Key Takeaways
- Defending Education filed a federal civil‑rights complaint alleging Smith College violates Title IX by admitting transgender women while excluding transgender men.
- The U.S. Department of Education opened an investigation, stating that Title IX’s single‑sex exception applies only to biological sex, not gender identity.
- Smith insists its admissions policy—accepting any applicant who self‑identifies as a woman—complies with civil‑rights law and reflects its institutional values.
- The probe is part of the Trump administration’s broader effort to define sex as immutable and binary and to curb transgender rights across federal programs.
- Other women’s colleges (Mount Holyoke, Wellesley) have differing policies; Mount Holyoke is the most gender‑inclusive, admitting all but cisgender men.
- On campus, students have responded with supportive chalk messages and calls for leadership to publicly affirm trans inclusion, while administrators offer mental‑health resources and caution about potential funding repercussions.
Smith College became the focus of a federal civil‑rights inquiry in June 2025 after Sarah Parshall Perry, vice president of the conservative group Defending Education, lodged a complaint arguing that the institution’s admissions policy discriminates against “biological women.” Perry contended that Smith admits students whose sex assigned at birth was male but who identify as female, while barring those whose sex assigned at birth was female but who identify as male. Because Smith receives federal funding, Perry argued, it must adhere to Title IX, the law prohibiting sex discrimination in education programs that get federal assistance.
The Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights responded by opening an investigation and issuing a statement clarifying the scope of Title IX’s single‑sex exception. The office said the exception permits all‑male or all‑female student bodies only on the basis of biological sex difference, not on subjective gender identity. Consequently, an all‑girls college that enrolls male students who profess a female identity would no longer qualify as a single‑sex institution under the law.
Smith’s leadership has maintained that its policy is lawful. A college spokesperson said the institution is aware of the investigation and remains “fully committed to [Smith’s] institutional mission and values, including compliance with civil rights laws,” but declined further comment pending the outcome. President Sarah Willie‑LeBreton had previously asserted that Smith’s admissions practices are “firmly within the law” and expressed pride in the policy that considers for admission any applicant who self‑identifies as a woman—whether cisgender, transgender, or nonbinary.
The inquiry fits into a wider Trump‑administration campaign to restrict transgender rights. Upon returning to office, President Trump pledged to “defend women’s rights” by declaring sex immutable and binary, and he directed federal agencies to ensure grant money does not promote “gender ideology.” Subsequent actions have included blocking federal funds for hospitals providing gender‑affirming care to minors, mandating the removal of transgender personnel from the military, and even altering the official portrait of Rachel L. Levine—the first openly transgender Senate‑confirmed official—to her previous name. Critics, such as Shiwali Patel of the National Women’s Law Center, argue the Smith investigation is less about genuine civil‑rights enforcement and more about weaponizing Title IX to target trans inclusion.
The potential ramifications extend beyond Smith. Peer women’s colleges have adopted varied approaches: Mount Holyoke brands itself “the leading gender‑diverse women’s college,” welcoming everyone except cisgender men; Wellesley admits students who live and consistently identify as women; Smith’s current policy is the most expansive of the three, accepting any self‑identified woman. Genny Beemyn, director of the Stonewall Center at UMass Amherst, noted that the investigation’s timing is unsurprising given the administration’s hostility toward trans people, though he lamented that many campuses are now avoiding trans‑focused events for fear of losing federal support.
On the Smith campus, the announcement prompted an immediate wave of solidarity. Within hours, colorful chalk messages appeared—“You belong here,” “We love our trans sisters,” “Trans people belong at Smith.” The college emailed the community, offering mental‑health resources and acknowledging the stress caused by the investigation. Senior Margot Audero, a transgender woman, expressed a desire for leadership to speak out loudly, arguing that the situation forces Smith to choose between staying silent or publicly affirming its values. As the investigation proceeds, the outcome could shape not only Smith’s future admissions practices but also set a precedent for how Title IX is interpreted concerning gender identity across the nation’s educational institutions.