Tag: discrimination

  • LSU’s First Black Law Dean Alleges Discrimination in Forced Departure

    LSU’s First Black Law Dean Alleges Discrimination in Forced Departure

    Alena AllenAlena Allen, who broke barriers in 2023 as the first Black person and woman to serve as dean of Louisiana State University’s Paul M. Hebert Law Center, will step down from her leadership role against her wishes, citing racial and gender discrimination.

    LSU announced Allen’s departure in an internal email dated August 29, stating she would transition to a full-time faculty position at the Baton Rouge institution. However, Allen maintains she did not voluntarily resign and may pursue legal action for alleged whistleblower retaliation.

    The controversy began when Allen raised concerns about financial “irregularities” she discovered in the law school’s budget—problems that predated her appointment. When she attempted to address these gaps and implement reforms, Allen alleges LSU leadership unfairly blamed her for the pre-existing issues.

    “I am the first woman and the first person of color to serve as the permanent dean of the Paul M. Hebert Law Center. That fact is not incidental—it is central to what follows,” Allen wrote in her response to auditors. “I find it deeply troubling, and frankly difficult to ignore, that I appear to be held to a standard far more exacting than that applied to my white, overwhelmingly male predecessors.”

    Allen’s attorney claims the LSU Board of Supervisors “engaged in systematic discrimination and retaliatory conduct” against her, arguing that her predecessors had “oversaw and entrenched the very practices” she questioned and began reforming.

    Allen’s forced departure adds to a concerning pattern of Black leadership exits at LSU. The university recently lost its first Black president, Dr. William Tate, who left on June 30 to become president of Rutgers University. Several other Black administrators have also announced departures from the institution.

    After Allen requested an investigation into the alleged racial and gender discrimination, university leaders informed her during a meeting that the law school would move in a “different direction” without her leadership.

    Allen will continue serving as dean through the end of the spring 2026 semester while LSU conducts a national search for her replacement. Interim LSU Provost Dr. Troy Blanchard is overseeing the search process.

     

    Source link

  • Racial Discrimination on Campus Where 4 of 5 Students Are White?

    Racial Discrimination on Campus Where 4 of 5 Students Are White?

    Administrators at the University of Missouri told a student organization that it could not proceed with a “Black 2 Class Block Party” because the event qualified as “unlawful discrimination.” Is it possible that students who are not Black complained of being denied access to the annual event in prior years? Probably not. This cancellation is one of numerous examples of how institutions are attempting to comply with the Trump administration’s anti-DEI agenda, as Inside Higher Ed reporter Jessica Blake noted in an article last Friday.

    U.S. Department of Education data shows that during the 2023–24 school year, 79 percent of undergraduates on the University of Missouri’s flagship campus were white. Black students were just 5 percent of the undergraduate student body. Put differently, nearly 19,000 students were white and fewer than 1,200 were Black. Numerically, there are not and have never been enough Black students there to create a climate of exclusion for their white counterparts. The same is true among professors—last school year, only 33 of 1,027 tenure-track faculty members at Mizzou were Black, according to statistics published online by the university’s Office of Institutional Research.

    Given these demographics, it seems implausible that collegians in the minority have enough power to routinely and unlawfully discriminate against their peers who comprise the majority. This could be confirmed via systematic analyses of discrimination complaints submitted to the university in recent years. When disaggregated by race, the data is unlikely to show that it is overwhelmingly white students who most often experience racism. Surely few, if any, complaints are about encounters with discrimination at Black student organization events.

    Activities like Mizzou’s annual welcome-week block party are important for Black students, as most will be expected to successfully navigate spaces where they are the only or one of just a few persons from their racial group in every course they take, sometimes in their entire academic majors. Some will be the lone Black students who live on their residence hall floors. In these and other spaces, too many will be met with racial stereotypes, microaggressions and, at times, explicit racial violence. Black student organization events afford them opportunities to meet others who can affirm their sense of belonging at the institution. They may also meet other Black students who can teach them how to navigate campus environments that are anti-Black and otherwise racist.

    The inclusion of “Black” in its title is what made this year’s block party suddenly and presumably discriminatory. Like historically Black colleges and universities, Black culture centers, and African American studies courses, Black student organization events have neither historically nor contemporarily been proven to be spaces that exclude people from other races. Mizzou and universities like it are considerably more likely to find evidence of racial discrimination in predominantly white sorority and fraternity recruitment and member-selection activities, as well as at parties on frat row, than at a student organization event that amplifies black culture.

    As previously noted, 5 percent of Mizzou undergraduates are Black. Noteworthy is that Black men are 2 percent of the student body, yet NCAA data shows that they comprised 62 percent of the football team and 56 percent of the men’s basketball team there last academic school year. Despite generating millions of dollars in revenue for the university, these student athletes and their same-race peers are not allowed to have events that have “Black” in the title.

    “Black college football and basketball players are the most powerful people of color on campus,” I wrote in a Washington Post article 10 years ago. At that time, Black student athletes at Mizzou threatened to skip a football game that would have resulted in a loss of more than $1 million in revenue. This threat was in response to institutional inaction on racism that Black collegians had long experienced there. Within days, the system president and the chancellor of the Columbia campus both resigned.

    Football and basketball players are as powerful there today as they were a decade ago. They can indeed resist anti-DEI efforts that disadvantage them and other students of color. But should they do so in response to a canceled welcome-week block party? Yes, because that one seemingly insignificant event is emblematic of a more expansive demonstration of anti-Blackness on their and other campuses at this time.

    The elimination of culturally resonant programs, centers and institutes, and offices denies Black students access to valuable relationships and resources that bolster their first-year transition experiences, sense of belonging, classroom and out-of-class engagement, academic performance, and retention. Some of the most enduring and transformative advancements for Black collegians in U.S. higher education emerged from student activism. Student athletes, student organization leaders and everyday students who are Black, along with allies and supporters from other racial groups, ought to refuse to allow anyone to mischaracterize activities and spaces as discriminatory just because “Black” is in the title.

    Source link

  • Mizzou Calls Black 2 Class Event Example of “Discrimination”

    Mizzou Calls Black 2 Class Event Example of “Discrimination”

    For the second year in a row, a Black student group at the University of Missouri is facing pushback from administrators over their attempt to hold a back-to-school event with the word “Black” in the name.

    The Legion of Black Collegians, a long-standing Black student government at Mizzou, had planned to host the on-campus Black 2 Class Block Party this week, but the group said in a social media post Wednesday that university administrators had canceled it.

    A university spokesperson told Inside Higher Ed that Mizzou is “committed to fostering an environment free of unlawful discrimination,” and that the name of the event “suggested it was race exclusive.”

    Likewise, Mizzou President Mun Choi added in a statement that “when holding events using university facilities, student organizations must avoid excluding individuals based on race.”

    This follows a similar dispute last year, when the university changed the name of a similar LBC event from the Welcome Black BBQ to the Welcome Black and Gold BBQ, a nod to the university’s colors. This year, LBC declined to participate, letting university officials know in July.

    Student success experts and advocates for racial minority groups say the tension at Mizzou is just one example of an ongoing change in campus cultures nationwide. As various pieces of anti-DEI legislation take effect in red states and the Trump administration attempts to crack down on practices of so-called liberal indoctrination across the country, many students of color could lose access to vital hubs of cultural recognition, they say.

    “There’s no question that the political context, the messaging from this administration and the confluence of what’s happening at state levels are extremely influential for white universities, who are often public schools that take public money,” said Eric Duncan, a policy director with EdTrust. “We’re not surprised, but we’re disappointed in what’s happening to Black students at Missouri.”

    In addition to publicizing the cancellation, LBC also noted on Instagram that incidents of racism and hate speech on campus are on the rise and demanded that the institution schedule a town hall meeting within 60 days, publicly condemn racial harassment and send out an annual notification explaining the college’s antidiscrimination policies.

    “Let’s be clear,” the student group wrote. “These actions are a deliberate act of erasure … Recreational spaces for students of all identities are CRUCIAL.”

    Choi said the university “will not respond to demands.” A university spokesperson later told Inside Higher Ed that the university is “not aware of increased discrimination against Black students on campus.”

    Amaya Morgan, the current LBC president, said she met with Choi and other administrators to discuss the cancellation on Thursday afternoon—a meeting the university later said was confidential and declined to comment on.

    In an effort to avoid federal scrutiny, universities across the country have canceled events and closed diversity centers following Trump’s ban on race-based programming and activities. A federal judge recently struck down one such order from the Department of Education, but in many cases colleges have already complied. Some institutional leaders have indicated they have few good options except to keep their heads down.

    But for Morgan, the priority is for the university “to have our back.”

    “We know we can’t do anything about the block party now,” she said, adding that racially driven harassment must still be addressed. “Obviously what we’re doing to prevent discrimination right now is not working. So we’re asking, how can we work toward a solution? That is why those demands were listed out like that.”

    Colleges Put ‘a Lot at Stake’

    Decisions to close minority student centers, shut down ethnic group–based organizations and cancel culturally specific events are not new and started before Trump took office. News organizations and nonprofit groups have been tracking such actions, especially in Republican-led states, since the Supreme Court blocked the consideration of race in college admissions in 2023.

    For example, colleges in Utah closed cultural centers and the University of Iowa terminated LGBTQ+ and Latino living-learning communities. Mizzou axed its Inclusion, Diversity and Equity Division in summer 2024 along with certain race-based scholarships and first-year student success programs like the Mizzou Black Men’s and Women’s Initiatives.

    As a Black man who attended two predominantly white institutions, Duncan, of EdTrust, said that by shuttering these parts of campus life, universities are putting “a lot at stake.” For underrepresented students, many of whom are also first-generation, these programs are critical to retention and degree completion, adding that there’s evidence—anecdotal and data-based—to prove it.

    “When Black and brown students and different cultures step onto college campuses, a lot of times they’re looking for signals of inclusivity. ‘Is this a place that I belong?’” Duncan said. “Removing [these welcoming and affirming spaces] not just passively, but by coming out and saying, ‘We don’t support this,’ is a signal to people that maybe this is not a space of belonging for me.”

    Shaun Harper, a professor of education, public policy and business at the University of Southern California, echoed Duncan’s remarks. He pointed to a paper he published in 2013 that showed that it’s critical for Black students at predominantly white institutions to connect and teach one another how to navigate environments filled with microaggressions, racism and loneliness. Black student groups were key to this, the qualitative data showed.

    Harper added that just because something is run by a Black student organization doesn’t make it exclusive to other learners.

    “There’s never been a sign on the Black culture center door that says, ‘Blacks only.’ If white students, Asian students, Latino students and others, Indigenous students, wanted to come to those spaces, they were always welcome,” he said. “The reason why I’m so annoyed is that anybody who has ever attended [an event like Mizzou’s barbecue] knows that they are not discriminatory, divisive spaces. In fact, they’re spaces that are familial.”

    A History of Racial Tension

    As Mizzou’s LBC once again draws attention to what they call a lack of representation on campus, the university is also approaching the 10-year anniversary of protests that rocked the campus and made national headlines in November 2015.

    One student went on a hunger strike to draw attention to racism on campus, and other students camped out on the quad in solidarity. Eventually, the football team joined the efforts. The strike ended when two university leaders resigned on the same day.

    When Inside Higher Ed asked university administrators how they had addressed the campus climate since then, university spokesperson Christopher Ave said, “It is difficult to accurately measure the campus climate.” But he pointed to a record number of applications from prospective students, the increase in the percentage of underrepresented students and an improved retention rate on campus—all of which, he said, “illustrate that students want to attend and continue their education at the University of Missouri.”

    Ave added that calling off the block party doesn’t mean that the university also considers its Black cultural center or LBC as examples of discrimination.

    “This decision was based on the circumstances of this event, which was promoted with a name that suggested it was race exclusive and contrary to [federal civil rights law],” he said. “Each event or program must be considered on its own in context and the decision on this event does not dictate what will happen in any other circumstance.”

    Morgan from LBC declined to comment on whether they were seeking aid from outside groups to hold events like the block party off campus. The primary goal, she said, is to “protect the safety of Black students moving forward.”

    “I’ll be honest, I don’t have a very clear path forward, but I know that as a Legion, we will still continue to do whatever we can to make sure that students are heard and make sure that our identities are heard and seen,” she said. “As a Legion, we have existed for nearly 60 years. Excuse my language, but there’s absolutely no way in hell that we [will] go, especially not under my watch.”



    Source link

  • Mizzou Calls Black 2 Class Event Example of “Discrimination”

    Mizzou Calls Black 2 Class Event Example of “Discrimination”

    For the second year in a row, a Black student group at the University of Missouri is facing pushback from administrators over their attempt to hold a back-to-school event with the word “Black” in the name.

    The Legion of Black Collegians, a long-standing Black student government at Mizzou, had planned to host the on-campus Black 2 Class Block Party this week, but the group said in a social media post Wednesday that university administrators had canceled it.

    A university spokesperson told Inside Higher Ed that Mizzou is “committed to fostering an environment free of unlawful discrimination,” and that the name of the event “suggested it was race exclusive.”

    Likewise, Mizzou President Mun Choi added in a statement that “when holding events using university facilities, student organizations must avoid excluding individuals based on race.”

    This follows a similar dispute last year, when the university changed the name of a similar LBC event from the Welcome Black BBQ to the Welcome Black and Gold BBQ, a nod to the university’s colors. This year, LBC declined to participate, letting university officials know in July.

    Student success experts and advocates for racial minority groups say the tension at Mizzou is just one example of an ongoing change in campus cultures nationwide. As various pieces of anti-DEI legislation take effect in red states and the Trump administration attempts to crack down on practices of so-called liberal indoctrination across the country, many students of color could lose access to vital hubs of cultural recognition, they say.

    “There’s no question that the political context, the messaging from this administration and the confluence of what’s happening at state levels are extremely influential for white universities, who are often public schools that take public money,” said Eric Duncan, a policy director with EdTrust. “We’re not surprised, but we’re disappointed in what’s happening to Black students at Missouri.”

    In addition to publicizing the cancellation, LBC also noted on Instagram that incidents of racism and hate speech on campus are on the rise and demanded that the institution schedule a town hall meeting within 60 days, publicly condemn racial harassment and send out an annual notification explaining the college’s antidiscrimination policies.

    “Let’s be clear,” the student group wrote. “These actions are a deliberate act of erasure … Recreational spaces for students of all identities are CRUCIAL.”

    Choi said the university “will not respond to demands.” A university spokesperson later told Inside Higher Ed that the university is “not aware of increased discrimination against Black students on campus.”

    Amaya Morgan, the current LBC president, said she met with Choi and other administrators to discuss the cancellation on Thursday afternoon—a meeting the university later said was confidential and declined to comment on.

    In an effort to avoid federal scrutiny, universities across the country have canceled events and closed diversity centers following Trump’s ban on race-based programming and activities. A federal judge recently struck down one such order from the Department of Education, but in many cases colleges have already complied. Some institutional leaders have indicated they have few good options except to keep their heads down.

    But for Morgan, the priority is for the university “to have our back.”

    “We know we can’t do anything about the block party now,” she said, adding that racially driven harassment must still be addressed. “Obviously what we’re doing to prevent discrimination right now is not working. So we’re asking, how can we work toward a solution? That is why those demands were listed out like that.”

    Colleges Put ‘a Lot at Stake’

    Decisions to close minority student centers, shut down ethnic group–based organizations and cancel culturally specific events are not new and started before Trump took office. News organizations and nonprofit groups have been tracking such actions, especially in Republican-led states, since the Supreme Court blocked the consideration of race in college admissions in 2023.

    For example, colleges in Utah closed cultural centers and the University of Iowa terminated LGBTQ+ and Latino living-learning communities. Mizzou axed its Inclusion, Diversity and Equity Division in summer 2024 along with certain race-based scholarships and first-year student success programs like the Mizzou Black Men’s and Women’s Initiatives.

    As a Black man who attended two predominantly white institutions, Duncan, of EdTrust, said that by shuttering these parts of campus life, universities are putting “a lot at stake.” For underrepresented students, many of whom are also first-generation, these programs are critical to retention and degree completion, adding that there’s evidence—anecdotal and data-based—to prove it.

    “When Black and brown students and different cultures step onto college campuses, a lot of times they’re looking for signals of inclusivity. ‘Is this a place that I belong?’” Duncan said. “Removing [these welcoming and affirming spaces] not just passively, but by coming out and saying, ‘We don’t support this,’ is a signal to people that maybe this is not a space of belonging for me.”

    Shaun Harper, a professor of education, public policy and business at the University of Southern California, echoed Duncan’s remarks. He pointed to a paper he published in 2013 that showed that it’s critical for Black students at predominantly white institutions to connect and teach one another how to navigate environments filled with microaggressions, racism and loneliness. Black student groups were key to this, the qualitative data showed.

    Harper added that just because something is run by a Black student organization doesn’t make it exclusive to other learners.

    “There’s never been a sign on the Black culture center door that says, ‘Blacks only.’ If white students, Asian students, Latino students and others, Indigenous students, wanted to come to those spaces, they were always welcome,” he said. “The reason why I’m so annoyed is that anybody who has ever attended [an event like Mizzou’s barbecue] knows that they are not discriminatory, divisive spaces. In fact, they’re spaces that are familial.”

    A History of Racial Tension

    As Mizzou’s LBC once again draws attention to what they call a lack of representation on campus, the university is also approaching the 10-year anniversary of protests that rocked the campus and made national headlines in November 2015.

    One student went on a hunger strike to draw attention to racism on campus, and other students camped out on the quad in solidarity. Eventually, the football team joined the efforts. The strike ended when two university leaders resigned on the same day.

    When Inside Higher Ed asked university administrators how they had addressed the campus climate since then, university spokesperson Christopher Ave said, “It is difficult to accurately measure the campus climate.” But he pointed to a record number of applications from prospective students, the increase in the percentage of underrepresented students and an improved retention rate on campus—all of which, he said, “illustrate that students want to attend and continue their education at the University of Missouri.”

    Ave added that calling off the block party doesn’t mean that the university also considers its Black cultural center or LBC as examples of discrimination.

    “This decision was based on the circumstances of this event, which was promoted with a name that suggested it was race exclusive and contrary to [federal civil rights law],” he said. “Each event or program must be considered on its own in context and the decision on this event does not dictate what will happen in any other circumstance.”

    Morgan from LBC declined to comment on whether they were seeking aid from outside groups to hold events like the block party off campus. The primary goal, she said, is to “protect the safety of Black students moving forward.”

    “I’ll be honest, I don’t have a very clear path forward, but I know that as a Legion, we will still continue to do whatever we can to make sure that students are heard and make sure that our identities are heard and seen,” she said. “As a Legion, we have existed for nearly 60 years. Excuse my language, but there’s absolutely no way in hell that we [will] go, especially not under my watch.”



    Source link

  • EEOC Initiates Investigation Into Harvard University Over Racial Discrimination – CUPA-HR

    EEOC Initiates Investigation Into Harvard University Over Racial Discrimination – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | May 19, 2025

    On April 25, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s Acting Chair, Andrea Lucas, issued a Commissioner’s Charge against Harvard University announcing that the EEOC is investigating whether “Harvard may have violated and may be continuing to violate Title VII [of the Civil Rights Act of 1964] by engaging in a pattern or practice of disparate treatment against white, Asian, male, or straight employees, applicants, and training program participants in hiring, promotion (including but not limited to tenure decisions), compensation, and separation decisions; internship programs; and mentoring, leadership development, and other career development programs.”

    The charge also covers “entities managed by, affiliated with, related, or operating jointly with or successors to” Harvard University. This includes the institution’s medical school, school of public health, and school of arts and sciences, as well as the Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Massachusetts General Hospital, among others. The investigation will look back to 2018 for potential discrimination.

    As Acting Chair Lucas explains in the charge, the allegations “are based on publicly available information regarding Harvard, including, but not limited to, documents and information published on Harvard and its affiliates’ public webpages (including archived pages); public statements by Harvard and its leadership; and news reporting.” The charge references documents that were on Harvard’s website, including resources that tracked its decade-long progress to diversify its faculty, but these documents have since been deleted from the university’s website.

    Lucas highlights data showing a 10% drop in white men among “all ladder faculty” from 2013 to 2023 and the corresponding 10% increase in total women, nonbinary, and faculty of color in the same time span. She also points to the increase in the percentage of tenured and tenure-track faculty that are women, nonbinary, and/or people of color. Acting Chair Lucas believes Harvard took “such unlawful action in an effort to achieve, in Harvard’s own words, ‘demographic diversification of the faculty.’” Moreover, Lucas claims, “there is reason to believe that these trends and the underlying pattern or practice of discrimination based on race and sex have continued in 2024 and are ongoing.”

    The charge also emphasizes that various programs hosted by the university and its affiliates — including fellowship programs, research opportunities, and other initiatives targeted toward underserved groups, including Black and Native American students — demonstrate disparate treatment by the university and its affiliates against White, Asian, male, and straight applicants and training program participants.

    The EEOC’s Commissioner’s Charge is the latest escalation of the battle between Harvard and the Trump administration, which has frozen or paused billions of dollars in federal grants and contracts, threatened to revoke the school’s tax-exempt status, and initiated a task force to investigate the university’s behavior towards Jewish students. The Department of Education and Department of Health and Human Services are also investigating the university, including for race-based discrimination.

    In a letter in response to the Department of Education, Harvard explained:

    “Employment at Harvard is similarly based on merit and achievement. We seek the best educators, researchers, and scholars at our schools. We do not have quotas, whether based on race or ethnicity or any other characteristic. We do not employ ideological litmus tests. We do not use diversity, equity, and inclusion statements in our hiring decisions. We hire people because of their individual accomplishments, promise, and creativity in their fields or areas of expertise, and their ability to communicate effectively with students, faculty, and staff. And we take all of our legal obligations seriously, including those that pertain to faculty employment at Harvard, as we seek to offer our students the most dynamic and rewarding educational experience that we can.”

    CUPA-HR will continue to monitor for updates related to this charge and other relevant enforcement activity at the EEOC.



    Source link

  • Harvard Law Review Accused of Race-Based Discrimination

    Harvard Law Review Accused of Race-Based Discrimination

    In the latest salvo in the war between the Trump administration and Harvard University, the U.S. Departments of Education and Health and Human Services launched Title VI investigations into Harvard and the Harvard Law Review for alleged race-based discrimination at the 138-year-old student-run publication.

    “Harvard Law Review’s article selection process appears to pick winners and losers on the basis of race, employing a spoils system in which the race of the legal scholar is as, if not more, important than the merit of the submission,” said Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Craig Trainor in a statement. “Title VI’s demands are clear: recipients of federal financial assistance may not discriminate on the basis of race, color, or national origin … The Trump Administration will not allow Harvard, or any other recipients of federal funds, to trample on anyone’s civil rights.”

    The statement alleged that the editor of the Harvard Law Review wrote that it was “concerning” that the vast majority of people seeking to respond to an article about police reform “are white men.” It also accused another editor of suggesting that a submission receive “expedited review because the author was a minority.”

    Education Secretary Linda McMahon reposted a tweet from the Free Beacon that purports to show additional evidence of race-based decision-making at the Law Review.

    “We will not allow recipients of federal funding to discriminate on the basis of race,” McMahon wrote.

    Members of the Harvard Law Review have not publicly commented on the allegations. But an HLS spokesperson told Axios, “Harvard Law School is committed to ensuring that the programs and activities it oversees are in compliance with all applicable laws and to investigating any credibly alleged violations.” 

    Source link

  • EEOC and DOJ Issue Technical Assistance Documents on Unlawful DEI-Related Discrimination

    EEOC and DOJ Issue Technical Assistance Documents on Unlawful DEI-Related Discrimination

    by CUPA-HR | March 20, 2025

    On March 19, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and Department of Justice (DOJ) released two technical assistance documents intended to educate “the public about unlawful discrimination related to ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ (DEI) in the workplace.” The two documents aim to inform the public about how civil rights rules and laws like Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 apply to employment policies, programs and practices, including those labeled or framed as “DEI.”

    Title VII prohibits employment discrimination based on protected characteristics, including race, color, religion, sex or national origin. As the agencies note in both documents, DEI is a broad term that is not defined under statute. The technical assistance explains that DEI practices may be unlawful if they involve an employer or other covered entity taking an employment action motivated in whole or in part by an employee’s race, sex, or other protected characteristic. The agencies emphasize that Title VII’s protections apply equally to all racial, ethnic, and national origin groups, as well as both sexes, and that unlawful discrimination may exist no matter which employees are harmed.

    Technical Assistance Document #1: The EEOC describes what DEI-related discrimination looks like.

    The first document, “What To Do If You Experience Discrimination Related to DEI at Work,” explains how DEI-related practices may manifest as discrimination under Title VII.

    • Title VII bars disparate treatment: Any employment action motivated in whole or in part by race, sex, or another protected characteristic that is taken in the context of the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment may be unlawful.*
    • Title VII prohibits limiting, segregating, and classifying: Any action taken that limits, segregates, or classifies employees based on race, sex, or other protected characteristics in a manner affecting their status or depriving them of employment opportunities may be unlawful. Examples of these practices include the establishment of workplace groups (employee resource groups or employee affinity groups) that limit membership to a protected group or groups, as well as the separation of employees into groups based on a protected characteristic when administering trainings or other privileges of employment. The document makes clear that the latter may still violate Title VII even if the separate groups receive the same training or programming content.
    • Title VII prohibits workplace harassment: Workplace harassment is illegal when it results in an adverse change to a term, condition, or privilege of employment, or it is so frequent or severe to reasonably be considered intimidating, hostile, or abusive. The document explains that DEI training may give rise to a hostile work environment claim and that harassment may occur when an employee is subject to unwelcome remarks or conduct based on protected characteristics.
    • Title VII prohibits employer retaliation: The agencies explain that reasonable opposition to a DEI training may constitute protected activity if the employee provides a fact-specific basis for their belief that the training violated Title VII, and that an employer may not retaliate if an employee participates in an EEOC investigation or files an EEOC charge.

    The document reaffirms that Title VII protects employees, potential and actual applicants, interns, and training program participants. It directs individuals who suspect to have experienced DEI-related discrimination to contact the EEOC “promptly” as claimants have 180 to 300 days to file a claim depending on whether a state or local agency enforces a law that prohibits employment discrimination on the same basis.

    Technical Assistance Document #2: The EEOC answers additional questions about DEI-related discrimination in the workplace.

    The second technical assistance document, titled “What You Should Know About DEI-Related Discrimination At Work,” expands upon the information provided in the technical assistance document discussed above and answers a number of additional questions on how Title VII intersects with DEI-related practices in the workplace.

    Notably, the document addresses questions surrounding employers’ DEI-related considerations of race, sex, and other protected characteristics when the protected characteristic wasn’t the “sole or deciding factor” for the employers’ action. The document states that “race or sex (or any other protected characteristic under Title VII) does not have to be the exclusive (sole) reason for an employment action or the ‘but-for’ (deciding) factor for the action” for there to be unlawful discrimination. Additionally, the agencies explain that workers only need to show “some injury” or “some harm” affecting their terms, conditions or privileges of employment to allege a colorable claim of discrimination under Title VII.

    The document also makes clear that an employer may not justify an employment action simply on the basis that they have a business necessity or interest in “diversity” as Title VII prohibits employers from using business necessity as a defense against intentional discrimination claims. Likewise, the agencies explain that “client or customer preference is not a defense to race or color discrimination” and that “basing employment decisions on the racial preferences of clients, customers, or coworkers constitutes intentional race discrimination.”

    CUPA-HR will continue to monitor for updates related to Title VII enforcement from the EEOC.

    *The terms and conditions of employment include: hiring; firing; promotion; demotion; compensation; fringe benefits; exclusion from training; exclusion from mentoring or sponsorship programs; exclusion from fellowships; selection for interviews (including placement on candidate slates).



    Source link

  • Education Department Accuses 51 Colleges of Discrimination

    Education Department Accuses 51 Colleges of Discrimination

    The Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights launched investigations into 51 colleges on Friday, accusing them of violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and flouting guidance put forth in the department’s Dear Colleague Letter last month, which warned colleges that all race-conscious programs and policies would be considered unlawful.

    “The Department is working to reorient civil rights enforcement to ensure all students are protected from illegal discrimination,” Education Secretary Linda McMahon wrote in a statement. “Today’s announcement expands our efforts to ensure universities are not discriminating against their students based on race and race stereotypes.”

    According to the department’s statement, all but six of the investigations revolve around colleges’ partnerships or support for The PhD Project, a nonprofit organization that connects prospective business doctoral candidates from underrepresented backgrounds with academic networks and hosts recruitment events for business school faculty. In its statement, the Education Department said the organization “limits eligibility based on the race of participants.”

    A spokesperson for the PhD Project told Inside Higher Ed the organization works “to create a broader talent pipeline of current and future business leaders…through networking, mentorship, and unique events.” 

    The spokesperson also said they changed their membership requirements “this year” to include “anyone who shares that vision,” but did not say exactly when the change was made. Snapshots of the organization’s website, captured on the WayBack Machine, show different language as recently as two weeks ago, including a section on the homepage titled “we believe inclusion is critical,” which has since been scrubbed.

    The OCR is also investigating five additional colleges for allegedly using race in scholarship eligibility requirements. One institution, the department said, was included for “administering a program that segregates students on the basis of race.”

    Representatives for the education department did not respond to multiple questions from Inside Higher Ed in time for publication. 

    Inside Higher Ed also contacted the two dozen institutions under investigation, and their responses varied. The University of Wisconsin-Madison and Carnegie Mellon University said they had yet to be formally notified of any complaint by the OCR, and were awaiting more information to determine how to comply with an investigation.

    A spokesperson for the University of Notre Dame, which is still listed as a PhD Project partner, said the university “follows the law and in no way practices or condones discrimination.”

    “As a Catholic university, we are fully committed to defending the dignity of every human person and ensuring that every person can flourish,” the spokesperson added. 

    At least one university on the list has already terminated its partnership with the PhD Project. A spokesperson for Arizona State University said the business school “would not be supporting [faculty] travel to the upcoming PhD Project Conference.”

    “The school also this year is not financially supporting the PhD Project organization,” the spokesperson added. 

    A spokesperson for Ithaca College, one of the five institutions accused of limiting scholarship eligibility based on race, denied that the scholarships the department cited violated Title VI. The department targeted two scholarships, the spokesperson said: the African Latino Society Memorial Scholarship and the Rashad G. Richardson “I Can Achieve” Memorial Scholarship. Both recognize students who work with the college’s BIPOC Unity Center, but don’t list any racial eligibility requirements on their respective webpages. 

    The Dear Colleague Letter released by the OCR last month aimed to greatly expand the scope of the Supreme Court’s affirmative action ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, from one squarely focused on the policies and practices of admission offices to a sweeping decree on the illegality of all educational programs that consider race. 

    In its aftermath, colleges have struggled to understand how to comply with such a broad mandate—or whether they are even legally required to. Many have made surface-level changes, altering the names of programs and scrubbing websites of language associated with diversity, equity and inclusion. Some have gone further, eliminating DEI offices, shuttering residential housing for student groups or cutting race-based scholarships. 

    Jon Fansmith, senior vice president of government relations and national engagement at the American Council on Education, said the investigations were “cause for concern” among higher ed institutions that may have thought they were in compliance with the Dear Colleague Letter. But he said institutions shouldn’t panic yet. 

    “This is very clearly [the administration’s] first effort to try and enforce their interpretation of SFFA, as opposed to what most legal scholars accept that case means,” Fansmith said. “I think that schools understand, especially post-SFFA, what constitutes an impermissible benefit to a student based on race…it seems to me that they will probably be on solid ground defending their actions in these cases.”

    Recruitment in the Crosshairs

    The PhD Project has been a target of conservative activists in the past. In January, Christopher Rufo—a stalwart anti-DEI crusader who Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis appointed to the board of New College in 2023—brought attention to institutions attending the organization’s annual recruiting conference. 

    In a tweet, Rufo showed screenshots of the organization’s eligibility requirements for attendance, which stated that applicants had to be Black, Hispanic or Indigenous. Shortly after, Texas A&M University announced it would not send business faculty to the conference, following a threat by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott to fire the university president. Rufo did not respond to Inside Higher Ed’s request for comment.

    On Friday morning, the PhD Project website included a list of all university partners, accessible via drop-down menu. By that evening, the list had disappeared from the site. A spokesperson for the organization did not say why it was removed. 

    Inside Higher Ed catalogued the list before its removal. Of the 45 institutions that the department alleges violated civil rights by partnering with the PhD Project, 31 were listed as partners on the organization’s website Friday morning, including ASU. It’s not apparent what connection the other 14 institutions have to the PhD Project, and the education department did not respond to requests for clarification. But more than half of the 97 U.S. partner colleges the organization had listed on its website are not included in the OCR’s investigation. Its unclear why some PhD Project partners are under investigation while others are not.

    A spokesperson for Boise State University, which is under OCR investigation but not on the PhD Project’s list of partners, told Inside Higher Ed the institution is “working with our general counsel’s office to look into the matter.” A spokesperson for the California State University system, which has two campuses under investigation—CSU San Bernadino and Cal Poly Humboldt—said the system “continues to comply with longstanding applicable federal and state laws.” A spokesperson from the University of North Texas, also under investigation, said they are “fully cooperating” with investigations but are “not affiliated with the PhD Project.” 

    The PhD Project’s annual conference is set to start next week in Chicago. A spokesperson for the organization did not say how many universities have pulled their support for attendees, or if they’d seen an uptick in requests to cancel registrations. 

    Fansmith said that initiatives to recruit a more diverse applicant pool shouldn’t be viewed as discriminatory—especially in academic fields that have struggled to diversify. Only 35 percent of doctoral candidates in business, and 26 percent of business school faculty, are people of color, according to a 2023 report from the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business. 

    “There’s lots of admissions initiatives seeking to put institutions in front of groups of students so they become aware of the programs they offer. Those are not discriminatory,” Fansmith said. “The reason these programs exist is because there are categories of students who are underrepresented in many fields… it would be a shame to see schools walk away from them.”

    Source link

  • Liberty University must face former trans worker’s discrimination claim, judge rules

    Liberty University must face former trans worker’s discrimination claim, judge rules

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    A worker who was fired by Liberty University for disclosing her transgender status and announcing her intention to transition may proceed with her employment discrimination case against the institution, a Virginia district court judge ruled Feb. 21 (Zinski v. Liberty University). 

    The case involved a worker who was hired in February 2023 as an IT apprentice at the university’s IT help desk. She received positive performance reviews until July of that year, when she emailed Liberty’s HR department, explaining that she was a transgender woman, had been undergoing hormone replacement therapy and would be legally changing her name, according to court documents. An HR representative promised to follow up with her.

    Shortly thereafter, after hearing nothing, the worker reached out again and was scheduled for a meeting later the same day. She was presented with a letter terminating her employment and explaining that her decision to transition violated Liberty’s religious beliefs and its Doctrinal Statement. 

    In response to the worker’s lawsuit, Liberty University argued that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (among other laws) allow religious employers to discriminate on the basis of religion, contending that the worker’s firing was religion-based rather than sex-based in discriminatory nature. 

    While Judge Norman Moon appreciated that the case presents a “novel question of law in the Fourth Circuit,” he ultimately found current case law didn’t fully or clearly support the university’s argument. 

    “If discharge based upon transgender status is sex discrimination under Title VII generally, it follows that the same should be true for religious employers, who, it has been shown, were not granted an exception from the prohibition against sex discrimination,” Judge Moon said in his order denying the university’s motion to dismiss the case. “They have been entitled to discriminate on the basis of religion but on no other grounds.”

    Judge Moon pointed out that “no source of law … answers the question before us,” but “we find that a decision to the contrary would portend far-reaching and detrimental consequences for our system of civil law and the separation between church and state.”

    “This case — and the law it implicates — points to the delicate balance between two competing and laudable objectives: eradicating discrimination in employment, on the one hand, and affording religious institutions the freedom to cultivate a workforce that conforms to its doctrinal principles, on the other,” Moon wrote. “We find that our holding today — that religious institutions cannot discriminate on the basis of sex, even if motivated by religion — most appropriately maintains this balance.”

    Source link

  • Department of Education Issues Guidance on Discrimination Policies Under Title VI – CUPA-HR

    Department of Education Issues Guidance on Discrimination Policies Under Title VI – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | May 13, 2024

    On May 7, the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) issued a “Dear Colleague” letter to offer guidance on schools’ responsibilities to prevent and rectify discrimination based on race, color, or national origin, including shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics, under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its implementing regulations. The guidance aims to provide examples to institutions to help them carry out their Title VI requirements.

    In its letter, OCR explains that it has received an increase in complaints alleging discrimination based on race, color, or national origin at colleges and universities, as well as public reports of such discrimination. While it does not explicitly state that the guidance is in response to reports of antisemitism on campuses and protests regarding the Israel-Hamas war, the department emphasizes in the letter that Title VI’s “protections extend to students and school community members who are or are perceived because of their shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics to be Jewish, Israeli, Muslim, Arab, Sikh, South Asian, Hindu, Palestinian or any other faith or ancestry,” and that “Title VI’s protections against discrimination based on race, color and national origin encompass antisemitism.”

    Additionally, the letter addresses First Amendment considerations, as well as two legal frameworks used by OCR and courts to assess whether schools have violated Title VI through discrimination: hostile environment and different treatment. The guidance illustrates nine examples that may prompt OCR to investigate an institution for possible Title VI violations within these two frameworks. Of particular importance for higher ed HR are the instances outlined in the letter when educators and other faculty members might engage in actions constituting harassment under Title VI, as well as schools’ obligations to address such incidents.

    As OCR notes, the guidance lacks the authority of law and does not impose obligations on the public or establish new legal standards. Instead, its purpose is to provide clarity to institutions receiving federal financial assistance regarding their requirements under Title VI. CUPA-HR will continue to share resources regarding institutions’ obligations to address discrimination under federal law.



    Source link