Some Asian-American and light applicants denied admission to UC schools due to competition under the second-chance evaluation policy: complaint .
A non-partisan party lately brought a complaint against the University of California program in federal court, alleging racial bias in admissions decisions.
The group’s former teacher and former UCLA professor claimed the university’s” second-chance assessment policy” is to blame. A UC director also claimed that the lawsuit has no significance because the school does not take race into account when applying for admissions.
The newly formed Students Against Racial Discrimination, which includes a combination of Republican, Democratic, and independent students, parents, academics, and citizens, argues in its petition that UC’s admissions approach gives “discriminatory preferences to non-Asian cultural minorities” and allows “applicants with poor academic credentials to obtain entrance at the expense of rejected candidates with better educational credentials.”
Due to their race, some Asian-American and light applicants are denied entrance to UC schools. This “also harms Spanish and dark individuals who are frequently placed at a major academic disadvantage, and therefore experience worse effects, because the university uses cultural preferences,” according to the lawsuit.
According to the lawsuit, the process even contravenes federal and civil rights laws, including those enacted by the 14th Amendment of the United States, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and Proposition 209, which prohibit discrimination based on race or gender.
In order for all demographics to benefit from a “race-neutral University,” the team is “demanding a federal judge to compel the University from engaging in bias and assign a monitor to examine UC admissions activities for some time in the future.”
Former UCLA professor Tim Groseclose, who teaches economics at George Mason University, is a member of Students Against Racial Discrimination. He is the creator of the 2014 book” Cheating: An Insider’s Report on the Use of Race in Enrollment at UCLA.
Groseclose claimed that the school introduced a” second-chance assessment policy” during the first year of a new enrollment process, which led to a dramatic increase in black pupils, almost doubling their enrollment.
He claimed that the cultural preferences did not occur during the new integrated system, which allows applicants to be evaluated based on their whole profile.
Groseclose claimed a comprehensive admissions system could be created without discrimination against race, adding that the lawsuit is unlikely to have an effect on such methods.
In particular, UCLA employs around 200 part-time team members during the admissions season to handle the first-round reviews. These staff members frequently serve as guidance counseling for local high schools. They conduct the first-round readings, and for the majority of students, they make the final choice regarding admission or rejection. These staff practice much, if any, racial preferences, as I show in my book. Prior to the introduction of the “holistic” program, the number of black and Latino applicants for first-round reads was barely noticeable.
A second-chance assessment is provided for about 20 % of the candidates. The hundred or so older admittance staff members conduct these reviews. You need to understand that they are the ones who communicate with people as much as the UCLA supervisors and ministers. In consequence, I think they are the ones who are most under the pressure to say minority students. Whatever the case, the information reveals that they are the ones who are granting the most cultural choices.
One of the best-kept tricks of the UC system is that the rise in majority students was not the result of the holistic system. It was brought on by the second-chance opinions.
According to Richard Sander, a fellow student of Students Against Racial Discrimination, a part of the UCLA law faculty, the legal team has not yet delivered the complaint documents to UC, as the organization intends to “file an updated problem and offer it to the university.”
We have received numerous emails from school employees, both inside and outside the school, with information that is pertinent to our problem, according to Sander.
” We will be asking for all of the information that the various UC elements use in making decisions in discovery.” If the data cannot adequately explain the choices made, without taking competition into consideration, then the procedure is discriminatory, he said.
However, a UC spokesman, Omar Rodriguez, stated via email that the school believes that” this is a meritless suit that seeks to distract” the university from its “mission to provide California students with a world class education.”
Since California outlawed contest in university admissions in 1996, UC has updated its admissions procedures to reflect the changing circumstances, Rodriguez said.
He added that” the UC undergraduate enrollment application only collects students ‘ race and ethnicity for statistical functions.” This data is not used for registration and is not shared with implementation reviewers.
The director said,” If served, we will vigorously defend our admissions practices.”
MORE: 16 colleges turned down the youth hired by Google. He is currently bringing a lawsuit for bias.
IMAGE CREDIT AND CAPTION: Shutterstock, Pandora Pictures, UCLA, and
Follow The College Fix on Twitter and Like us on Instagram.
