University of California student group alleges racial discrimination in admissions
A University of California student group sued the school system Monday, alleging racial discrimination in admissions.
Students Against Racial Discrimination filed a suit saying the university system gives 'discriminatory preferences to non-Asian racial minorities.'
The suit says Asian American and white applicants are turned away while Black and Hispanic students 'are often placed at significant academic disadvantage, and thus experience worse outcomes, because of the university's use of racial preferences.'
The student group is accusing the University of California of violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, the 14th Amendment and Proposition 206 in California, which forbids race as a factor in public education.
The suit points to actions taken by the system, such as encouraging its schools to adopt 'holistic' admission policies that a previous chancellor said would help with low admission rates of minority students, comparing admission rates of Black applicants between 2010 and 2023 and the system allegedly shutting down resources outsiders could use to study this issue.
'Trends in racial admissions patterns consistently show that the adoption of the holistic process favored black and Hispanic admissions and disfavored Asian-Americans and, to a lesser extent, whites,' the suit reads.
One of the attorneys for the student group is Jonathan Mitchell, a prominent conservative attorney who regularly brings cases to the Supreme Court.
The Hill has reached out to the University of California for comment.
The lawsuit comes after the Supreme Court ruled in 2023 that affirmative action could not be used in higher education.
Schools have been searching for other ways to ensure diversity among their students, meaning that the fight over how race and ethnic information is used among colleges and universities is not over.
One likely next battleground will be around college scholarships that include a race or ethnicity portion, with one lawsuit already in the court system over the issue.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Strait of Hormuz becomes flash point in US-Iran conflict
The Iranian Parliament on Sunday approved a measure to close the Strait of Hormuz after the United States bombed three nuclear sites in Iran. The strait, located between Iran and Oman, remains a critical oil choke point, and closing it could have serious implications for both the global and U.S. economy. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, in several Sunday interviews, warned against shutting down the strait, calling the move 'suicidal' for the regime. Rubio also called on China — Iran's most crucial oil customer — to encourage the country against shutting it down. 'I encourage the Chinese government in Beijing to call them about that, because they heavily depend on the Straits of Hormuz for their oil,' Rubio said on Fox News's 'Sunday Morning Futures with Maria Bartiromo.' Live updates: US bombs cause 'severe damage' in Iran; UN chief calls action 'perilous' Iran's Supreme National Security Council will ultimately decide on the move. The threat to block the narrow waterway comes in response to U.S. strikes on three nuclear sites in Natanz, Isfahan and Fordow, the last of which is located inside a mountain. The Trump administration has argued the strikes, dubbed Operation Midnight Hammer, were a monumental success. But it is unclear how much the sites were damaged or how much the attack set back Iran's nuclear program. The Strait of Hormuz's width and depth allow it to handle the world's largest crude oil tankers, and very few alternatives exist if it is closed, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). Approximately 20 million barrels, or 20 percent of global consumption, flowed through the strait in 2024. More than 80 percent of the crude oil and natural gas that passed through the Strait of Hormuz in 2024 was destined for Asian markets, with China, India, Japan and South Korea being the top recipients. These countries would likely be the most affected by any closure. But the U.S. market would also feel some impact if the strait were disrupted. The U.S. has been buying less oil from the Persian Gulf — importing about 532,000 barrels per day in 2024, according to the EIA. Still, consumers are businesses are still likely to see increased prices, given that oil is traded globally. And it could take months for U.S. oil companies to drill more to compensate for those increased prices, The New York Times reports. Oil prices in the past month increased due to the escalating Israel-Iran conflict, and these are estimated to climb further if Iran blocks the strait. Experts have said they estimate oil prices could increase from $73 per barrel up to $120 per barrel if tankers are blocked. 'If we see any throttling back of the Strait of Hormuz, we'll see a massive increase in the price of oil, and that will impact everything in the U.S.,' Ramanan Krishnamoorti, a professor of petroleum engineering at the University of Houston, told ABC News this month. Iran has previously seized or interfered with tankers during heightened political tensions, according to the Times. While Iran's Supreme National Security Council has yet to make a decision, some experts are skeptical that the country will actually close down the Strait of Hormuz. Experts say the move would likely lead to a near-immediate response from the U.S., and it would be self-defeating to Iran's own market. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
UPI
an hour ago
- UPI
Kilmar Abrego Garcia likely to be held by ICE after DOJ release order
Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., speaks with Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran immigrant living in Maryland, in San Salvador, El Salvador on Thursday, April 17, 2025. On Sunday, a judge ordered Abrego Garcia to be released from Department of Justice custody. File Photo by President Nayib Bukele/UPI | License Photo June 23 (UPI) -- A federal judge has ordered the release of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, but the Salvadoran migrant is expected to remain in Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody as the Trump administration appeals the court's decision. Abrego Garcia, who has been living with his family in Maryland, was wrongly deported in March to El Salvador, where he was detained in the infamous CECOT prison. The 29-year-old was returned to the United States earlier this month to face two charges related to human smuggling in Tennessee, to which he has pleaded not guilty. President Donald Trump's Justice Department asked the court for permission to detain the migrant amid litigation. But U.S. Magistrate Judge Barbara Holmes in Tennessee issued her order Sunday, denying the Trump administration's request and acknowledging that, despite her order, Abrego Garcia will likely be transferred to ICT custody rather than remain detained by the Justice Department. "Perhaps the sole circumstance about which the government and Abrego Abrego may agree in this case is the likelihood that Abrego will remain in custody regardless of the outcome of the issues raised in the government's motion for detention," she said. "That suggests the Court's determination of the detention issues is little more than an academic exercise." ICE custody issues fall outside the authority of Holmes' court. In her order, she said Abrego Garcia has the right to due process. She also accused the Justice Department of overstating the allegations against the defendant. Abrego Garcia's charges stem from a traffic stop in November 2022. Nine other Hispanic men without documentation and luggage were in the vehicle. The charging document accuses him of being a member of the MS-13 gang. It alleges that he and others conspired from at least 2016 smuggle migrants into the United States. Holmes, in her Sunday order, pointed out how the Justice Department interchangeably used "smuggling" and "trafficking," which have distinct meanings in law, with the latter involving the movement of a person against their will, and the former with their cooperation. She also highlighted a lack of evidence on the government's part in attempting to tie Abrego Garcia to smuggling minors. The judge also criticized the government's application for detention ahead of trial based on on allegations of the defendant's gang membership. She said "the government cannot simply rely on the general reputation of a particular street gang" to argue that Abrego Garcia poses a dangerous threat to society. And while gang membership may meet the threshold for detention, the government must prove he is a member of the gang -- allegations that Abrego Garcia has denied. "Overall, the Court cannot find from the evidence presented that Abrego's release clearly and convincingly poses an irremediable danger to other persons or to the community," Holmes said. The Justice Department is widely expect to appeal.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Government files appeal after Kilmar Abrego Garcia ordered released by federal judge
The government on Sunday appealed a federal judge's order to release of Kilmar Abrego Garcia pending trial on human smuggling charges, another chapter in the saga of the Maryland father who had been erroneously deported to El Salvador. The Trump administration admitted having mistakenly deported Abrego Garcia in March, and the Supreme Court ordered it to facilitate his return. Upon his return this month, though, Abrego Garcia was hit with federal charges of conspiracy to unlawfully transport illegal immigrants for financial gain and unlawful transportation of illegal immigrants for monetary gain. He pleaded not guilty. 'Abrego, like every person arrested on federal criminal charges, is entitled to a full and fair determination of whether he must remain in federal custody pending trial,' U.S. Magistrate Barbara D. Holmes of the Middle District of Tennessee wrote in her opinion Sunday. 'The Court will give Abrego the due process that he is guaranteed.' The government quickly filed a request to stay the order and keep Abrego Garcia in custody, a filing that made it clear it would again subject him to deportation proceedings. The government argued that a stay, or pause, would allow the court 'to conduct meaningful review' of custody ahead of the judge's ruling on a separate court filing. 'He will remain in custody pending deportation and Judge Holmes' release order would not immediately release him to the community under any circumstance,' Justice Department lawyers said in request for a stay Sunday. In concluding Abrego Garcia should be released pending trial, with certain conditions, Holmes faulted the government for its language surrounding the case and indicated he has been so far denied ordinary due process that might come to any defendant. She noted that government lawyers have used the terms "human smuggling" and "human trafficking" interchangeably, though the former refers to helping someone willfully enter a country, while the latter refers to bringing someone to a country against their will. She also noted that the government accused Abrego Garcia of being "involved" in transporting a minor as part of the alleged smuggling — without solid and specific evidence of such. Holmes set a hearing for Wednesday to discuss terms of Abrego Garcia's release and ordered federal authorities to produce him for the event. She held out little hope that Abrego Garcia would actually be free, however, noting that immigration authorities were likely to detain him upon release because he is alleged to be in the United States without permission. "Either Abrego will remain in the custody of the Attorney General or her designee pending trial if detained under the Bail Reform Act or he will likely remain in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ('ICE') custody subject to anticipated removal proceedings that are outside the jurisdiction of this Court," she wrote in her decision. "That suggests the Court's determination of the detention issues is little more than an academic exercise," Holmes said. This article was originally published on
