Latest news with #SFFA
Time of India
20 hours ago
- Politics
- Time of India
Tennessee files lawsuit against US Education Department over Hispanic-serving college grants
Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti, in partnership with the conservative legal group Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA), has filed a federal lawsuit against the US Department of Education, challenging a grant programme that allocates federal funding to colleges where Hispanic students comprise at least 25% of the student population. The legal challenge, filed in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, contends that the federal programme unlawfully discriminates based on ethnicity and exceeds Congress's constitutional authority. Federal grants under fire for ethnicity-based criteria At issue is the Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSI) programme, established under Titles III and V of the Higher Education Act. Designed to bolster institutions with substantial Hispanic enrollment, the programme funds academic development, STEM tutoring, infrastructure improvement, and student support services. In FY 2024 alone, Congress appropriated over $228.9 million for the Developing Hispanic-Serving Institutions subprogramme. The plaintiffs argue that the programme's eligibility criteria exclude institutions, such as many in Tennessee, that serve Hispanic students but do not meet the federal enrollment threshold. According to the complaint, this results in an unconstitutional barrier that penalises schools for their racial and ethnic composition. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Perdagangkan CFD Emas dengan Broker Tepercaya IC Markets Mendaftar Undo "Un-American and unconstitutional": Skrmetti criticises federal policy In a statement accompanying the lawsuit, Skrmetti denounced the grant structure, calling it a violation of the nation's foundational principles. 'A federal grant system that openly discriminates against students based on ethnicity isn't just wrong and un-American—it's unconstitutional,' Skrmetti said to Associated Press. The Department of Education has not yet commented on the case or the allegations raised. Echoes of Supreme Court's affirmative action ruling The lawsuit follows the precedent set by the US Supreme Court's 2023 decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and UNC, in which the court struck down race-conscious admissions policies. SFFA, led by Edward Blum, was the driving force behind those cases and has since pursued multiple legal actions targeting diversity-based criteria across sectors. The current suit cites the same constitutional principles, namely, equal protection under the Fifth Amendment, and challenges the legitimacy of using ethnicity as a condition for federal funding. Part of a broader Anti-DEI legal movement The case aligns with broader conservative efforts to dismantle programmes that promote diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), which opponents claim institutionalise race-based preferences. These efforts gained significant momentum during President Donald Trump's administration and continue to shape the national legal and political discourse. The lawsuit asserts that by conditioning funding on racial demographics, Congress has exceeded its spending powers and instituted a system of racial preference incompatible with constitutional mandates. Legal representation and case details The case, officially titled State of Tennessee v. US Department of Education (No. 3:25-cv-270), is being argued by a prominent team of conservative litigators: Thomas McCarthy and Cameron Norris of Consovoy McCarthy, Adam Mortara of Lawfair, and Aaron Bernard of the Tennessee Attorney General's Office. If successful, the lawsuit could have sweeping implications for how federal funding is distributed to higher education institutions across the country, potentially curtailing ethnicity-based support mechanisms that have been in place for decades. Is your child ready for the careers of tomorrow? Enroll now and take advantage of our early bird offer! Spaces are limited.
Newsweek
2 days ago
- Politics
- Newsweek
Solid Red State Accuses Trump Admin of Discrimination in New Lawsuit
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Tennessee and Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) filed a federal lawsuit Wednesday arguing that the U.S. Department of Education's Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSI) program, overseen by Secretary Linda McMahon, constitutes racial discrimination. The move marks a notable challenge from a Republican-led state against the Trump administration's education policy. Newsweek has reached out to the Department of Education and legal representatives of SFFA via email on Thursday. Why It Matters The HSI program provides federal funding to colleges and universities where at least one-quarter of the undergraduate student body is Hispanic. It was created over three decades ago as part of the Titles III and V of the Higher Education Act. There are around 600 HISs in the U.S. and according to Ed Excelencia, they enroll 63 percent of all Latino undergraduates. No higher education institutions in Tennessee meet the program's threshold and therefore do not receive HSI funding. Tennessee has voted reliably Republican in presidential elections for more than two decades, supporting all three of Donald Trump's campaigns with more than 60 percent of the vote. The state last backed a Democrat in 1996, when President Bill Clinton carried it. Outside of Nashville and Memphis, much of Tennessee remains solidly Republican. President Donald Trump has repeatedly attacked higher education institutions and threatened loss of federal funding if his demands aren't met. He has pushed to dismantle diversity, equity and inclusion programs (DEI) and called on universities to curb campus protests, particularly those related to Israel's war in Gaza, which many legal scholars and activists have argued infringe on First Amendment rights. His administration has been most recently embroiled in legal challenges against Harvard University. What To Know The complaint, which was filed on Wednesday in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, claims that the program's "arbitrary ethnic threshold," unfairly excludes Tennessee institutions from accessing millions in federal grants. According to the filing, Tennessee operates multiple colleges and universities, and "every one of them serves Hispanic students. Every one of them serves low-income students," but they are barred from receiving HIS grants due to not having the "right mix of ethnicities on campus." The lawsuit argues that the University of Memphis, where 47 percent of students are low-income Pell Grant recipients and 62 percent are racial or ethnic minorities, is denied HSI funding because it lacks the "right" ethnic makeup. The HSI funding that certain schools obtain allows them to spend on programs "ranging from new lab equipment to STEM tutoring for low-income students," the complaint states. The plaintiffs argue that there is "no valid reason to make federal funds turn on race or ethnicity," and therefore are seeking a declaratory judgment that the ethnicity-based requirements are unconstitutional and should be barred. The plaintiffs wrote they are seeking "A permanent injunction prohibiting the Secretary from enforcing or applying the HSI program's ethnicity-based requirements when making decisions whether to award or maintain grants to Tennessee's institutions of higher education," along with relief of attorneys' fees and costs. (L): Students for Fair Admissions founder Edward Blum. (M): Education Secretary Linda McMahon speaks during a Senate Appropriations hearing, Tuesday, June 3, 2025, on Capitol Hill in Washington. (R): Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti. (L): Students for Fair Admissions founder Edward Blum. (M): Education Secretary Linda McMahon speaks during a Senate Appropriations hearing, Tuesday, June 3, 2025, on Capitol Hill in Washington. (R): Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti. AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson/Francis Chung/E&E News/POLITICO/George Walker IV The lawsuit comes after the 2023 Supreme Court ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, ruled that race-based admissions violated the equal protection clause, essentially striking down affirmative action. What People Are Saying Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti said in a statement: "A federal grant system that openly discriminates against students based on ethnicity isn't just wrong and un-American—it's unconstitutional. In SFFA v. Harvard, the Supreme Court ruled that racially discriminatory admissions standards violate the law, and the HSI program's discriminatory grant standards are just as illegal. Treating people differently because of their skin color and ancestry drags our country backward. The HSI program perversely deprives even needy Hispanic students of the benefits of this funding if they attend institutions that don't meet the government's arbitrary quota." Edward Blum, president of SFFA, said in a statement: "This lawsuit is not about denying opportunity to any racial or ethnic group. It is about ensuring that opportunity is extended to everyone on an equal basis. This lawsuit challenges a federal policy that conditions the receipt of taxpayer-funded grants on the racial composition of a student body. Discriminating against colleges, universities, faculty, and students based on race violates the fundamental principle of equal protection under the law. No student or institution should be denied opportunity because they fall on the wrong side of an ethnic quota." Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor said in her dissent to the 2023 Supreme Court case: "The Court subverts the constitutional guarantee of equal protection by further entrenching racial inequality in education, the very foundation of our democratic government and pluralistic its core, today's decision exacerbates segregation and diminishes the inclusivity of our Nation's institutions in service of superficial neutrality that promotes indifference to inequality and ignores the reality of race. " What Happens Next The case was filed on Wednesday, with summons sent to Education Secretary Linda McMahon.
Yahoo
14-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Asian American group sues Yale for alleged discrimination
[Source] The Asian American Coalition for Education (AACE), a nonprofit focused on Asian American equal rights in education, filed a federal civil rights complaint against Yale University on April 22, alleging the school used racial proxies to discriminate against Asian American applicants in their 2023-24 admissions cycle. The allegations Following the Supreme Court's landmark 2023 Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) ruling, Yale's Asian student enrollment decreased by approximately 20% from 2023 to 2024, according to the complaint. This contrasts sharply with other selective universities such as MIT and Johns Hopkins University, where Asian enrollment reportedly rose 15% and 43% during the same period. 'Compelling evidence indicated that Yale University may have unlawfully employed race proxies to circumvent the Supreme Court's SFFA rulings,' AACE President Yukong Zhao said in a statement. The complaint asks the federal government to suspend funding to Yale if the university does not comply with the law and 'remove all race-based admission preferences and practices.' AACE reportedly reviewed Yale's published admissions policy changes, including its Sept. 7, 2023 statement that admission reviewers would 'not have access to applicants' self-identified race and/or ethnicity' or 'aggregate data on the racial or ethnic composition' of applicants. Despite these claims, AACE alleges Yale employed racial proxies in its admissions process. Trending on NextShark: The big picture The coalition's action follows its previous 2016 civil suit against Yale on behalf of more than 130 Asian American groups that later resulted in a U.S. Department of Justice lawsuit in 2020. The recent complaint was encouraged by the Department of Education's Feb. 14 'Dear Colleague' letter, which stated that 'treating students differently on the basis of race to achieve nebulous goals such as diversity, racial balancing, social justice or equity is illegal under controlling Supreme Court precedent.' The complaint argues that Yale's enrollment decline 'strongly suggests that the institution remains committed to its DEI ideology and race-based admissions' despite the Supreme Court ruling. The Education Department's Office for Civil Rights is expected to investigate whether Yale's admissions practices violate civil rights laws. Trending on NextShark: NextShark/The Rebel Yellow has reached out to Yale University for comment. 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. Trending on NextShark: 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. Subscribe here now! Trending on NextShark: Download the NextShark App: Want to keep up to date on Asian American News? Download the NextShark App today!
Yahoo
23-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Central Ohio school districts balance DEI practices, federal compliance
COLUMBUS, Ohio (WCMH) — Ohio school districts had until Friday to sign and submit certifications saying they do not partake in 'illegal DEI practices' or risk losing federal funding. On April 3, the U.S. Department of Education required all state education departments to collect signed certifications from all public school districts saying they are in compliance with Title VI or risk their federal funding and open themselves to possible litigation. The requirement said the some diversity, equity and inclusion programs violate Title VI but did not clarify what qualifies as 'illegal DEI practices.' Big Walnut school board censures member Most, if not all, central Ohio schools elected to sign the certification to protect their funding. However, the letter did not include a definition of the diversity, equity and inclusion it considers illegal. The compliance certificate acknowledges a district's obligations under Title VI and SFFA v. Harvard. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act bans discrimination based on race or ethnicity in any program that receives federal funding, such as K-12 schools. The Harvard decision in 2023 struck down race-based affirmative action programs Bexley City Schools Superintendent Jason Fine said he signed and submitted the certification to protect the $950,000 in federal funding it receives annually. Pointing to the lack of definition, Bexley's statement included a statement about the district's legal reservation of rights. 'We will not change who we are and will continue our mission to love and care for each and every one of our students and staff,' Fine wrote in a message to families. OSU investigating hidden cameras in Morrill Tower Columbus City Schools released a statement similar to Bexley's, explaining they have signed the certification and are in compliance because the message was 'vague and ambiguous.' the district said it had already affirmed its compliance with Title VI in its grant applications, which it attached as further proof. Further, Columbus schools' resolution to sign the certification said the school board was unaware the Department of Education had the authority to make demands of districts without a formal administrative process. The district also clarified that by signing the letter, it was not giving up its right to sue if its funding was removed. 'At Columbus City Schools, we remain deeply committed to creating a safe, welcoming, and inclusive environment for all students, families, teachers and staff,' Superintendent Angela Chapman said. Both Columbus and Bexley have school departments with at least one employee who works to make the districts more equitable, as do other central Ohio school districts. Districts said their policies and departments do not defy the constraints in the federal Title IV compliance requirement. COTA to study making bus rides free Two of the eight central Ohio school districts that employed a director of DEI as of March 4 have since retitled or reassigned those employees. Worthington, which had an active DEI website page earlier this year, took down its page in March, according to website history data. Many central Ohio districts submitted their compliance letters without public messages to families. Chief Communications Officer for Upper Arlington Schools Karen Truett said the district signed the certification and did not have to make any changes to its policies. Grandview Heights said the same. 'We reviewed policies and websites so as to ensure we were compliant to the very best of our ability,' Grandview Heights Superintendent Andy Culp said. 'We signed the certification as was published. We do not believe that we will have to make any changes in how we are educating our students.' NBC4 asked the Ohio Department of Education and Workforce for more guidance, but a spokesperson did not offer a further description of what constitutes as illegal DEI. The spokesperson said the directive came from the federal government, which would be able to provide more information. The U.S. Department of Education did not respond to NBC4's inquiry by publication. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
11-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
US Air Force Academy under Trump ends race consideration in admissions
By Nate Raymond (Reuters) - The U.S. Air Force Academy will no longer consider race as a factor in admissions as the military school had long done to boost enrollment of Black, Hispanic and other minorities, U.S. President Donald Trump's administration said on Friday. The change was detailed in a filing by the U.S. Department of Justice in federal court in Denver asking a judge to put on hold a lawsuit that was filed in December by the group that successfully persuaded the U.S. Supreme Court to ban race-conscious admissions at civilian universities. That group, Students for Fair Admissions, was founded by affirmative action opponent Edward Blum and has been seeking to build on its 2023 victory at the Supreme Court, when the 6-3 conservative majority invalidated race-conscious admissions policies used by Harvard and the University of North Carolina. The ruling did not apply to military academies, which Chief Justice John Roberts wrote had "potentially distinct interests." That prompted SFFA to launch new lawsuits aimed at barring similar admissions practices at the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs, Colorado, the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland and the U.S. Military Academy in West Point, New York. The Air Force Academy educates cadets for service as officers in the U.S. Air Force and U.S. Space Force. Democratic President Joe Biden's prior administration defended the use of race as an admissions factor, saying senior military leaders had long recognized that a scarcity of minority officers could create distrust within the armed forces. Courts sided with his administration and declined in SFFA's cases to block the U.S. Naval Academy and U.S. Military Academy from considering race. SFFA sued the Air Force Academy only after Trump had won November's election. Trump signed an executive order on January 27 aimed at ending diversity, equity and inclusion practices within the military. In Friday's filing, the Justice Department cited a subsequent February 6 memo from a top U.S. Air Force official that implemented that order by, among other things, ending admissions quotas or objectives based on sex, race or ethnicity. The Justice Department said the new policy may render SFFA's case moot as "the Air Force Academy no longer permits any consideration of race, ethnicity, or sex in the admissions process." The Justice Department last month said the U.S. Naval Academy similarly had ended the consideration of race as an admissions factor. Blum had no immediate comment.
