DOJ Finds UCLA Violated Civil Rights Law
Specifically, UCLA violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act 'by acting with deliberate indifference in creating a hostile educational environment for Jewish and Israeli students,' said Attorney General Pam Bondi in a July 29 statement.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
Trump administration freezes $339 million in UCLA grants, accuses school of rights violations
The Trump administration is freezing $339 million in research grants to the University of California, Los Angeles, accusing the school of civil rights violations related to antisemitism, affirmative action, and women's sports, according to a person familiar with the matter. The federal government has frozen or paused federal funding over similar allegations against private colleges, but this is one of the rare cases it has targeted a public university. Several federal agencies notified UCLA this week that they were suspending grants over civil rights concerns, including $240 million from the Department of Health and Human Services and the National Institutes of Health, according to the person, who spoke about internal deliberations on the condition of anonymity. 5 The Trump administration is freezing $339 million in research grants to the University of California, Los Angeles, accusing the school of civil rights violations, reports say. AP The Trump administration recently announced that the U.S. Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division found UCLA violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 'by acting with deliberate indifference in creating a hostile educational environment for Jewish and Israeli students.' Last week, Columbia agreed to pay $200 million as part of a settlement to resolve investigations into the government's allegations that the school violated federal antidiscrimination laws. The agreement also restores more than $400 million in research grants. The Trump administration plans to use its deal with Columbia as a template for other universities, with financial penalties that are now seen as an expectation. The National Science Foundation said in a statement that it informed UCLA that it was suspending funding awards because the school isn't in line with the agency's priorities. UCLA's chancellor, Julio Frenk, called the government's decision 'deeply disappointing.' 5 The Trump administration recently announced that the U.S. Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division found UCLA violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. AP 'With this decision, hundreds of grants may be lost, adversely affecting the lives and life-changing work of UCLA researchers, faculty, and staff,' he said in a statement. The Department of Energy said in its letter it found several 'examples of noncompliance' and faulted UCLA for inviting applicants to disclose their race in personal statements and for considering factors including family income and ZIP code. Affirmative action in college admissions was outlawed in California in 1996 and struck down by the Supreme Court in 2023. 5 UCLA's chancellor, Julio Frenk, called the government's decision 'deeply disappointing.' Getty Images for Aurora Humanitarian Initiative 5 The Department of Energy said in its letter that it found several 'examples of noncompliance' and faulted UCLA for inviting applicants to disclose their race in personal statements and for considering factors including family income and ZIP code. AP The letter said the school has taken steps that amount to 'a transparent attempt to engage in race-based admissions in all but name,' disadvantaging white, Jewish, and Asian American applicants. It also said UCLA fails to promote an environment free from antisemitism and discriminates against women by allowing transgender women to compete on women's teams. Frenk said that in its letter, the federal government 'claims antisemitism and bias as the reasons' to freeze the funding, but 'this far-reaching penalty of defunding life-saving research does nothing to address any alleged discrimination.' 5 The federal government has frozen or paused federal funding over similar allegations against private colleges, but this is one of the rare cases it has targeted a public university. Getty Images Earlier this week, UCLA reached a $6 million settlement with three Jewish students and a Jewish professor who sued the university, arguing it violated their civil rights by allowing pro-Palestinian protesters in 2024 to block their access to classes and other areas on campus. UCLA initially had argued that it had no legal responsibility over the issue because protesters, not the university, blocked Jewish students' access to some areas. The university also worked with law enforcement to thwart attempts to set up new protest camps. The university has said that it's committed to campus safety and inclusivity and will continue to implement recommendations.
Washington Post
3 hours ago
- Washington Post
Supreme Court signals it may rule on law protecting power of minority voters
The Supreme Court has signaled that it may rule on the constitutionality of a key section of the landmark Voting Rights Act that allows states to draw majority-minority voting districts mainly to protect the power of Black and Hispanic voters. The justices on Friday evening asked opposing parties in a battle over a Louisiana voting map to submit briefs addressing whether the state's creation of a second Black majority congressional district violated constitutional provisions that require all people to be treated equally. The district covers areas stretching from Shreveport to Baton Rouge. 'The stakes here are enormous,' Rick Hasen, a law professor at UCLA and an expert on election law, wrote on his blog. Black voters and civil rights groups sued Louisiana in 2022 under the Voting Rights Act, saying the state's then new congressional map diluted their voting power. One of six congressional districts consisted of a majority-minority population in a state where roughly a third of voters are Black. That district covers New Orleans and parts of Baton Rouge. The Voting Rights Act allows states in some circumstances to consider race in drawing districts as a means to redress discriminatory electoral practices, but maps that are explicitly based on race violate the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. States must carefully thread those competing directives. Federal courts ruled for the plaintiffs in the Louisiana case, and the state redrew the map in 2024, creating the second majority-Black congressional district. A group of self-described 'non-African American' voters then sued, claiming the map was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander that violated the Equal Protection Clause. The case made its way to the Supreme Court last term, but the justices put off a decision to allow for additional briefing. The order issued on Friday clarified the legal issues the court wanted to consider more fully. The court is likely to decide the case during its next term, which begins in October. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which is one of the cornerstones of civil rights era law, prohibits racial discrimination in voting practices. States have long drawn majority-minority districts to meet its provisions and protect minority voters against gerrymandered maps that diminish their power. 'What the Court seems to be asking, without directly saying it, is whether Section 2 of the VRA, at least as to how it has been applied to require the creation of majority-minority districts in some circumstances, violates a colorblind understanding of the Constitution,' Hasen wrote. A broad ruling by the court striking down the second Black majority district in Louisiana could pare back the use of race-based redistricting. The case could also affect the balance of power in a closely divided Congress. Currently, the newly created second majority Black district is held by a Democrat. In 2013, a divided Supreme Court invalidated another important part of the Voting Rights Act, which required certain mostly Southern states with a history of discriminatory voting practices to get federal clearance before changing voting rules. The states included Louisiana. In 2023, the high court prohibited Alabama from using a voting map that the justices found unlawfully diminished the power of Black voters.
USA Today
4 hours ago
- USA Today
Has Trump made it harder to become a doctor or lawyer?
After President Donald Trump approved major lending changes, some students are rethinking whether JDs or MDs are still options for them. Dalea Tran has dreamed of law school for years, but she's never known how she might pay for it. Unlike many aspiring lawyers, she wouldn't be following in her parents' footsteps. An accountant and a hair stylist, they arrived in San Diego with their families as child refugees from Vietnam. Tran, a 19-year-old rising sophomore at the University of California, San Diego, knew if she decided to go to law school, she'd have to work her way through a maze of student loans and financial aid packages. For people like her, navigating that maze just became far more challenging. Major changes are coming to higher education in the United States after President Donald Trump signed his major domestic policy bill into law. Among them is an end to Grad PLUS loans, a program that helps people pay for medical school and law school. Since Congress created the loans, direct from the federal government, in 2006, they have covered the full cost of attending graduate and professional school for nearly 2 million students. Beginning July 1, 2026, that won't be an option anymore. Trump's tax and spending law will eliminate the Grad PLUS program for new borrowers (students who take out loans before that date will be grandfathered in for up to three years). The measure imposes new borrowing caps – $50,000 annually and $200,000 overall – on the amount of federal direct loans students can take out for degrees in law and medicine. And it limits their repayment options after they graduate. Read more: Trump just made it harder to close the Education Department All those technicalities mean that some students like Tran may have fewer options for law school or medical school – or could be steered down a different career path altogether. "There's no way I can graduate early enough to avoid the Grad PLUS change," she said. The reforms represent the culmination of years of conservative efforts to rein in student lending. However, there has been bipartisan consensus about the causes of the underlying problem Republicans are trying to solve. Left-leaning groups and policymakers have also been highly critical in recent years of the crippling debt that some graduate programs impose on students. Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy, a doctor from Louisiana and chairman of the Senate education committee, said the new legislation will put a stop to a vicious cycle that has kept college costs too high. 'The increasing availability of federal loans has resulted in skyrocketing tuition prices, trapping students in a cycle of overwhelming debt that they can't pay back,' he said in a statement to USA TODAY. 'By capping inflationary graduate loan programs, we prevent students from overborrowing and put downward pressure on rising college costs.' Read more: Is grad school worth the investment? Our exclusive data shows some surprising answers. In 2024, the average annual law school tuition at a private university was nearly $60,000, according to American Bar Association data analyzed by the Law School Admission Council. For in-state residents attending public institutions, it was roughly $32,000. It's hard to know exactly how the loan limits will impact law schools, said Austen Parrish, dean of the University of California, Irvine School of Law. It's likely, in his view, that higher-ranked, more expensive schools will enroll a greater number of wealthy students who won't be as reliant on loans. Other, less privileged students may have to trade prestige for cost, he said. "You're going to see students having to make difficult decisions," he said. Medical schools brace for shift Watching from north-central Montana as Congress passed Trump's spending bill, Julianna Lindquist was happy she started medical school when she did. The 23-year-old, originally from Connecticut, is in her second year at Touro College of Osteopathic Medicine in Montana. (Of the two types of medical schools, osteopathic programs are the less-common version; their coursework is similar to that of other medical schools, but instead emphasizes a more holistic approach to patient care.) This semester, Lindquist is taking out the full amount of Grad PLUS loans she's eligible for – roughly $24,000. "I would not be anywhere without student loans," she said. "There's financial aid, but it's not enough." About half of all medical students rely on the Grad PLUS program, borrowing more than $1 billion annually, according to the Association of American Medical Colleges. Graduates of osteopathic schools, the vast majority of which take on Grad PLUS loans, often go on to serve rural areas or become primary care providers. With federal support disappearing, it'll be up to the private lending market to make up the difference, said Jane Carreiro, dean of the College of Osteopathic Medicine at the University of New England in Portland, Maine. "How are students going to navigate that?" she said. "That's a question that we're all asking." Zachary Schermele is an education reporter for USA TODAY. You can reach him by email at zschermele@ Follow him on X at @ZachSchermele and Bluesky at @
