A bunch of well educated attorneys, used incoherent language to defend bigotry and discrimination on college campuses. Your tax dollars are paying for this hate.
“Specifically, according to the memorandum, the Supreme Court distinguished between racial classification, which was found to be “legally suspect,” and racial diversity itself, which was determined to be “legally permissible.”
“It is increasingly clear that the Trump administration intends to dismantle our civil rights infrastructures and erode the autonomy and independence of institutions of higher education,” the letter concludes. “We urge university leaders to respond confidently, with both law and moral principle on your side, and not to sacrifice essential and legally defensible DEI initiatives that help universities fulfill their most basic mission to pursue truth and knowledge for the common good.”
Oppenheimer, a clinical law professor and director of the Berkeley Center on Comparative Equality and Anti-Discrimination Law said the Department of Education misinterpreted the SFFA decision.
“(The Supreme Court) said nothing about programs; they said nothing about hiring,” Oppenheimer said. “They said nothing about student services. They said nothing about curriculum; they simply didn’t address any of those questions.”
It is time to end all discrimination. Until that happens the KKK will continue laughing.
UC Berkeley faculty respond to Department of Education letter on race and diversity
Keemia Zhang | DailyCal, 2/21/25 https://www.dailycal.org/news/campus/uc-berkeley-faculty-respond-to-department-of-education-letter-on-race-and-diversity/article_90f86ba8-f026-11ef-bda2-c39f97da09a1.html
President Donald Trump’s administration has attempted to curb diversity initiatives in federally funded educational institutions — a move UC Berkeley professors have criticized on both legality and principle.
On Jan. 21, Trump issued an executive order titled “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity.” More recently, the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights, or OCR, issued a Feb. 14 letter to “reaffirm the nondiscrimination obligations of schools and other entities that receive federal financial assistance.”
The OCR’s letter specifically outlined that all forms of racial consideration, including in financial aid, housing, hiring and “all other aspects of student, academic, and campus life” are prohibited by federal law.
The letter also broadly condemned diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI, initiatives as illegal, citing Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the Equal Protection Clause, among other legal requirements.
“Educational institutions have toxically indoctrinated students with the false premise that the United States is built upon ‘systemic and structural racism,’ ” the letter reads.
The letter primarily relies on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc., or SFFA, v. Harvard, which determined that Harvard’s use of race in their undergraduate admissions processes violated the 14thAmendment of the U.S. Constitution and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.
Berkeley Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky and Berkeley Law faculty members including Kathryn Abrams, Alina Ball, Jonathan D. Glater, David B. Oppenheimer, Jesse H. Choper, Dylan C. Penningroth and Russell K. Robinson were among the signatories on a memorandum dated Feb. 20 disputing the administration’s push to eliminate DEI.
The memorandum, spearheaded by professor Jonathan Feingold at Boston University School of Law, was written by professors specializing in antidiscrimination law, constitutional law and civil rights across the country.
Addressed to “Colleagues, University Offices of General Counsel, and University Leaders,” the memorandum emphasized the legality of DEI initiatives.
The memorandum claims that the SFFA decision was confined to the context of admissions and its application beyond that is “less than clear.”
Specifically, according to the memorandum, the Supreme Court distinguished between racial classification, which was found to be “legally suspect,” and racial diversity itself, which was determined to be “legally permissible.”
“It is increasingly clear that the Trump administration intends to dismantle our civil rights infrastructures and erode the autonomy and independence of institutions of higher education,” the letter concludes. “We urge university leaders to respond confidently, with both law and moral principle on your side, and not to sacrifice essential and legally defensible DEI initiatives that help universities fulfill their most basic mission to pursue truth and knowledge for the common good.”
Oppenheimer, a clinical law professor and director of the Berkeley Center on Comparative Equality and Anti-Discrimination Law said the Department of Education misinterpreted the SFFA decision.
“(The Supreme Court) said nothing about programs; they said nothing about hiring,” Oppenheimer said. “They said nothing about student services. They said nothing about curriculum; they simply didn’t address any of those questions.”
Oppenheimer stated that he believed “every university” in the nation was at risk of administrative prosecution.
Anne MacLachlan, a senior researcher at campus’s Center for Studies in Higher Education, said she viewed the OCR letter as an imposition on the freedom of speech and thought within universities.
“Our motto is let there be light,” MacLachlan said. “Generally, that’s what universities stand for. That light has to keep on shining by people who are going to continue to teach, implement, all of those things that we believe in. Each institution has to stand up and say, ‘This is illegal; we’re not doing it.’ If universities are not going to clearly stand up for values of open dialogue, freedom of information and expression, who the hell will?”
Glater, a campus professor of law, said the letter itself is not a law and that it would be “complicated” for the Department of Education to cut off federal funding as stipulated in the letter.
If federal funds were revoked, Glater said legal action would be likely.
“Responding to any investigation by the Department of Education could impose costs on the University, aside from the potential penalties contemplated by the letter,” Glater said in an email. “Remember that even if the ‘dear colleague’ letter is not a formal rule and lacks the force of a federal law, colleges and universities that are more risk averse will react as if it is and it does.”
According to the OCR letter, the Department intends to assess compliance with applicable statutes based on “the understanding embodied in (the) letter,” beginning Feb. 28.
A UC spokesperson noted that the letter “does not name any specific institution,” but indicates how the OCR intends to enforce existing legal requirements.
UCOP further stated that UC “does not use race-based preferences in our practices,” citing their compliance with California Proposition 209, which banned affirmative action in the state’s public education.
