Californians may want to think about pursuing legal action for compensation. — This comes as a message for victims of DEI practices.
Last week, the federal Department of Justice, with Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet K. Dhillon at the forefront, joined a lawsuit against UCLA’s School of Medicine, accusing it of admitting students based on race instead of academic qualifications.
It’s important for students and parents to understand that admissions practices based on race contradict California law.
Going back to 1978, the University of California, Davis School of Medicine denied entry to capable students like Alan Bakke due to his race. After suing, Bakke won, but the state continued approving admissions based on racial factors.
In the ’90s, there was a pushback.
The California Civil Rights Initiative (CCRI), or Proposition 209, was introduced on the November 1996 ballot. This initiative originated from professors at what is now California State University, East Bay. Supported by Glyn Castred and Thomas Wood along with the Regents of the University of California, the CCRI sought to end racial and ethnic preferences in education and contracting in the state. Voters passed Proposition 209 with a 54% majority.
Notably, the dire consequences predicted by opponents never materialized.
As highlighted by Thomas Sowell from the Hoover Institution in his work Intellectuals and Race, after Proposition 209, minority enrollment at various UC campuses actually increased.
Furthermore, there has been a rise in graduation rates among African American and Hispanic students, with 55% more completing their degrees within four years and earning GPAs of 3.5 or higher.
Despite some misconceptions, the CCRI didn’t abolish all forms of “affirmative action.” State universities still have the leeway to support students financially while spreading their net wide.
Critics still claim Proposition 209 undermines “diversity.” In bureaucratic circles, “diversity” is measured through the representation of different races and ethnicities in institutions. A failure to represent these demographics is often taken as evidence of intentional discrimination, necessitating government-enforced preferences.
And even well after the adoption of Prop. 209, the University of California built an extensive “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) infrastructure, including positions like Vice Chancellor of DEI at UCLA, which reportedly commands a salary of $440,000.
This move appears to disregard California law. In 2020, there was an effort through Proposition 16 to repeal Prop. 209, aiming to tear down significant barriers to DEI. Ultimately, however, Californians rejected Proposition 16 by a wide margin, 57% to 43%, surpassing the victory margin from 1996.
Yet it seems that the voices of the public had little impact on educational institutions.
For instance, in 2024, the University of California, Santa Barbara plans to appoint a new “Vice Provost for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion,” with salary offerings between $250,000 to $430,000.
The lawsuit targeting UCLA originated from the medical advocacy group Do No Harm (DNH), which claims that Dean Jennifer Lucero and the admissions committee frequently accept black applicants with GPA and MCAT scores below average, while white and Asian candidates are said to need near-perfect scores for consideration.
It feels as if the passage of Bill 209 and the rejection of its repeal in 2020 have been completely disregarded.
As Dillon notes, this issue extends beyond what appears on the surface.
“Even after the Supreme Court prohibited policies that favor racial balance, the Geffen School has continued to engage in discriminatory practices, employing unlawful DEI criteria in admissions,” Dillon remarked. “The Supreme Court established over 80 years ago that societies founded on equality reject making distinctions solely based on ancestry. Our Civil Rights Division condemns such behavior and looks forward to the courts ensuring justice.”
With the legal process underway, Californians might want to consider holding the UC system accountable for maintaining excessive DEI administrations that perpetuate injustice, deceive taxpayers, and serve no legitimate educational aims.
