Pennsylvania universities accused of discriminating against Asian, white students
[Source]
Four Pennsylvania state universities are facing a civil rights complaint filed Tuesday for allegedly discriminating against Asian and white students through their participation in a minority-focused STEM program, marking another challenge to race-conscious academic initiatives following last year's Supreme Court decision on affirmative action.
The Equal Protection Project (EPP), a project of the conservative Rhode Island-based nonprofit Legal Insurrection Foundation, filed the complaint with the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights against Millersville University, Slippery Rock University, East Stroudsburg University and West Chester University. The universities are members of the Keystone Louis Stokes Alliance for Minority Participation, which Millersville University describes on its website as 'an NSF-funded program intended to support historically underrepresented students pursuing a major in science, technology, engineering and/or mathematics.'
The complaint alleges that the program's eligibility requirements — which specify that applicants must be African American, Hispanic American, American Indian, Alaska Native, or Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander — violate Title VI and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
'By having a description of the program that requires you be how they have defined minority and by having an application which requires that you certify that you are one of these minorities they are in fact discriminating and excluding other people,' said EPP founder William Jacobson.
Trending on NextShark:
The complaint comes in the wake of the Supreme Court's landmark June 2023 decision striking down affirmative action programs at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina. In that ruling, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that both universities' programs 'lack sufficiently focused and measurable objectives warranting the use of race, unavoidably employ race in a negative manner, involve racial stereotyping and lack meaningful end points.'
The EPP's filing argues that the Alliance program is 'underinclusive, since the racial restriction is arbitrary and excludes swaths of candidates who could benefit from the programs but who are not permitted to apply due to their race and skin color.' The organization is requesting an investigation and, if necessary, the imposition of fines and suspension of federal funding to the four universities.
The complaint parallels elements of the Harvard affirmative action case, where Asian applicants were allegedly held to higher standards for admission. However, while the Alliance program's guidelines specify eligible minority groups, they do not explicitly state that other racial groups cannot apply.
Trending on NextShark:
Jacobson expressed hope for a resolution. 'Our hope is that the four universities who comprised the alliance will look at it this and say, 'You know what? We did it wrong. We made a mistake here, and we're going to change it.' And if that's the result, we would consider that a win,' he said.
This story is part of The Rebel Yellow Newsletter — a bold weekly newsletter from the creators of NextShark, reclaiming our stories and celebrating Asian American voices.
Subscribe free to join the movement. If you love what we're building, consider becoming a paid member — your support helps us grow our team, investigate impactful stories, and uplift our community.
Trending on NextShark:
Subscribe here now!
Download the NextShark App:
Want to keep up to date on Asian American News? Download the NextShark App today!
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNET
an hour ago
- CNET
Tariffs Explained: Everything You Need to Know as Trump Doubles Another Tariff
While Donald Trump's wide-ranging taxes on imports face scrutiny in court, rates on steel and aluminum have been doubled. James Martin/CNET President Donald Trump's second-term economic plan can be summed up in one word: tariffs. When his barrage of import taxes went into overdrive a month ago, markets trembled and business leaders sounded alarms about the economic damage they would cause. After weeks of uncertainty and clashes with major companies, Trump's tariffs hit their biggest roadblock yet in court before being reinstated ahead of a final ruling, allowing him to double the rate on imported steel and aluminum this week. Late Wednesday, the US Court of International Trade ruled that Trump had overstepped his authority when he imposed tariffs, effectively nullifying the tariffs, after concluding that Congress has the sole authority to issue tariffs and decide other foreign trade matters, and that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 -- which Trump has used to justify his ability to impose them -- doesn't grant the president "unlimited" authority on tariffs. The next day, an appeals court allowed the tariffs to go back into effect for the time being, while the administration calls for the Supreme Court to overturn the trade court ruling altogether. Should You Buy Now or Wait? Our Experts Weigh In on Tariffs Should You Buy Now or Wait? Our Experts Weigh In on Tariffs Click to unmute Video Player is loading. Play Video Pause Skip Backward Skip Forward Next playlist item Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration 9:42 Loaded : 0.86% 0:00 Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 9:42 Share Fullscreen This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Opacity Opaque Semi-Transparent Text Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Opacity Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Caption Area Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Opacity Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Drop shadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Close Modal Dialog This is a modal window. This modal can be closed by pressing the Escape key or activating the close button. Close Modal Dialog This is a modal window. This modal can be closed by pressing the Escape key or activating the close button. Should You Buy Now or Wait? Our Experts Weigh In on Tariffs However things shake out in the end, the initial ruling certainly came as a relief to many, given the chaos and uncertainty that Trump's tariffs how caused thus far. For his part, Trump has recently lashed out against companies -- like Apple and Walmart -- that have reacted to the tariffs or discussed their impacts in ways he dislikes. Apple has been working to move manufacturing for the US market from China to relatively less-tariffed India, to which Trump has threatened them with a 25% penalty rate if they don't bring manufacturing to the US instead. Experts have predicted that a US-made iPhone, for example, would cost consumers about $3,500. During a recent earnings call, Walmart warned that prices would rise on things like toys, tech and food at some point in the summer, which prompted Trump to demand the chain eat the costs themselves, another unlikely scenario. Amid all this noise, you might still be wondering: What exactly are tariffs and what will they mean for me? The short answer: Expect to pay more for at least some goods and services. For the long answer, keep reading, and for more, check out CNET's price tracker for 11 popular and tariff-vulnerable products. What are tariffs? Put simply, a tariff is a tax on the cost of importing or exporting goods by a particular country. So, for example, a "60% tariff" on Chinese imports would be a 60% tax on the price of importing, say, computer components from China. Trump has been fixated on imports as the centerpiece of his economic plans, often claiming that the money collected from taxes on imported goods would help finance other parts of his agenda. The US imports $3 trillion of goods from other countries annually. The president has also, more recently, shown a particular fixation on trade deficits, claiming that the US having a trade deficit with any country means that country is ripping the US off. This is a flawed understanding of the matter, as a lot of economists have said, deficits are often a simple case of resource realities: Wealthy nations like the US buy specific things from nations that have them, while those nations might in turn not be wealthy enough to buy much of anything from the US. While Trump deployed tariffs in his first term, notably against China, he ramped up his plans more significantly for the 2024 campaign, promising 60% tariffs against China and a universal 20% tariff on all imports into the US. Now, tariffs against China are more than double that amount and a universal tariff on all exports is a reality. "Tariffs are the greatest thing ever invented," Trump said at a campaign stop in Michigan last year. At one point, he called himself "Tariff Man" in a post on Truth Social. Who pays the cost of tariffs? Trump repeatedly claimed, before and immediately after returning to the White House, that the country of origin for an imported good pays the cost of the tariffs and that Americans would not see any price increases from them. However, as economists and fact-checkers stressed, this is not the case. The companies importing the tariffed goods -- American companies or organizations in this case -- pay the higher costs. To compensate, companies can raise their prices or absorb the additional costs themselves. So, who ends up paying the price for tariffs? In the end, usually you, the consumer. For instance, a universal tariff on goods from Canada would increase Canadian lumber prices, which would have the knock-on effect of making construction and home renovations more expensive for US consumers. While it is possible for a company to absorb the costs of tariffs without increasing prices, this is not at all likely, at least for now. Speaking with CNET, Ryan Reith, vice president of International Data's worldwide mobile device tracking programs, explained that price hikes from tariffs, especially on technology and hardware, are inevitable in the short term. He estimated that the full amount imposed on imports by Trump's tariffs would be passed on to consumers, which he called the "cost pass-through." Any potential efforts for companies to absorb the new costs themselves would come in the future, once they have a better understanding of the tariffs, if at all. Which Trump tariffs have gone into effect? Following Trump's "Liberation Day" announcements on April 2, the following tariffs are in effect: A 50% tariff on all steel and aluminum imports, doubled from 25% as of June 4. A 30% tariff on all Chinese imports until Aug. 10 while negotiations continue. China being a major focus of Trump's trade agenda, this rate has been notably higher than others and has steadily increased as Beijing returned fire with tariffs of its own, peaking at 145%, which it could return to down the line if a deal is not reached. 25% tariffs on imports from Canada and Mexico not covered under the 2018 USMCA trade agreement brokered during Trump's first term. The deal covers roughly half of all imports from Canada and about a third of those from Mexico, so the rest are subject to the new tariffs. Energy imports not covered by USMCA only will be taxed at 10%. A 25% tariff on all foreign-made cars and auto parts. A sweeping overall 10% tariff on all imported goods. For certain countries that Trump said were more responsible for the US trade deficit, Trump imposed what he called "reciprocal" tariffs that exceed the 10% level: 20% for the 27 nations that make up the European Union, 26% for India, 24% for Japan and so on. These were meant to take effect on April 9 but were delayed by 90 days as a result of historic stock market volatility, which makes the new effective date July 8. Trump's claim that these reciprocal tariffs are based on high tariffs imposed against the US by the targeted countries has drawn intense pushback from experts and economists, who have argued that some of these numbers are false or potentially inflated. For example, the above chart claims a 39% tariff from the EU, despite its average tariff for US goods being around 3%. Some of the tariffs are against places that are not countries but tiny territories of other nations. The Heard and McDonald Islands, for example, are uninhabited. We'll dig into the confusion around these calculations below. Notably, that minimum 10% tariff will not be on top of those steel, aluminum and auto tariffs. Canada and Mexico were also spared from the 10% minimum additional tariff imposed on all countries the US trades with. On April 11, the administration said smartphones, laptops and other consumer electronics, along with flat panel displays, memory chips and semiconductors, were exempt from reciprocal tariffs. But it wasn't clear whether that would remain the case or whether such products might face different fees later. How were the Trump reciprocal tariffs calculated? The numbers released by the Trump administration for its barrage of "reciprocal" tariffs led to widespread confusion among experts. Trump's own claim that these new rates were derived by halving the tariffs already imposed against the US by certain countries was widely disputed, with critics noting that some of the numbers listed for certain countries were much higher than the actual rates and some countries had tariff rates listed despite not specifically having tariffs against the US at all. In a post to X that spread fast across social media, finance journalist James Surowiecki said that the new reciprocal rates appeared to have been reached by taking the trade deficit the US has with each country and dividing it by the amount the country exports to the US. This, he explained, consistently produced the reciprocal tariff percentages revealed by the White House across the board. "What extraordinary nonsense this is," Surowiecki wrote about the finding. The White House later attempted to debunk this idea, releasing what it claimed was the real formula, though it was quickly determined that this formula was arguably just a more complex version of the one Surowiecki deduced. What will the Trump tariffs do to prices? In short: Prices are almost certainly going up, if not now, then eventually. That is, if the products even make it to US shelves at all, as some tariffs will simply be too high for companies to bother dealing with. While the effects of a lot of tariffs might not be felt straight away, some potential real-world examples have already emerged. Microsoft has increased prices across the board for its Xbox gaming brand, with its flagship Xbox Series X console jumping 20% from $500 to $600. Elsewhere, Kent International, one of the main suppliers of bicycles to Walmart, announced that it would be stopping imports from China, which account for 90% of its stock. Speaking about Trump's tariff plans just before they were announced, White House trade adviser Peter Navarro said that they would generate $6 trillion in revenue over the next decade. Given that tariffs are most often paid by consumers, CNN characterized this as potentially "the largest tax hike in US history." New estimates from the Yale Budget Lab, cited by Axios, predict that Trump's new tariffs will cause a 2.3% increase in inflation throughout 2025. This translates to about a $3,800 increase in expenses for the average American household. Reith, the IDC analyst, told CNET that Chinese-based tech companies, like PC makers Acer, Asus and Lenovo, have "100% exposure" to these import taxes as they currently stand, with products like phones and computers the most likely to take a hit. He also said that the companies best positioned to weather the tariff impacts are those that have moved some of their operations out of China to places like India, Thailand and Vietnam, singling out the likes of Apple, Dell and HP. Samsung, based in South Korea, is also likely to avoid the full force of Trump's tariffs. In an effort to minimize its tariff vulnerability, Apple has begun to move the production of goods for the US market from China to India. Will tariffs impact prices immediately? In the short term -- the first days or weeks after a tariff takes effect -- maybe not. There are still a lot of products in the US imported pre-tariffs and on store shelves, meaning the businesses don't need a price hike to recoup import taxes. Once new products need to be brought in from overseas, that's when you'll see prices start to climb because of tariffs or you'll see them become unavailable. That uncertainty has made consumers anxious. CNET's survey revealed that about 38% of shoppers feel pressured to make certain purchases before tariffs make them more expensive. About 10% say they have already made certain purchases in hopes of getting them in before the price hikes, while 27% said they have delayed purchases for products that cost more than $500. Generally, this worry is the most acute concerning smartphones, laptops and home appliances. Mark Cuban, the billionaire businessman and Trump critic, voiced concerns about when to buy certain things in a post on Bluesky just after Trump's "Liberation Day" announcements. In it, he suggested that consumers might want to stock up on certain items before tariff inflation hits. "It's not a bad idea to go to the local Walmart or big box retailer and buy lots of consumables now," Cuban wrote. "From toothpaste to soap, anything you can find storage space for, buy before they have to replenish inventory. Even if it's made in the USA, they will jack up the price and blame it on tariffs." CNET's Money team recommends that before you make any purchase, especially of a high-ticket item, be sure that the expenditure fits within your budget and your spending plans in the first place. Buying something you can't afford now because it might be less affordable later can be burdensome, to say the least. What is the goal of the White House tariff plan? The typical goal behind tariffs is to discourage consumers and businesses from buying the tariffed, foreign-sourced goods and encourage them to buy domestically produced goods instead. When implemented in the right way, tariffs are generally seen as a useful way to protect domestic industries. One of the stated intentions for Trump's tariffs is along those lines: to restore American manufacturing and production. However, the White House also claims to be having negotiations with numerous countries looking for tariffs exemptions and some officials have also floated the idea that the tariffs will help finance Trump's tax cuts. You don't have to think about those goals for too long before you realize that they're contradictory: If manufacturing moves to the US or if a bunch of countries are exempt from tariffs then tariffs aren't actually being collected and can't be used to finance anything. This and many other points have led a lot of economists to allege that Trump's plans are misguided. In terms of returning -- or "reshoring" -- manufacturing in the US, tariffs are a better tool for protecting industries that already exist because importers can fall back on them right away. Building up the factories and plants needed for this in the US could take years, leaving Americans to suffer under higher prices in the interim. That problem is worsened by the fact that the materials needed to build those factories will also be tariffed, making the costs of "reshoring" production in the US too heavy for companies to stomach. These issues, and the general instability of American economic policies under Trump, are part of why experts warn that Trump's tariffs could have the opposite effect: keeping manufacturing out of the US and leaving consumers stuck with inflated prices. Any factories that do get built in the US because of tariffs also have a high chance of being automated, canceling out a lot of job creation potential. To give you one real-world example of this: When warning customers of future price hikes, toy maker Mattel also noted that it had no plans to move manufacturing to the US. Trump has reportedly been fixated on the notion that Apple's iPhone -- the most popular smartphone in the US market -- can be manufactured entirely in the US. This has been broadly dismissed by experts, for a lot of the same reasons mentioned above, but also because an American-made iPhone could cost upward of $3,500. One report from 404 Media dubbed the idea "a pure fantasy." The overall sophistication and breadth of China's manufacturing sector has also been cited, with CEO Tim Cook stating in 2017 that the US lacks the number of tooling engineers to make its products. For more, see how tariffs might raise the prices of Apple products and find some expert tips for saving money.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Factbox-Latin America's abortion rights in spotlight as Chile debates legalization
By Natalia Siniawski and Sarah Morland MEXICO CITY (Reuters) -Chile's Congress is set to begin debating a bill that could make abortion legal on request nationwide, a debate which could have ripple effects across Latin America as a rift grows between nations making reproductive choices more accessible and those hardening legislation against abortion. Major Latin American countries like Mexico and Argentina provide broad access to abortion, while a Supreme Court case in Brazil seeking to expand access has been stalled for eight years. Although some countries have recently expanded abortion rights amid a wave of progressive politics, most still ban abortion in all or nearly all cases. FIRST TO LEGISLATE Cuba became Latin America's first country to decriminalize abortion in 1965, decades ahead of its neighbors. Public hospitals provide the procedure free up to 12 weeks, with later abortions allowed in certain cases. These cases - rape or incest, fetal non-viability or risk to the woman's health or life - are commonly known as the "tres causales" (three reasons) and serve as a key reference across the region. Guyana legalized abortion in 1995, allowing it on request up to 8 weeks, with some extensions. Uruguay legalized abortion on request in 2012 up to 12 weeks, while Chile in 2017 eased a total ban to the tres causales restriction up to 12 weeks. In 2020 Argentina legalized abortion up to 14 weeks. Since President Javier Milei took office, some groups have raised concerns about cuts to funding and limited access to related healthcare. In 2022, Colombia — which had earlier legalized abortion under the tres causales — decriminalized abortion up to 24 weeks, placing it among the world's more permissive countries. Mexico ruled criminal penalties for abortion unconstitutional in 2021 and reaffirmed this with a broader ruling in 2023, but as of today 10 of 32 administrative entities have yet to update their local laws. LIMITED ACCESS Much of Latin America currently allows abortion in limited cases - many use the "tres causales", and others allow for a broader set of reasons including mental health, economic constraints and social issues. Few countries allow abortion beyond the first three months. Brazil, the region's most populous nation with some 211 million inhabitants, currently allows abortion only with the "tres causales", specifically if the fetus is missing parts of its brain or skull. A Supreme Court case seeking to decriminalize abortion was filed in 2017 but remains on pause. Chile, Peru, Ecuador, Paraguay, Bolivia and Venezuela have limited access broadly aligned with the "tres causales", though many restrict it to situations where the woman's life is at risk, while pregnant women living in Central America and the Caribbean are broadly subject to stricter laws. Even in countries where abortion is legally permitted under certain conditions, barriers such as limited medical infrastructure, provider reluctance, and documentation requirements can make access difficult. In many cases, pregnancies must meet strict timelines or legal proof standards. TOTAL BANS Much of Central America and the Caribbean ban abortion in all or most cases. Countries with complete bans include Nicaragua, which ended exceptions even for life-threatening pregnancies in 2006; Honduras, where a 2021 constitutional amendment makes reversal unlikely; and El Salvador, which enforces some of the region's strictest penalties. El Salvador's constitution recognizes life from conception, and women have received decades-long prison sentences for abortion-related charges, even when advocates argue the cases were miscarriages or even newborn deaths. As of now, no women are imprisoned under these charges, but President Nayib Bukele has said he will not change the law. Haiti and the Dominican Republic, which share the Caribbean island on Hispaniola, ban abortion in all circumstances. Dominican activists are seeking legalization under the "tres causales" but efforts have stalled. In Haiti, a penal code that would have decriminalized abortion up to 12 weeks was delayed after the president's assassination in 2021. A worsening armed conflict has led to widespread sexual violence, a failing health system and mass insecurity, forcing many pregnant women to seek care across the Dominican border. Activists say pregnant Haitians have been targeted in Dominican deportations. In 2013, the Dominican Republic changed its law to revoke its nationality from children born to Haitian parents.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Five big Supreme Court cases to watch as term closes with birthright citizenship and more
The Supreme Court decides some of its most important cases in June. The justices generally break for the summer at the end of the month or in early July, and the toughest appeals take the longest to sort out from a term that starts in October. As we enter June's first scheduled opinion day, Thursday, dozens of decisions remain. Below are five of the disputes I'm watching for this month (and however far into July we go) — with the caveat that some of the court's most consequential work comes on the shadow docket, where orders on emergency applications can drop anytime. This is a weird one, procedurally. It started on the shadow docket, with an emergency application from the Trump administration that, like so many others this term, sought urgent relief from lower court injunctions against illegal executive actions. But instead of summarily deciding the application without explanation, as is the typical practice, the justices granted a rare hearing, held it in a special May 15 session and still haven't decided the case. As a reminder, we aren't expecting an answer to the big question of whether Donald Trump's executive order against birthright citizenship is legal. That's because the administration only asked the justices to say that the trial judges who ruled against the order shouldn't have been allowed to grant nationwide injunctions. So the forthcoming ruling could be limited to that procedural issue, which also has important consequences for all sorts of other lawsuits against the administration. But we'll be looking for any hints from the court on that crucial, underlying citizenship question, even if a final answer won't come this term. The Skrmetti case was the one to watch heading into the term, and we're still waiting on a ruling following the Dec. 4 hearing. At issue is the constitutionality of Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care for minors, and the court's decision could also have implications for bans in other states around the country. The court at the hearing sounded ready to approve the ban. Justice Amy Coney Barrett's recusal led to a tie vote (and therefore a nonruling) in a case from Oklahoma that could've approved the country's first religious public charter school. But other religion-related cases remain, including an appeal from Maryland parents who want to keep their elementary public school kids away from LGBTQ-themed books. While the parents say they face an 'impossible choice' between subjecting their children to instruction against their beliefs or losing out on public education, school officials say the parents aren't deprived of religious rights just because their kids are exposed to material the parents find offensive. Mexico wants to press a novel, multibillion-dollar lawsuit against U.S. gunmakers for the wreckage their weapons have caused in the neighboring southern nation. A federal appeals court removed a roadblock to the suit last year, but then the weapons manufacturers sought the Supreme Court's help. They argued that Mexico's claim is too attenuated because it's based on 'an eight-step causal chain — peppered by independent criminal actors and derivative sovereign harms — to try to link the lawful production and sale of firearms within the United States to the chaos ravaging Mexico courtesy of its drug cartels.' The high court sounded inclined to agree at a March hearing, but we'll have to see if the opinion confirms the lack of industry accountability. Another billion-dollar industry seemed to fare less well at its hearing before the justices. An adult industry trade group raised a constitutional challenge to a Texas law requiring age-verification to access pornographic sites. More specifically, the industry argued at the high court that an appeals court used the wrong legal standard when ruling against it. The impending ruling could have vast First Amendment implications beyond porn, though sympathy for Texas' stated goal of protecting children, coupled with antipathy toward pornography generally, could lead to an opinion that at least attempts to confine any free speech restrictions to the lurid context. Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal Newsletter for expert analysis on the top legal stories of the week, including updates from the Supreme Court and developments in the Trump administration's legal cases. This article was originally published on
