Indiana high school sports conference facing pressure to end DEI quotas
A legal firm and an activist group are pressuring the Indiana High School Athletics Association (IHSAA) board of directors, urging it to get rid of two DEI quotas for board members.
The current criteria for the board's members includes a requirement for two female members and two members who are racial minorities.
"The Board of Directors shall be comprised of nineteen board seats. Twelve board seats shall be filled by any qualified individual (open seats), and seven board seats shall be filled by Two (2) qualified female representatives, Two (2) qualified minorities," the policy states.
Now, the law firm, Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF), and the activist group, Equal Protection Project (EPP), have sent a letter to the IHSAA board of directors, objecting to this criteria and demanding change.
"No one should be denied the opportunity to serve on a public board due to their race or sex. Our Constitution and civil rights law demand that individuals be judged on their character, qualifications, and achievements, not on characteristics they cannot control. IHSAA has a constitutional duty to treat all Board of Director nominees equally under the law," part of the letter reads.
"Race- and sex-based quotas like those used by IHSAA perpetuate stereotypes, patronize the qualified, and undermine the ability of other qualified citizens to serve their communities. We strongly urge this Board to reconsider its use of these unconstitutional quotas."
Pacific Legal Foundation attorney Laura D'Agostino condemned the IHSAA's criteria.
"Public boards should reflect the talents and commitment of all citizens, not arbitrary categories of race or sex. Every individual who wants to step up and serve their community should be encouraged to do so based on what they bring to the table, not held back because of who they are," D'Agostino told Fox News Digital.
PLF and EPP ended the letter by providing a deadline of May 30 for the IHSAA to respond with an agreement to remove those two requirements for its board of directors.
EPP founder William A. Jacobson suggested further legal steps could be taken if the deadline passes with no agreement.
"We hope that IHSAA will do the right thing and voluntarily remedy the discriminatory bylaws provisions, but if it does not, all legal options are on the table," Jacobson told Fox News Digital.
Fox News Digital has reached out to the IHSAA for comment.
Recent executive orders by President Donald Trump have targeted DEI in both public institutions and the private sector, and many states have passed their own laws to prohibit DEI quotas in taxpayer-funded organizations.
Trump's day one executive order, which the GSA is aligning its actions with, directed the federal contracting process to "be streamlined to enhance speed and efficiency, reduce costs, and require Federal contractors and subcontractors to comply with our civil-rights laws."
The order also commanded the Office of Federal Contract Compliance to "immediately cease" promoting "diversity" and any encouragement of federal contractors and subcontractors to engage in affirmative action-like efforts that consider race, color, sex, sexual preference, religion or national origin when making hiring decisions.
Meanwhile, in Indiana, a state bill authored by Republican Sens. Tyler Johnson and Gary Byrne to outlaw "discrimination" in state education, public employment and licensing settings that is "based on a personal characteristic of the person," was signed by Gov. Mike Braun on May 1.
Braun signed an executive order in January to eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion in all state agencies and replace it with what he calls "MEI" – merit, excellence and innovation.
Under that executive order, government offices cannot use state funds, property or resources to support DEI initiatives or require job candidates to issue DEI statements.
Follow Fox News Digital's sports coverage on X, and subscribe to the Fox News Sports Huddle newsletter.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
40 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Bolsonaro denies orchestrating Brazil coup in Supreme Court testimony
BRASILIA (Reuters) -Former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro denied that he led an attempt to overthrow the government after losing the 2022 election during his trial before the country's Supreme Court on Tuesday, but acknowledged taking part in meetings aimed at reversing the outcome. Bolsonaro said he and senior aides discussed alternatives to accepting the electoral results, including the possibility of deploying military forces and suspending some civil liberties, but he said those proposals were soon dropped. "The feeling was that there was nothing else we could do. We had to swallow the election results," the ex-president said. "I never acted against the Constitution," Bolsonaro added, holding a copy of the country's 1988 charter that re-established democracy after two decades of military rule. In March, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case against Bolsonaro and seven other people, including several military officers, who were charged with plotting a coup to stop Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva from taking office in January 2023. The charges stem from a two-year police investigation into the election-denying movement that culminated in riots by Bolsonaro supporters in the capital in early 2023, a week after Lula took office. Bolsonaro, who was the sixth defendant to testify in the case, spent several minutes of his two hours of testimony defending his administration's achievements and his criticism of the country's electoral system. Dozens of witnesses were previously heard by the court, an indication that the case is moving swiftly and could be concluded by the end of the year, avoiding overlap with campaigning for the 2026 presidential election. Bolsonaro has insisted he will run in that campaign, despite an electoral court decision barring him from seeking public office until 2030. On Monday, Bolsonaro attended the trial to watch testimony from Mauro Cid, his former aide turned whistleblower, and then shook his hand. Cid told the court that the former president reviewed a draft decree that was central to the coup plot and made changes, while keeping a section that ordered the arrest of Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, who is now overseeing the case against Bolsonaro and his allies. On Tuesday, the former president said he only briefly saw the draft decree and never edited it. He also apologized for making unfounded corruption allegations about Supreme Court justices. "Forgive me," he told Moraes. A final ruling on Bolsonaro's case is expected by October.
Hamilton Spectator
an hour ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Lawyers for Kilmar Abrego Garcia say Trump administration's actions left ‘stain' on Constitution
Lawyers for Kilmar Abrego Garcia are accusing President Donald Trump's administration of pretending for weeks to be powerless to bring him back to the United States from El Salvador, despite orders from a federal judge and the Supreme Court to facilitate his return. Abrego Garcia's attorneys made the allegation in a court filing shortly after the Maryland construction worker was flown to Tennessee on Friday to face federal human smuggling charges . '(T)he Government has always had the ability to return Abrego Garcia, but it has simply refused to do so,' the attorneys wrote, arguing that the administration has 'engaged in an elaborate, all-of-government effort to defy court orders, deny due process, and disparage Abrego Garcia.' The attorneys said the lawsuit over his mistaken deportation has not concluded in a Maryland federal court. 'The executive branch's wanton disregard for the judicial branch has left a stain on the Constitution,' the attorneys wrote. 'If there is to be any hope of removing that stain, it must start by shining a light on the improper actions of the Government in this tragic affair and imposing meaningful remedies.' Abrego Garcia's attorneys made that argument in response to a filing by the Trump administration to halt the lawsuit's proceedings because he's back in the U.S. U.S. attorneys asked for an immediate stay after U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi announced the charges in Tennessee . The attorneys wrote that the government complied with the Maryland federal court's order to return Abrego Garcia. The U.S. intends to file a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. In a court filing on Tuesday, the Trump administration pushed back against the accusations of Abrego Garcia's lawyers, describing them as baseless, desperate and disappointing. 'But the proof is in the pudding — Defendants have returned Abrego Garcia to the United States just as they were ordered to do,' the U.S. attorneys wrote. 'None of Plaintiffs' hyperbolic arguments change that or justify further proceedings in this matter.' U.S. officials said Abrego Garcia was deported because of a 2019 accusation from local police in Maryland that he was an MS-13 gang member. Abrego Garcia has denied the allegation and was never charged with a crime, his attorneys said. Abrego Garcia's deportation violated a U.S. immigration judge's order in 2019 that shielded him from expulsion to his native country. The immigration judge had determined that Abrego Garcia faced likely persecution by a local Salvadoran gang that had terrorized his family. Abrego Garcia's American wife sued over his deportation. U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis ordered his return on April 4 . The Supreme Court ruled on April 10 that the administration must work to bring him back. Arguments ensued over the next several weeks about whether the Trump administration was following those orders or not. Meanwhile, Trump said publicly that he could return Abrego Garcia to the U.S. with a call to El Salvador's president. The federal judge in Maryland ordered U.S. attorneys to submit documents and testimony to show what the government had done to follow her orders. The Trump administration claimed that much of that information is protected under the state secrets privilege . The judge has not ruled on that matter. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Los Angeles Times
an hour ago
- Los Angeles Times
California's senators push Pentagon for answers on deployment of hundreds of Marines to L.A.
California's two U.S. Senators pushed top military officials Tuesday for more information about how hundreds of U.S. Marines were deployed to Los Angeles over the objections of local leaders and what the active-duty military will do in Los Angeles. In a letter to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Sens. Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla asked the Pentagon to explain the legal basis for deploying 700 active-duty Marines amid ongoing protests and unrest over immigration raids across Southern California. 'A decision to deploy active-duty military personnel within the United States should only be undertaken during the most extreme circumstances, and these are not them,' Schiff and Padilla wrote in the letter. 'That this deployment was made over the objections of state authorities is all the more unjustifiable.' California is challenging the legality of the militarization, arguing in a lawsuit filed Monday that the deployment of both the National Guard and the Marines violated the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which spells out the limits of federal power. Schiff and Padilla asked Hegseth to clarify the mission the Marines will be following during their deployment, as well as what training the troops have received for crowd control, use of force and de-escalation. The senators also asked whether the Defense Department received any requests from the White House or the Department of Homeland Security about 'the scope of the Marines' mission and duties.' Hegseth mobilized the Marines Monday from a base in Twentynine Palms. Convoys were seen heading east on the 10 Freeway toward Los Angeles on Monday evening. Schiff and Padilla said that Congress received a notification from the U.S. Northern Command on Monday about the mobilization that said the Marines had been deployed to 'restore order' and support the roughly 4,000 members of the state National Guard who had been called into service Saturday and Monday. The notification, the senators said, 'did not provide critical information to understand the legal authority, mission, or rules of engagement for Marines involved in this domestic deployment.' The California National Guard was first mobilized Saturday night over Newsom's objection. The last time a president sent the National Guard into a state without a request from the governor was six decades ago, when President Lyndon B. Johnson mobilized troops in Alabama to defend civil rights demonstrators and enforce a federal court order in 1965. Trump and the White House have said the military mobilization is legal under Section 12406 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code on Armed Forces. The statute gives the president the authority to federalize the National Guard if there is 'a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the government of the United States,' but also states that the Guard must be called up through an order from the state's governor. Trump has said that without the mobilization of the military, 'Los Angeles would have been completely obliterated.' Days of protests have included some violent clashes with police and some vandalism and burglaries, including a spree of looting in downtown Los Angeles on Monday night. 'It was heading in the wrong direction,' Trump said Monday. 'It's now heading in the right direction. And we hope to have the support of Gavin, because Gavin is the big beneficiary as we straighten out his problems. I mean, his state is a mess.' On Tuesday morning, L.A. Mayor Karen Bass said city officials had not been told what the military would do, given that the National Guard is already in place outside of federal buildings. 'This is just absolutely unnecessary,' Bass said. 'People have asked me, 'What are the Marines going to do when they get here?' That's a good question. I have no idea.' On Tuesday, California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta sought a restraining order to block the deployment.
