UC sees the good in faculty diversity. Trump's DOJ says it 'may be' illegal discrimination
The Trump administration said Thursday that it is opening an investigation into UC, alleging that university goals to increase faculty diversity "may be" illegal sex- and race-based hiring discrimination.
In a brief, 419-word letter to UC President Michael V. Drake, the Justice Department's top civil rights lawyer said it had "reasonable cause" to believe that UC has "certain employment practices that discriminate against employees, job applicants, and training program participants based on race and sex."
The letter pointed to an ambitious UC plan to add at least 20,000 students by 2030 — while increasing graduation rates, the share of students who receive undergraduate diplomas within four years, and access to UC campuses for racial minorities and other minority groups that have historically been underrepresented in higher education. UC announced the plan in 2021 and later increased the enrollment goal to up to 33,000 if enough resources, such as funding, became available.
Read more: California violated civil rights of female students by allowing trans athletes to compete, feds say
The Justice Department appeared to zero in on small sections of the extensive "UC 2030 Capacity Plan" that chart out desires to increase diversity among graduate students and faculty, including adding 1,100 tenure-track faculty.
Harmeet Dhillon, the assistant attorney general for the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, wrote that the plan may have "precipitated unlawful action by the University of California and some or all its constituent campuses."
In a statement, the Justice Department added that UC "directs its campuses to hire 'diverse' faculty members to meet race- and sex-based employment quotas," alleging a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Dhillon added: "It is important to note that we have not reached any conclusions about the subject matter."
Although the UC goals make clear the university's ambition to increase diversity, they do not stipulate hiring quotas. Since 2020, UC Regents — the governor-appointed board of directors — have also formally banned using quotas based on race and gender. That move came as Californians debated Proposition 16, which would have reversed the state's affirmative action prohibition but failed to pass.
In a statement Thursday, a UC spokesperson said the university abides by the law and would cooperate with the investigation.
"The University of California is committed to fair and lawful processes in all of our programs and activities, consistent with federal and state anti-discrimination laws," said Senior Director of Strategic and Critical Communications Rachel Zaentz.
"The university also aims to foster a campus environment where everyone is welcomed and supported," she said. "We will work in good faith with the Department of Justice as it conducts its investigation."
Read more: UC Berkeley law professors take on a case for colleagues: Fighting Trump research cuts
The investigation is the second UC hiring probe launched by the Trump administration, part of its aggressive drive to take action against universities it alleges are giving preference to Black, Latino and other racial, ethnic or religious groups over Asian, white and Jewish students, staff and employees. Trump has also ordered an end to diversity, equity and inclusion efforts in education institutions that receive federal funds, resulting in court challenges.
In March, the Justice Department launched an investigation into whether UC 'engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination based on race, religion and national origin against its professors, staff and other employees by allowing an antisemitic hostile work environment to exist on its campuses."
It was based upon faculty petitions and complaints that accused the university of abetting alleged antisemitism last year during pro-Palestinian encampments calling on UC to divest from financial ties to Israel's war in Gaza.
Both investigations employ a "pattern or practice" probe of campuses based on federal anti-discrimination law, a method of civil rights enforcement used during Democratic administrations to respond to racism allegations against police departments.
Also in March, the Justice Department accused UCLA, UC Berkeley and UC Irvine of using "illegal DEI" in admissions, likely referring to affirmative action. The Department of Health and Human Services is also investigating UCLA's medical school over alleged discrimination in admissions.
The university has denied such actions. Zaentz has said UC stopped using race in admissions when Proposition 209 — which bans consideration of race in public education, hiring and contracting — went into effect in 1997. Since then, 'UC has implemented admissions practices to comply with the law,' she said in March.
Two UC campuses — Los Angeles and Berkeley — are on a list of 10 campuses that a federal task force to combat antisemitism has said it is researching. The task force has played a significant role in pulling billions in federal funding from Harvard and Columbia universities over allegations that they promoted antisemitism.
Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week.
This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Associated Press
8 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Judge again delays Abrego Garcia's release from Tennessee jail over deportation concerns
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — Kilmar Abrego Garcia will stay in jail for now over concerns that he could be deported if he's released to await his trial on human smuggling charges, a federal judge in Tennessee ruled Monday. Abrego Garcia's attorneys had asked the judge to delay his release because of what they described as 'contradictory statements' by President Donald Trump's administration over what would happen to the Salvadoran national. The lawyers wrote in a brief to the court that 'we cannot put any faith in any representation made on this issue' by the Justice Department, adding that the 'irony of this request is not lost on anyone.' Abrego Garcia, a construction worker who had been living in Maryland, became a flashpoint over Trump's hardline immigration policies when he was mistakenly deported to his native El Salvador in March. Facing mounting pressure and a Supreme Court order, Trump's Republican administration returned him this month to face the smuggling charges, which his attorneys have called 'preposterous.'

Miami Herald
10 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Minnesota agriculture institute joins lawsuit against USDA to save grant funding
WASHINGTON - A Minnesota agriculture group says the Trump administration's canceling of so-called DEI grants in farm country broke the law and imperiled a food network initiative's future, in a federal lawsuit filed in the District of Columbia. The Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy in Minneapolis joined other farm sector non-profits who said last week in a lawsuit that the U.S. Department of Agriculture slashed grants for DEI - diversity, equity and inclusion - haphazardly and without individual review, violating federal law. The grants are intended to promote DEI efforts, from a San Francisco Bay Area initiative to boost LGBTQ and multiracial farmers to a New York soil health program. In Minnesota the IATP's grant for $111,695 to finance the MinnieAg Network, including tools for bridging farmers with food and ag industry officials, was terminated just six months from the finish line. That forced the organization to spend $30,000 from its own pocket to finish the grant's goals. "The abrupt and unexpected cancelation of our grant comes at a critical juncture just before we were planning to finalize our 'Farm and Food Systems 101′ resources to make this information available to all," said Erin McKee VanSlooten, Community Food Systems program director at IATP. VanSlooten said the cuts amount to "negating" 18 months of work, and she worries about the program's future. Upon taking office in January, President Trump signed a flurry of executive orders aiming to root out government funding for equity, sustainability and diversity programs under the charges that such programs were discriminatory or wasteful. According to the ag groups' lawsuit, when USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins posted to X that she'd cancelled a grant in the Bay Area to "educate queer, trans and BIPOC urban farmers and consumers about food justice," she said her agency would refocus around "American farming, ranching and forestry." The lawsuit alleges staff at USDA did not properly review programs and the agency could not revoke funding previously granted. The plaintiffs cover a wide swath of agriculture groups working to build pathways for non-traditional farmers to enter the industry, improve soil health and build climate and food resilience. One nonprofit's grant work aimed to build more trees in cities to provide buffers from the heat. Another sought to teach producers about no-till farming. The lawsuit names USDA, Rollins and other Trump administration officials, including the acting director of the Department of Government Efficiency. In a statement, a USDA spokesperson said they would not comment on pending litigation. Copyright (C) 2025, Tribune Content Agency, LLC. Portions copyrighted by the respective providers.


Newsweek
12 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Did Republicans Just Kill the Filibuster?
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Republicans are relying on rarely employed accounting methods to push Donald Trump's "one, big beautiful bill" through the Senate, and in doing so could upend established Congressional procedures surrounding the reconciliation process and the filibuster. Why It Matters The filibuster—a procedural move allowing senators to extend debates on bills indefinitely without a 60-vote majority—has long been viewed as a move to encourage bipartisanship in Congress and as a bulwark against political dominance by slim majorities in the upper chamber. Experts told Newsweek that recent moves by Republicans while trying to pass Trump's tax legislation could create new precedent surrounding the filibuster for years to come, including past the period of GOP control. Senate Budget Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham looks out from the upper chamber, June 11, 2025. Senate Budget Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham looks out from the upper chamber, June 11, 2025. J. Scott Applewhite/AP Photo What To Know Republicans are employing the reconciliation process to pass Trump's tax bill, the centerpiece of his second-term domestic agenda, allowing them to eventually advance the bill with only a majority vote rather than the 60 votes normally needed to do away with the threat of a filibuster. A central element of the bill, which the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates would add $4.2 trillion to the nation's deficit through 2034, is the extension of the tax cuts enacted during Trump's first term. Sweeping fiscal moves of this kind are traditionally restricted by the Byrd Rule, adopted in 1985, which limits the sort of policies that can be folded into bills passed through reconciliation, and forbids legislation from adding to the nation's deficit beyond 10 years. However, as reported by AP, Congressional Budget Office Director Phillip Swagel recently notified Democratic Senator Jeff Merkley of the Senate Budget Committee that elements of the Big, Beautiful Bill would increase the deficit "in years after 2034." Going by this assessment, the Republican bill would violate the rule that determines what legislation can clear the Senate with a simple majority, which could force Republicans to amend significant portions of the legislation. In response to these concerns, and Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough advising that certain provisions in the bill were not budget-related and therefore in violation of Senate rules, Republicans have now argued that Trump's 2017 tax cuts should be treated as part of the fiscal "baseline" forecast, even though these have not yet been extended. Republicans have also cited Section 312 of Congressional Budget Act to argue that the final authority for determining baseline spending figures, and whether the tax portion of the bill violates Byrd, lies with Republican Senate Budget Committee Chair Lindsey Graham. When approached by Newsweek for comment, a spokesperson for Senator Graham said: "Republicans do not want a $4 trillion tax hike—which is what would happen if the Democrats had their way and the 2017 tax cuts expired." They also referenced past support from Democrats for the notion that the Senate Budget Committee Chairman has the power to establish the baseline, citing former Chairman Bernie Sanders' 2022 remark that "the Budget Committee, through its Chair, makes the call on questions of numbers." Sanders is an independent who caucuses with the Democrats. Experts have said that this new "Byrd Bath"—as it has been referred to by some on Capitol Hill—could establish a new precedent regarding budget reconciliation and the avoidance of filibusters by those in power in the future. "The budget process established in 1974 and reinforced by rules and precedents since then was intended to allow a simple majority to pass a budget as long as the contents of a budget measure were limited to budget-related spending and tax provisions," Steve Smith, professor of politics at Arizona State University, told Newsweek. "Playing partisan games with the budget process to set aside the 10-year budget period or use it for nonbudget purposes is contrary to the plain language of the Budget Act and the Byrd rules adopted by the Senate," he added. "It is a precedent that will get repeated over and over again." Michael Ettlinger, a political adviser who previously worked with the Biden-Harris campaign, said, "If the Republican's new accounting method becomes the norm, it will be far easier to pass deficit increasing legislation in the Senate with a simple majority vote—limiting the impact of the filibuster." Ettlinger, who is currently a senior fellow at the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), noted that nothing would then stop Democrats from employing the same precedents to bypass the filibuster in future bills. "If the Democrats reclaim the Senate they will have the opportunity to undermine the filibuster as the Republicans have done," he told Newsweek. "It's their choice." Democratic Senator Rubén Gallego, reiterated this argument, posting to X: "There is no filibuster if the Senate [Republicans] do this and when Dems take power there is no reason why we should not use reconciliation to pass immigration reform." What People Are Saying Democratic Senator Ron Wyden, ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, in a statement released Sunday, said: "The only way for Republicans to pass this horribly destructive bill, which is based on budget math as fake as Donald Trump's tan, was to go nuclear and hide it behind a bunch of procedural jargon. We're now operating in a world where the filibuster applies to Democrats but not to Republicans, and that's simply unsustainable given the triage that'll be required whenever the Trump era finally ends." Steve Smith, professor of politics at Arizona State University, told Newsweek: "If a small Senate majority can put anything in a budget measure or ignore the ten-year budget window, then nothing is left for regular legislation that is subject to a filibuster. It represents a "get-it-while-you-can" partisanship that Republicans have adopted since [Mitch] McConnell became leader that, step-by-step, has undermined longstanding Senate norms." Republican Senator and Senate Budget Committee Chair Lindsey Graham, speaking on the Senate floor on Monday, said: "I'm not the first chairman to change a baseline for different reasons." "The budget Chairman, under [Section] 312, sets the baseline," Graham continued. "This has been acknowledged by Republicans and Democrats." What Happens Next? Debate over President Trump's megabill has now reached the final stages. A "vote-a-rama" on the bill—a marathon session during which lawmakers may introduce amendments to a reconciliation package—kicked off in the Senate on Monday morning. Should the bill pass a Senate vote, expected this week, it will then be sent back down to the House for approval. On Friday, Trump said that his preferred deadline of July 4 was not the "end all," but later said via Truth Social that the House of Representatives "must be ready" to send the bill to his desk by this date.