University of California student group alleges racial discrimination in admissions
A University of California student group sued the school system Monday, alleging racial discrimination in admissions.
Students Against Racial Discrimination filed a suit saying the university system gives 'discriminatory preferences to non-Asian racial minorities.'
The suit says Asian American and white applicants are turned away while Black and Hispanic students 'are often placed at significant academic disadvantage, and thus experience worse outcomes, because of the university's use of racial preferences.'
The student group is accusing the University of California of violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, the 14th Amendment and Proposition 206 in California, which forbids race as a factor in public education.
The suit points to actions taken by the system, such as encouraging its schools to adopt 'holistic' admission policies that a previous chancellor said would help with low admission rates of minority students, comparing admission rates of Black applicants between 2010 and 2023 and the system allegedly shutting down resources outsiders could use to study this issue.
'Trends in racial admissions patterns consistently show that the adoption of the holistic process favored black and Hispanic admissions and disfavored Asian-Americans and, to a lesser extent, whites,' the suit reads.
One of the attorneys for the student group is Jonathan Mitchell, a prominent conservative attorney who regularly brings cases to the Supreme Court.
The Hill has reached out to the University of California for comment.
The lawsuit comes after the Supreme Court ruled in 2023 that affirmative action could not be used in higher education.
Schools have been searching for other ways to ensure diversity among their students, meaning that the fight over how race and ethnic information is used among colleges and universities is not over.
One likely next battleground will be around college scholarships that include a race or ethnicity portion, with one lawsuit already in the court system over the issue.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Miami Herald
29 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Minimum Wage To Change in 15 States, Cities on July 1: Here's Where
Hundreds of thousands of workers across the U.S. are set to get a pay bump starting July 1, as minimum wage increases take effect in more than a dozen states, cities, and counties. According to the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), more than 800,000 workers in Alaska, Oregon and Washington, D.C. alone will see their baseline pay go up next month. Another dozen local jurisdictions-mostly in California-will also implement increases. The pay hikes come as the federal minimum wage remains stuck at $7.25 per hour, unchanged since 2009. With the cost of living continuing to rise, many states and cities have raised their own minimums through legislation, ballot measures or inflation adjustments. In Alaska, the minimum wage will rise by $1.09 to $13.00 an hour, an increase approved by voters through a ballot measure. EPI calculates the boost will affect 19,400 workers-about 6.3 percent of Alaska's workforce-and add an average of $925 per year to their paychecks. Washington, D.C. will raise its minimum by 45 cents to $17.95 an hour due to an automatic inflation adjustment, impacting an estimated 62,200 workers, or 7.5 percent of the city's workforce. The average worker there will earn about $727 more per year. In Oregon, about 801,700 workers-roughly 9.4 percent of the state's workforce-will see their minimum wage climb 35 cents to $15.05 an hour, also tied to inflation. That's an average annual increase of $420 per worker. Beyond those statewide and D.C. changes, minimum wages will increase in 12 cities and counties next month. That includes 10 cities and counties in California, with increases ranging from 45 to 59 cents an hour. New hourly rates will range from about $17.46 in Alameda to nearly $20 in Emeryville-one of the highest local minimum wages in the country. Cities including Berkeley and San Francisco will see their wages climb to $19.18 an hour, while workers in Los Angeles and surrounding areas will earn just under $18. Outside California, Chicago, Illinois, will boost its minimum wage by 40 cents, bringing it to $16.60 an hour. And in Maryland, Montgomery County will increase its minimum wage by 50 cents to $17.65 an hour. The EPI estimates that about 58 percent of workers benefiting from the July 1 hikes are women, while Black and Hispanic workers will also disproportionately gain. "These minimum wage increases will put more money in workers' pockets, helping many of them and their families make ends meet," EPI state economic analyst Sebastian Martinez Hickey said. "The average increase in annual wages for a full-time, year-round worker resulting from these minimum wage hikes ranges from $420 in Oregon to $925 in Alaska." Calls to raise the federal wage persist. This month, Republican Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri and Democratic Senator Peter Welch of Vermont introduced a bipartisan bill to lift the federal minimum to $15 per hour-more than double the current rate. Starting July 1, employers will have to ensure they review the changes made in different cities to minimum wage rates and pay their employees accordingly. Related Articles Joe Rogan Trashes US Minimum Wage: 'Disgusting'California Cities To See Minimum Wage Change on July 1Donald Trump Weighs In on Plan To Increase Minimum WageLos Angeles Votes for $30 Minimum Wage 2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.
Axios
29 minutes ago
- Axios
Behind the Curtain: Unprecedented new precedents
Through silence or vocal support, House and Senate Republicans are backing an extraordinary set of new precedents for presidential power they may come to regret if and when Democrats seize those same powers. Why it matters: New precedents are exhilarating when you're in power — and excruciating when you're not. Here are 10 new precedents, all set with minimal GOP dissent: Presidents can limit the classified information they share with lawmakers after bombing a foreign country without the approval of Congress. Presidents can usurp Congress's power to levy tariffs, provided they declare a national emergency. Presidents can unilaterally freeze spending approved by Congress, and dismantle or fire the heads of independent agencies established by law. Presidents can take control of a state's National Guard, even if the governor opposes it, and occupy the state for as long as said president wants. Presidents can accept gifts from foreign nations, as large as a $200 million plane, even if it's unclear whether said president gets to keep the plane at the end of the term. Presidents can actively profit from their time in office, including creating new currencies structured to allow foreign nationals to invest anonymously, benefiting said president. Presidents can try to browbeat the Federal Reserve into cutting interest rates, including by floating replacements for the Fed chair before their term is up. Presidents can direct the Justice Department to prosecute their political opponents and punish critics. These punishments can include stripping Secret Service protections, suing them and threatening imprisonment. Presidents can punish media companies, law firms and universities that don't share their viewpoints or values. Presidents can aggressively pardon supporters, including those who made large political donations as part of their bid for freedom. The strength of the case in said pardons is irrelevant. Between the lines: Friday's Supreme Court ruling limiting nationwide injunctions — a decision widely celebrated by Republicans — underscores the risks of partisan precedent-setting. Conservatives sped to the courts to block many of President Biden's signature policies — and succeeded. But taking those broad injunctions off the table now means they'll also be unavailable the next time a Democratic president pushes an aggressive agenda. That future president will be able to keep implementing even legally shaky policies — just as Trump now can. What to watch: Trump previewed some of those policies at a celebratory press conference on Friday, saying the Supreme Court's ruling cleared the way for executive actions that had been "wrongly enjoined on a nationwide basis." They include ending birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants, terminating funding for "sanctuary cities," suspending refugee resettlement, and blocking the use of federal funds for gender-affirming care. Axios Zachary Basu contributed reporting.
Wall Street Journal
34 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
How the Parental Rights Movement Built to a Supreme Court Win
Spurred on by the perceived leftward drift of schools, conservative parents launched a movement to amass more power in public education. On Friday, the Supreme Court handed them a far-reaching victory. The ruling, in a case featuring parents who objected to LGBTQ-theme books introduced in elementary classrooms in a Maryland county, says parents can generally opt out of instruction that contradicts a child's religious upbringing.
