
Illinois university sued after professor alleges he was fired for objecting to race-based hiring policies
The University of Illinois Chicago (UIC) is facing a lawsuit over its racial hiring quotas after a former professor claimed he was illegally "retaliated" against for objecting to its allegedly discriminatory practices.
Professor Stephen Kleinschmit was a clinical associate professor at UIC's Department of Public Policy, Management and Analytics (PPMA) until his contract was terminated in August 2023.
According to a legal complaint filed in federal court Monday by legal firm Liberty Justice Center, Kleinschmit was fired after criticizing the allegedly discriminatory and unlawful nature of a new university recruitment program that focused on candidates' race, gender and sexual orientation in its criteria for hiring.
The lawsuit claims that in late 2019, the professor became uncomfortable during meetings about the candidate search for UIC's new "Bridge to Faculty" (B2F) program. B2F is a recruitment program under the university's diversity office, which aims to diversify faculty and "attract underrepresented postdoctoral scholars with the goal of a direct transition to a tenure-track junior faculty position after two years," UIC says.
During these meetings, fellow faculty members "spent an extended period of time discussing the racial characteristics of the candidates and routinely lamented the race and gender makeup of the applicant pool," the complaint states.
Kleinschmit came to believe that B2F, and other diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs at the public university, were illegal under federal nondiscrimination law.
He initially hesitated to speak out for fear of "being ostracized and retaliated against" as a non-tenure faculty member. Eventually, he shared his concerns with other members of his department and college administrators, worrying that he could be implicated in participating in what he believed to be illegal activities by the university.
Kleinschmit's conversations objecting to the university's racial hiring practices and political activism over that nearly 4-year period before he was terminated, "were not well received," the complaint adds.
The complaint names four other race-based hiring programs at UIC to argue there is "pervasive racial discrimination in employment practices" at the school that has "undermined" its academic integrity.
UIC allegedly said Kleinschmit's contract was not renewed due to budget cuts.
The complaint says that five months after his termination, UIC advertised it was hiring for a non-tenure track faculty position with job duties that "significantly overlapped" with Kleinschmit's prior responsibilities. The job posting encouraged "members of a recognized underrepresented group" to apply.
Liberty Justice Center says Kleinschmit was an "exemplary" employee who was promoted early and received positive performance evaluations, merit-driven bonuses and salary increases every year of his 6-year employment at the university.
The professor says he was not notified of his impending layoff until June 2023, leaving him little time for a successful appeal. The late notice also hurt his ability to find another job before the commencement of the academic school year, leaving him unemployed for an entire year, according to the complaint.
Liberty Justice Center is accusing UIC of racial discrimination and retaliation against Kleinschmit. It asks the court to order the university to halt its racially discriminatory hiring and retention practices and seeks financial damages for the earnings and benefits Kleinschmit lost because of the university's "illegal" actions.
"The University of Illinois Chicago repeatedly engaged in blatant acts of racial discrimination, then added illegal retaliation to the mix to avoid accountability for its unlawful behavior," Reilly Stephens, Senior Counsel at the Liberty Justice Center, said. "These actions are unacceptable violations of the right to equal protection under the law, and we urge the court to put a stop to it immediately."
Kleinschmit, who is now an instructor at Northwestern University's School of Public Policy, said, "I was fired for speaking out against illegal behavior by the university. I'm grateful to the Liberty Justice Center for taking a stand against institutional corruption and fighting for my constitutional and statutory rights."
The University of Illinois Chicago said it does not comment on pending litigation.
The lawsuit is the latest example of a public university facing scrutiny for its race-based hiring practices after the University of Colorado Boulder also came under fire in recent weeks.
In his first slew of executive orders, President Donald Trump launched a federal review of DEI teachings and practices in educational institutions receiving federal funding.
On January 21, Trump issued an order, "Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity," that accuses DEI policies of violating civil rights protections.
The order requires that the attorney general and secretary of education identify potential civil compliance investigations among institutions of higher education with endowments over $1 billion and, accordingly, develop action plans to "deter DEI programs or principles that constitute illegal discrimination or preferences."
Universities across the nation shuttered their DEI offices last year as Republican lawmakers targeted these policies. Missouri State University and West Virginia University are the latest schools to shut down their DEI programs this year.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Yahoo
North Carolina school district to issue apology, pay $20K to student suspended over 'illegal alien' comment
The family of a North Carolina high school student suspended for using the term "illegal alien" is slated to receive a $20,000 payment and a public apology under a proposed settlement, according to The New York Post. The outlet reported Thursday that the settlement was reached to remove all references to racial bias from now-17-year-old Christian McGhee's record, provide compensation and issue a public apology "for the mischaracterization of racial bias." "The Proposed Settlement provides C.M. with monetary compensation intended to defray the costs of his new school, which is private and charges annual tuition," according to the document. The settlement is now pending a judge's approval. North Carolina Student Sues School Board After Suspension For Using The Term 'Illegal Alien' McGhee's lawyer, Liberty Justice Center attorney Dean McGee, told the Carolina Journal that a motion had been filed on Friday, asking the court to approve a settlement to resolve the matter. Read On The Fox News App "Because Christian is a minor, a court hearing is required before the settlement can become final," he explained. "We'll have more to say after that hearing, but we're pleased to take this important step toward clearing our client's name." The teen received a three-day suspension last year after asking his teacher if a conversation in class was centered around "spaceship aliens" or "illegal aliens who need green cards" after he returned to the classroom from the restroom. A Latino student present in the class reportedly "joked" that he was going to "kick Christian's a--," leading the teacher to escalate the situation to the assistant principal. The comment was ultimately deemed racially insensitive by the school administration, which the family disputes, and prompted a year-long legal battle. Ny Mom Files Lawsuit Against School After Son Allegedly Punished For Defending 'Two Genders' McGhee and his family maintained his innocence throughout. McGhee's mother Leah, who was behind the legal push against the district, joined "Fox & Friends" last year to air some of her grievances concerning the matter. "Christian was suspended three days, out of school suspension. He missed several very important track meets, and, since that time, we have removed him from the school," McGhee told Fox News' Ainsley Earhardt. "We have asked the school to handle this privately for weeks. I have emailed the school board for four weeks. I've had no response from the school board, and since… we had no resolution, we had no other choice but to file a lawsuit and take this public." Click Here For More Coverage Of Media And Culture Dean McGee, the family's attorney, argued at the time that the United States government uses the term "illegal alien," which is clearly defined in Webster's Dictionary, and has no racial specification. The lawsuit centered on McGhee's First Amendment rights. Fox News Digital reached out to the Davidson County School District for comment on the proposed settlement, but did not immediately receive a response. Fox News' Bailee Hill contributed to this article source: North Carolina school district to issue apology, pay $20K to student suspended over 'illegal alien' comment


Fox News
4 days ago
- Fox News
North Carolina school district to issue apology, pay $20K to student suspended over 'illegal alien' comment
The family of a North Carolina high school student suspended for using the term "illegal alien" is slated to receive a $20,000 payment and a public apology under a proposed settlement, according to The New York Post. The outlet reported Thursday that the settlement was reached to remove all references to racial bias from now-17-year-old Christian McGhee's record, provide compensation and issue a public apology "for the mischaracterization of racial bias." "The Proposed Settlement provides C.M. with monetary compensation intended to defray the costs of his new school, which is private and charges annual tuition," according to the document. The settlement is now pending a judge's approval. McGhee's lawyer, Liberty Justice Center attorney Dean McGee, told the Carolina Journal that a motion had been filed on Friday, asking the court to approve a settlement to resolve the matter. "Because Christian is a minor, a court hearing is required before the settlement can become final," he explained. "We'll have more to say after that hearing, but we're pleased to take this important step toward clearing our client's name." The teen received a three-day suspension last year after asking his teacher if a conversation in class was centered around "spaceship aliens" or "illegal aliens who need green cards" after he returned to the classroom from the restroom. A Latino student present in the class reportedly "joked" that he was going to "kick Christian's a--," leading the teacher to escalate the situation to the assistant principal. The comment was ultimately deemed racially insensitive by the school administration, which the family disputes, and prompted a year-long legal battle. McGhee and his family maintained his innocence throughout. McGhee's mother Leah, who was behind the legal push against the district, joined "Fox & Friends" last year to air some of her grievances concerning the matter. "Christian was suspended three days, out of school suspension. He missed several very important track meets, and, since that time, we have removed him from the school," McGhee told Fox News' Ainsley Earhardt. "We have asked the school to handle this privately for weeks. I have emailed the school board for four weeks. I've had no response from the school board, and since… we had no resolution, we had no other choice but to file a lawsuit and take this public." Dean McGee, the family's attorney, argued at the time that the United States government uses the term "illegal alien," which is clearly defined in Webster's Dictionary, and has no racial specification. The lawsuit centered on McGhee's First Amendment rights. Fox News Digital reached out to the Davidson County School District for comment on the proposed settlement, but did not immediately receive a response.


Chicago Tribune
6 days ago
- Chicago Tribune
Column: Court says Trump tariffs are presidential overreach
The Trump administration's arbitrary moves to restructure the international trade environment to accommodate White House whims have suddenly run into reality, specifically established laws. This confrontation is still in the early stages, but it does not bode well for President Donald Trump and his ardent protectionist associates. On May 28, the U.S. Court of International Trade went back to basics in a decision featuring the reminder that, under the Constitution, Congress has the authority to regulate trade. This fundamental power is not overridden by the ability of the president to address trade challenges in an emergency. 'The court does not pass upon the wisdom or likely effectiveness of the President's use of tariffs as leverage,' a three-judge panel said in the decision to issue a permanent injunction on the blanket tariff orders issued by Trump since January. 'That use is impermissible not because it is unwise or ineffective, but because [federal law] does not allow it.' The ruling came in response to two lawsuits. One was filed by the Liberty Justice Center, a nonpartisan organization, on behalf of five small U.S. companies that import goods from countries targeted by Trump's tariffs. The other was filed by a dozen state governments within the U.S. Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, a Democrat, is coordinating the states' efforts against the administration. He has declared the tariffs to be economically devastating, reckless and unlawful. Small businesses seeking relief include an importer of wine and other alcoholic beverages based in New York and a maker of educational kits and musical instruments located in Virginia. President Trump has been basing his unilateral tariff authority on the International Economic Emergency Powers Act (IEEPA), passed by Congress and signed into law by President Jimmy Carter near the end of December 1977. The law authorizes the president to declare 'an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States,' with the proviso that such threats must originate, 'in whole or substantial part outside the United States,' and requires the president to provide updates to Congress every six months. An incentive for this legislation was a desire in Congress to clarify and restrict presidential actions justified under the 1917 Trading With the Enemy Act, a law which reflected the emergency leading to U.S. entry into World War I as a formal declared combatant. The immediate incentive for our nation to enter that war was the declaration by Germany of unrestricted submarine warfare. The 1917 law had been used to justify a variety of presidential initiatives, not all related to foreign policy and international developments. Declared national emergencies then still technically in effect included the 1933 banking crisis related to the hoarding of cash and gold, the 1950 Korean War crisis, a 1970 emergency related to a strike by postal workers and a 1971 emergency related to the deteriorating fiscal condition of the federal government. Key powers granted include the ability to block transactions and take control of the assets of the parties involved in the threats. This section was used by the Trump administration to justify the new tariffs. IEEPA was passed during a time of congressional assertiveness. Another important factor, no doubt, was President Carter's fixation on clear, orderly administration, which he carried to extremes. The severe national crises, traumas and wars described above contrast with today's long-term growth and prosperity, and blessed absence of direct involvement in war. The judicial veto of presidential overreach shows our system is working.