What Don’t They Understand About Our Challenge To “DACA/’Undocumented’ Only” Scholarships?
In which I respond to both The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal Editorial Boards who completely misunderstood the complaints filed by the Equal Protection Project over discrimination against American-born students.
The Equal Protection Project filed Civil Rights Complaints against five universities regarding scholarships offered ONLY to DACA/”Undocumented” students. These scholarships exclude American-born students. That’s national origin discrimination in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.
The Office for Civil Rights of the U.S. Department of Education agreed with us, and opened an investigation into these programs with a press release that set off a media firestorm. We covered it all in Dept. Education Investigates Discrimination Against American-Born Students After Equal Protection Project Complaints.
The Editorial Boards of The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal each issued Editorials criticising in fairly harsh terms our complaints and the OCR investigations. But it turns out neither Editorial Board actually understood the cases.
Our complaints did not assert, nor did OCR, that DACA or “undocumented” students could not apply for scholarships. We only challenged whether it was lawful for universities to exclude American-born students. Anyone who read our complaints or the OCR press release would understand that distinction.
Instead, both WaPo and WSJ asserted that we didn’t want DACA or “Undocumented” students to get the money to go to school, and we were cruel, etc. Whether or not such students should be able to apply for scholarships is a policy matter that was not implicated by our complaints or OCR action. We take no position on that policy because at EPP we only legally challenge scholarships we believe violate the law, regardless of policy preferences.
It really wasn’t that complicated a point, so I had to set the record straight in Letters to the Editor.
Here’s my Letter to the Editor of Wapo:
An off base characterization
The argument in the Aug. 11 online editorial, “Helping undocumented students afford college isn’t discrimination,” that a national origin discrimination investigation initiated by the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights against five universities “is as absurd as it is cruel,” which infers that it deprives Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) students of the opportunity to become “nurses, lawyers, doctors, teachers — and taxpayers” was off base.
The nonprofit organization I run, the Legal Insurrection Foundation’s Equal Protection Project, filed the five complaints that gave rise to the OCR investigation. The editorial mischaracterized the basis on which the scholarships were challenged.
The exclusion of American-born students, not the inclusion of DACA and “undocumented” students, was the basis for our legal complaints. We took issue only with the scholarships that were open exclusively to DACA and “undocumented” students. Since only students born abroad could qualify for DACA or be “undocumented,” the scholarships necessarily excluded American-born students of every race and ethnicity.
The editorial portrayed our effort as “absurd” because other scholarships, such as those for international students, have not been investigated by OCR, and it said the complaints were “cruel” because aid to DACA students constitutes only “a tiny drop in the bucket” of aid doled out by these schools.
If other scholarships also constitute national-origin discrimination, that does not absolve these universities for excluding American-born students from the challenged scholarships. Importantly, we do not accept that even a minor violation of the Civil Rights Act is tolerable.
To protect the civil liberties of American-born students of all races and ethnicities, OCR should investigate whether their exclusion was a violation of the Civil Rights Act.
William A. Jacobson, Barrington, Rhode Island
The writer is founder and president of the Legal Insurrection Foundation and its Equal Protection Project.
Here’s my Letter to the Editor of The Wall Street Journal:
Why the DACA Scholarships Deserve Scrutiny
In “Discriminating Against DACA Students” (Review & Outlook, Aug. 5), you argue that the Education Department’s national-origin discrimination investigations into five universities deprives “Dreamers an opportunity to learn and advance in society.” You add that the government is “needlessly harassing colleges that provide scholarships to young people who came to the country illegally as children.” That misunderstands the department’s action.
My nonprofit, the Legal Insurrection Foundation’s Equal Protection Project, filed the five complaints that gave rise to the Office of Civil Right’s investigations. We didn’t challenge whether DACA students could participate in scholarships—we only opposed scholarships that were exclusively open to DACA and “undocumented” students. Since only those born abroad could qualify for DACA or be “undocumented,” the scholarships excluded American-born students of all races and ethnicities.
There is nothing in our complaints or in the OCR announcement that suggests that “the feds claim schools can’t offer scholarships to the Dreamers.” It was the exclusion of American-born students—not the inclusion of DACA or “undocumented” students—that constituted the alleged national origin discrimination on which OCR rightly opened an investigation.
You add that “some schools also offer special scholarships for international students, though the Education Department doesn’t seem to have a problem with these programs.” Yet whether some scholarships also constitute national origin discrimination doesn’t absolve these universities for excluding America-born students from the challenged scholarships.
William A. Jacobson
Equal Protection Project
The New York Times called me for comment (neither WaPo nor WSJ did that), and I was able to explain the distinction to the reporter. At least so far, no NY Times editorial on it.
Why the hypersentitivity to DACA/”Undocumented” scholarships? While we get criticism for our other challenges (over 110 schools and over 500 scholarships/programs), we don’t get such angry editorials from major publications. When we challenge a scholarship, for example, open only to “students of color” on the ground it is discriminatory, no publications assert we don’t want “students of color” to get an education, they understand we are saying you can’t exclude others. They may disagree as a matter of policy, but they don’t misunderstand our legal claims.
But for DACA/Undocumented it seems different. I think that’s a reflection of how hot-button an issue illegal immigration is, and how even our good intentions — to treat American-born students equally — are attacked from a political not a legal perspective.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
IMO the flak EPP is receiving about ending discrimination against US Citizens in favor of DACA/Illegal Aliens for funding is more of a reflex action. The legacy media, academia, the legal profession…almost the entirety of the credentialed/chattering class have been indoctrinated to believe that anyone who points out any flaws in current policies or poor outcomes stemming from illegal aliens but especially the beloved DACA dreamers is automatically on ‘team bad guy’ with bad motives. Their ideological narrative can’t stand up to examination so any suggestion of an examination must be met with fierce criticism. So the purveyors of the narrative begin tossing out claims and innuendo that anyone who does so is an ‘ist full of isms’ in the hope that this ends the inquiry. It is a brush back pitch but one that most folks expect and prepare for, as you did, so it has mostly lost its effectiveness.
They don’t even have the imagination to conceive of a situation in which the scholarship could discriminate against a legal immigrant from Mexico. It’s not that the scholarship benefits illegals (it does), it’s that it can discriminate against very similarly placed persons as well as against white students. What part of “discrimination is bad, that’s why it’s illegal” do they not understand?
I agree with you about the stupidity of their response – they literally lack reading comprehension – but on the other hand, I don’t think that DACA should receive scholarships, be admitted to universities or – wait for it – live here at all.
I’m OK with them admitting DACA, but they need to treat them as any other international student, with the attendant fees and tuition. I’ve always argued that it is patently unfair of the states which give them free college to make their state residents pay for their own kids *and* the “dreamers” though higher taxes and tuition.
DACA and other undocumented students should have student visas. Are these schools in some violation for not verifying student visas and related reporting?
They understand nothing. All they know are their Leninist slogans, along the lines of “four legs good, two legs bad.”
They need to hire some lawyers to advise them of the law.
And they need some reporters to report the news.
Apparently they are lacking in both.
Emotion over reason.
“That’s national origin discrimination in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.”
Title X laws are the law, correct? Put these people in prison.
Still and again and again, I like EPP’s way of doing something VS other ‘activists’ way of doing nothing, but until these uni admins who egregiously, aggressively, and repeatedly violate these Title X laws are criminally prosecuted it’s still just **clown world** where they will continually do it again and again to the economic benefit of uni lawyers defending perpetual lawsuits paid for by taxpayers.
Put these people in prison!
What would be the crime?
If their scholarships violate the Civil Rights laws, then they are breaking the law, yes? Although the EPP’s approach is a civil suit, do not the Civil Rights laws have criminal teeth? If so, is it necessary for anyone to first prove civilly that the law is being broken? Isn’t it at least possible that DOJ’s Civil Right Division could being criminal indictments against those running discriminatory scholarships and admissions programs?
You could almost certainly get ‘deprivation of rights under color of law’ b/c it is impacting educational attendance even at second hand based on nation of origin which isn’t lawful. You might even get it under ‘federal hate crime’ for intentionally ‘interfering with education’ based on nation of origin …though that is really a stretch and would take an open minded Judge not to toss that charge and let it go to a jury as finder of fact.
That there is a law against something doesn’t make it a crime.
And – expel/deport the DACA.
They understood the complaints just fine. But telling the truth wouldn’t have gotten the extreme negative reaction they wanted.
When we’re talking about the old guard media like WaPo, NEVER ascribe to ignorance or misunderstanding that which can be explained by malice. Really, it’s malice.
Nailed it, Mr. Irv!
Does your outrage and your complaint also extend to all the scholarships which require US citizenship?
Didn’t think so, hypocrite.
Can you name some scholarships and their institutions that discriminate v Nation of Origin?Aside from Service Academies and ROTC?
Assuming such scholarships actually exist (you say “all the scholarships”), I don’t think that is actually illegal, since anyone, of any national origin, can be a US citizen, and many do. It would only be illegal if it required recipients to have been born US citizens, and I don’t believe there are any that do.
Whereas a scholarship reserved for illegal aliens necessarily discriminates against US citizens because of their national origin. Although it’s possible for a US citizen to become an illegal alien, by renouncing his citizenship and then sneaking back into the country, just so he can claim this scholarship, that’s not something that happens.
I came here to say this. They understand perfectly. It’s their job to twist the facts to suit their narrative.
Having met a number of journalists from legacy media in NY, DC, Miami, Chicago and L.A. I can’t agree that it’s malice, even though they are malicious in their approach to anything that challenges their propaganda. They’re all really stupid. That special kind of B student stupid, who raises their hand in the middle of the teacher’ speaking to ask, “Will this be in the test?” They’re profoundly ignorant of history, geography, literature and art – they barely know the Cliff Notes . They lack reading comprehension because they’ve rarely read a book that wasn’t an obligatory class assignment. They lack the ability to understand even simple declarative sentences that question or challenge their received information.
I think you are being too kind to journalists. I’m with Mr Irv on this. The authors and editors of the referenced newspaper articles deliberately mischaracterized the violations alleged by the plaintiff.
While they are profoundly ignorant, I disagree that they’re stupid. They’re quite clever. They choose ignorance and feign stupidity.
They know exactly what they’re doing.
Kinda.
This. 💯. They “done it deliberate”. They get that they can bury a correction in a later issue — or not even bother. They know the first lie, oft repeated, is the one which will be believed. Even in the later scrutiny of full sunshine.
Keep up the great work, Professor!!!
The WSJ is a rag for the oligarchy. It wants cheap foreign labor for big business, and to hell with the collateral cost to the rest of us.
I’ll say it again – DACA shouldn’t exist as a category. There should be zero tolerance of illegal immigration in all of its forms.
I have a real problem with favoritism. Does “DACA-only” financial assistance favoritism? Maybe, but maybe not. To the extent that US citizens can apply for certain funding from which DACA students are barred, it is not lunacy or clearly unfair to provide DACA-only funding to offset that; that’s not the same as saying that everyone can apply for scholarships A, B & C but only minorities or foreign students can apply for scholarship D.
You seem to be proposing favoritism of one group to offset other alleged favoritism. IOW arguing to combat racism/discrimination by encouraging even more racism and discrimination.
Your post was very short on specifics. Surely you aren’t proposing that the various forms of Federal Financial Aid, Student Loans, PLUS loans, Pell Grant be opened up to EVERY non US Citizen? FWIW there’s several categories of non US Citizens who ARE eligible for Federal .Student Aid; Refugees, Asylum, Conditional Permanent Resident, Immigration Parolees, granted T status as as a victim of human trafficking.
Those things aren’t provided by schools but by Congress, which obviously isn’t bound by the anti-discrimination laws, since it created them in the first place.
Or maybe we stop Deferring Action and deport them as they should have been under Obama.
Prof., your insightful observation that “I think that’s a reflection of how hot-button an issue illegal immigration is, and how even our good intentions — to treat American-born students equally — are attacked from a political not a legal perspective.” There does seem to be either a willful conflation of immigrant with illegal immigrant or frankly an open borders mentality. The fact that this idea has taken hold of the editorial pages of the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal is an indication of the level of acceptance of these beliefs. This is profoundly anti-democratic as it is our Congress who established the rules and regulations on legal immigration.
Arnold, your comment has led me to believe that their concept of the USA is of a global nature, that it is not an independent country but is more of a district that belongs to the world rather than a sovereign nation that only belongs to its own citizens. They are globalists in their thinking and do not consider us who live in “fly-over country” as their equals or peers.
I think it is also important to remember that leftists have been shown to have defective reasoning compared to “normal” people.
Jeff Bozos only hires the leftist and the stupidest for his fake news rag, the WaPo.
“Politically Reliable”