(The Center Square) — The U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division has opened an investigation into the University of California system for potential race- and gender-based discrimination in employment.
“The University of California’s ‘UC 2030 Capacity Plan’ directs its campuses to hire ‘diverse’ faculty members to meet race- and sex-based employment quotas,” wrote the DOJ. “These initiatives openly measure new hires by their race and sex, which potentially runs afoul of federal law. “
The UC 2030 Capacity Plan emphasizes expanding faculty diversity as a core goal of the 10-campus UC system as it endeavors to “become a Hispanic-serving and minority-serving system.”
“For UC to remain excellent, it must grow and diversify its faculty,” wrote UC. “The University is committed to increasing the diversity of its faculty, both underrepresented minorities and female faculty.”
“One way is to support the pathway to the professoriate is through programs like the UC President’s Pre-Professoriate Fellowship Program, the UC President’s Postdoctoral Fellowship Program and Chancellors’ Fellowship Program which encourage outstanding women and minority Ph.D. recipients with opportunities and resources to help launch their academic careers,” continued UC. “In addition, the University launched the Advancing Faculty Diversity (AFD) program with one-time State funds and expanded the program with additional funding provided by the UC Office of the President.”
“AFD identifies best practices in equity opportunity hiring by providing competitive awards to campus pilots testing new interventions aimed at increasing faculty diversity and improving academic climate and faculty retention.”
The document mentions “diversity,” “diverse” and “diversity” 71 times, and “equity” 41 times.
It mentions “equality” only twice.
Under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it is illegal to practice discrimination in hiring on the basis of race, sex and other protected characteristics. Under Proposition 209, passed by California voters in 1996, it is illegal for state entities to consider race in hiring, contracting and education.
While many public and private institutes have reversed or renamed their diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, lawsuits regarding discrimination against non-priority races and genders are underway, resulting in a U.S. Supreme Court ruling earlier this month.
In Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of a heterosexual woman who said she was discriminated against at her place of work on the basis of sexuality. This case also made it easier for plaintiffs to pursue cases by no longer having to provide “background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.”
An ongoing class action lawsuit by Do No Harm and Students for Fair Admissions against the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA alleges the school is illegally discriminating against white and Asian applicants by holding some applicants to a much lower admissions standard.
This lawsuit may be able to use the new, lower Ames v. Ohio standard for “majority” discrimination, though it’s unclear if this standard will be applied to admissions as was to employment.
In 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard that race-based affirmative action policies for college admissions violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, paving the way for further cases against discriminatory admissions practices.
