Yale’s Discrimination Against Asian American and white applicants
The United States Department of Justice on Thursday accused the University Of Yale of illegally discriminating against Asian Americans and other white undergraduate applicants, which Yale has vehemently denied, and some have interpreted to be driven by the president’s political interests.
The department’s investigation reports come after a two-year investigation in response to a 2016 complaint against the University from the Asian American Coalition for Education and 132 other organizations against discrimination. Its statement asserts that Yale’s admissions process violates Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Title VI prohibits programs and activities that receive federal funding from discriminating based on race, color, or national origin.
“Although the Supreme Court has held that colleges receiving federal funds may consider applicants’ race in certain limited circumstances as one of several factors, the Department of Justice found Yale’s use of race is anything but limited,” the DOJ statement says. “Yale uses race at multiple steps of its admissions process resulting in a multiplier effect of race on an applicant’s likelihood of admission, and Yale racially balances its classes.”
According to the statement, the DOJ is demanding that Yale agree not to consider race or national origin in the 2020-21 admissions cycle and that to consider those factors in future procedures, it must submit a “narrowly tailored” proposal that includes a date for the “end of racial discrimination.”
related news https://universalnews.org/olga-ladyzhenskaya/
The University has vehemently denied the allegations. In a press release sent to the News, Dean of Undergraduate Admissions Jeremiah Quinlan called the DOJ’s findings “meritless and hasty” and said that Yale would not change its admissions practices.
According to the press release, Yale has complied fully with the DOJ’s investigation, and “had the Department fully received and fairly weighed this information, it would have concluded that Yale’s practices absolutely comply with decades of Supreme Court precedent.”