Federal investigators allege racial discrimination. Berkeley denies it. The question deserves evidence, not a contest over which institution commands more prestige.
A law school should welcome a straightforward question: are applicants being judged as individuals, or are they being sorted by race? At Berkeley, that question now comes with federal investigators attached.
On September 9, the Justice Department and Education Department announced findings accusing UC Berkeley Law of racial discrimination in admissions against white and Asian applicants. The agencies contend that the school used aspects of its application process to continue pursuing racial preferences despite legal restrictions. They are seeking a resolution; their announcement is not a court judgment establishing that Berkeley broke the law.
Berkeley disputes the accusation. Dean Erwin Chemerinsky told KQED: “Our admissions policy is clear that race is not considered in any way.” The school says it follows state and federal law and can pursue diversity without giving racial preferences.
That denial matters. So does the evidence behind the government's allegation. Neither a university's reputation nor a federal agency's press release should settle the argument for everyone else.
The standard should be equal treatment
From a conservative perspective, the principle is uncomplicated: an applicant should not carry a racial penalty into the admissions office. Nor should a university get to treat a sympathetic institutional objective as permission to ignore the rules that bind everyone else.
There is plenty of room to consider an applicant's individual circumstances. Someone who supported a family while studying has a story worth hearing. So does someone who overcame poverty, disability or a seriously disrupted education. Those experiences tell an admissions committee something about a person. A racial category cannot do that work on its own.
The difficult question is whether a process genuinely evaluates those experiences or uses them as a route back to racial preference. That requires examining how decisions were actually made. An essay question, standing alone, cannot establish the answer. Neither can a reassuring statement about institutional values.
This is where scrutiny should land: on the decision-making process, the standards applied and whether comparable applicants received comparable treatment.
Don't put students on trial
Critics should resist turning the investigation into an attack on the students Berkeley admitted. An allegation against an admissions system does not establish that a particular student is unqualified. Test scores also cannot tell us everything a complete application contains.
Making careless assumptions about students would reproduce the very mistake an equal-treatment argument is supposed to reject: judging individuals through a group label.
The responsibility belongs with the officials who designed and administered the process. If the government can substantiate its claims, the institution should answer for its conduct. If its case cannot withstand Berkeley's evidence, the government should have to acknowledge that too.
Prestige is no exemption
A university cannot expect the public to accept intentions as a substitute for accountability. Federal investigators cannot expect their authority to substitute for proof, either. Both propositions belong in this discussion, especially when the political incentives to declare victory are so obvious.
Berkeley says it treats applicants without racial preferences. It should be able to defend that claim through the appropriate review process. The government says otherwise. It needs to demonstrate why.
For applicants, the stakes are less abstract than an argument about institutional diversity. They deserve confidence that the rules mean what they say, and that the same rules apply regardless of whose application is on the desk.
Reporting basis: The Justice Department's September 9 announcement and KQED's reporting, including Berkeley's response. This article is commentary on the disputed findings, not a conclusion that a court has found discrimination.
Marcus Bennett is a conservative commentator focused on crime, education, economic opportunity, urban policy, and American culture. Raised in a working-class community outside Atlanta, Bennett developed his politics around the belief that public policy should be judged by results rather than intentions. His columns frequently examine failing institutions, public safety, family stability, educational reform, and the political assumptions surrounding Black Americans. Bennett brings a skeptical, data-driven approach to political arguments and has little patience for ideological explanations that fail to match conditions on the ground.
Discussion
Loading discussion…