Civil rights group claims DACA-only scholarships constitute illegal discrimination against American students
"Providing a scholarship limited to DACA or DACA-eligible students is national origin discrimination," Cornell professor William Jacobson and founder of the Equal Protection Project, told Fox News Digital in a statement.
"Because DACA only applies to persons born outside the United States who meet certain additional criteria, restricting scholarship eligibility to DACA recipients constitutes discrimination based on national origin and violates Title VI," he added. "The national origin which is the subject of discrimination is American-born students."
The Deferred Action of Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program was created by former President Barack Obama to provide temporary protection from deportation and work authorization to illegal immigrants who arrived in the U.S. as children.
In the complaint, filed Wednesday, the Equal Protection Project alleges that the University of Nebraska Omaha's Dreamer's Pathway Scholarship Program violates Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits educational institutions that receive federal funding from discriminating on the basis of race, color or national origin.
According to the school's website, the scholarship is open to "students who are Deferred Action of Childhood Arrivals (DACA) or DACA-eligible and Nebraska residents who are seeking an undergraduate degree at the University of Nebraska Omaha (UNO)." Those who receive the scholarship are eligible to receive renewable full tuition, fees and books for up to 5 years or 3 years for transfer students. One of the other requirements for applicants is that they had to have graduated from a Nebraska high school.
"That race- and national-origin-based discriminatory scholarships exist at a major university is shocking and reflects how Critical Race Theory and its offshoots like Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, are deeply embedded in the campus culture," Jacobson said. "It is time for higher education everywhere to focus on the inherent worth and dignity of every student rather than categorizing students based on identity groups."
The group also alleges that UNO's HDR scholarships violate Title VI as the school's website says, "Preference shall be given to underrepresented minority students, but shall not be the controlling criterion in awarding this scholarship."
"As UNO is a public university, its offering, promoting, and administrating these discriminatory scholarships also violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment," the complaint reads. "In Students for Fair Admissions, the Supreme Court emphasized that '[e]liminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it …. The guarantee of equal protection cannot mean one thing when applied to one individual and something else when applied to a person of another color. If both are not accorded the same protection, then it is not equal.'"
Jacobson told Fox News Digital that his organization has filed cases against about 100 institutions challenging over 400 discriminatory scholarships and programs.
Fox News Digital reached out to the University of Nebraska Omaha for comment, but did not immediately receive a response.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
41 minutes ago
- New York Post
Top Hegseth aide Justin Fulcher resigns from Pentagon after 6 months of service: ‘Incredibly inspiring'
A top advisor to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has left the Pentagon after six months of service, the Department of Defense (DoD) confirmed to Fox News Digital on Saturday. Justin Fulcher told Fox News Digital he formally resigned on Thursday evening, describing the decision as entirely his own. Advertisement Fulcher said he had originally planned to serve six months in government and, having reached that point, chose to move on 'amicably.' He also emphasized what he described as the 'great work' being done by Hegseth 'for our troops and country.' 'The Department of Defense is grateful to Justin Fulcher for his work on behalf of President [Donald] Trump and Secretary Hegseth. We wish him well in his future endeavors,' chief Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell said in a statement. In addition to advising Hegseth on personnel and policy, Fulcher played a role in several defense initiatives during his tenure, he told Fox News Digital. 3 Justin Fulcher was a top advisor to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. @JustinFulcher / X Advertisement Fulcher said he contributed to reviews of major acquisition programs aimed at strengthening lethality and the US industrial base, and helped streamline software procurement timelines 'from years to months,' modernizing key IT systems across the department. He also said he supported Hegseth in high-level meetings across the Indo-Pacific, including the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore, and participated in efforts that redirected nearly $50 billion from non-lethal line items into readiness and more impactful defense programs. Fulcher praised the 'dedicated men and women of the Department of Defense,' cited progress in 'revitalizing the warrior ethos' and 'rebuilding the military,' and thanked both Hegseth and Trump for their leadership. 'Still, this is just the beginning,' Fulcher added. 3 Fulcher was part of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's inner circle. REUTERS Advertisement Fulcher, who had served as a senior advisor to Hegseth since April, announced his departure Saturday afternoon in a message posted to X. 'As planned, I've completed 6 months of service in government to my country,' he wrote, calling the experience 'incredibly inspiring.' 'None of this could have happened without Secretary Hegseth's decisive leadership or President Trump's continued confidence in our team,' he wrote. 'I will continue to champion American warfighters in all future endeavors.' Fulcher joined the DoD earlier this year as part of Hegseth's inner circle, a cohort of loyal advisers appointed after Hegseth took the helm at the Pentagon in Trump's second term. Advertisement 3 Fulcher claimed he only planned to serve six months. Jen Golbeck/SOPA Images/Shutterstock His departure comes amid a broader reshuffling of senior personnel inside Hegseth's office. At least six aides have left since January, though defense officials have downplayed the moves as standard transitions. It's unclear what Fulcher's next step will be, though his statement suggests he intends to remain active in national security circles. The Pentagon has not yet named a replacement.
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
Trump's attack on in-state tuition for Dreamers is bad law — and worse policy
Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up Other surveys — by the Advertisement Among the targets of the administration's hostility, none elicits more sympathy from the public than the so‑called Dreamers — young people brought here unlawfully as children, who have grown up as Americans in everything but paperwork. (According to Gallup, Advertisement In lawsuits filed this spring against Texas, Minnesota, and Kentucky, the Justice Department maintains that offering in‑state tuition to students without legal immigration status — even if they were brought here as small children and essentially grew up American — violates federal law. In reality, it is the administration's assault that distorts federal law. It is also a brazen power grab that tramples states' rights, to say nothing of basic decency. Beginning in 2001, Democratic and Republican legislatures decided that if young people grow up in a state, are educated in its schools, and want to pursue higher education within its borders, it makes no sense to penalize them financially merely because of their immigration status. If there are good reasons to give a break on tuition to local students who want to go to a local college, what difference does it make whether they have a passport, a green card, or neither? Yet on April 28, President Trump Advertisement But that isn't true. Federal law does not say that undocumented immigrants must be excluded from any in-state tuition benefit. It Accordingly, the states that offer reduced tuition to undocumented immigrants condition the offer on criteria other than residency. States that offer in‑state tuition to undocumented students are acting not just humanely but rationally. Such policies reflect the common-sense principle that justifies giving a tuition break to any local student: It is in every state's interest to help its homegrown young people be as successful and well educated as possible. Lower tuition makes higher education more affordable, which in turn boosts the number of local families that can send their kids to college, which in turn expands the state's population of educated adults. A more educated population strengthens the state's economy, since college graduates are more likely to be employed and to earn higher incomes. For states like Massachusetts, which suffers from high outmigration, a particularly strong argument for the in-state tuition break is that graduates of public institutions are more likely to Advertisement None of these arguments has any logical connection to immigration or citizenship. They apply with equal force to those born abroad and to those born locally. And it is irrelevant whether those born abroad were brought to America by parents who had immigration visas or by parents who didn't. Dreamers aren't freeloaders. Like their families, they pay taxes — property taxes, sales taxes, income taxes, and even the payroll taxes that fund Social Security and Medicare benefits, for which they are ineligible. (In 2022, according to the latest estimate from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, undocumented immigrants Aside from the Trumpian hard core, most Americans sympathize with the plight of undocumented immigrants who grew up in this country and have known no other home. That explains why (as Gallup reports) 85 percent of them would like Congress to make it possible for them to acquire citizenship. It also explains why in-state tuition for Dreamers has bipartisan support: The states that have enacted such policies include Oklahoma, Kentucky, California, and New York. Advertisement The Trump administration's lawsuits deserve to be dismissed on their legal merits, but they also deserve to be reviled as one more example of MAGA malevolence, which is grounded in nothing except a desire to hurt immigrants — Few Americans have any desire to punish young people who have done nothing wrong. The cruelty at the heart of Trump's immigration policy may thrill his base, but it repels a far larger America unwilling to abandon its values. Jeff Jacoby can be reached at
Boston Globe
2 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Trump's cuts threaten to rip research up by the roots
The chain saw approach to medical research funding is not just reckless — it's shortsighted. The families of the richest 2 percent also get cancer and other deadly diseases, and no amount of money can buy a cure that doesn't exist. Advertisement Dennis E. Noonan Wellesley Thank you for Kara Miller's article on the challenges of long-term research in the face of the Trump administration's cuts ( Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up While only a small fraction of original ideas achieve success as envisioned, scientists consistently persevere with passion for their ideas. The research environment overall, however, brings waves of advances. Unlike the business and dealmaking mind-set of the current administration's so-called leaders, scientists are not self-promoters by type. They struggle for funding over years, driven by their passion for making a difference for the world. Advertisement The most telling risk inherent in the Trump cuts is the potential impact on global competition. As Miller points out, for decades some of the world's best minds have come here, with the United States having benefited. But more recently, greater global tools and competition have prompted serious foreign competition for the best minds — and for the opportunities to control future technologies. The administration's cuts would put the United States more than a generation behind in our children's and grandchildren's future world. Larry Kennedy Jacksonville, Fla. I weep when I see what the Trump administration is doing to our country and our world. Kara Miller's article on the savaging of basic science — 'research aimed at understanding rather than commercializing' — is but one example. This type of research may have no application right away. However, over 20 or 30 years, many dozens of applications may emerge, often covering many different fields. The original development rarely occurs in business laboratories because there is no immediate payoff. It is therefore essential that government continue to fund basic science. As Miller points out, a stable flow of funding is essential for the production of a continuing stream of research results. Disruption of the Trumpian kind has several undesirable results: Besides stopping the flow of original ideas, over the long term it will reduce our capacity to learn from and absorb ideas produced in other countries. We have seen mid-career scientists being welcomed by other countries while the paths of early-career scientists have been demolished. American politicians, Republican and Democratic alike, must stand up to the president and say, 'Basic research is the seed corn for 'Making America Great Again.' It must not be destroyed.' They should then act and vote accordingly in Congress. Advertisement Martin G. Evans Cambridge The writer is a professor emeritus at the Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto.
