How Cornell Lawsuits Redefine Campus Diversity Hiring Rules
By Darius Spearman (africanelements)
Support African Elements at patreon.com/africanelements and hear recent news in a single playlist. Additionally, you can gain early access to ad-free video content.
The landscape of higher education is shifting under the weight of massive legal challenges. For decades, universities used race-conscious policies to build diverse faculty and student bodies. However, a new wave of federal lawsuits against institutions like Cornell University is threatening to dismantle these systems. These cases do not only affect one school. They carry the potential to reshape hiring practices across the entire United States. This movement follows a historic Supreme Court decision in 2023 that ended race-conscious admissions (uchicago.edu).
Legal experts describe the current situation as a tsunami of litigation. This legal tide has turned its focus from student admissions to faculty hiring and scholarships. The shift represents a fundamental change in how the law views the concept of “diversity.” While schools once viewed diversity as a benefit for all students, new legal standards demand a strictly colorblind approach. This transition creates a tense environment on campuses where identity and merit are now at the center of a fierce national debate (jamesgmartin.center).
The Legal Foundation of Campus Diversity
To understand the current crisis, one must look back nearly fifty years. In 1978, the Supreme Court ruled in a landmark case involving the University of California. In Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, the court decided that rigid racial quotas were illegal. However, it also established that “diversity” was a “compelling state interest.” This allowed schools to use race as one of many factors when choosing students. For forty-five years, this principle guided how American colleges operated (uchicago.edu).
The system of federalism – or the sharing of power between the national government and state institutions, played a major role in how these rules were applied. Eventually, the logic used for student admissions began to influence faculty hiring. This fell under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which governs employment. Institutions began to set goals to ensure their staff looked like their student body. This led to the growth of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) offices across the country. These offices became the primary tools for implementing social justice goals within the academic world (house.gov).
The Cornell Lawsuit and Secret Hiring Practices
In early 2026, a biologist named Colin Wright filed a federal lawsuit against Cornell University. This followed a previous complaint by the America First Policy Institute in 2025. These legal actions claim that Cornell used illegal racial quotas disguised as “diversity goals.” The lawsuits point to internal emails from 2020 as evidence. These emails allegedly show that certain departments conducted “diversity searches” that intentionally excluded white applicants to ensure a specific outcome (americafirstpolicy.com, jamesgmartin.center).
Critics of these practices argue that they function as “secret searches.” In one instance, a committee member allegedly suggested inviting only one minority candidate to avoid a competitive dynamic. The lawsuit also targets the use of mandatory DEI statements. The plaintiffs call these statements “loyalty oaths” because they require applicants to pledge support for specific ideological views. At Cornell, one department reportedly excluded ninety-eight percent of qualified applicants because their ideological litmus tests did not meet the university’s standards (americafirstpolicy.com).
Applicants excluded based on identity characteristics or DEI statements according to federal complaint (americafirstpolicy.com).
Cluster Hiring and the Social Justice Mandate
One controversial method used to increase diversity is “cluster hiring.” This strategy involves hiring multiple faculty members at once across different departments. The goal is to create a support network for faculty of color and prevent them from feeling isolated. Supporters believe this changes campus culture more quickly than hiring individuals one by one. They argue that faculty of color often face a “cultural taxation” where they take on extra mentoring work without extra pay (jamesgmartin.center).
However, the Cornell lawsuit argues that cluster hiring can be used as a workaround to prioritize race over individual merit. When a university hires a “cluster” based on a social justice theme, it often limits the pool of candidates to those who focus on specific areas of study. Opponents believe this discriminates against qualified scholars who work in traditional fields. This debate highlights the tension between the lived experience of the diaspora and the demand for a colorblind meritocracy in professional spaces (americafirstpolicy.com, jamesgmartin.center).
The University of California Discrimination Crisis
While Cornell fights hiring lawsuits, the University of California (UC) system faces a different struggle. A recent discrimination survey revealed high levels of bias and intimidation on campus. Between 2023 and 2024, the university recorded over twelve hundred incidents of offensive speech. There were also hundreds of reports of physical bullying and intimidation. This data has fueled intense policy fights between students and administrators (ucla.edu).
The survey showed that students of color experience racism at much higher rates than white students. For example, up to fifty-seven percent of Asian students reported experiencing bias. In contrast, only seventeen percent of white students reported similar experiences. This data forced the UC system to implement a new Anti-Discrimination Policy in late 2024. However, some groups have used the same data to sue the university. They claim that the UC system still uses race secretly to favor some groups over others in its “holistic” admissions process (ucla.edu, latimes.com).
Despite the ban on race-conscious admissions, Black enrollment grew by 4.6% in 2024 (ucla.edu).
Title VI and the Threat to Federal Funding
The federal government has also stepped into these campus battles. Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, institutions that receive federal money cannot discriminate based on race or national origin. Cornell University receives over one billion dollars in federal funds every year. In February 2025, the Department of Education, under the administration of President Donald Trump, threatened to pull this funding. The government gave the school two weeks to eliminate race-based programs (americafirstpolicy.com).
This threat highlights the difference between Title VI and Title VII. While Title VII governs how a school treats its employees, Title VI controls the school’s wallet. If a university loses federal funding, it could collapse. This pressure is forcing many schools to dismantle their DEI programs quickly. They are caught between their internal social goals and the reality of federal law. This struggle is part of a long fight for justice that has lasted since the end of the Civil War (house.gov).
Protest Rules and Shared Ancestry Investigations
Recent international conflicts have complicated the situation on campus. Following protests regarding the Israel-Hamas war, the government began “shared ancestry” investigations. These investigations look for discrimination against Jewish, Arab, or Muslim students. To resolve these probes, the University of California agreed to new rules. These include a ban on “masking to conceal identity” during protests and a ban on unauthorized encampments (ucla.edu, latimes.com).
These rules have a direct impact on Black student activists. Civil rights groups argue that masking bans are often used against specific protesters while others are ignored. Many students use masks to protect themselves from “doxxing” or surveillance. For Black students, who have a historical context of being monitored by authorities, these rules can feel like a threat to their First Amendment rights. The data from the UC survey shows that political protests are now being categorized as “harassment” of protected groups (ucla.edu, latimes.com).
Cornell’s annual federal funding is under threat by the Department of Education (americafirstpolicy.com).
The Future of Holistic Admissions
Despite the end of race-conscious admissions, some schools are seeing increases in Black enrollment. The University of California reported a four percent increase in Black freshmen in 2024. This success did not come from using race as a checkbox. Instead, it came from thirty years of building “race-neutral” alternatives. The university uses a “Top 9%” program that guarantees a spot for the best students from every high school in California (ucla.edu).
This “holistic” approach looks at the whole student rather than just test scores. It allows admissions officers to consider the obstacles a student has overcome. This might include attending an underfunded school or having major family responsibilities. While the Supreme Court ruled that race cannot be a factor on its own, students can still write about their race in application essays. This allows the university to understand how a student’s identity has shaped their life. However, critics still argue that these holistic methods are just a “secret” way to maintain racial diversity (uchicago.edu, ucla.edu).
Conclusion: A Violent Correction
The “history behind the headlines” shows a system in the middle of a sharp correction. For decades, universities relied on the Bakke decision to justify their diversity goals. Today, that legal foundation has crumbled. The data from the UC discrimination survey and the emails from Cornell are being used to argue that the era of diversity must end. Litigants and federal regulators are pushing for a strictly merit-based, colorblind standard (uchicago.edu, americafirstpolicy.com).
This shift will have lasting effects on the Black community and other marginalized groups. As universities dismantle DEI offices and change their hiring rules, the path to academic careers may become more difficult. At the same time, the struggle for a fair and representative education continues. The road ahead remains uncertain as the courts and the federal government redefine what it means to have an equal opportunity in America (jamesgmartin.center).
About the Author
Darius Spearman is a professor of Black Studies at San Diego City College, where he has been teaching for over 20 years. He is the founder of African Elements, a media platform dedicated to providing educational resources on the history and culture of the African diaspora. Through his work, Spearman aims to empower and educate by bringing historical context to contemporary issues affecting the Black community.
