How so? To which law or case precedent?
You also have to prove that the party acted with malice: either the policy exists for explicitly racist reasons, or the race-neutral justification is pretextual. If you can do that, you _also_ have to prove that there is a less-discriminatory alternative policy that achieves the same goal.
see, e.g., https://www.justice.gov/crt/fcs/T6Manual7#C'
It is definitely not de facto illegal to have a racially lopsided student body -- the school might be asked to justify the specific policy or practice that led to that outcome on race-neutral grounds, but saying "GPA and test scores" would be more than enough.
Title VI gives agencies authority to enforce Title VI, and many of those agencies added in disparate impact language into their own enforcement language (I think under the Obama administration, but I might be wrong about that).
Any source at all here for your claim would be nice.
> So, they've always been faced with the problem of needing to either discriminate to get the numbers to match, or not discriminating and risking the numbers falling out of line.
Not disagreeing with your larger point, but this sounds wrong (in a sense that, I don’t think that’s the case).
If what you claim was the case, how has CalTech been managing to have such a large percentage of Asian undergrad students (44% according to their Fall 2024-2025 enrollment data[0], with numbers from previous years not straying that far off either) without ever even a hint of getting in trouble over it (given that Asian people make up roughly 7% of the US population)?
I am sure there are similar examples of other schools, this was just the first major known one that came to my mind. Perchance you are correct, and there is simply something special that CalTech has (and Harvard doesn’t) that lets them not worry about this. But that seems unlikely.
0. https://registrar.caltech.edu/records/enrollment-statistics
The Trump administration mid level staffing decisions are something like 70%+ white men! This seems laughable. Controversial maybe, certainly not "illegal" or they wouldn't have done it.
And that "entire point" is historically incorrect in the United States. There is a long, long, LONG history of the Department of Justice investigating and prosecuting members of the administration that technically runs it.
That your point seems to be correct now, in the most corrupt administration of the modern era, is something that is notable and worth discussing. It's certainly not something to sweep under the rug with a both-sides-ist dismissal.
(It's also tautological: I mean, of course they wanted to prosecute them. They were criminals and prosecutors prosecute criminals, definitionally!)
(And also also, it's an Occam's violation: the simpler explanation is that they were just treated like criminals and not that they were double-negative enforcement actions by a corrupt regime.)
And even when cases are brought, the DoJ needs to defend them. See a number of cases that were very far along in the court system that the Biden administration was pursuing, that the Trump DoJ just quit defending. They simply no longer have a lawyer, and functionally cannot proceed.
I do not see that here for the current admins demands for diversity.
However, left of any kind is not part of diversity. No one arguing for Palestine, no one arguing for equality. I was tempted to say "no communists" but those kind of don't matter.
What if admissions is actually a cyborg alien race??? I am just asking questions!
Having the government dictate University level programs is bad, we should all agree to let Universities and colleges run themselves.
Moreover, the actual interpretation of most proponents of diversity is very much that we desire a diversity of views, which it wants to get through getting a diversity of backgrounds. That is, of course, not the only reason behind DEI. There is also the fact that it is fair to allow people of all backgrounds the same opportunity.
>Diversity refers to the presence of variety within the organizational workforce in characteristics such as race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability, age, culture, class, veteran status, or religion.
Brittanica[2] says
>Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs—meant to address historical and systemic disparities based on race, gender, age, ability, and sexual orientation in the workplace
CNN lists the following as examples of the title of this article[3] ("DEI programs benefit many groups, not just Black and brown communities"):
>White women
>LGBTQ+ people
>Families who need IVF
>Disabled people
>Veterans
This is the first three links I clicked on, so it seems to be broadly agreed upon. It's (obviously) not an exhaustive search of the literature, and I'd love to see your side of it.
I have heard ideological diversity used as a defense of DEI, but it doesn't seem to be central. I've never heard of a DEI push to get more conservatives in tech or academia, for example.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diversity,_equity,_and_inclusi...
[2]https://www.britannica.com/topic/diversity-equity-and-inclus...
[3]https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/08/us/dei-programs-diversity-lis...
You get different viewpoints by having people with different sets of experience.
Differing gender, race, and socioeconomic backgrounds are drivers of different experiences, and therefore viewpoints. You can't easily measure "did this company hire different experiences", but you can easily measure "did this company hire a bunch of different genders, races, etc", which doesn't guarantee differing viewpoints in individuals, but does strongly suggest it in aggregate/at the statistical level.
I suppose next you'll tell me that either you don't understand it so it shouldn't be done or that because it's hard people should give up.
This cultural uniformity of the left you speak of. What's it like? I mean, the right drives big trucks and puts American flags on everything and eats a lot of meat and is really enamored of loyalty and the military and the atomic family.
So what's it like for the left? Because as far as I can tell, the only element of uniformity among the left is that they agree that they shouldn't enable things that are a threat to their safety. The argument towards wokeness is pretty strong: if you're not aware of a threat, it might hurt you, so you should stay vigilant. That's not cultural uniformity, that's survival. Sure, many have run with it in a variety of weird directions, but there's no agreement on the left that those directions are good ones. It's precisely because the left isn't a monoculture that those elements are allowed to persist.
For further evidence that the left permits dissent among their ranks, note that they kind of suck at getting anything done because they're always debating each other about how it ought to be done and not doing it. Meanwhile it's the right that falls uniformly in line and goes off to do something that was poorly thought out (but hey at least they did something).
And taking this back to the article, it's precisely because the right can't tolerate disagreement that it wants to cancel academia and create a safe space where it doesn't have hear the truth about the consequences of its terrible policies. This is literally a letter about the Right cancelling something to enforce ideological uniformity.
Only, amusingly, to people one particular point of view. No, that's ridiculous. There is no woker impulse than listening carefully and respectfully to all points of view.
That the current administration is also purging viewpoints it doesn't like, adopting the same authoritarian mindset, but having it enforced by the government (which is worse, IMO), that goes to show horseshoe theory is true.
Just going to point out that this is absolutely not the same thing as rescinding research grants using some lazy grepping of abstracts like the absolute clown show going on now.
> horseshoe theory is true.
Had to look this one up. Apparently the "far left" and "far right" are somehow the exact things we are dealing with here and now.
Nope, sorry. Not equivalent. Not at all.