Equal Protection Project files civil rights complaint against Drake University
An organization involved in litigation with universities across the U.S. has filed a federal complaint against Drake University for allegedly violating Title VI. (Photo courtesy of Drake University)
An organization involved in litigation with universities across the U.S. has filed a federal complaint against Drake University in Des Moines, alleging one of its scholarship programs violates federal anti-discrimination law.
The Equal Protection Project, a branch of the Legal Insurrection Foundation, submitted a civil rights complaint Tuesday to the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights against the private university. The organization, which says it is 'devoted to the fair treatment of all persons without regard to race or ethnicity,' claims in the complaint Drake is violating Title IV by limiting eligibility of one of its scholarship programs, the Crew Scholars Program, to students of color.
'Drake is expanding DEI activities at a time when the State of Iowa and the federal government are scaling back,' said William Jacobson, founder of the Equal Protection Project, in an emailed statement. 'Regardless of where one stands on the DEI debate, discrimination based on race violates the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Iowa state law, and Drake's own non-discrimination rules. Drake should open up the scholarship to all students without regard to race.'
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Drake University spokesperson Ashton Hockman said in an email the university cannot comment at this time, as it has not received any communication from the U.S. Department of Education.
The Crew Scholars Program is described online as an 'academic excellence and leadership development program for incoming students with a passion for diversity' that provides $500 annual scholarships to participating students.
According to the civil rights complaint, the scholarship program limits participation to students of color. The complaint cites as evidence a university website link and screenshots showing the program description including the language 'The Crew Scholars Program at Drake University is open to incoming domestic students of color in any major.'
A different website describing the scholars program eliminates references to race in who is allowed to apply.
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act forbids 'intentional discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin' in any program that receives federal support, the complaint stated, and as Drake University receives federal funding, it is in violation of the law. Referencing the U.S. Department of Education's Feb. 14 'Dear Colleague' letter, the complaint stated that regardless of its reasons for offering a 'discriminatory program,' Drake is still violating the law.
'Accordingly, we respectfully ask that the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights promptly open a formal investigation, impose such remedial relief as the law permits for the benefit of those who have been illegally excluded from Drake's various programs based on discriminatory criteria, and ensure that all ongoing and future programming at Drake comports with the federal civil rights laws,' the complaint stated.
Drake has reiterated its commitment to diversity, equity and inclusion multiple times as state and federal actions have required universities to pull back on such programming, including implementing new programming to ensure all students feel like they belong and speaking out against decisions that negatively impact campus and Drake students.
Drake President Marty Martin published a letter in early March telling students they are all welcome at the university despite contrary messages such as legislation to repeal the inclusion of transgender and nonbinary people in civil rights protections. Martin called the law 'one among many current state and federal efforts that seek to turn our differences into division.'
'This is a moral failure against which we stand in opposition,' Martin said in the letter. 'It is our duty to respect, support, and affirm anyone in our community targeted by these actions.'
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Chicago Tribune
2 days ago
- Chicago Tribune
Alexander Polikoff, public-interest lawyer behind landmark CHA segregation case, dies
Public-interest lawyer Alexander Polikoff spent decades fighting powerful interests, most notably in a case he filed on behalf of Black public housing residents against the city of Chicago that spanned most of his career. The U.S. Supreme Court in 1976 agreed with Polikoff and his clients' contention that the city had discriminated against Black public housing residents and had selected housing for them based on race. Polikoff spent the next 43 years holding the city accountable until federal oversight over Chicago public housing was lifted in 2019. 'Alex was not motivated by money, fame or life's comforts,' said Hoy McConnell, who succeeded Polikoff as the executive director of Business People and Professionals for the Public Interest, the small public-interest law firm that Polikoff joined in 1970. 'Rather, he dedicated his life to making change to improve the lives of those burdened by poverty and discrimination.' Polikoff, 98, died of natural causes May 27 at his home in Keene, New Hampshire, said his son, author Daniel Joseph Polikoff. A longtime Highland Park resident, Polikoff moved to New Hampshire in 2022 to be near his daughter. Born and raised in Chicago, Polikoff was the son of attorney Julius Polikoff. After graduating from Senn High School in 1944, he briefly attended Purdue University before joining the Navy. After his discharge, he earned a bachelor's degree and a master's degree in English from the University of Chicago. He then received his law degree from the Hyde Park school in 1953, and worked for the next 17 years at the firm that became Schiff Hardin. Polikoff performed extensive pro bono legal work, representing clients alongside the American Civil Liberties Union. 'I don't remember a time when my dad wasn't doing some pro bono work with the ACLU, taking on various causes,' Polikoff's son said. 'That pro bono work was very compelling to him — it was part of his character.' In 1965, he filed a lawsuit in Lake County on behalf of four pupils to force Waukegan's elementary school board to reorganize school boundaries in order to meet integration standards. The Illinois Supreme Court in 1968 ruled favorably on Polikoff's contention that race could be taken into account to redraw school district boundary lines to achieve integration. The longest battle of Polikoff's career started in 1966, when he represented a group of Black Chicago Housing Authority residents in a federal class-action lawsuit. The case is known by the name of one of those residents, tenant activist Dorothy Gautreaux. Polikoff alleged that the CHA had practiced racial segregation by building most of its public housing complexes in Black neighborhoods and had deliberately placed Black residents in those complexes. In 1969, Judge Richard Austin concluded that the CHA had discriminated against Blacks in violation of the U.S. Constitution's equal-protection clause and Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which barred racial discrimination in any program receiving federal aid. Austin also ruled that three public housing units must be built in white areas for every similar unit built in a Black neighborhood. White aldermen refused to approve sites for new construction. The CHA also dragged its feet by simply stopping building instead of following Austin's directives. In 1976, the U.S. Supreme Court, ruling on an appeal from the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development, unanimously concluded that the CHA had practiced segregation. Justices found that the CHA's problems were regional in nature, and that solutions could occur both in the city and the suburbs. Austin then expanded his order to include the entire metro area as an option for scattered-site housing. However, suburbs resisted new construction of lower-income scattered-site housing. A 1981 consent decree in the case placed CHA tenants in existing area housing and gave them federal Section 8 rent subsidies. 'The whole idea was to take the thinking beyond the Supreme Court's 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education ruling that ended school segregation and transfer it to the area of housing,' Polikoff told the Tribune in 1994. '(The) CHA's policy since the early 1950s worked to make each of its 168 high-rise buildings virtually 100% Black. It was illegal, immoral and socially disastrous to pile poor people on top of poor people.' The CHA eventually altered its operations and demolished numerous high-rises such as Cabrini-Green, the Henry Horner Homes and the Robert Taylor Homes in favor of scattered-site housing. The federal government ended its oversight of the CHA in 2019. At 92 years old, Polikoff was still involved in the case. 'It is well-known that the work Alex led changed public housing practices both in Chicago and nationally, and positively impacted tens of thousands of public housing residents,' said attorney Julie Brown, who worked for decades with Polikoff on the Gautreaux case. 'He was brilliant, of course, but always questioning. He had an uncanny ability to put aside extraneous issues and get to the heart of any matter he addressed. He had an innate sense that justice should prevail and insisted on doing everything he could to try to make it so.' Alex Kotlowitz, whose award-winning 1992 book, 'There Are No Children Here,' covered hardscrabble life in the Henry Horner Homes, praised Polikoff for challenging the CHA, 'which had become a kind of warehousing for the city's poor. He challenged the nation's conscience.' 'Alex was one of the first to recognize the profound effects of concentrated poverty,' Kotlowitz said. 'The Gautreaux litigation changed more than just housing policy. It forced us to reconsider how we treat the marginalized. It prodded us to consider our collective responsibilities to those who are struggling economically.' 'Gautreaux laid the foundation for the present-day national conversation about mixed-income housing, a reconsideration of how we think about community,' Kotlowitz said. Polikoff left private law practice in 1970 to join the staff of the public-interest law firm Businessmen for the Public Interest, later named Business People and Professionals for the Public Interest and now known as Impact for Equity. He became the executive director of the group, which provided a full-time platform for continued social justice advocacy, and held that post until 1999. He continued to work as the group's housing director until fully retiring in 2022. Under Polikoff, the group succesffully fought City Hall's proposal in the early 1970s to build a new airport on landfill in Lake Michigan. It also successfully fought plans for a nuclear power plant near Chesterton, Indiana, on the border of the 12,500-acre Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, winning a key court fight in 1974 when a three-judge panel of federal judges halted construction. The utility Northern Indiana Public Service Co. formally abandoned plans for a nuclear plant on the site in 1981. And pressure from Polikoff and his colleagues at BPI and from the Citizens Utility Board spurred utility Commonwealth Edison Co. to announce the settlement of 10 years of rate-case litigation in October 1993 with a record $1.34 billion refund to rate-payers. Polikoff's 'vision and passion inspired many of us,' recalled Environmental Law & Policy Center CEO Howard Learner, BPI's former general counsel and the lead consumer lawyer in ComEd settlement negotiations. 'Alex was always proud that part of his legacy in leading BPI was the multiplier impact from the number of talented public interest attorneys and vital new organizations that were developed at and grew from BPI to make a difference for the public good.' Bob Vollen, who worked alongside Polikoff at BPI from 1972 until 1982, said Polikoff had a 'way of posing a question that it allowed no possible answer other than the one he was seeking.' Polikoff authored five books, including 'Waiting for Gautreaux: A Story of Segregation, Housing and the Black Ghetto,' which was published in 2006. His most recent book, 'Cry My Beloved America,' an examination of anger and frustration in America, was published in 2024. Polikoff's wife of 71 years, author Barbara Garland Polikoff, died in 2022. A daughter, Joan, died in 2016. In addition to his son, Polikoff is survived by another daughter, Eve Kodiak; and five grandchildren. Services will be private.
CNBC
3 days ago
- CNBC
Here's what your student loan bill could be under new repayment plan in Republicans' 'big beautiful' bill
Republicans' One Big Beautiful Bill Act could result in higher monthly payments for many federal student loan borrowers, a new analysis finds. If the legislation is enacted as drafted, a student loan borrower earning roughly $80,000 a year (the median for a bachelors' degree holder in 2024) would have a monthly payment of $467 under the GOP-proposed "Repayment Assistance Plan," or RAP, according to recent findings by the Student Borrower Protection Center. That compares with a $187 monthly bill on the Biden administration's now-blocked SAVE, or Saving On A Valuable Education plan. No matter their income, borrowers face higher monthly payments under RAP compared to SAVE, the analysis found. For lower incomes, the difference may be just $10 per month; for higher earners, the new repayment plan can be as much as $605 per month pricier. Depending on their income, some federal student loan borrowers also face higher payments on RAP than they would have on the U.S. Department of Education's other income-driven repayment plans, including PAYE, or Pay As You Earn and IBR, or Income-Based Repayment. However, some borrowers on PAYE or IBR plans would have a smaller bill under RAP. For example, a borrower with a roughly $60,000 annual income would pay $250 a month on RAP, and $304 on PAYE, the SBPC found. The House advanced its version of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act in May. The Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions released its budget bill recommendations related to student loans on June 10. Senate lawmakers are preparing to debate the massive tax and spending package. Under the Republican proposals, there would be just two repayment plan choices for borrowers who take out loans after July 1, 2026, compared with roughly a dozen options now. After graduation, those student loan borrowers could either enroll in a standard repayment plan with fixed payments, or a single income-based repayment plan: RAP. Here's a look at other stories affecting the financial advisor business. Under RAP, monthly payments would typically range from 1% to 10% of a borrower's income; the more they earn, the bigger their required payment. There would be a minimum monthly payment of $10 for all borrowers. The new plan would fail to provide many borrowers with an affordable monthly bill — the goal of Congress when it established income-driven repayment plans in the 1990s, Michele Zampini, senior director of college affordability at The Institute for College Access & Success, recently told CNBC. "If Republicans' proposed 'Repayment Assistance Plan' is the only thing standing between borrowers and default, we can expect many to suffer the nightmarish experience of default," Zampini said. Meanwhile, current income-driven repayment plans now conclude in loan forgiveness after 20 years or 25 years. But RAP wouldn't lead to debt erasure until 30 years. "This kind of financial drag could further delay major life milestones like homeownership, starting a family, or saving for retirement," said Doug Boneparth, a certified financial planner and the founder and president of Bone Fide Wealth in New York. He is a member of CNBC's Financial Advisor Council. There's also "an emotional toll" to carrying student debt for so long, said Cathy Curtis, the founder of Curtis Financial Planning in Oakland, California. She is also a member of CNBC's Financial Advisor Council. "It reinforces the feeling of being stuck — especially for those who've already struggled to access opportunity," Curtis said. Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, has said his party's plans would lift the burden on taxpayers of subsidizing college graduates' loan payments. ″[Former President Joe] Biden and Democrats unfairly attempted to shift student debt onto taxpayers that chose not to go to college," Cassidy said in a statement on June 10. He said his committee's bill would save an estimated $300 billion out of the federal budget.
Newsweek
5 days ago
- Newsweek
Clarence Thomas Knocks Landmark Supreme Court LGBTQ+ Ruling—'Incorrect'
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. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas criticized a landmark LGBTQ+ rights case as being decided based on "incorrect" reasoning in a new ruling issued on Wednesday. Newsweek reached out to the court for comment via its public information office email on Wednesday. Why It Matters The Supreme Court has considerable authority to interpret the laws of the United States, and its recent rulings had extensive impact on key policies around LGBTQ+ rights. Thomas, viewed as among the court's most conservative justices, has been critical of these rulings, such as in Bostock v. Clayton County, in which the court ruled the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination against employees on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity. What To Know The Supreme Court on Wednesday issued their latest case on LGBTQ+ rights in U.S. v. Skrmetti, upholding a Tennessee law that bars gender-affirming care for transgender youth. Plaintiffs in the case argued the law benefits the Equal Protection Clause because it prohibits transgender minors from receiving hormones based on their biological sex; a transgender boy would not be able to receive testosterone, but the law does not apply to cisgender boys, those who identify with their birth gender. The court wrote in the majority opinion that the reasoning from the Bostock case does not back up their view. Thomas, in a concurring opinion, went further and took aim at the court's ruling in the 2020 Bostock ruling. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas sits during a group photo of the jurists on April 23, 2021, in Washington, D.C. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas sits during a group photo of the jurists on April 23, 2021, in Washington, D.C. Erin Schaff-Pool/Getty Images Thomas wrote that he believes the "Bostock majority's logic 'fails on its own terms.'" "While the majority concludes that SB1 does not discriminate based on sex, even under Bostock's incorrect reasoning, I would make clear that, in constitutional challenges, courts need not engage Bostock at all," he wrote. Thomas dissented from the majority in the original Bostock ruling, joining an opinion penned by Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote, "There is only one word for what the Court has done today: legislation. The document that the Court releases is in the form of a judicial opinion interpreting a statute, but that is deceptive." Alito wrote at the time that while a bill extending those protections passed the House of Representatives, it had stalled in the Senate. "Title VII's prohibition of discrimination because of 'sex; still means what it has always meant. But the Court is not deterred by these constitutional niceties. Usurping the constitutional authority of the other branches, the Court has essentially taken H.R. 5's provision on employment discrimination and issued it under the guise of statutory interpretation," the dissent reads. Thomas has also expressed interest in revisiting the court's 2015 ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, which said same-sex couples have marriage rights under the Equal Protection Clause. He wrote in June 2022—after the High Court ruled to overturn Roe v. Wade—the case that guaranteed reproductive rights across the country—that he wanted to see the court revisit Obergefell. "We have a duty to 'correct the error' established in those precedents," Thomas wrote. What People Are Saying In the Skrmetti ruling, the High Court wrote: "We have not yet considered whether Bostock's reasoning reaches beyond the Title VII context, and we need not do so here. For reasons we have already explained, changing a minor's sex or transgender status does not alter the application of SB1." Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in Wednesday's ruling: "Yet the majority refuses to call a spade a spade. Instead, it obfuscates a sex classification that is plain on the face of this statute, all to avoid the mere possibility that a different court could strike down SB1, or categorical healthcare bans like it." What Happens Next It is unclear if the Supreme Court will revisit the precedents set in the 2015 Obergefell ruling.
