Washington ? Several public and private universities, including Princeton University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, have announced they will eliminate or alter summer programs and scholarships that accept only minorities.

The schools’ decisions follow a campaign by two anti-affirmative action groups that wrote letters to the universities, threatening to file complaints against them with the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights if the programs were not changed.

The universities generally said they did not modify or end their programs solely because of the letters. But at least 10 schools took the action after being warned their programs might be illegal, and in some cases after the groups’ complaints prompted a government investigation.

Much attention has focused on a pending Supreme Court case that will decide whether race can be a factor in school admissions. The anti-affirmative action groups are targeting a different aspect of academic life — scholarships and summer programs that exclusively benefit blacks, Hispanics or other minorities in an attempt to remedy decades of discrimination.

Although the programs vary, they typically seek to improve underrepresented minorities’ chances for admission to undergraduate or graduate school.

“We’re not asking that programs be ended, just opened up,” said Roger Clegg, general counsel of the Center for Equal Opportunity, which sent the letters along with the American Civil Rights Institute. “If you’re a member of the wrong race, you’re not eligible for the program — period.”

But Brit Kirwan, chancellor of the University System of Maryland, which has not changed its programs, said the schools that did so acted prematurely if they were merely responding to a threat.

“My own view is that universities should do what they think is right,” Kirwan said. “If it leads to an investigation by the Office of Civil Rights, then so be it. To compromise because of the threat of a complaint would be inappropriate.”

Prevailing attitudes

The letter-writing campaign seeks to take advantage of the current legal climate by forcing changes without going to court. The two groups argue that some race-based programs are unconstitutional regardless of how the justices rule this summer in the high-profile case involving University of Michigan admissions policies.

The letters from the Center for Equal Opportunity and American Civil Rights Institute generally list specific programs, describe why they purportedly cannot withstand legal scrutiny and set a deadline by which the institution must reply or risk a federal civil rights investigation. They allege race-specific programs violate Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which says schools receiving federal funds cannot use race, color or national origin in determining eligibility for a program.

In a statement, the Office for Civil Rights said any race-exclusive program must be narrowly tailored and justified by a compelling interest, such as an obligation to remedy the effects of racial discrimination. “Generally, programs that use race or national origin as sole eligibility criteria are extremely difficult to defend,” it said.

Although many of the schools that changed their programs insisted they were reacting to a legal environment hostile to racial preferences, hearing from the two organizations clearly had an effect, some say.

“I don’t think there’s any question that that sort of momentum from those groups has had an impact on the universities,” said Maryland’s Kirwan. “It’s caused the universities to re-look at the programs and modify them.”

Getting results

The campaign targeting summer and scholarship programs has yielded significant results, the groups say. At least 10 schools have indicated they will amend or eliminate the programs that were challenged, said Robert Blum, legal affairs director at the American Civil Rights Institute.

Others among the 30 or so schools that received the letters have defended their race-exclusive programs and declared they would not change their policies at the whim of a few outside groups.

“Cornell’s president has come out with a strong statement in favor of affirmative action,” said Linda Grace-Kobias, news director at Cornell University, one of those 30 institutions. “We wouldn’t change our procedures and policies as a result of their threats of litigation.”

Some schools, such as Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, have stated they would review their programs to ensure they comply with the law and wait for resolution of the affirmative action cases before the Supreme Court.

Some school officials urged caution before dismantling the programs. “I think it’s premature, given the court has not ruled yet,” said Angelo Ancheta, legal director at Harvard University’s Civil Rights Project. He added the programs are “not per se unconstitutional.”