When Leyland Lucas pursued his Ph.D. at Rutgers University, he noticed a lack of professors in the business department who resembled him. As a Black man from Guyana, South America, he found guidance from a small nonprofit organization known as the Ph.D. Project, which played a crucial role in helping him navigate and complete his doctoral program.
“I am incredibly grateful to the program, which was fulfilling a very critical role,” said Lucas, who now serves as a dean at the University of Guyana.
For nearly three decades, the Ph.D. Project has offered mentorship, guidance, and resources to doctoral students from underrepresented communities in business education. Before moving back to Guyana, Lucas was a professor at Morgan State University in Baltimore, where he helped mentor aspiring Ph.D. candidates through the same program that had once supported him.
“If you see people like you who understand some of the challenges you are facing, and you can see them and see how they have overcome those challenges, that serves as an incentive for you,” Lucas explained.
Despite its mission of diversifying academia, the Ph.D. Project is now under federal scrutiny, drawing the attention of the Trump administration.
The U.S. Department of Education recently launched an investigation into 45 universities affiliated with the program, including institutions such as the University of Kansas, the University of Utah, and Ivy League schools like Yale and Cornell. Federal officials allege that the program’s eligibility criteria violate the 1964 Civil Rights Act by imposing race-based restrictions, effectively engaging in “race-exclusionary practices.”
This federal scrutiny comes amid a broader movement among universities to reevaluate their Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs. Since taking office in January, President Trump has issued executive orders prohibiting DEI initiatives, instructing schools and colleges to “cease using race preferences and stereotypes” in areas such as hiring, admissions, and student programs. In response, some universities have shuttered diversity offices, removed DEI-related language from job descriptions, and renamed departments to eliminate references to diversity.
The Ph.D. Project has not been exempt from this shift. The University of Iowa recently severed ties with the nonprofit after the state’s Board of Regents voted to dismantle all DEI-related programs. Similarly, after the federal investigation was announced, the University of Kentucky withdrew its affiliation with the program, despite not currently having any doctoral students engaged with it.
Recognizing the changing climate, the Ph.D. Project has adjusted its mission. In February, it revised its statement, removing the term “diversity” and broadening its scope to be more inclusive.
“This year we opened up our application to anyone who is interested in helping to expand and broaden the pool of talent, both at the university level through faculty, as well as in corporate America,” said Alfonzo Alexander, the organization’s president and CEO.
“We’re really evolving so that we are able to do our work in today’s environment,” Alexander explained. “And if that means that we can no longer specify certain requirements, then we just evolve in a way that we can still create opportunities.”
The Impact of the Ph.D. Project
Since its inception, the Ph.D. Project has supported more than 1,500 doctoral students. It hosts annual conferences that offer insights into dissertation writing, stress management, and academic publishing. Many of its alumni have ascended to leadership roles, serving as university provosts, deans, professors, and business executives.
“The Ph.D. Project has changed my life because I was able to interact with individuals who looked like me and understood the journey that we were embarking on,” said Adrian Mayse, a Jackson State University graduate who later became a professor at Howard University and Talladega College.
Miles Davis, who first engaged with the program in 1995, echoed similar sentiments.
He had been working as a management consultant when he decided to pursue a Ph.D. at George Washington University. The Ph.D. Project introduced him to the possibility of an academic career.
“I did not know one full-time Black faculty member. And so the idea of academia as a path was not even a consideration,” Davis said. He has since served as a professor, dean, and university president.
Lucas and other alumni emphasized that participation in the Ph.D. Project did not come with special treatment or academic leniency.
“We had to face the same guidelines as everyone else. And once we got into those Ph.D. programs, we had to perform and we have performed,” Lucas stated.
He added, “I would really hate to see the Ph.D. Project somehow become misunderstood.”
The underrepresentation of minority faculty in business schools remains a concern. Data from 2020 indicates that fewer than 4% of business school faculty are Black, less than 3% are Hispanic, and only 0.3% are Native American or Alaska Native, according to the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business. These figures do not reflect the growing diversity among college students, according to federal data.
Lucas believes the Ph.D. Project was working to address these disparities and fears that its mission may now be at risk due to misinterpretations of its purpose.
How the Ph.D. Project Became a Target of the Trump Administration
In February, the Trump administration launched an online portal at enddei.ed.gov, allowing individuals to submit reports of alleged discrimination at educational institutions. The portal states that these reports will help identify “potential areas for investigation.”
Wil Del Pilar, a senior official at the nonprofit Ed Trust, suspects that the investigation into the Ph.D. Project was initiated through this tip line.
“My assumption is that it came through the tip line,” Del Pilar said. Though he holds a Ph.D. himself, he admitted he had not heard of the Ph.D. Project until the federal inquiry was announced.
“We’ve effectively created a tool where people can tell on people and report anything that they believe to be discrimination or DEI. I expect we’re going to see more investigations based on this,” Del Pilar added.
It is not unusual for federal investigations to stem from online complaints. In the past, many inquiries by the Education Department have originated from reports filed through similar channels.
For instance, in 2018, a complaint was filed against the Rochester Institute of Technology, alleging that several STEM programs for women were discriminatory. The complaint came from a professor emeritus in Michigan who has reportedly filed hundreds of complaints against programs he believes discriminate based on sex or race. The federal government investigated, and RIT eventually opened its STEM programs to male students.
Historically, many of these investigations have concluded without finding violations. When corrective action was required, schools often opted to revise or discontinue certain programs rather than face penalties. While the Education Department has the authority to withhold federal funding, such measures have rarely been enforced.
However, the stakes appear higher in the current political climate. Trump has warned that universities that fail to align with his administration’s policies could lose substantial federal funding—a threat he has already acted upon at Columbia University and the University of Pennsylvania.
Uncertainty Looms Over the Ph.D. Project’s Future
The recent federal scrutiny loomed over the Ph.D. Project’s latest conference, held in Chicago over the weekend.
“It can be really scary for members of our organization to hear that their university may not continue partnering with us because of threats from the federal government of losing funding,” Alexander acknowledged.
Despite these concerns, he found encouragement in the conference’s atmosphere, where members shared stories about how the organization had transformed their lives.
“These times have caused us, just like many other entities, to pivot and transition,” Alexander said. “We may have to do it a little bit differently than what we’ve done in the past. But we will make sure that we continue on a path to where we’re impacting people in a positive way.”
Looking ahead, Alexander remains hopeful.
He said he wakes up every day “optimistic and recharged” and is confident that “when we look back a year or two years from now, we’ll be better and stronger as an organization than we were before this current environment.”