Duke University under federal scrutiny for alleged discriminatory practices
US Secretary of Education Linda McMahon and US Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. sent a joint letter to Duke University leadership, raising alarm over the use of race preferences not only in law journal membership but across admissions, hiring, and scholarship programmes.'If Duke illegally gives preferential treatment to law journal or medical school applicants based on those students' immutable characteristics, that is an affront not only to civil rights law, but to the meritocratic character of academic excellence,' McMahon said.The letter calls for the formation of a 'Merit and Civil Rights Committee' at Duke, tasked with overseeing reforms and working with the federal government to bring policies into compliance. The committee would have delegated authority from Duke's Board of Trustees to implement organizational, leadership, and personnel changes.'Blatantly discriminatory practices that are illegal under the Constitution, antidiscrimination law, and Supreme Court precedent have become all too common in our educational institutions,' McMahon added. 'The Trump Administration will not allow them to continue.'Secretary Kennedy echoed the sentiment, emphasizing that federal funds should not support racial preference in healthcare education.'We are making it clear that federal funding must support excellence — not race — in medical education, research, and training,' Kennedy said. 'We're calling on Duke to uphold civil rights and merit-based standards at Duke Health.'Duke University has not yet issued a public response.- EndsMust Watch
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
AAP moves SC against UP govt move to merge schools with low enrolment
Lucknow: The Aam Aadmi Party has taken its fight against the merger of schools with low enrolment in Uttar Pradesh to the Supreme Court. Party MP and UP in-charge Sanjay Singh filed a petition in the SC, challenging the UP govt's order issued on June 16, to close some primary schools and merge them with other schools within a 3 km radius. Singh called the govt's decision "arbitrary, unconstitutional, and against children's right to education," alleging that it violates not only Article 21A of the Constitution but also the spirit of the Right to Education (RTE) Act. An AAP functionary in UP said that the party highlighted the danger of closing primary schools, forcing children aged 6 to 14 years to travel 3 to 4 km through difficult and dangerous routes, including forests, railway tracks, highways, and other risky paths, which is not only impractical but could be life-threatening for children. In the petition, Singh said that as per the RTE Act, there has to be a primary school within a 1 km radius for every settlement with a population of 300. He added that before issuing this order, the govt did not consult school management committees nor seek approval from the legislative assembly. Moreover, he said, it is being implemented in the middle of the academic session, causing significant inconvenience to thousands of students and parents. Singh also argued that the order will have the worst impact on girls, children from marginalised communities, differently-abled children, and families living in remote areas.
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
Amend biased laws against leprosy patients, SC tells States
The Supreme Court on Wednesday (July 30, 2025) called upon the States to summon special one-day Assembly sessions or enact an ordinance to amend discriminatory, derogatory and demeaning provisions in various laws against leprosy-affected persons. A Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi said the Centre and States will do great service to these people by removing discriminatory and demeaning provisions of law. 'States can call upon a special Assembly session or a one-day session instead of waiting for a regular monsoon session or winter session and remove or amend the discriminatory provisions against leprosy-affected persons. Where it is not possible to call for a session, an ordinance can be enacted. The State government will be doing great service to them,' the Bench said. The top court was dealing with a batch of petitions, including one initiated in 2010 in which the Bench had earlier directed the States to form a committee to identify provisions in various laws that discriminate against leprosy-affected or cured persons, and take steps for their removal so that they conform to constitutional obligations. Earlier, the court had said it was informed that there might be more than 145 State legislations where such objectionable provisions were still subsisting. The apex court on Wednesday urged the States to take remedial action and said, 'It has been brought to our notice, now let's take remedial action. It is not the court's job but the State government's to do it.' The Bench asked the States, which have not filed the status report, to do so by October and said the National Human Rights Commission, which is also dealing with the issue, may submit a report with due permission from the Chairperson. Additional advocate general Garima Prashad informed the Bench that the Uttar Pradesh government has identified three laws which need to be 'corrected'. Similarly, Uttarakhand and Rajasthan government lawyers submitted that they have filed their status reports and identified a couple of laws and necessary actions have been taken. 'The most serious of all... we don't want to use the word but see how embarrassing it is. Leprosy was one of the grounds for taking divorce,' Justice Kant told Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati. The top court sought a response from the Centre and its status report on the issue. On May 7, the top court noted that these provisions are of wide range illustratively from prohibition against holding elected offices to leprosy being a ground of divorce before the family laws came to be amended by the Parliament, during pendency of these proceedings, through the Personal Laws (Amendment) Act, 2019, which came into force with effect from February 21, 2019. The court said it is not sure as to how many States have taken it seriously and earnestly and have taken any effective step to remove the offending and discriminatory expressions from their State laws so as to bring them in conformity with the Constitution. The petitioners, including the Federation of Leprosy Organisation (FOLO) and legal think-tank Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, have contended that over a hundred provisions existed, both in Central and in State laws which discriminated against persons affected by leprosy in ways that caused stigmatisation and indignity to them.
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Tipeshwar Tribals Move HC Over Lost Farmlands, Claim Compensation Unjust
Nagpur: Tribal families displaced by the Tipeshwar Wildlife Sanctuary project in Yavatmal have approached the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court, alleging denial of fair compensation for their ancestral farmland, despite government assurances at the time of resettlement. In a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the affected farmers claimed they were uniformly given ₹10 lakh compensation in 2012, without differentiating between those who owned farmland and those who didn't. "While others lost homes, we lost our only source of livelihood—our ancestral farmland. No one explained this at the time of acquisition," the petition states. A division bench comprising Justices Anil Kilor and Vrushali Joshi has issued notices to the state revenue and forest departments, the principal chief conservator of forests (PCCF), and district officials, seeking a response. The petitioners, supported by the Tipeshwar Shetkari Sangharsh Samiti, have sought either separate compensation for farmland, alternative agricultural land, or employment for one family member. They referred to a 2015 government resolution (GR) offering enhanced compensation to those displaced by wildlife projects—a policy upheld in 2022 by the same court for 330 families from Maregaon village, also displaced by the Tipeshwar project. "We were displaced under the same policy, yet Maregaon families received revised compensation while we were ignored. This is arbitrary and discriminatory," the petition states. The plea further accuses authorities of misleading the families during resettlement and failing to respond to repeated representations. It also invokes the state's constitutional duty to protect the socio-economic rights of tribal communities, especially when their sole livelihood—agricultural land—is forcibly taken.
