Skip to main content
We may receive compensation from affiliate partners for some links on this site. Read our full Disclosure here.

DOJ Finds Yale ILLEGALLY Discriminates Against Whites and Asians


One of liberals most prized policies through the years has been affirmative action.

We’ve been told for decades that in order to end racial discrimination, we need to racially discriminate.

Makes sense, right?

Unfortunately, the Department of Justice has recently announced that Yale University has been illegally discriminating against qualified white and Asian applicants.

Those applicants were rejected and their spots given to black or Hispanic applicants.

CNBC reports on the breaking story:

Yale University’s undergraduate admissions process “illegally discriminates” against White and Asian students, the Department of Justice said Thursday.

A two-year investigation into the Ivy League school found that “race is the determinative factor in hundreds of admissions decisions each year,” in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the DOJ said in a press release.

The department said Yale must agree not to use race or national origin as criteria in its next admissions cycle, and that if it plans to consider race in the future, “it must first submit to the Department of Justice a plan demonstrating its proposal is narrowly tailored as required by law, including by identifying a date for the end of race discrimination.”

Yale denied the allegation. Karen Peart, a spokeswoman for the university, said in a statement to CNBC that the Justice Department made its conclusions before Yale had provided enough information to show that its practices “absolutely comply with decades of Supreme Court precedent.”

“At Yale, we look at the whole person when selecting whom to admit among the many thousands of highly qualified applicants,” Peart said.

“We are proud of Yale’s admissions practices, and we will not change them on the basis of such a meritless, hasty accusation.”

Fortunately, the DOJ has a message for Yale.

Either voluntarily shape-up the admissions process, or the DOJ will sue to force Yale to comply!

Here’s the latest on Twitter over the matter:

Federal taxpayer dollars should not be going to a university that implements such racist policies.

And hopefully the DOJ will expand its investigation into other universities, which are probably using the same dirty practices that Yale is.

The Hill published a great op-ed last month detailing the discriminatory tactics colleges use in the admissions process:

In 1976, Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall lambasted the “illogic” of civil rights advocates insisting that laws against discrimination should protect only minorities from discrimination. The first African American justice and civil rights litigator declared that whites also deserved such protections. Today, as bizarre as it may seem, he could be denounced as enabling claims of “reverse discrimination.” Yet this debate could find its way back to the Supreme Court, given the array of controversies over the use of race as a threshold criteria for benefits or penalties.

The Black Lives Matter movement was premised on the need to recognize the inequities and abuse of African Americans exclusively, rather than a broader position that “all lives matter.” The protests have convinced many of us about the importance of that recognition. But cities and states are turning to reforms where that racial exclusivity presents a potentially insurmountable barrier. Relying on threshold exclusions of all but one or two races could rekindle the debate over “reverse discrimination” and what constitutes discrimination versus affirmative action.

Marshall is an interesting figure at the crossroads of that debate. While ruling that whites are protected from racial discrimination under laws like Title VII, he supported affirmative action and dissented from the 1978 decision in the Allan Bakke case to reject reverse discrimination claims. He maintained that there was much to be done to correct the continuing depravations of racism since the Supreme Court “did not prohibit the most ingenious and pervasive forms of discrimination” against blacks. He stated, “I cannot believe that this same Constitution stands as a barrier.”

The question is where to draw that line and if “reverse discrimination” is real. That issue came up when Gary Garrels, a senior curator at the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, resigned after he was denounced as a racist. The reason? While supporting diversity of the artists exhibited in the famed collection, Garrels said, “We will definitely still continue to collect white artists.” He reportedly also said a ban on acquiring art from white artists would be “reverse discrimination.” A petition calling for his firing said the terms “reverse discrimination” and “reverse racism” are offensive forms of “white supremacist and racist language.”

This instance highlights the limitations and the lingering debate over such distinctions. His colleagues had every right to express their views of his comments, and his decision to resign was a private decision. However, his objection to the use of race as an exclusive criteria to be in the collection captured the uncertainty between discrimination and diversification, a line that has occupied the Supreme Court for decades without a clear resolution in college admissions and other areas.

One possible case may arise in Seattle, where city council members have called to cut the police budget by 50 percent. Doing so would require firing a significant number of police officers, which is also popular. But that puts the city council in a quandary, as firing half of the department would start with the most junior officers, many of whom are minorities. Thus, defunding the police in the name of racial justice would lead to firing minority officers. One simple solution, according to city council member Lisa Herbold, is to fire the white officers.

Her proposal is striking in both its illegality and its popularity. In his 1976 opinion in the Santa Fe Trail Transportation Company case, Marshall ruled for two white employees fired after a theft. While a black employee also was held responsible, only the two white employees were fired. Marshall said that discriminating against them made a mockery of laws against discrimination. In 2009, the Supreme Court ruled against New Haven after white firefighters and a Hispanic firefighter challenged the city when it refused to certify results of promotion exams in order to promote black firefighters who did not perform as well. The Supreme Court held that the refusal to certify was unlawful discrimination.

While the Supreme Court has allowed race to be considered as a factor in some college admissions cases, it has struck down certain programs that crossed the line into discrimination. The position of many of the justices on this is summed up by Chief Justice John Roberts in a landmark 2007 decision in which he wrote, “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminaton on the basis of race.”

You can bet that a DOJ led by Joe Biden and Kamala Harris would do absolutely nothing to combat this disgusting practice.

In fact, they'd probably encourage it to keep happening!

Also, watch this informative piece ran by John Stossel last year that details how poor whites and Asians are negatively affected in the college admissions process:


Join the conversation!

Please share your thoughts about this article below. We value your opinions, and would love to see you add to the discussion!

Hey, Noah here!

Wondering where we went?

Read this and bookmark our new site!

See you over there!

Thanks for sharing!