University of Dallas Student Allegedly Denied Internship for Being White
“Thank you for your interest in SEO Career! Unfortunately, you are not eligible for the program.”
When you read what she was told below, it’s easy to believe her claim.
The College Fix reports:
University of Dallas student denied internship solely for being white
A female student at the University of Dallas has recently come forward with her story after being rejected from a summer internship opportunity due to being white.
“It’s not like I was underqualified or anything, I met everything else,” said the student, who asked to remain anonymous so that her future career in the finance field is not jeopardized.
“I had the right major, I had the right GPA, I was the right year in college,” she said, “but I was white so they wouldn’t help me.”
The internship in question was offered by Sponsors for Educational Opportunity, a professional development organization with ties to major financial corporations such as CitiBank, IBM and Goldman Sachs. It was advertised as the “SEO Career 2021 Paid Summer Internship” and the description was for a financial position.
In its emailed rejection statement to the student, a copy of which was obtained by The College Fix, SEO outlined the reason for its rejection.
“Thank you for your interest in SEO Career! Unfortunately, you are not eligible for the program. SEO Career targets Black, Hispanic, and Native American undergraduates, who are underrepresented in the careers they seek,” reads the rejection statement the student received.
The letter then goes on to suggest other ways to develop her career instead of interning for the company, such as making a LinkedIn account and attending career fairs.
“It’s just frustrating that my skin color can stand in the way of my future career when I’ve worked so hard for my grades and do well in my classes,” the student told The College Fix in a telephone interview last week.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
I’ve commented elsewhere: we are headlong into becoming another South Africa.
After all, how can you fight racism unless you practice more racism? It’s racist to say you shouldn’t be racist!
What their saying is that blacks are inferior so they need extra help.
They have been saying it for decades. And any black this worth anything, resents affirmative action and these other things. They want to stand on their own.
See you in court, sucker.
Unless they can demonstrate in court exactly how their industry would benefit from having more “Black, Hispanic, and Native American” employees. If they can show that, on the balance of the probabilities, their businesses would be more profitable if only they could find more such people to hire, and therefore they started this program to alleviate the shortage, then they probably win. Otherwise, they lose.
In today’s courts, populated by corrupt and incompetent judges and haunted by predatory lawyers, it will be easy to make such a winning argument. Presumably Blacks are underrepresented in financial industry, as they are in most fields requiring a higher education. That alone is sufficient evidence for the pseudoscientific Left to conclude the existence of racism, and SCOTUS has violated natural law by okaying racist measures to fix the purported problem.
Look at the disparity in resources. How many law firms do these businesses who want, for powerful political reasons, to appear as wok as possible, have on retainer? If you want to be the proverbial David going up against Goliath, you better have a damn good sling-shot technique, and if you miss, well, that’s the end of you. Not to mention, once you file such a lawsuit and come to the attention of the wok cancel crowd, you will, win or lose, be branded far-and-wide as a racist white-supremacist hate-monger, your reputation, educational, and professional career prospects utterly destroyed. So get real, the legal merits of her claim don’t matter. I truly wish the law actually mattered, but she has no legal remedy, really.
I wasn’t aware that Federal anti-discrimination law had a “it’s more profitable” exception.
It does if race is directly relevant to the job requirements. In normal hiring that would not be the case; but in an internship program whose purpose is to influence the shape of the incoming workforce, they could argue that the industry as a whole needs more “minority” workers, and since there’s a shortage of those this program’s entire purpose is to increase that number. Hiring a white intern would defeat that purpose. This is more or less the same logic that the supreme court bought in Grutter, which is still law until the court next considers it.
Well intriguingly enough, the mission statement for SEO clearly states that they are here to help ‘underserved’ populations get in Elite colleges and jobs and whatnot.
The photos of Alumni show a mix of primarily Asian and Blacks, although there are some hispanics and a random ‘whiteish’ looking person here or there. Interesting given that Asians are ‘not’ on their ‘special populations’ list. But anyway, the scholarships, if you look on their site scream ‘do not apply if you are white’.
Mind you their board is greatly white, and male.
Yes, that is clearly the program’s purpose. The question is whether they can justify that purpose. They would point to their boards as proof that such a program is needed. They’d have more “minorities” on their boards if they could find enough suitable candidates, but they can’t, because there’s a shortage and all the good ones have been snapped up by richer companies. Hence a program to ensure that the next generation has a bigger selection available.
But to get all this past a court it’s not enough to say this, they’d also have to show why they want more “minorities” in the first place. There has to be a legitimate business requirement for them, and coming up with numbers for that may be difficult.
The universities got away with handwaving an “obvious educational advantage” from studying with a diverse student body. It stands to reason that the more different kinds of students you meet as peers in college, the better a citizen you’ll emerge, better able to work with all kinds of people in life. That makes as much sense as any of the other assertions educational “experts” make, none of which they have ever been asked to prove.
But business is about the bottom line, so it seems to me that if business were to make the same assertion they’d be asked to back it up with numbers, and finding those might prove a tad difficult, since numbers don’t care about what “stands to reason”.