New Arts Bill Boosts Minority-Serving Colleges to Fix Museum Diversity Gap

The Equitable Arts Education Enhancement Act sets up a new grant program run by the Department of Education aimed squarely at boosting arts education at Minority-Serving Institutions (MSIs). The core idea is to close the diversity gap in the arts world—specifically in museum leadership, which the bill notes is overwhelmingly white (around 93% of directors). This bill authorizes “whatever funds are needed” to create a competitive grant system where MSIs can apply for money to support their arts students and programs, making arts careers more accessible to students of color.

The Pipeline Problem and the Fix

This legislation is a direct response to the documented lack of diversity in high-level arts and cultural institutions. For the everyday person, this matters because who curates the art—who decides what gets preserved, displayed, and studied—shapes our cultural narrative. By focusing resources on MSIs, the bill aims to strengthen the pipeline of diverse talent. For example, if you’re a student at an MSI studying graphic design or art history, the grant money can be used to fund your tuition, offer comprehensive support services like career advising and peer mentoring, or even provide paid apprenticeships with non-profit arts groups (SEC. 3).

Money for Mentors and Collections

What makes this bill interesting is the specific list of what institutions can spend the grant money on. It’s not just for buying new equipment; it’s highly focused on student support. MSIs can use funds for stipends for arts education students to take part in clinical teaching experiences, which is a big deal because those often unpaid or low-paid experiences can be a barrier for students who need to work (SEC. 3). They can also use the money to care for and display their existing collections of art by minority artists. This means that important cultural works that might otherwise be overlooked or poorly preserved get the attention they deserve, which benefits the entire community.

The Fine Print: Open Checks and Vague Authority

While the goal is solid, there are a couple of things in the fine print that deserve a closer look. First, Congress authorized whatever funds are needed for this program (SEC. 3). That’s an open checkbook approach, meaning there’s no cap on the funding, which could lead to significant, unbudgeted expenditures down the road. For taxpayers, this means the cost is currently unknown and potentially large. Second, the Secretary of Education has a lot of discretion in setting up the grant application process, requiring only that MSIs provide “necessary details” (SEC. 3). This vagueness means the specific criteria for who gets the money—and what success looks like—will be determined by the Department, not explicitly by the law. While the intent is clear (help minority students), the lack of objective metrics could make the process less transparent than some would prefer. Finally, the definition of "Minority" is broad, referring to someone who belongs to a racial group that isn't "well-represented in a particular area or context" (SEC. 4), which could be interpreted differently depending on the specific institution or field.