There are still some honest, anti-racist students at UCLA. NOT
“While students protested against the lawsuit, they also protested against Professor Richard Sander, a law professor at UCLA who is a co-founder of SARD. Specifically, students pointed out that the suits claims that the UC was still using affirmative action was meritless, with Prop 209 laws leading to the decrease in black students at UC schools since the law was voted for in 1996.
“What we’re doing is essentially rejecting Richard Sander and his position on campus as well as all that stands behind that – all of the racist repression, said Noah Massillon, a law student at UCLA, to the Daily Bruin.
Jorelle Trinity, a law student at UCLA, said she attended the rally to stand in solidarity with fellow students who disagree with Sander’s actions. She added that she hopes other students recognize DEI initiatives are not a shortcut to education.
Notice that a LAW student is supporting discrimination and racism. How does a bigot pass the Ethics section of the Bar Exam? We already have judges putting terrorists in their homes. We have a judge that LIED to Ice and help an illegal alien escape. Wonder if these judges went to UCLA?
UCLA Students Protest Lawsuit Alleging That UC Still Uses Race-Based Admission Decisions
UCLA professor also protested against
By Evan Symon, California Globe, 4/24/25 https://californiaglobe.com/fr/ucla-students-protest-lawsuit-alleging-that-uc-still-uses-race-based-admission-decisions/
Close to 100 students protested at UCLA over the weekend, rallying against a Students Against Racial Discrimination (SARD) lawsuit that says that the UC system still uses race-based decisions in admissions despite state and federal law already banning the practice.
While students protested against the lawsuit, they also protested against Professor Richard Sander, a law professor at UCLA who is a co-founder of SARD. Specifically, students pointed out that the suits claims that the UC was still using affirmative action was meritless, with Prop 209 laws leading to the decrease in black students at UC schools since the law was voted for in 1996.
“What we’re doing is essentially rejecting Richard Sander and his position on campus as well as all that stands behind that – all of the racist repression, said Noah Massillon, a law student at UCLA, to the Daily Bruin.
Jorelle Trinity, a law student at UCLA, said she attended the rally to stand in solidarity with fellow students who disagree with Sander’s actions. She added that she hopes other students recognize DEI initiatives are not a shortcut to education.
“Diversity is only an enriching aspect of our society, of our culture and of any industry, any school,” added Jorelle Trinity, another law student at UCLA attending the rally. “To challenge that, to claim that any efforts to correct a lack of diversity is racial discrimination, it’s really heartbreaking.”
However Sander, SARD, and others have pushed back against such accusations. Specifically, they have noted that the second-chance review policy, in which an applicant is considered based on their entire profile with race being included in, skirts around the affirmative action ban and the dismantling of DEI policies. In a letter earlier this year, former UCLA professor and SARD member Tim Groseclose said that UCLA went around the more holistic system using these reviews.
“More specific, the first-round reviews are handled by approximately 200 part-time staff members that UCLA hires during admissions season,” explained Groseclose. “These staffers are often guidance counselors from local high schools. They conduct the first-round reads and, for most students, make the final decision whether they are admitted or not. As I document in my book, these staffers practice little, if any, racial preferences. Related to this, the number of black and Latino admitted through first-round reads hardly changed – the number was approximately the same before and after the “holistic” system was implemented.
“Meanwhile, about 20% of the applicants are granted a second-chance review. The latter reviews are conducted by the dozen or so senior admissions staff. You’ve got to understand that they are the ones who have the most contact with people like the UCLA deans and chancellors. Consequently, they are the ones, I believe, who receive the most pressure to admit minority students. Whatever the case, the data show that they are the ones who are granting the most racial preferences.
“This is one of the best-kept secrets of the UC system: The increase in minority students was not caused by the holistic system. It was caused by the second-chance reviews.”
Lawsuit
In a Globe interview, Sander said that while he was glad students are exercising free speech rights with their protest, he hoped that students would debate it with him for a more engaging dialogue.
“I’m glad our students are exercising their free speech rights,” said Sander to the Globe on Monday. “I’d much rather that the students be protesting – even if they are protesting me – than be apathetic. Better yet, however, is engagement and debate. I hope the students will be willing to debate me about UC’s admissions practices sometime soon.”
Under Prop. 209, state governmental institutions are prohibited from considering race, sex, or ethnicity, especially in the areas of public employment, public contracting, and public education. While many came out in opposition to Prop. 209 throughout the fall of 1996, including activists Jesse Jackson and Dolores Huerta, as well as both then-sitting Senators Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, the Governor Pete Wilson-backed Prop. 209 ultimately succeeded at the ballot box by a wide 55%-45% turnout.
While it was challenged several times in court, Prop. 209 withstood the assault and influenced many more states to end their affirmative action policies in the coming years, as well as influence other major cases, including the 2003 Grutter v. Bollinger ruling, which largely upheld Bakke, and the 2023 Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina ruling. SFFA even noted that a specific influence was Prop. 209, with many scholars noting that Prop. 209 being upheld by by the state legislature in 2014 through the rejection of SCA 5 and by California voters in 2020 when 57% of voters, a greater margin than the initial 1996 vote, voted against Prop. 16, which would have repealed Prop 209. This was all then solidified in 2023 when the United States Supreme Court heard the Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina case and ruled that affirmative action programs in college admissions processes are unconstitutional. The UCLA suit brought on by SARD earlier this year, as well as the federal government closing down DEI positions and policies, are the latest in bringing back merit and grade based admissions decisions over race and ethnicity based decisions.
And despite the rally having so many students in favor of affirmative action, they proved to be a minority. Nearly 60% of Californians and around 70% of Americans as a whole oppose affirmative action admissions and hiring policies.
UC has previously said that the SARD lawsuit is meritless and that the system complies with state and federal law. However, that may be hard to hold up in court, with the lawsuit pressing that “the UC system allows “applicants with inferior academic credentials to obtain admission at the expense of rejected candidates with better academic credentials.” And neither the protestors nor UC have countered that point.
