Image 01 Image 03

Biden DOJ Greenlights Higher Ed Discrimination Against Asians and Whites, Drops Yale Lawsuit

Biden DOJ Greenlights Higher Ed Discrimination Against Asians and Whites, Drops Yale Lawsuit

DOJ lawsuit had alleged: “Yale’s race discrimination includes imposing undue and unlawful penalties on racially-disfavored applicants, including in particular most Asian, and White applicants.”

On August 14, 2020, I wrote about a finding by the Department of Justice alleging that Yale University discriminates against whites and asian in admissions, Justice Dept: Yale discriminates in admissions against Asian Americans and whites.

That letter finding resulted in a lawsuit in October 2020. The DOJ announcement of the lawsuit asserted:

The Justice Department today filed suit against Yale University for race and national origin discrimination. The complaint alleges that Yale discriminated against applicants to Yale College on the grounds of race and national origin, and that Yale’s discrimination imposes undue and unlawful penalties on racially-disfavored applicants, including in particular most Asian and White applicants.

The complaint also alleges that Yale injures applicants and students because Yale’s race discrimination relies upon and reinforces damaging race-based stereotypes, including in particular such stereotypes against Yale’s racially-favored applicants. And, the complaint alleges that Yale engages in racial balancing by, among other things, keeping the annual percentage of African-American admitted applicants to within one percentage point of the previous year’s admitted class as reflected in U.S. Department of Education data. The complaint alleges similar racial balancing about Asian-American applicants.

The department’s complaint alleges that Yale’s race and national origin discrimination violate Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The lawsuit is the result of a multi-year investigation into allegations of illegal discrimination contained in a complaint filed by Asian American groups concerning Yale’s conduct.

The Complaint alleged, among other things:

2. For at least 50 years, Defendant Yale University (Yale) has intentionally subjected applicants to Yale College to discrimination on the grounds of race and national origin.1 For the last few decades, Yale’s oversized, standardless, intentional use of race has subjected domestic, non-transfer applicants to Yale College to discrimination on the ground of race.

3. Yale’s race discrimination includes imposing undue and unlawful penalties on racially-disfavored applicants, including in particular most Asian, and White applicants.

4. Yale has engaged in this race discrimination despite receiving millions of dollars of federal taxpayer funding subject to Title VI’s restrictions. Yale’s race discrimination violates Title VI’s requirement that “[n]o person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000d.

5. Yale’s race discrimination injures applicants and students. Yale does this in various ways. Yale subjects applicants to Yale College to discrimination on the ground of race. And, because Yale claims that its race discrimination is necessary to admit sufficient numbers of racially-favored applicants, mostly Black and Hispanic applicants, Yale signals that racially-favored applicants cannot compete against Asian and White applicants. This kind of race discrimination relies upon and reinforces damaging racebased stereotypes.

6. Yale’s system of race discrimination assigns value to applicants based on racial categories per se – apart from the applicants’ personal and individual challenges pursuing educational opportunities.

* * *

13. Because of Yale’s race discrimination, Asian and White applicants have a significantly lower chance of admission to Yale College than do similarly-situated Black and Hispanic applicants.2

14. Yale’s violation of Title VI includes subjecting domestic, non-transfer Asian and White applicants to Yale College to unlawful discrimination on the ground of race.

15. The United States seeks declaratory, injunctive, and damages relief to remedy Yale’s discriminatory conduct and to protect the civil rights of all applicants to Yale College.

The Court docket does not show Yale having filed an Answer. The reason is unclear, it might have to do with the court considering a motion to intervene by Students for Fair Admissions, Inc., which was denied on January 19, 2021.

It looks like Yale never will have to answer, because DOJ just dropped the lawsuit in a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal:

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41, Plaintiff United States notices dismissal of this action. Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) provides that a plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss an action without a court order by filing “a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment.” Defendant Yale has not served an answer or motion for summary judgment in this action. The United States accordingly notices voluntary dismissal of this action, without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(B).

There was no explanation in the court papers for the reversal of position. The only thing that changed was administrations.

This is a large green light from the Biden administration that discrimination on the basis of race is okay again in higher ed, provided the discrimination is only against certain races.

This development makes our rollout of Critical Race Training In Higher Education all the more timely. Parents and students are on their own.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Didn’t some other party file to join this suit, just to keep it alive in case of such an eventuality? I don’t remember the details, but it was something like that.

    Ben Kent in reply to Milhouse. | February 3, 2021 at 3:20 pm

    Biden Policy is to fight racism with MORE racism.

    Their brainwashed followers cannot see how Biden’s Policy is the REAL racism. If you think it’s okay to discriminate against Asians and Whites – you are Racist.

    I spoke with a UNIVERSITY PRESIDENT who said, “yes – but the difference is that this is LEGAL.” I said, Jim Crow was LEGAL too, remember? Now we see Jim Crow, rightfully, as immoral and racist.

    The amount of cognitive dissonance is at an all-time high.

    Publius_2020 in reply to Milhouse. | February 4, 2021 at 8:41 am

    Yes, Students for Fair Admissions (the plaintiff in the Harvard case) filed a motion to intervene, which was denied. They have stated that they will refile as a primary plaintiff.

Can any woketopians square this with the 1964 civil rights act?

    JusticeDelivered in reply to 2smartforlibs. | February 3, 2021 at 12:40 pm

    Has anyone considered the economic impact of putting dullards in colleges at the expense of our best and brightest? What is the long term impact on American competitiveness?

    Colleges cannot fix those who are stupid, it is a waste of resources to try.

      The Friendly Grizzly in reply to JusticeDelivered. | February 3, 2021 at 12:49 pm

      Back when we still had a country, things were based on merit. Yes, some minorities were restricted from admission to colleges.

      But not all colleges did this. It also did not prevent Asians, Mexicans, Jews, and Italians, and other “undesirables” from being successful.

      The goal is to destroy, and replace what was destroyed with fascism.

      It’s very simple and it explains it all.

      The Friendly Grizzly in reply to JusticeDelivered. | February 3, 2021 at 2:57 pm

      Done with school district level, they’ve been taking something away from advanced placement and college prep classes for years.

      The money has gone toward remedial courses, and courses for students who shouldn’t be there in the first place. Either the truly retarded, or those who refuse to be educated, and should have jobs pushing a broom someplace.

      Stupid people are easier to convert into SJWs, and less likely to eventually think their way out of it.

The party of slavery is obviously still acting out of deeply rooted racism.

It is worth noting that no “career” official in the DoJ has successfully objected to this dereliction of duty or refused to go along with the order to be complicit in open racism.

Attorney General Barr was not very successful in returning the Department to respect for the law. The Durham theater turns out to have been designed to protect the Deep State from any meaningful consequences. And nothing has been done to root out the moles the Obama maladministration managed to bury in.

    Geoffrey Britain in reply to felixrigidus. | February 4, 2021 at 2:16 am

    Attorney General Barr wasintentionally ‘unsuccessful’ his finding of no evidence of a significant level of electoral fraud was conclusive proof of that assertion.

Maybe the judge should appoint an advocate of the court to review the reasons for dropping the case ha

I’m old enough to remember when judges demanded the right to prosecute a case on their own when the DoJ changed it’s mind about the legitimacy of their cause.


This case has a very nasty catch-22 which makes this case a very dangerous vehicle to end discrimination in higher education.

While any objective person would find the discrimination to be blatantly obvious, both the trial court and CA 1 findings of fact were that there was no discrimination. (again obviously very intentional discrimination – but thats not what the findings of fact held).

To my knowledge, the SC has never sent a case back to the lower court to correct a findings of fact, nor have they overruled a lower courts finding of fact. The closest they have come was in Grutter when Thomas stated in his dissent, that CA6 had invented the de novo finding of fact, when CA6 substituted the new finding of fact when the district court’s finding of fact was Uof Mich was using a quota system.

Since both, the trial court and CA1 held there was no discrimination, there is no violation of law (neither CA6 or the trial court held that the discrimination was legal)

Note – before I get a bunch of down votes, please note that in my opinion, the discrimination is blatantly obvious.

    Geoffrey Britain in reply to Joe-dallas. | February 4, 2021 at 2:21 am

    Any legal system inconsistent with the common sense argument that, ‘when there’s enough smoke, it’s a certainty that something’s burning’ is a legal system that has become divorced from justice. Divorced from it’s very Raison d’être…

Obviously, China feels like it has already got enough spies in place.

Seriously, China has five times as many people as the United States, and yet some people are arguing to further fill our top universities with even more middle-aged Communist agents and spies???

Who is worse: a president who refers to an infectious disease as “the Wuhan flu” or one who promotes discrimination against hard working young people of Asian descent?

Close The Fed | February 3, 2021 at 2:11 pm

I completely approve of freedom to discriminate, except to the extent that American citizens are discriminated against by an institution to accepts tax dollars.

Get rid of the tax dollars, and I’d be perfectly pleased if they are discriminating against Asian foreign nationals. Please do!

Have had some Asian acquaintances and frankly find their cultures to be unAmerican. Definitely not apple pie and the flag.

It’s going to take SCOTUS to eliminate this nonsense, once and for all. Opening the door to legalized discrimination in the U. Michigan Law School case was exceptionally foolish. It was obvious that the framework that SCOTUS established in that case — using race as one among many factors in candidate evaluation, but, never the sole factor — was inherently unworkable and was predictably going to be abused by campus administrators. This idiocy never should have been deemed constitutional, in the first place.

Diversity, not limited to racism, and exclusion.

Why should American tax dollars subsidize the education and employment of foreign nationals over American citizens?

I’d like to see a study done on minorities who were admitted to elite colleges via affirmative action, i.e., with substantially below SAT norms for the college which they attended, to see what effect that policy had on them. I’ve read that a high percentage struggle to handle the classes; as a result their drop-out rate is unusually high.

What happens to those minorities that do drop out? How many enroll in less demanding colleges and still finish their education? How many stop going to college and get some non-professional job instead?

Heather Mac Donald of the Manhattan Institute has studied this problem for a long time, but she doesn’t do detailed rigorous statistical studies that this would require.

Once again, the rule of men supplants the rule of law.

“NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW” – Repeated 1 million times when persecuting Trump.

Illegal immigrants, Dem Donors, Son of the Dem Candidate for Prez,. Media that support Dem Party, those who preferred races that gain preferences in education and gov’t contracts; Cities and states that expanding voting beyond what is mandated by the legislature.

Average People are losing faith in America.

    Geoffrey Britain in reply to Ben Kent. | February 4, 2021 at 2:31 am

    Its not America that average people are losing faith in, it’s a loss of faith in the basic honesty of those who voted for JoeBama Xiden. Never have so many embraced hate, evil and treason.

I’m still amazed at how DOJ plays “how high” with Biden, yet whenever Trump wanted them to do something like this, he had to threaten them with hot coals to their nads.

    Geoffrey Britain in reply to henrybowman. | February 4, 2021 at 2:35 am

    The Left has Marched Through Every Gov. Institution. They hold virtually every position in the upper echelons of every Federal Agency. The proof is that the lower echelons are virtually silent.

Geoffrey Britain | February 4, 2021 at 2:11 am

All part of the left’s strategy to destroy America with millions of liberal, “useful idiots” to enable it.

Geoffrey Britain | February 4, 2021 at 2:39 am

While not always the case, far more often than not it holds true that,

“Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne” James Russell Lowell