does not swallow the thread topic.

The topic is not “should the federal government exist in education at all.”

The topic is a proposed condition on an existing tax benefit: a private school keeps 501(c)(3) status only if it does not use race, color, or national/ethnic origin in admissions, scholarships, programs, etc. That is the same legal family as Bob Jones (1983), not a new Department of Education spending program.


“I’ve already shown where the aid comes from” mixes two different streams.

The Urban Institute link you posted is about federal spending at colleges: Pell, student loans, research grants.

That is appropriated money under the Spending Clause.

Tax exemption is not that money. It is the government declining to tax the school’s net income and allowing deductible donations.

Calling both “aid” is rhetorical. They are different statutes, different agencies’ day-to-day work, and different constitutional hooks (taxing power vs. spending power).
 
Diogenes said:
Category error. In this thread it does not decide the issue.


Yes: tax-exempt status is federal involvement.

A 501(c)(3) exemption is a federal tax rule. Treasury and IRS write and enforce it. That has been true since the exemption existed. Diogenes already said the same thing: IRS would be in the tax-exemption business whether the organization is a school, a hospital, or a soup kitchen. That is not in dispute.


No: that fact does not swallow the thread topic.

The topic is not “should the federal government exist in education at all.”

The topic is a proposed condition on an existing tax benefit: a private school keeps 501(c)(3) status only if it does not use race, color, or national/ethnic origin in admissions, scholarships, programs, etc. That is the same legal family as Bob Jones (1983), not a new Department of Education spending program.


“I’ve already shown where the aid comes from” mixes two different streams.

The Urban Institute link you posted is about federal spending at colleges: Pell, student loans, research grants.

That is appropriated money under the Spending Clause.

Tax exemption is not that money. It is the government declining to tax the school’s net income and allowing deductible donations.

Calling both “aid” is rhetorical. They are different statutes, different agencies’ day-to-day work, and different constitutional hooks (taxing power vs. spending power).
Click to expand...
The fact remains they do receive aid from the federal govt and tax exempt status.
 
Yakuda said:
The fact remains they do receive aid from the federal govt and tax exempt status.
Click to expand...

That still doesn’t change the topic of the thread.


Private colleges and many private K–12 schools do get federal money (Pell, loans, research grants, etc.) and many of them are 501(c)(3). Yakuda is right that both exist.


Nobody in the thread has pretended otherwise, AFAIK.


What your post does not do:


  • It does not turn this IRS notice into a spending bill. The proposal conditions exemption, not Pell or NIH grants.
  • It does not prove the race rule is about “aid to minority students” as such. The rule is: if you want the exemption, don’t use race as a criterion. Race-neutral aid (income, first-gen, hardship, merit) stays allowed.
  • It does not collapse two legal tools into one constitutional veto. Exemption is the taxing power + 501(c)(3) + Bob Jones. Grants/loans are the Spending Clause. You can oppose both and still have to argue them separately.
  • It does not mean every school that receives either one automatically loses status. Only private 501(c)(3) schools that keep race-based policies are in the crosshairs of this proposal.

The dispute is whether race-based policies are compatible with keeping the exemption.

You keep restating the premise (federal fingerprints exist) and treating it as the conclusion (therefore this rule, or this whole topic, is illegitimate).
 
Diogenes said:
That still doesn’t change the topic of the thread.


Private colleges and many private K–12 schools do get federal money (Pell, loans, research grants, etc.) and many of them are 501(c)(3). Yakuda is right that both exist.


Nobody in the thread has pretended otherwise, AFAIK.


What your post does not do:


  • It does not turn this IRS notice into a spending bill. The proposal conditions exemption, not Pell or NIH grants.
  • It does not prove the race rule is about “aid to minority students” as such. The rule is: if you want the exemption, don’t use race as a criterion. Race-neutral aid (income, first-gen, hardship, merit) stays allowed.
  • It does not collapse two legal tools into one constitutional veto. Exemption is the taxing power + 501(c)(3) + Bob Jones. Grants/loans are the Spending Clause. You can oppose both and still have to argue them separately.
  • It does not mean every school that receives either one automatically loses status. Only private 501(c)(3) schools that keep race-based policies are in the crosshairs of this proposal.

The dispute is whether race-based policies are compatible with keeping the exemption.

You keep restating the premise (federal fingerprints exist) and treating it as the conclusion (therefore this rule, or this whole topic, is illegitimate).
Click to expand...
Im merely pointing out that the federal govt has no constitutional authority to be involved with education. Thats a fact. That fact doesnt change no matter what the topic of this thread is.
 
Yakuda said:
Im merely pointing out that the federal govt has no constitutional authority to be involved with education. Thats a fact. That fact doesnt change no matter what the topic of this thread is.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't. But this thread isn't about that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top