minority serving institution | Campus Safe Words

TERM: minority serving institution
RISK LEVEL: High

Definition

A “minority serving institution” (MSI) is a federally recognized category for colleges and universities that enroll a significant percentage of students from specific racial or ethnic groups. Examples include Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs), Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), and Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCUs). MSIs are eligible for targeted federal funding and grants under U.S. Department of Education guidelines.

Why It’s Risky

While “minority serving institution” is a legitimate federal designation, its use in campus communications and program design can draw political scrutiny in states with legislation limiting identity-based distinctions. Under laws such as Florida’s Stop W.O.K.E. Act and Texas SB 17, public institutions face restrictions on using race or ethnicity as a basis for preferential treatment, even when such designations are federally supported. Referring to a college as an MSI in ways that suggest race-based policies, special benefits, or ideologically motivated programming can attract criticism for undermining colorblind principles and perpetuating identity politics.

Conservative critics often argue that labeling a campus as “minority serving” may suggest a mission oriented around racial advocacy rather than academic excellence or merit-based inclusion. When coupled with programming focused on equity, anti-racism, or restorative justice, the MSI label can be interpreted as a signal of ideological alignment with progressive causes, thereby exposing the institution to reputational and legal risk.

Common Critiques

From a conservative perspective, one of the primary critiques of the “minority serving institution” designation is that it institutionalizes race-conscious policies in publicly funded higher education. Although the federal government provides MSI-related grants, opponents argue that using the term in institutional branding or program development risks promoting unequal treatment. Critics contend that identifying institutions by the racial makeup of their student body promotes group identity over academic mission and may lead to de facto racial segregation through targeted recruitment or exclusive programs.

Additionally, critics claim that many MSI initiatives promote divisive or ideological content, especially when tied to DEI offices or culturally specific centers. The concern is not with the demographic reality, but with the policies and rhetoric that may follow—such as identity-based hiring preferences, culturally framed mental health programs, or mandatory training on systemic racism. These are increasingly subject to challenge under new laws that prohibit the teaching of “divisive concepts” or the use of public funds to promote political or ideological agendas.

Another frequent concern is that MSI-related language in grant proposals or strategic plans can be interpreted as evidence of race-based decision-making. This can trigger audits, legal review, or political pressure, particularly in states with active oversight of public university systems.

Acceptable Alternatives

1. Federally designated institution (if MSI status is relevant)

2. Title III or Title V eligible institution

3. College with a diverse student population

4. Historically Black College or University (HBCU), Hispanic-Serving Institution (HSI), etc. (when specific and accurate)

5. Institution serving a broad range of communities

When It’s Still Appropriate

The term “minority serving institution” remains appropriate in contexts involving federal grant applications, Department of Education compliance, or official reporting requirements. It is also acceptable in academic research or policy discussions when referring to federally defined categories. However, use should be limited to factual, legal, or funding-related contexts rather than promotional or ideological messaging.

Notes:

If using the term, tie it directly to federal language and avoid coupling it with equity-related initiatives or ideological framing. Emphasize academic mission and legal compliance rather than identity-based service. Where possible, substitute more specific institutional designations (e.g., HSI) and avoid using “minority serving” as a general descriptor in public-facing materials.