MIT Changes Website After Media Firestorm Over Equal Protection Project Complaint About Program Excluding White Females and All Men
“MIT’s after-the-fact website wording change does not alter the serious violations of the civil rights laws that have been taking place for years.”
On May 20, 2024, I wrote about a Civil Rights Complaint filed by the Equal Protection Project challenged a program at Massachusetts Institute of Technology called the Creative Regal Women of Knowledge, or “The CRWN”, open only to “women of color.” The full details are in the post, MIT Program Open Only To “Women of Color” Challenged By Equal Protection Project As Violating Civil Rights Laws.
As noted in that post, the Complaint received enormous local, national, and international media coverage, including at:
The Boston Globe
The Boston Herald
Boston.com
WCVB-TV (Boston)
The Independent (UK)
The Daily Mail (UK)
National Review
The Washington Examiner
and many more.
The media attention got to MIT, because it quietly tried to cover its tracks by adding language to the CRWN home page purporting to show that the program actually was open to everyone. The CRWN home page as it existed on May 20 is here. (That’s why we always archive and screenshot before we file a complaint.)
After the Complaint media coverage, MIT added the following statement to the CRWN home page:
“While our program is designed to support and celebrate undergraduate women of Color, participation is open to all students regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, and national origin.”
The College Fix was the first to pick up on the change:
[Graphic via The College Fix]
William Jacobson, who filed the complaint, said the altered language does not erase the legal issues.
“MIT altered the language on the website to assert that the program was open to everyone,” Jacobson stated in an email this morning to The College Fix.
“But that plainly is not true. The entire structure of the CRWN program is exclusionary and limited to women of color,” the president of the Legal Insurrection Foundation said. He said the changes are an “admission of wrongdoing.”
“MIT’s after-the-fact website wording change does not alter the serious violations of the civil rights laws that have been taking place for years and were ongoing in the spring 2024 semester,” Jacobson said. “The CRWN program’s exclusionary language necessarily deterred white female and all male students from applying. The OCR should open a formal investigation and impose remedial and other sanctions on MIT.”
MIT declined to comment Wednesday morning when asked about the changes, including if an attorney had advised the school to make the edits. “MIT does not, as a practice, comment on legal matters,” a spokesperson said via email to The Fix.
Jacobson, who is also a Cornell University law professor, offered to help MIT make changes necessary to satisfy the legal concerns raised by the complaint. He wants MIT to “publicly apologize” and “come up with a remedial plan.”
“MIT also needs to be transparent moving forward to ensure that the website wording change is not a public relations maneuver. The Equal Protection Project would be willing to serve as a monitor of the program in order to ensure compliance, at no charge to MIT.”
The Boston Herald covered the change, MIT edits ‘women of color’ program website after complaint for excluding white students
MIT has updated its website for a “women of color” program after a free speech group filed a federal civil rights complaint against the Cambridge campus for excluding white students….
After the complaint made headlines earlier this week, the MIT program’s website was edited….
The Equal Protection Project nonprofit on Wednesday responded to the MIT program updating its website.
“MIT appears to be backing down on its racially and sexually exclusionary CRWN program by adding a new non-discrimination statement on the CRWN home page,” said William Jacobson, founder of the Equal Protection Project.
“That statement was added only after EqualProtect.org filed a Civil Rights Complaint, which generated enormous media coverage,” Jacobson added. “Clearly, MIT is reacting to the negative publicity.”
The CRWN program had not been open to everyone as MIT now claims, he said.
“MIT is trying to rewrite the exclusionary and discriminatory history of the CRWN program,” Jacobson said. “This raises questions as to whether MIT is sincere in opening up the program to all students regardless of race or sex.”
“MIT’s after-the-fact website wording change does not alter the serious violations of the civil rights laws that have been taking place for years,” he later added. “The CRWN program’s exclusionary language necessarily deterred white female and all male students from applying. The OCR (Office of Civil Rights) should open a formal investigation and impose remedial and other sanctions on MIT.”
Boston.com also covered the change:
After a conservative legal organization lodged a federal civil rights complaint against a program tailored for women of color at MIT on Monday, arguing that it unlawfully keeps white students from participating, the organization’s website was updated to reflect otherwise.
After the complaint and related media coverage, MIT added the following statement to the Creative Regal Women of Knowledge or CRWN homepage: “While our program is designed to support and celebrate undergraduate women of Color, participation is open to all students regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, and national origin.” ….
Despite the word change, Jacobson believes that MIT should develop a remedial plan to make the program available to all students regardless of race and sex, including expanding the program to open up additional spots.
MIT did not immediately respond to a request for comment.The Equal Protection Project, launched last year, is part of the Legal Insurrection Foundation, which advertises itself as being devoted to the fair treatment of all persons regardless of race or ethnicity.
“This is a victory not just for the Equal Protection Project, but also for students and the goal of equality in educational opportunity,” Jacobson said in a statement.
The Washington Examiner also provide coverage, MIT quietly changes website after civil rights complaint.
Is this change for real, or just to provide a defense if OCR opens an investigation? We understand the skepticism, but we’ll pocket whatever wins we can, and stay vigilent to monitor developments.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
The perverts at MIT did not exclude men in their CRWK program. The only caveat was that any man had to pretend that he was a woman.
And, BTW … “sophomores (2nd year) students” should be “sophomores (2nd year students)”. Maybe they should have hired a white male to write the blurb …
So some white Poindexter, identifying (pretending) to be a woman, can jump in there and snag a place in the program and displace a “woman of color?”
The only “remediation” is to have a whites only program, likely including Asians and Jews.
And “knowledge” begins with a “k.” Is this ebonics? I guess the phonetic “crown” sounded better than “crock.”
“I guess the phonetic “crown” sounded better than “crock.”
Ha ha! I noticed the wrong letter, but it never occurred to me to pronounce the right one!
This is like stomping an ant hill.
In that list of media coverage, I’m surprised the Guardian was not among them, doing their usual nervous break down.
The promo vid on MIT website has various black girls actually wearing crowns. MIT is woke joke. Its clown show.
Well ladies, you have gone from being oppressed by the Patriarchy to being oppressors.
White women that is.
That MIT has revised the wording on their website does not change the fact that the people who created and operated the illegal and exclusionary program are still there and still running things. The only rational solution is to scrap the program and start over, with different staffing. It’s the only way to regain even a scrap of credibility.
And that the selection process will be tainted as a result. I doubt we will ever see an analysis of the applicants and the acceptance profiles.
We can tell using IQ averages if they are selecting based on race.
As you note above, the program likely is being discriminatorily administered. It’s called CRWN. (Creative Regal Women of Knowledge). Good luck creative men. Also, admissions were open May 20 under the blatantly discriminatory standard. Now they’’re not. How many applied or declined to apply, or were rejected, before their supposed change? Do they get a pass on that period of discrimination, if that’s all it is?
And how many men or women not the preferred race will actually be admitted under this program, in relation to the favored race? Maybe a token amount. Welcome to Biden’s America.
So in other words, they’re going to keep doing the exact same thing, just without publicly bragging about it.
It’s redlining for whites.
“But that plainly is not true. The entire structure of the CRWN program is exclusionary and limited to women of color”
Curious so if something is structurally exclusatory then it is limiting to a particular group. Sounds a bit like systemic racism to me, I was under the impression the LI position was this doesn’t exist.
LOL. Stellar logic!
I loved your appearance as Vladimir in Monty Python and the Holy Grail …
Yes it does logically seem to be the case that LI’s position is logically contradictory. I’m sure that seems to offend you.
It’s not clear to me what your reference has to do with highlighting the contradiction here. That scene is about people coming to the wrong conclusion which actually appears to describe the over arching position of LI.
Good film though, I watched it recently. Never gets old.
The very program is contradictory to fairness.
They are replacing colorblind equality with race based “equity.”
In the beginning it was what you said, now that you have said so much people know not to pay attention, just go to down vote.
No, that’s not at all like systemic racism. It’s actual, overt racism.
You seem not to know what the term “systemic racism” means.
The legal argument is that the program is structurally exclusatory despite not actually saying a specific group can’t apply. This is entirely analogous to conditions or laws having a structural effect of being exclusatory. If you consider structural racism to be overt fine but I’m not seeing an argument that distinguishes between the legal principle being applied here and the more general term that’s been used and attacked by LI
Exclusatory???
You seem to really love writing that. I almost feel bad having to tell you that it isn’t a word.
Almost.
LOL. If you add some more nonsense syllables in you could be Traitor Joe’s speechwriter. You’ve already got the “logic” down pat.
It’s neologatory.
Yep!
“Exclusionist” would be my word choice.
No, that is not what systemic racism is (or is alleged to be, since it doesn’t actually exist).
What we have here is a program that is consciously and deliberately structured so as to exclude white and male applicants. Originally its official description actually said so; now that that has been challenged the description has changed, but the program is still deliberately structured to have that same effect.
That is actual racism. If there were any such examples excluding non-white people or women the left would be challenging those, and would not have needed to invent the concept of “systemic racism”.
“Systemic racism” is a thing only because there are no such examples. They just don’t exist, and the left can’t produce any. So in order to claim that racism still exists they’ve had to invent the concept of “systemic racism”, which is the claim that even without any conscious discrimination, by anyone at all, there is racism built into the society. That there are inherent barriers to participation by non-whites or women, that were not intended by anyone to have that effect, but they do anyway. That is not being alleged here.
Lol Milhouse your just paraphrasing exactly what I stated with repeat to the course in question. You haven’t provided a distinction at all. The original description just said it was designed for women of colour, that’s it. It didn’t say anything about excluding particular groups.
There are numerous examples of systemic racism, the historical context of reclined districts is an example of it, which directly affects education, crime and other things. There are numerous stats on the disparity in healthcare, in education in the legal system. This is well documented and supported by robust statistics. It’s pretty daft to pretend it doesn’t exist at all. System racism can either be conscious or unconscious there is no requirement for it to be either. The whole point is that its a system wide disparity affecting a minority. And no it’s not exclusively about barriers it’s out disparity in numerous contexts.
Sorry your response is entirely unconvincing
Well-stated.
@ fuzzy
Is it? Denying facts doesn’t seem well said to me. You could try and argue that the stats equate to something else but instead it’s la la I’m not listening. It’s just absurd
The only fact being denied is that this is a blatantly racist program supported by MIT.
Racism is racism, regardless of the intentions.
The explosion of similar programs and Title IX inclusions of males into female programs is indicative of the systemic racism/sexism and plan foolishness of the left.
LOL, Bart the antisemite.
The original language said the program was designed for women of color; that makes it overtly and deliberately racist and sexist. If it’s designed for women of color, then it follows that it’s not designed for others, and others need not apply. If any such programs existed for white people the left would be trumpeting them and wouldn’t have had to invent “systemic racism”. But they don’t.
No, there is no “systemic racism”.
There was nothing racist about redlining; it was a perfectly reasonable and rational response to the differences in risk by district. Lending in a high-crime district is stupid unless you’re charging more, and even that doesn’t help if the risk is too high. Redlining did not affect education or crime, it was (lack of) education and crime that caused redlining.
There are no disparities in healthcare, in education, or in the legal system. There are inherent demographic differences in health, not in health care, which is due to nature, not racism. There are differences in educational achievement, not education, which is due to a combination of culture and nature, not racism. And there is the huge difference in crime, not in the legal system that tries to combat it; again, that is not racism.
It’s an objective fact that a far higher proportion of black people than white people commit crimes, learn nothing in school, and have poor health. No racist made that happen.
Bart confuses “correlation” with “causation.”
“Exclusatory”
The woke leftist d/prog have been in control of our institutions for decades and the philosophy of CRT/DEI (oppressors v oppressed with ‘white’ people cast as the automatic oppressor, especially so for heterosexual males. The admin and bureaucracy has adopted and implemented this for decades. It is unsurprising that the institutions engage in discrimination on a systemic basis.
IOW there is no systemic racism/discrimination today framed as ‘white’ folks oppressing/discriminating against ‘PoC or women’, in fact it has been illegal longer than I have been alive with an entire division of the DoJ established to investigate and bring charges plus the private option of a Civil Suit.
Nice try though. What does exist today are countless examples of quota hiring/admissions/promotion and special programs which actively discriminate v ‘white’ folks, heterosexuals and very importantly but often overlooked viewpoint discrimination against anyone who dissents from the woke orthodoxy.
BartE: You are totally in the running to be my favorite LI commenter.
Why?
Because all the other LI readers who reply to you provide additional analysis that is informative and witty..
I believe it’s the general consensus here that systemic racism against blacks does not exist. Systemic racism against whites and Asians does exist, although its existence is denied.
BTW, doesn’t your admission this situation “sounds a bit like systemic racism” make your logic faulty as well? Your side’s consensus is that racism against whites isn’t possible/doesn’t exist. Are you breaking ranks and admitting that it does exist? Or are you just being disingenuous and hypocritical?
I think most of us appreciate a difference of opinion and a spirited debate. But we only appreciate the differences if the opinions are reasonably argued. That said, why argue with BartE? Just let him post his nonsense. If we don’t respond, he’ll get tired and go away. Same with JR.
JR is often just fine, though. He just seems to see racists everywhere, which is weird. That other one? Not worth our time because everything he says is wrong. Why even bother trying to educate the happily deluded and bizarrely self-inflated? Let him drop his dumb bombs without response. He may not get tired and go away, but the results could be funny (remember when that totally other, not this Brit guy at all who just happened to misspell and/or Britspell the same words–Mark311–got ignored? He preened like a lunatic, actually believing that he’d “won” and then went on some foot stompy rage spree that got him banned, but BartE is totally a ‘tonne’ different from that guy, you know.).
Fascinating … the cognitive dissonance is strong in you. The arguments presented against me have for the most part been objectively wrong. It’s really quite something to watch the hand waving.
I thought you guys believed in free speech, seems like it’s only a rule you apply to yourself and your team. I’m guessing this Mark charachter just got under your skin.
Of course we believe in free speech, as opposed to the rampant censorship and filtering by the left.
I would just block you otherwise. The fact that we answer you is evidence of that.
Why does the fact that Milhouse and others disagree with you appear to be in opposition to free speech?
It’s just disagreement, but, as we have seen, the left is completely intolerant of that.
Dimsdale my comment re free speech was directed at Fuzzy. If you have principles that’s fine but my educated guess is that Fuzzy doesn’t.
You seem to think the left is a monolith. It isn’t. Lefties argue all the time about the extent to which free speech should be applied. My own personal view is that robust discussion is a good thing but that it becomes problematic when individuals become so close minded that they become literally immune to facts. It’s quite an interesting area of study but that’s an aside. In that situation where cultist type behaviour is involved it’s quite difficult to see the upside of letting that behaviour spread.
What makes you think that a comment section on a blog is subject to the First Amendment? We are not the federal government, we are not Congress, and we do not make laws. What we can do is decide who we want on our site. What do you think your odds are of being a favorite? You’re an insanely ill-informed, inarticulate (probably) paid troll, so my vote is that you’re done here. And when you come back, you’ll be done then, too. By ‘tonnes’.
The first amendment isn’t just about how it’s applied in law but how its applied in principle too. Right wingers have a strong tendency to make claims about rights and extending them only for themselves.
Being favourite 😂😂😂 what are you talking about !? Do you seriously think I care about that!? I came here for one reason alone to widen my perspective.
Ill-informed eh, well that’s an odd thing to say given the citation, expert opinion and logical argumentation I’ve used in comparison with some of the commentors here and indeed the writers. Take Leslie for example she has failed miserably to respond to basic criticism of her knowledge and understanding. Pointing out that her views cannot possibly be true, that her use of the data is nonsensical and contrary to reality. I’m sorry that your so closed minded. It really is fascinating watch the responses. You and others here would make a great case study in a psychology experiment. Cognitive dissonance a perspective on a cultist community online. Got a ring to it that’s for sure.
BartE sounds like a bad iteration of an ELIZA program. Shut it down and be done with it.
@rusty bill
Me: here are some problems with this
You: don’t contradict me, I can’t cope. What if I have to confront reality!
Q. E. D.
Question what does it tale to get banned on here. I mean I’ve had people literally threaten to murder me and that guy still lobs obscenities at me like it’s total anarchy. Curious what the standard actually is since threatening murder, obscenities etc seems totally fine
You mean we let in pantifa and the Hamasholes?
Ahhh yes, let’s pretend any commentor with a different opinion is Hamas. A new equally stupid version of godwins law
No one has threatened to murder you, liar.
Lol this is really telling. Your automatic assumption is that I’m lying. That’s a silly thing to say, steve59 absolutely threatened to murder me. That’s just objective fact not that you care that would mean confronting your own cognitive dissonance
Did musk take away your “safe space” on twitter?
“Question what does it tale to get banned on here.”
If anyone can find out, my money’s on you.
Heh, mine, too.
I don’t think BartE actually believes what he writes. He’s just trying to waste decent people’s time.
A tonne? I don’t know about that. A few stone, maybe.
Why argue with me indeed, that would imply an actual argument to bring to the table. Take Milhouses position which isn’t a reasonable position it’s ‘it doesn’t exist’ despite massive structural differences demonstrated by the stats. Which is more reasonable a supported position or an unsupported one?
There are no structural differences. The entire idea of “structural differences” is based on the stupid and obviously false premise that, all else being equal, one should expect the health, education, and criminal conviction rate of white and black people to be the same. Therefore the fact that they are not the same must be down to racism, and if it can’t be ascribed to conscious racism then it must be unconscious or “structural”, but racist it must be.
But that premise is stupid and obviously false. The plain and obvious fact is that the differences in health, education, and criminal conviction is due to actual differences between black and white people, not to the way they’re treated.
A higher proportion of black people than of white are convicted of crimes, and are imprisoned, because a higher proportion of black people than of white commit crimes. A lower proportion of black people than of white make it through high school because a lower proportion of black people than of white are smart enough and/or dedicated enough and/or value an education enough. Likewise the differences in health are down to biological differences, not a disparity in health care, let alone racism of any kind
I’d attribute a substantial portion of blacks’ situation in this country to the government “help” they’ve received over the decades, that has served better to keep them down than it has to lift them up. It doesn’t reflect well upon government that oppression appears to have been the object of the “help.” Keep them dependent, and keep them voting democratic.
“I’m from the Government, and I’m here to help.”
I’m not even speculating about what has caused the differences between black and white populations in the areas of health, education outcomes, and crime rate; I’m merely noting that they’re real, and not because they are deprived of health care or of schooling, or subjected to harsher law enforcement.
I mean you’re right that government hasn’t helped in any of those areas, but I’m not even addressing causes. And I doubt government is responsible for the fact that on average black people are in poorer health than white people; I think that is largely due to biological factors. One should simply not expect two groups with physical differences to have exactly the same average state of health.
Agreed.
Thank you
Creative Regal Women of Knowledge
Doesn’t sound like they want men, says right in the title. If, as they claim, it’s open to everyone then why the wording?
Plus, “regal” and “knowledge” have no positive historical correlation of which I am aware. Is the program geared towards non-academic elitists? Or perhaps Disney Princesses? Or just people who prefer Burger King to McDonalds because they enjoy wearing the crowns?
Just shut it down, segregation is illegal.
The fact is that we are all women of color now.
I give that comment three finger snaps.
That’s cultural misappropriation.
as long as the gop continues to allow our tax money to support lefty policies
nothing changes
the gop didnt even stop obamacare,,an obvious easy thing to do
only whites /maga is held to the higher standards and therefor eliminated from americas “progress” towards the 5th b.c. century
Stop day drinking.
not sure why they bother to re write any lefty doctrine
the dnc doesnt follow scotus
and the military is being groomed to do as they will be told against the maga crowd
EPP should follow the Twitter and FB of these Universities DEI Dept. Anything they post will be another lawsuit.