Remix.run Logo
rahimnathwani 4 days ago

I expect most people here are (like me) admirers of Terence Tao, and fans of his work.

But, if UCLA is indeed an institution that routinely violate civil rights law, would we still want our taxes to fund it?

For those objecting to any reduction in federal funding, is this because:

A) You believe UCLA complies with civil rights law (perhaps with small, isolated exceptions that are driven not by policy but by rogue employees), OR

B) You believe there should be enforcement of the law, but it should take a different form, OR

C) Something else?

I live in California, and have some interest in state agencies operating within the law, and for the benefit of all.

UCLA, where Terence Tao works, is part of the University of California system (a state school). Like other UC campuses, UCLA receives substantial federal funding.

There are good reasons to believe that UCLA has, for many years, engaged in racial discrimination in both hiring and admissions. But the issue is whether anyone with legal standing can actually take the school to court and win.

IANAL but my understanding is as follows. If an individual were to sue the school, they would need to be an individual student who had applied and been rejected. But any court case would take years. It is likely that, part way through that process, that individual student would have graduated from another college, and no longer be seeking undergraduate admissions. Thus they would lack standing and the case would be dismissed as moot.

That's why in SFFA vs. Harvard, the plaintiff was a membership organization. As Harvard was continuing to discriminate, there were always new members to join the organization who did individually have standing, even as some of the existing members lost standing.

In any civil suit over admissions policies, UCLA holds two major advantages over individual complainants:

- Vast resources: UCLA has deep pockets with which to pay lawyers.

- High stakes: UCLA has a lot to lose.

But the folks who are injured are recent high school graduates:

- Limited financial means: When you were 18yo, could you have scraped together money to pay lawyers? Most 18yo kids wouldn't even have the money to pay the court filing fee.

- Minimal personal upside: By the time any case progresses, these students have already enrolled elsewhere. Transferring to UCLA mid-degree, even if they win, would be disruptive and often undesirable.

UCLA is currently being sued by a membership organization. In a couple of weeks, they will file their response to this complaint: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.95...

One of the people who initiated the lawsuit is Richard Sander, a professor at UCLA: https://law.ucla.edu/faculty/faculty-profiles/richard-h-sand...

Some folks don't like this: https://dailybruin.com/2025/04/21/ucla-law-students-lead-pro...

UncleMeat 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

Racial discrimination in admissions? Prior to SFFA, the admissions process used by major universities was sanctioned by the Supreme Court. And further, UCLA had even stricter rules about race in admissions coming from the state.

rahimnathwani 4 days ago | parent [-]

  UCLA had even stricter rules about race in admissions coming from the state.
Do you believe that UCLA currently complies with Proposition 209, and has done so since it came into force?
UncleMeat 4 days ago | parent [-]

The law that permits the federal government to cancel these grants has less strict requirements than Prop 209. For admissions policies to be a justification here they'd need to be so incredibly flagrantly violating Prop 209 that it'd be a joke.

rahimnathwani 3 days ago | parent [-]

Under pressure, UCLA commissioned a UCLA professor (Robert Mare) to study the data and prepare a report.

You can read the full report here: https://sard.law/static/sard/pdf/Mare%20Report%202012.pdf#pa...

If you don't want to read the full report, one of the most interesting things is on page 67. It says that North Asians receive lower holistic scores, and African Americans receive higher holistic scores, than similarly situated applicants from other ethnic groups. And this when comparing like with like because (i) it's during 'Final Review' and (ii) Mare's model compared students who were otherwise alike (including on socioeconomic and hardship indicators).

He did a follow up a couple of years later, with newer data, and his findings were the same (although the numbers shifted a bit).

How did UCLA respond to this report? By issuing a press release saying all was good:

  The report confirms that the admissions process at UCLA honors academic achievement and prioritizes acceptance to applicants of exceptional academic accomplishment. Further, data suggest a full range of applicant academic and personal achievements are evaluated by the Comprehensive Review procedure. Professor Mare concludes that the Comprehensive Review ranking for UCLA freshman admissions functions in the manner intended by the faculty and the University. CUAS ...is satisfied with the quality, focus, and rigor of the study.
Sure, the ranking functioned in the manner intended, but that manner was illegal!
MrBuddyCasino 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

rahimnathwani 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

I suspect most negative reactions would be some combo of:

- it's off topic to talk about racial discrimination in hiring and admissions, when OP is about how a group is treated on campus

- Terence Tao's research funding shouldn't be affected by politics, and it's irrelevant that he happens to work for UCLA

- dislike the current administration's positions and methods in general

- don't like this particular action, so any attempt to see good in it is bad

SpicyLemonZest 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

The reason I downvoted the comment is that it's engaged in excuse-making for an authoritarian extortion campaign. I acknowledge and strongly oppose UCLA's racial discrimination in hiring, and if the Department of Education sent them a letter demanding they knock it off or face a lawfully justified penalty I'd have absolutely no concerns about that. Over here in the real world, an aspiring dictator has destroyed the Department of Education, and is directing his goons to be as disruptive as possible about an entirely separate issue.

rahimnathwani 4 days ago | parent [-]

How did my comment engage in 'excuse-making'?

I specifically called out that I was interested in understanding people's rationale for disagreeing with the actions taken by the federal government.

From your comment, it seems like you're mostly in the (B) camp, i.e. wrong enforcement method. Maybe also (C) due to questionable motive for enforcement. Have I understood correctly?

SpicyLemonZest 4 days ago | parent [-]

I would say (B) captures my position pretty precisely, yes. Perhaps I've been too radicalized, because it's very hard for me to credit the idea that (B) is even possible to disagree with.