University of California rejects claim it was sued for racial discrimination
A newly formed group dedicated to fighting what it calls the covert use of affirmative action in admissions decisions by colleges in the University of California system announced on Monday that it was filing a lawsuit, aiming for an injunction to prohibit any consideration of race in student admissions.
'The University of California has not been served with the filing,' a spokesperson for the UC system, Stett Holbrook, said on Tuesday. 'If served, we will vigorously defend our admission practices' Holbrook added. 'We believe this to be a meritless suit that seeks to distract us from our mission to provide California students with a world class education.'
The consideration of race in college admissions was banned in California in 1996, when voters approved the ballot initiative Proposition 209.
The group behind the suit, Students Against Racial Discrimination, was founded by Richard Sander, a professor of law at UCLA, and Tim Groseclose, a professor of economics at George Mason University.
Although the two professors are the only named members of the 'students' group, their website says that unnamed students are members. 'We include students (and parents of students) who have been rejected by the UC schools even as classmates with substantially lower academic credentials – but a more favorable skin pigmentation – have been accepted,' the site says.
The founding members say the group was established in late 2024 to 'restore meritocracy in academia' and say that diversity considerations are still being used by UC schools.
The group's website points to two recent headlines to suggest that the UC schools 'pretend' not to consider race in admissions. One is from a New York Times report last August, At M.I.T., Black and Latino Enrollment Drops Sharply After Affirmative Action Ban. That report noted that after the US supreme court's 2023 decision banning affirmative action, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology saw a sharp drop in the percentage of Black, Hispanic, Native American and Pacific Islander students.
The second headline was from a Los Angeles Times report a month before: UC sets new record with largest, most diverse class of California students for fall 2024. That report noted: 'The University of California admitted the largest and most diverse class of undergraduates for fall 2024, opening the doors of the vaunted public research institution to more California low-income, first-generation and underrepresented students of color.'
'Why,' Students Against Racial Discrimination demanded to know, 'did the UC's demographics not change like MIT's?'
The legal complaint accuses the California system of using 'holistic' approaches first adopted at UCLA to consider Black and Latino applicants.
The suit, filed in federal court in Santa Ana, California, asks the court to appoint a court monitor to oversee admission decisions.
America First Legal, which was founded by Donald Trump's deputy chief of staff for policy Stephen Miller, is supporting the suit.
UC maintains that adjusted its admissions practices to comply with that law. 'We stand by our admission policies and our record of expanding access for all qualified students.' Holbrook said. 'The UC undergraduate admissions application collects students' race and ethnicity for statistical purposes only. This information is not shared with application reviewers and is not used for admission.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
3 hours ago
- The National
Scottish Labour MP not 'proud' of Keir Starmer's first year in charge
Brian Leishman, MP for Alloa and Grangemouth, told the BBC Sunday Show that his 'gut reaction' was there were enough backbench rebels to force Number 10 into changing its decision on welfare reforms. Last week, Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall to MPs wrote to MPs setting out the UK Government's 'concessions' after more than 120 rebels signed an amendment that would essentially kill the welfare bill. Those who currently receive Personal Independence Payments (PIP), or the health element of Universal Credit (UC), will continue to do so. READ MORE: Inside the SNP's political strategy ahead of 2026 Scottish election However, planned cuts will still hit future claimants from November next year. It means anyone who does not score four or more points in one of the activities assessed for the PIP daily living component will not receive it if they apply after November 2026. Labour ministers seemed confident they had staved off a rebellion, with a vote due on the legislation in the Commons on Tuesday. The SNP have urged the rebels to 'stand firm' and refuse to back down to the concessions ahead of the vote. Meanwhile, Leishman told the BBC: 'I think it's fair to say that some have been placated by the compromises and concessions, as they're called, but there is still a healthy amount of us, a big cohort of MPs who feel that this should be withdrawn.' (Image: BBC) Asked if he thinks the welfare reforms will pass, the MP said: 'I'd say that behind the scenes, there's conversations being had all the time…some sort of prediction from me, but my gut reaction would be that there is enough of us to make the Government think again.' Leishman was pressed on if he thought the UK Government's position on changing disability benefits was right or wrong, or if the system should stay the way it is. 'No, it does need to change,' Leishman said. 'These proposals, this is not the change that we need. 'What we have seen over the last decade and a half has been chronic austerity that has really impoverished some of the most vulnerable people in the country, it's been politics and policy by design to make people poorer. READ MORE: Police 'examining' Kneecap and Bob Vylan Glastonbury performances 'The notion that we solve these austere cuts with more cuts, that's frankly ridiculous.' Asked if he was proud of Labour's first year in office, Leishman said simply: 'No.' When pressed on why, he said: 'Because I don't think we have tackled…let me just say, let me embellish that, we have done things in our first year that only a Labour Government will ever do. The Employment Rights Bill, a phenomenal piece of legislation, generational improvement for workers, absolutely fantastic.' He said that over 400 of his constituents had benefited from the restoration of miners workers pension scheme, adding: 'Those are two policies only a Labour Government will ever do, have we done enough of those types of things? 'For me, no, that's my job to make sure we do them more often.' It was then put to Leishman that he thought the Government had got more things wrong than right. 'I think that's only fair to say. I'm going to be open and honest with you, I'm not from a political background,' he said. 'We've got to do better, of that there's no doubt.' Leishman also revealed he had never had a conversation with Starmer, bar exchanges at FMQs, having only met him three times at Downing Street. Asked if the PM listens enough to his party, Leishman said: 'No, I think that's quite clear.'
NBC News
5 hours ago
- NBC News
After criticism from MAGA world, Amy Coney Barrett delivers for Trump
WASHINGTON — As President Donald Trump reveled in a major Supreme Court victory that curbed the ability of judges to block his policies nationwide, he had special praise for one of the justices: Amy Coney Barrett. 'I want to thank Justice Barrett, who wrote the opinion brilliantly,' he said at a White House press conference soon after Friday's ruling. Barrett's majority opinion in the 6-3 ruling along ideological lines, which at least temporarily revived Trump's plan to end automatic birthright citizenship, is a major boost to an administration that has been assailed by courts around the country for its broad and aggressive use of executive power. It also marks an extraordinary turnaround for Barrett's reputation among Trump's most vocal supporters. Just a few months ago, she faced vitriolic criticism from MAGA influencers and others as she sporadically voted against Trump, including a March decision in which she rejected a Trump administration attempt to avoid paying U.S. Agency for International Development contractors. CNN also reported that Trump himself had privately complained about Barrett. That is despite the fact that she is a Trump appointee with a long record of casting decisive votes in a host of key cases in which the court's 6-3 conservative majority has imposed itself, most notably with the 2022 ruling that overturned the abortion rights landmark Roe v. Wade. One of those outspoken critics, Trump-allied lawyer Mike Davis, suggested that the pressure on Barrett had the desired effect. 'Sometimes feeling the heat helps people see the light,' he said in a text message. Quickly U-turning, MAGA influencers on Friday praised Barrett and turned their anger on liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson instead. They seized upon language in Barrett's opinion in which she gave short shrift to Jackson's dissenting opinion, in which the President Joe Biden appointee characterized the ruling as an 'existential threat to the rule of law.' Barrett responded by accusing Jackson of a 'startling line of attack' that was based on arguments 'at odds with more than two centuries' worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself.' Jack Posobiec, a conservative firebrand who a few months ago called Barrett a ' DEI judge,' immediately used similar language against Jackson, who is the first Black woman to serve on the court. In an appearance on Real America's Voice, a right-wing streaming channel, he call Jackson an ' autopen hire' in reference to the unsubstantiated allegation from conservatives that Biden's staff was responsible for many of his decisions. He then described Barrett as 'one of the nicest people. She's not some flame-throwing conservative up there.' It is not just the birthright citizenship case in which the Trump administration has claimed victory at the Supreme Court in recent months. The court, often with the three liberal justices in dissent, has also handed Trump multiple wins on emergency applications filed at the court, allowing various policies that were blocked by lower courts to go into effect. In such cases, the court does not always list exactly how each justice voted, but Barrett did not publicly dissent, for example, when the court allowed Trump to quickly deport immigrants to countries they have no connection to or ended temporary legal protections for 500,000 immigrants from four countries. Barrett defenders dismiss suggestions she would be influenced by negative comments from MAGA world, with Samuel Bray, a professor at Notre Dame Law School, saying her ruling that limited nationwide injunctions simply shows her independent qualities as a judge. 'It should reinforce the sense that she's her own justice and she's committed to giving legal answers to legal questions. We shouldn't be looking for political answers to political questions,' he said. Barrett, via a Supreme Court spokeswoman, did not respond to a request for comment. More broadly, legal experts said that in the Supreme Court term that just ended, Barrett showed that on many traditional conservative issues she is 'solidly to the right,' Anthony Kreis, a professor at Georgia State University College of Law. There were fewer examples of her going her own way than in the previous term, when which she staked out her own path in some significant cases. On Friday alone, she was part of a conservative 6-3 majority in three of the five rulings, including the birthright citizenship case. The others saw the court rule in favor of religious conservatives who objected to LGBTQ story books in elementary schools and uphold a Texas restriction on adult-content websites. 'I don't think we can say she was ever drifting left, but she was occupying a center-right position on the court that occasionally made her a key swing vote,' he added. 'This term's docket at the end just wasn't that.' One notable wrinkle in the birthright citizenship case is that Barrett, as the most junior justice in the majority, would not have been expected to write it. Often, Chief Justice John Roberts, who gets to assign cases when he is in the majority, will write such rulings himself. Carolyn Shapiro, a professor at Chicago-Kent College of Law, said the assignment suited Barrett, who is known for her expertise on legal procedure. But she also wondered if Roberts might have considered the impact of the complaints against Barrett and wanted to 'give her a place to shine from the perspective of the right.' Even if that were a consideration in Roberts' thinking, Shapiro added, 'I don't see much evidence that she is doing things that she wouldn't have done if not for the criticism she received.'
The Herald Scotland
7 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Could Michelle Obama be the voice Democrats need right now?
"I feel like at 60, this is the first time where all my decisions are for me," Obama said on her June 19 episode with radio show host Angie Martinez. With her daughters Sasha and Malia launched in their own young adult lives, "this is a period of freedom." Each week, Obama and Robinson are joined by celebrities like comedians Damon and Marlon Wayans, producer Issa Rae or actress Keke Palmer - with just a glint of politics. It's her space to talk with friends. References to her husband, former President Barack Obama, or the eight years they spent raising young children in the White House are matters of fact, but the political wildfire of the second Trump administration is barely noted, except as a launching point to talk about how people are impacted by Trump's new policies. As recently as last July, an Ipsos poll revealed that only Michelle Obama stood a chance of besting Donald Trump in the presidential election. Even before leaving the White House in early 2017, a corner of the Democratic Party clamored for her to run. She has repeatedly slammed the door on that. But as Democrats search for a liberal counter to the right-wing media ecosystem that helped Trump win back the White House by reaching millions who don't pay attention to mainstream media, the online show of a relatable and popular Democrat could be what they are looking for. Regardless of what Democrats want her podcast to be, Michelle Obama has demonstrated she'll do her show her way. For now, she's using a platform that reflects the former first lady's larger, and perhaps more effective, cultural strategy that mirrors how Black women voters - part of the party's loyalist base - are coping after former Vice President Kamala Harris' loss in the 2024 election, said Democratic strategist Nina Smith. "So this is the best way that she can create space and show the multi-dimensional nature of Black women: our thinking; how we engage friends; how we engage with people across racial lines; how we engage with our siblings; and the fullness of us, while also allowing her to speak to the issues of the moment," Smith said. IMO (short for "in my opinion"), is largely devoid of juicy gossip, let alone talk about any current or former White House occupants. The Father's Day episode, which featured Bruce Springsteen and watched by roughly 216,000 viewers on YouTube, came just days after Trump berated the rock music icon for calling the administration "corrupt, incompetent and treasonous." While Trump's name never came up, they both chuckled when Michelle Obama made a joke about some people being president who need therapy. Instead, they talked about going to therapy, building relationships with absentee parents and being present for their children during formative years "I realized that parenting is pennies in the bank," Springsteen said. "It's that time when you were working and you didn't want to stop, but you did. That made a huge difference to me. I always felt that if I had failed with my kids I would have failed tremendously at life." More: Pop stars, massive crowds and history: How the Obama and Harris campaigns compare Michelle Obama responded with a story from her childhood about what it meant when her father, who worked long hours as a city worker in Chicago, turned his full attention to her and her brother. "When he was present he was present in very small but meaningful ways," she said. 'She hates politics' Michelle Obama, a corporate lawyer specializing in marketing and intellectual property law, was carried into the national spotlight when a skinny senator with a Muslim middle name beat the old guards in both parties with a message of a new America founded upon hope. For most of that time she had to be more mindful of her husband's agenda and image. Since Trump took office, she's been openly critical of him, but on her terms, such as at the 2024 Democratic National Convention in her hometown of Chicago, rather than on her podcast. Speaking up and what she considers the right moment will likely continue, said Democratic strategist Lynda Tran. "I would not be surprised to see her using her voice to rally Democrats in the future assuming the appropriate venues and strategic value. And I would expect an overwhelmingly positive response from Democrats when she does," Tran, who worked in the Obama administration, told USA TODAY. But her participation in politics might be through raising money and giving speeches, rather than a central role in the party's future. Her focus in the last few years has been on outside projects, her family and now the new podcast she co-hosts with her brother. Demands to do more from either Barack or Michelle Obama are often met with scoffs by longtime supporters, such as Natalie Graves, a clinical social worker who was at Chicago's Grant Park when the couple took the victory stage in November 2008. More: Obama warns Trump administration has 'weak commitment' to democracy in Connecticut speech "My first response is an eye roll," Graves, a 55-year-old registered Democrat, said of ongoing efforts to recruit the former first lady to run for president. "If a person says that they don't want to run, what are we talking about? They're ignoring the fact that she has made it very clear that she hates politics." 'Served their time' The former first lady firmly shut the door on running for president in March, saying her daughters, who are both in their 20s, had "served their time" in the limelight and should get to be private young adults. "I wanted them to have the freedom of not having the eyes of the world on them. So when people ask me would I ever run, the answer is no," Obama said on Kyle Kelcie's "Not Gonna Lie" podcast. "If you ask me that, then you have absolutely no idea the sacrifice your kids make when your parents are in that role." Democrats are casting about for trusted voices to better connect with different voters and help create a left-wing media ecosystem to match that of the right. Some liberal strategists are asking donors to contribute to finding voices and influencers on the left to counter people like Steve Bannon and Joe Rogan who helped propel Trump to office, the New York Times reported last month. Democrats statistically have more trust in mainstream media than Republicans, said Texas Christian University political science professor Adam Schiffer. The Democratic brain trust is asking "who is the Democratic Joe Rogan?" he said, but "it's not necessarily clear that there could be one because Democrats don't necessarily find that gratifying and entertaining." More: Town halls, f-bombs and Elon Musk: How Democrats are waging a new messaging war Younger people have a radically different media consumption than their parents, Schiffer said, and it "could become a critical problem for Democrats" if they don't figure out how to get in front of them. No matter how popular, a former first lady in her sixties might not be the best emissary to young people, he said. Influencers played a large role in Harris' abridged presidential campaign last summer and fall, but they couldn't compete with a Republican online juggernaut that has been building for over a decade. And not everyone is an "IMO" fan. Some are calling out the former first lady's complaints about living in the White House. For example, former Fox News host Megyn Kelly mocked the podcast in a June 26 video posted to X, later saying Michelle Obama was "trashing her children and husband again." When Michelle Obama does talk about politics in her podcast, it mostly orbits around the future for Americans in her daughters' generation and how political decisions impact ordinary people. She's often echoing the kind of kitchen table politicking that only voters in swing states get to hear about every four years from presidential candidates. "I'm talking to so many young people who are deathly afraid of their futures in this climate," she said in the May 21 episode. "They're not just worried about jobs, they're worried about being able to become the next entrepreneur, they're wondering whether, you know, they'll have healthcare and housing [and] whether they'll be able to pay off their student loans." In that episode, Obama and her brother spoke with Airbnb CEO Brian Chesky about the future of businesses under the Trump' administration's new tariffs. They talked about how the taxes on goods brought into the country are being passed on to consumers and hindering the ability of younger Americans trying to make it to reach their goals in the current economy. More: Will TikTok be banned? Donald Trump says he has a 'warm spot' for app as it faces January deadline "I mean, some people can hold on, but other people are not only losing their businesses, but they're losing their homes in the process," she said. "It's kind of scary." Michelle Obama did use the podcast to defend her decision not to attend Trump's January inauguration, which sparked rounds of criticism and speculation about her marriage. She insisted she was simply "making the choice that was right" for her. "Whatever the backlash was, I had to sit in it and own it. But I didn't regret it, you know? It's my life now, and I can say that, now," the mom of two said on a June 26 NPR podcast. Dems in a ditch Michelle Obama's show also arrives at a time when the Democratic brand remains in the ditch with progressive voters. About one-third of Democrats said they are optimistic about their party's future, a May poll by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found. Though several Democrats are starting to make moves toward 2028, liberals have struggled with the lack of a main character to match Trump's political moxie the way then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi did in his first term. Lately, Democratic officeholders have clashed with federal agents at press conferences, immigration hearings and ICE facilities, creating viral moments that have been cheered by mainstream and more left-leaning progressives. More: Vance defends using military to quell protests, refers to Sen. Alex Padilla as 'Jose' Such actions have never been in either of the Obamas' style, and some Black political activists and artists have been emphasizing the need for "self-care" over political action in the aftermath of the 2024 election. "It's important for her to stay within the public space, so it's good that she wants to be active. She endorses candidates and stuff of that nature. I have no problem with that," said Steven Uzoukwu, a 33, a cybersecurity analyst from Baltimore, Maryland. "I just think we shouldn't rely on the Obamas to save America."
