Lawsuit accuses University of California of racial discrimination in admissions
A lawsuit filed this week accuses the University of California of racial discrimination in undergraduate admissions by favoring Black and Latino students over Asian American and white applicants.
A group called Students Against Racial Discrimination sued Monday in federal court, alleging the university system admits students with inferior academic credentials at the expense of better-qualified ones.
The complaint claims UC's admissions practices violate a state law approved by voters in 1996 that forbids considering race and other factors in public education, public employment and public contracting.
In addition, the filing alleges that the California campuses are violating the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment as well as Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bars federal funds recipients from discriminating based on race.
UC officials didn't immediately respond Tuesday to emails and phone calls seeking comment on the lawsuit.
The lawsuit asks a judge to block the university system with 10 campuses from asking about race in student applications and to appoint a court monitor to oversee admission decisions.
Asian American and white applicants are discriminated against because of their race, while Latino and Black students are "often placed at a significant academic disadvantage, and thus experience worse outcomes, because of the university's use of racial preferences," the complaint alleges.
"Students of all races are harmed by the University of California's discriminatory behavior," the lawsuit says.
It accuses UC officials of ordering campuses to use a "holistic" review of undergraduate admissions, "in other words, that they move away from objective criteria towards more subjective assessments of the overall appeal of individual candidates."
As an example, the filing cites a statistic that in 2010 the University of California, Berkeley admitted 13% of Black, in-state students, compared with an overall 21% admission rate. By 2023, the Black admissions rate at Berkeley was 10%, compared to an overall rate of 12%, the complaint said.
The lawsuit comes more than a year after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down affirmative action in college admissions, declaring race cannot be a factor and forcing institutions of higher education to look for new ways to achieve diverse student bodies.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump Praises Supreme Court for Fixing Birthright Citizenship ‘Scam' Originally Meant for the ‘Babies of Slaves'
President Trump, during a last-minute press conference on Friday, praised the Supreme Court for its 'monumental' decision limiting nationwide injunctions against executive orders, including his order ending birthright citizenship. The president had signed EO 14160 in January, which said citizenship should not be granted automatically to people born in the U.S. That executive order was thwarted soon after it was signed, with multiple federal judges issuing national preliminary injunctions to stop it from being enforced; the Supreme Court's ruling on Friday lifted those injunctions. '[The 14th Amendment] was meant for the babies of slaves,' President Trump said on Friday. 'It wasn't meant for people trying to scam the system and come into the country on a vacation.' President Trump applauded the conservative justices who ruled in his favor, including Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who wrote the ruling. The president said he had 'great respect' for Barrett and her ruling was 'brilliantly written.' 'It's been an amazing period of time, this last hour,' the president said. 'There are people elated all over the country.' President Trump's Friday comments echo what he said in January, when he said the Fourteenth Amendment was 'noble' and 'meant for the children of slaves,' but not meant to grant citizenship to everyone born on American soil. He added on Friday that 'some of the worst people' had been exploiting birthright citizenship to bring children into the country illegally. When asked by one reporter if nurses would check the legal status of parents after their children are born, Attorney General Pam Bondi said that is a matter that will be decided by the Supreme Court in October. Trump, moments before his press conference, posted on Truth Social about the legal victory. 'GIANT WIN in the United States Supreme Court! Even the Birthright Citizenship Hoax has been, indirectly, hit hard,' the president posted. 'It had to do with the babies of slaves (same year!), not the SCAMMING of our Immigration process.' The 6-3 Supreme Court ruling was made along party lines. 'Federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch; they resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority Congress has given them,' Justice Barrett wrote. 'When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted lawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too.' The ruling said President Trump's executive order cannot go into effect until 30 days after post Trump Praises Supreme Court for Fixing Birthright Citizenship 'Scam' Originally Meant for the 'Babies of Slaves' appeared first on TheWrap.
Boston Globe
12 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Who is to blame for Andrew Cuomo's loss in New York City? It may be Andrew Cuomo himself.
He made no further public appearances that day last month, even with primary day weeks away. Cuomo, who dominated New York for a decade as governor, entered the crowded field of Democrats back in March with the force of a steamroller and a commanding lead in the polls. He wore down the Democratic establishment until it lined up behind him, strong-armed unions and seeded a record-shattering super political action committee that would eventually spend $25 million. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up But even some of his allies said that up close, the campaign sometimes looked more like a listing ship, steered by an aging candidate who never really seemed to want to be there and showed little interest in reacquainting himself with the city he hoped to lead. Advertisement New Yorkers took note. And on Tuesday, a campaign that Cuomo, 67, had hoped would deliver retribution four years after his humiliating resignation as governor ended in another thumping rebuke instead. Voters preferred Zohran Mamdani, a 33-year-old state lawmaker whom Cuomo dismissed as woefully unqualified, by a comfortable margin. Advertisement Mamdani, a democratic socialist whose relentless focus on affordability and infectious campaign presence electrified younger voters especially, certainly deserves a great deal of credit for his victory. But a dozen allies and even some of Cuomo's own campaign advisers agreed in interviews that if he was looking to assess blame for a loss that could end his political career, he needed to look at himself. 'It was a creaky 1970s political machine versus a generational talent,' said Howard Glaser, a former Cuomo lieutenant who has since fallen out with Cuomo. 'He just couldn't see it.' 'He tried to force redemption on an unreceptive public,' Glaser added. The assessment now hangs over Cuomo as he deliberates whether to renew his campaign in the fall against Mamdani on a third-party ballot line. Some wealthy New Yorkers alarmed by Mamdani's left-wing views and others are urging Cuomo to keep running. But many of his allies said there would be no real point in carrying on if Cuomo treated the general election like the primary. People who worked on his campaign, who insisted on anonymity for fear of retribution, used words like 'entitled,' 'arrogant' and 'aloof' to describe the former governor's attitude. Another called the campaign 'astonishingly incompetent.' Mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani campaigned outside Rockfeller Center in New York, on June 4. SHURAN HUANG/NYT Cuomo and his spokesperson disputed that his campaign choices -- good, bad or otherwise -- would have changed the outcome. Spokesperson Rich Azzopardi said that the campaign met its turnout goals in key districts and voting groups, particularly among Black and older voters who had a yearslong connection with the former governor. The problem, he said, was that Mamdani 'ran a campaign that managed to expand the electorate in such a way that no turnout model or poll was able to capture, while the rest of the field collapsed.' Advertisement In an interview, Cuomo dismissed the complaints of allies or advisers who said he should have shown up more around the city. 'None of these things explain the election outcome,' he said. 'They are either untrue or petty incidents that are of no consequence.' The contrast on the campaign trail between Cuomo and all the other candidates was stark. Under the rationale of protecting his polling lead, Cuomo skipped candidate forums and dodged the press as his rivals threw themselves into the city's maw with dizzying schedules. The former governor, who was born in Queens but lived most of his adult life in Albany and Westchester County, traveled in his Charger with an advance team putting out a buffer to prevent unwanted encounters with New Yorkers. Cuomo hired a platoon of consultants, but still leaned heavily on his longtime confidante, Melissa DeRosa, who had never run a city race. Mamdani built an enthusiastic volunteer army to spread his message; Cuomo largely outsourced his get-out-the-vote operation to labor unions and $25-an-hour canvassers. And in the end, Cuomo's message to an electorate hungry for change boiled down to: trust me, I've done this before. Some allies said it all contributed to an unhelpful image. 'All of us have a blind spot,' said former Gov. David Paterson, who endorsed Cuomo. 'His blind spot is that he doesn't really connect particularly well with, just, people.' For a time, it seemed Cuomo's return to power was a certainty. He began plotting a path back almost as soon as he resigned in August 2021 after sexual harassment allegations. He spent tens of millions of dollars in taxpayer funds fighting to clear his name in court, as he hungrily waited for an opening for public office. Advertisement New York Mayor Eric Adams arrived at his campaign launch rally a City Hall in New York on Thursday. Yuki Iwamura/Associated Press It arrived when Mayor Eric Adams was indicted on federal corruption charges and then persuaded the Trump administration to drop them. Cuomo, a master backroom deal-maker, exploited the opening deftly, nudging the mayor out of the primary while convincing business leaders, labor bosses and other Democrats that they should back him -- if not out of excitement than out of a sense of inevitability. 'I feel like people misunderstood my $250,000 for Cuomo for real enthusiasm,' said Mark Gorton, an investor who gave $250,000 to a pro-Cuomo super PAC. 'It was basically, 'Oh, looks like Cuomo is coming back. We don't want to be shut out. Let's try and get on his good side.'' At the time, polls showed Mamdani in second place, trailing by 20 points or more. Cuomo's allies openly pined for a two-man showdown. They figured Mamdani's socialist views and harsh criticism of Israel would act as a ceiling on his support. It turned out to be a fundamental miscalculation. In a race where a large majority of voters said the city was headed in the wrong direction and where many Democrats were looking for a change, Cuomo struggled. Cuomo launched his campaign with a 17-minute video, lecturing New Yorkers on how and why the city was spiraling to dark places. Mamdani's videos showed him spiraling across the city, riding the subways, embracing working New Yorkers and running into the icy waters off Coney Island to dramatize his call to freeze rents. Advertisement Stuart Appelbaum, the head of the retail workers union that formally endorsed Cuomo at the minimum wage rally, credited Mamdani for running a campaign about the future. 'Cuomo's campaign reflected the reality of New York from decades ago,' he said. Cuomo had another real problem. The same polls that showed him leading showed that he was also widely disliked by a large swath of Democratic primary voters who were put off by his moderate policies, domineering style or past scandals. By all appearances, Cuomo made little effort to reach them. Though it has been just four years since he resigned after 11 women accused him of sexual harassment, he offered no real contrition. He was not sorry, he said, because he had done nothing wrong. When he did venture to share a regret, he said he wished most that he had never resigned at all. Some of the governor's supporters and some of his own advisers had concerns about his low-key campaigning in real time, and pushed him to take up a more active public schedule. But Cuomo rarely strayed from his comfort zone in the pulpits of Black churches or at senior centers. Rodneyse Bichotte Hermelyn, the head of the Brooklyn Democratic Party, said she pleaded with the campaign to have Cuomo visit a mosque to build ties to Muslim New Yorkers. 'That was a very big thing,' she said. " They told me he was scheduled to go to the mosque, and then I found out he didn't. I was not too happy." Last Sunday, on the last day of early voting, Cuomo did show up at the Christian Cultural Center, a Black Brooklyn megachurch. But the Rev. A.R. Bernard, its pastor, said that after the former governor spoke 'brilliantly' for five minutes, he left rather than mingling with congregants. Advertisement 'He was not on the streets, where the people are,' he said. 'Maybe we have to be careful when we assume that we've got enough reputation, history and gravitas to float through an election like this.' Paterson described a different problem. 'Once I endorsed him, some of his campaign workers called me like I was an employee of his,' he said, demanding he show up in the spin-room of the final debate to promote Cuomo even though the candidate would not be there himself. 'I said, 'this is not my role,'' Paterson said. ''Thank you. Good night.'' This article originally appeared in
Los Angeles Times
12 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
What's next for birthright citizenship after the Supreme Court's ruling
WASHINGTON — The legal battle over President Trump's move to end birthright citizenship is far from over despite his major Supreme Court victory Friday limiting nationwide injunctions. Immigrant advocates are vowing to fight to ensure birthright citizenship remains the law as the Republican president tries to do away with a more than century-old constitutional precedent. The high court's ruling sends cases challenging the president's birthright citizenship executive order back to the lower courts. But the ultimate fate of Trump's policy remains uncertain. Here's what to know about birthright citizenship, the Supreme Court's ruling and what happens next. Birthright citizenship makes anyone born in the United States an American citizen, including children born to mothers in the country illegally. The practice goes back to soon after the Civil War, when Congress ratified the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, in part to ensure that Black people, including formerly enslaved Americans, had citizenship. 'All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States,' the amendment states. Thirty years later, Wong Kim Ark, a man born in the U.S. to Chinese parents, was refused reentry into the U.S. after traveling overseas. His suit led to the Supreme Court explicitly ruling that the amendment gives citizenship to anyone born in the United States, no matter their parents' legal status. It has been seen since then as an intrinsic part of U.S. law, with only a few exceptions, such as for children born in the U.S. to foreign diplomats. Trump signed an executive order upon assuming office in January that seeks to deny citizenship to children born to parents who are living in the U.S. illegally or temporarily. The order is part of the president's hard-line anti-immigration agenda, and he has called birthright citizenship a 'magnet for illegal immigration.' Trump and his supporters focus on one phrase in the amendment — 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' — which they contend means the U.S. can deny citizenship to babies born to women in the country illegally. A series of federal judges have said that's not true and issued nationwide injunctions stopping his order from taking effect. 'I've been on the bench for over four decades. I can't remember another case where the question presented was as clear as this one is. This is a blatantly unconstitutional order,' U.S. District Judge John Coughenour said at a hearing this year in his Seattle courtroom. In Greenbelt, Md., a Washington suburb, U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman wrote that 'the Supreme Court has resoundingly rejected and no court in the country has ever endorsed' Trump's interpretation of birthright citizenship. The high court's ruling was a major victory for the Trump administration in that it limited an individual judge's authority in granting nationwide injunctions. The administration hailed the ruling as a monumental check on the powers of individual district court judges, whom Trump supporters have argued are usurping the president's authority with rulings blocking his priorities on immigration and other matters. But the Supreme Court did not address the merits of Trump's bid to enforce his birthright citizenship executive order. 'The Trump administration made a strategic decision, which I think quite clearly paid off, that they were going to challenge not the judges' decisions on the merits, but on the scope of relief,' said Jessica Levinson, a Loyola Law School professor. Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi told reporters at the White House that the administration is 'very confident' that the high court will ultimately side with the administration on the merits of the case. The justices kicked the cases challenging the birthright citizenship policy back down to the lower courts, where judges will have to decide how to tailor their orders to comply with the new ruling. The executive order remains blocked for at least 30 days, giving lower courts and the parties time to sort out the next steps. The Supreme Court's ruling leaves open the possibility that groups challenging the policy could still get nationwide relief through class-action lawsuits and seek certification as a nationwide class. Within hours after the ruling, two class-action suits had been filed in Maryland and New Hampshire seeking to block Trump's order. But obtaining nationwide relief through a class action is difficult as courts have put up hurdles to doing so over the years, said Suzette Malveaux, a Washington and Lee University law school professor. 'It's not the case that a class action is a sort of easy, breezy way of getting around this problem of not having nationwide relief,' said Malveaux, who had urged the high court not to eliminate the nationwide injunctions. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who penned the court's dissenting opinion, urged the lower courts to 'act swiftly on such requests for relief and to adjudicate the cases as quickly as they can so as to enable this Court's prompt review' in cases 'challenging policies as blatantly unlawful and harmful as the Citizenship Order.' Opponents of Trump's order warned there would be a patchwork of policies across the states, leading to chaos and confusion without nationwide relief. 'Birthright citizenship has been settled constitutional law for more than a century,' said Krish O'Mara Vignarajah, president and chief executive of Global Refuge, a nonprofit that supports refugees and migrants. 'By denying lower courts the ability to enforce that right uniformly, the Court has invited chaos, inequality, and fear.' Sullivan and Richer write for the Associated Press. AP writers Mark Sherman and Lindsay Whitehurst in Washington and Mike Catalini in Trenton, N.J., contributed to this report.
