Lawsuit accuses University of California of racial discrimination in admissions
A group called Students Against Racial Discrimination sued Monday in federal court, alleging the university system admits students with inferior academic credentials at the expense of better-qualified ones.
The complaint claims UC's admissions practices violate a state law approved by voters in 1996 that forbids considering race and other factors in public education, public employment and public contracting.
In addition, the filing alleges that the California campuses are violating the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment as well as Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bars federal funds recipients from discriminating based on race.
UC officials didn't immediately respond Tuesday to emails and phone calls seeking comment on the lawsuit.
The lawsuit asks a judge to block the university system with 10 campuses from asking about race in student applications and to appoint a court monitor to oversee admission decisions.
Asian American and white applicants are discriminated against because of their race, while Latino and Black students are 'often placed at a significant academic disadvantage, and thus experience worse outcomes, because of the university's use of racial preferences," the complaint alleges.
'Students of all races are harmed by the University of California's discriminatory behavior,' the lawsuit says.
It accuses UC officials of ordering campuses to use a 'holistic' review of undergraduate admissions, 'in other words, that they move away from objective criteria towards more subjective assessments of the overall appeal of individual candidates.'
As an example, the filing cites a statistic that in 2010 the University of California, Berkeley admitted 13% of Black, in-state students, compared with an overall 21% admission rate. By 2023, the Black admissions rate at Berkeley was 10%, compared to an overall rate of 12%, the complaint said.
The lawsuit comes more than a year after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down affirmative action in college admissions, declaring race cannot be a factor and forcing institutions of higher education to look for new ways to achieve diverse student bodies.
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
Do not enforce Palestine Action terror ban in Scotland
A motion on the provisional agenda for the conference – which will take place in Aberdeen from October 11-13 – says designation of Palestine Action as a terrorist group should 'not be implemented or enforced in Scotland'. It further calls on the SNP leadership at Holyrood and Westminster to 'work with progressive allies to oppose the proscription and support its repeal'. Keir Starmer's Government designated Palestine Action a terrorist organisation in July, leading the UN human rights chief Volker Turk to intervene and warn that Labour had put the UK 'at odds' with international law. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper speaking in the Commons (Image: PA) However, Labour have stood by the proscription, with Home Secretary Yvette Cooper claiming over the weekend that 'important details' about the decision cannot be made public due to court proceedings. In Scotland, policing of Palestine protests in the wake of the terror legislation has sparked high-level concerns about breaches of human rights to freedom of expression and assembly. The motion proposed for the SNP conference, put forward by the party's BAME (Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic) network, calls on the Scottish Government to 'defend the right to protest within Scotland's jurisdiction'. It reads: 'Conference condemns the UK Government's decision to ban Palestine Action, a non-violent group protesting against the UK Government's complicity in Israeli military actions in Gaza and the Occupied Territories. READ MORE: Leaked document 'leaves Government's Palestine Action case in tatters' 'Conference also criticises the UK Government's decision to bundle Palestine Action with two unrelated extremist groups – the Murder Maniac Cult and the Russian Imperial Movement – in a single parliamentary vote, denying MPs the opportunity to assess each case on its own merits. 'In response, conference commends SNP Glasgow city councillors for defending Palestine Action's right to peaceful protest, at a constituted meeting, and further opposing Keir Starmer's attempts to criminalise direct action through misuse of terrorism legislation. 'Conference believes this attack on democratic rights is intended to deflect attention from the Israeli military's mass killing of over 60,000 Palestinian civilians.' The motion will need to be accepted for the finalised agenda and voted on by SNP delegates before becoming official party policy. However, that would not necessarily mean it will also be taken on by the SNP-run Scottish Government. Lord Advocate Dorothy Bain is head of prosecutions in Scotland (Image: (Andrew Milligan/PA)) Policing and law enforcement are devolved in Scotland. As such, although the Lord Advocate – Scotland's top legal officer – cannot change the law, she has discretion in how it is enforced. This has been demonstrated in the safe consumption space in Glasgow, set up to help people with drug addiction issues. Lord Advocate Dorothy Bain publicly said she had 'concluded that it would not be in the public interest to prosecute people for simple possession offences when they are already in a place where help with their issues can be offered'. READ MORE: Police Scotland respond as officers detain 'pro-plasticine' activist in viral video Bain leads the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS), which in recent weeks has been cancelling court dates and lifting bail conditions for Scottish activists charged under terror laws following the proscription of Palestine Action. The COPFS decisions came after the Scottish Human Rights Commission warned of a risk to human rights in the way pro-Palestine protesters were being policed. On Monday, Bain said in a public reply to the commission: 'Cases involving 'Palestine Action' reported to the Procurator Fiscal will be considered by a specialist prosecutor, overseen by senior prosecutors. The prosecutor will carefully examine whether there is sufficient evidence and determine what action, if any, should be taken in the public interest.'
The Herald Scotland
9 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
NFL, ESPN deal is bad for sports journalism. Kaepernick doc proves it
When news broke that the NFL and ESPN were getting in bed together, with the league eventually owning 10% of the network, concerns immediately arose about the deal's impact on ESPN's journalistic independence. A media outlet being owned, even slightly, by an entity it covers. What could possibly go wrong! Even NFL commissioner Roger Goodell's promise to ESPN employees that the league wouldn't interfere with the network's journalism wasn't enough to satisfy concerns. Why? Because the league has shown over and over again that it can't be trusted. Its long-standing denials that the game could cause traumatic brain injuries. Its bait-and-switch on health care for retirees. Its abysmal treatment of Black players. I could go on. The only constant in the NFL, besides Jerry Jones' inability to see his shortcomings as a GM, is that the NFL is going to do what's best for the NFL. And a documentary on Colin Kaepernick would be the opposite of what's best for the NFL. OPINION: I was interviewed by Spike Lee for Colin Kaepernick doc. What happened to it? The NFL has largely moved on from the firestorm that surrounded Kaepernick's protests of racist policing of people of color. Kaepernick hasn't been on an NFL roster in eight years, and the other players who were prominent in their support of him or active in the Players Coalition are no longer in the league. The fans who claimed they'd never watch the NFL again because of the protests by Kaepernick and other players are, predictably, watching the NFL again. Donald Trump, who did as much as anyone to fan the fury over the player protests, has long since turned his attention to demonizing other protestors and people of color. A Kaepernick documentary puts it all -- the reasons for the protests, Kaepernick's collusion lawsuit, Goodell's 2020 apology to the former quarterback -- back in the spotlight, and the NFL would prefer just about anything but that. Especially given the merger with ESPN is expected to require approval from, among others, the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission. Fear that Trump would put his thumb on the scale of a major merger cowed CBS into paying an eight-figure sum to settle a winnable lawsuit the President filed against the network. Canning a documentary probably seems like a pittance by comparison, a couple of days of unflattering stories preferable to another season of manufactured outrage. "ESPN, Colin Kaepernick and Spike Lee have collectively decided to no longer proceed with this project as a result of certain creative differences," ESPN said in a statement to Reuters, which broke the news Saturday that the documentary has been shelved. OK. Sure. "The NFL played no role in this decision," NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy told USA TODAY Sports. OK. Sure. Again. Merger aside, the NFL and ESPN have been here before. And by here, I mean having a "change of heart" about the network airing something that would make the NFL look bad. Back in 2013, ESPN was collaborating with PBS' Frontline on "League of Denial," an investigation into how the NFL had handled the growing crisis of former players developing chronic traumatic encephalopathy and other trauma-related brain diseases. But on Aug. 22 of that year, PBS released a statement saying ESPN was no longer involved in the documentary. "We don't normally comment on investigative projects in progress, but we regret ESPN's decision to end a collaboration that has spanned the last 15 months and is based on the work of ESPN reporters Mark Fainaru-Wada and Steve Fainaru, as well as FRONTLINE's own original journalism," Frontline executives said. Unsurprisingly, the NFL denied pressuring ESPN. A day after Frontline's announcement, however, the New York Times reported that ESPN's decision came after Goodell and then-NFL Network president Steve Bornstein had expressed their displeasure with "League of Denial" during a lunch with network executives. The NFL succeeded in blackballing Kaepernick once. Why did anyone think it would be different this time around? The NFL has a vested interest in avoiding stories that could tarnish its image and put any of its multibillion-dollar revenues at risk. ESPN has a vested interest in keeping the league happy -- now more than ever. If that means journalistic independence has to take a back seat every once in a while, so be it. When there's money to be made and bills to pay, integrity is expendable. Follow USA TODAY Sports columnist Nancy Armour on social media @nrarmour.
The National
a day ago
- The National
Immigration debate has been mishandled by both the left and the right
The same dynamic was visible in Tommy Robinson's recent appearance on the Triggernometry YouTube show, which reached millions online. The reaction was telling. Black men from Birmingham and London, once hostile, said they now support him. Ex-Muslims from Iran, Tunisia, and Algeria wrote that he speaks uncomfortable truths about Islam. LGBT people, pensioners, Hindus, even Canadians and Americans described him as a hero. Whether one agrees with him or not, it shows how far his message has moved into the mainstream. Ignoring that shift or writing it off as pure racism only drives more people into his corner. READ MORE: Falkirk protests face-off outside hotel housing asylum seekers The problem is that both left and right have mishandled this debate. The left is right to defend refugees and to insist that scapegoating them is wrong. But it has often treated every concern as racism, which shuts down legitimate discussion in communities that feel ignored. The right is right that immigration has been mishandled and that grooming gangs were ignored for too long. But it collapses crime and immigration into the same category, directing rage at refugees rather than at governments that failed to act. We need honesty. If someone is in Britain under asylum and commits a serious crime such as rape or grooming, the contract with the state is broken. They should be deported without delay. That is not racism – it is the only way to uphold trust in the system. At the same time, refugees fleeing persecution cannot be treated as criminals by default. Their stories show why they need protection. READ MORE: Police probe 'racist' banner outside Scottish asylum seeker hotel Take Bella, a transgender teacher from Afghanistan. When the Taliban returned in 2021, she knew discovery meant death – by stoning, by fire, or by being thrown from a building. Along with around 30 others, she was evacuated in a secret UK mission for LGBT Afghans. She arrived in Britain with one spare set of clothes and a false medical story as cover. Now she lives in Brighton: safe, free, but lonely, still struggling with the scars of fear. Others on her flight, like Ahmed, a gay youth worker, describe it bluntly: escaping was 'the only chance to stay alive.' These are the human realities hidden when asylum is reduced to slogans. And yet, we cannot ignore another reality. Earlier this year, when I went to a gay club in Manchester's Village, a car slowed down outside, its windows rolled down, and four young Muslim men shouted abuse at us as we queued to get in. In what is supposed to be our own safe space. My community has fought for 50 years to win visibility, safety, and dignity. When abuse like that goes unanswered, it breeds fear – and that fear is why some LGBT people now drift toward the far right. In the Netherlands, it was gay men and women, once a persecuted minority, who became a decisive bloc of support for Geert Wilders's anti-immigration party. They did not switch because they suddenly became racist, but because they felt their values – equality, freedom, the right to live openly – were under threat and dismissed by the mainstream. READ MORE: One man, 26, arrested at Falkirk asylum seeker hotel protests That is what this all comes back to: values. Not Muslim or Christian, not immigrant or native, but human values. Equality, dignity, respect. Many British Muslims live by those values – comedians like Guz Khan, Mawaan Rizwan, or Omid Djalili come from Muslim backgrounds and represent integration at its best. But others bring with them patriarchal and violent ideas imported from Afghanistan, Pakistan, or elsewhere: that women should obey, that daughters can be controlled, that religion overrides freedom. Those attitudes clash with the rights we have built here, and pretending otherwise helps no-one. If Scotland wants to do better, we must confront this honestly. We must defend refugees like Bella who flee for their lives. We must be unflinching in punishing those who abuse our trust, including deportation when crimes are committed. And we must insist that anyone who comes here, of any faith or background, lives by the same fundamental values of equality and freedom. If our politics refuses to do this, the far right will step into the vacuum, just as it already has elsewhere in Europe. Falkirk may look like a local flashpoint, but it is a warning of what happens when the shouting drowns out the truth. If we cannot find balance, we will lose control of the debate altogether. James Murphy Bute I WONDER if anyone from the Scottish Government and/or the SNP leadership could please explain why they are very reluctant to implement the Supreme Court's decision on gender rules for schools and prisons while happily and rather meekly accepting the very same court's decision that we cannot hold an independence referendum. Asking for a friend. Iain Wilson Stirling
