BREAKING: Ku Klux Klan Act Invoked?!
How far will universities go to dodge the law and enforce their own agendas?
UCSD’s Legal Troubles
The University of California, San Diego (UCSD) is facing legal action challenging the race-based Black Alumni Scholarship Fund (BASF). The lawsuit, filed by the Pacific Legal Foundation on behalf of the Californians for Equal Rights Foundation and student Kai Peters, accuses UCSD and the San Diego Foundation of conspiring to evade California’s Proposition 209. This law has prohibited race-based scholarships since 1996, yet UCSD’s clever maneuver has allowed them to keep offering such awards. The case has invoked the Ku Klux Klan Act, a bold legal strategy that underscores the seriousness of the allegations.
The BASF, established in 1983, was designed to support Black students at a time when they made up only about 2% of the student body. The fund offered financial aid, mentorship, and study opportunities, aiming to increase diversity and academic excellence. However, after Proposition 209, UCSD transferred the administration of the scholarship to the San Diego Foundation, a private nonprofit, hoping to sidestep legal constraints. This workaround has allowed the fund to continue, utilizing university-provided racial data to determine eligibility.
A Nationwide Concern
The UCSD case is not an isolated incident. Similar arrangements exist across the country, with private nonprofits administering race-based scholarships for public universities. Institutions like UC Berkeley and the University of Texas at Austin have adopted comparable practices. The controversy arises from the perceived outsourcing of racial preferences to private entities, a tactic that opponents argue undermines state laws and Supreme Court rulings against affirmative action.
Legal challenges have increased since the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision ending affirmative action in college admissions. The BASF case is significant as it is the first to employ the Ku Klux Klan Act in this context. The outcome could have wide-reaching implications, potentially impacting the structure and legality of race-based scholarships nationwide.
Stakeholders and Statements
UCSD and the San Diego Foundation are at the center of the legal storm. The San Diego Foundation recently announced a $500,000 matching grant to BASF, aiming to double its impact and reach a $10 million endowment goal by 2028. Edward Spriggs, BASF Chair, expressed confidence in the program’s mission, while Pamela Gray Payton, SDF Chief Impact & Partnerships Officer, emphasized the foundation’s commitment to educational transformation.
Meanwhile, the Pacific Legal Foundation attorney, Haley Dutch, argues that Section 1985 remains a vital protection against outsourcing racial discrimination to private parties. The plaintiffs, including Kai Peters, a white student allegedly excluded from BASF due to racial criteria, view the scholarship as a violation of equal protection rights.
Potential Consequences
The legal challenge places BASF and similar scholarships in a precarious position. The court’s decision could halt or alter the program if it finds that the UCSD and San Diego Foundation arrangement violates civil rights laws. Such a ruling would not only impact current and prospective Black students at UCSD but also set a precedent for race-based scholarships at other public universities.
In the long term, universities may need to revise their diversity strategies, potentially moving toward race-neutral criteria or alternative support mechanisms. The case also raises questions about the role of private nonprofits in public education and their ability to navigate legal constraints while pursuing diversity goals.
Posts
