William A. Jacobson has filed a federal civil rights complaint accusing UCLA of offering more than a dozen scholarships that limit eligibility by race, sex, or national origin, and the filing asks the Education Department to investigate and consider suspending federal funding until the programs are fixed.
The complaint names 13 programs at UCLA that restrict applicants by identity categories, pointing to awards labeled for LatinX, Pilipinx, undocumented students, and female-only recipients. Those limits are presented as violations of federal law, specifically Title VI and Title IX, which bar discrimination by institutions that receive federal dollars. The filing seeks a formal probe and enforcement action to stop what it calls illegal, identity-based awarding of taxpayer-funded aid.
Among the scholarships flagged are ones explicitly for “incoming LatinX freshmen and transfer students” and for students who “indicate their membership in the Pilipinx community,” while another is reserved for undocumented undergraduates and a Raza women’s award prefers “incoming Latina freshmen and transfer students.” The complaint also points to two scholarships aimed at Armenian students and a Deloitte Foundation award that supports “meritorious female students.” These programs, according to the complaint, draw a clear line between qualifying students based on protected characteristics and the nondiscrimination obligations of public universities.
Jacobson put the problem bluntly: “That race- and sex-based discriminatory scholarships exist at a major and highly visible public university is shocking,” Jacobson told Fox News Digital. From a Republican standpoint, public universities should be accountable to the law and to taxpayers, not creating separate lanes for applicants based on identity labels. This kind of policy looks less like fair access and more like gated preference paid for by everyone.
The complaint highlights a political disconnect about language and practice, noting that California’s governor said earlier this year that “no one says Latinx” even as a UC campus uses that exact term to limit scholarship eligibility. That contrast feeds the broader argument that official policies are drifting away from common sense and legal standards in favor of fashionable identity categories. When public money is at stake, administrators owe clarity and legal compliance, not jargon and exclusion.
UCLA’s public statement defends its approach, saying “UCLA administers all identity-conscious financial aid and scholarships in compliance with federal, state, and university regulations.” The statement continues, “Identity-conscious awards may include a preference for a student’s race, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, color, ethnicity, or national origin… The pooled application process allows students to be considered for multiple scholarships and is used in determining the source of a recipient’s aid, but not their eligibility, receipt, or amount of financial aid.” Still, critics argue that words on a website do not erase eligibility criteria that single out people by identity.
From a legal angle, the complaint asserts that those eligibility rules conflict with federal civil-rights statutes. “Creating educational opportunities based on race, color, national origin, or sex violates Titles VI and IX of the Civil Rights Act,” he said. Republicans who favor equal treatment under the law see this as a straightforward test: either the university follows nondiscrimination laws or it pays the price in lost federal support and public trust.
The filing requests the Education Department move beyond a cursory review and open a formal enforcement action, with a clear remedy for any violations found. That remedy could include requiring the university to revise or eliminate disqualifying language and, if necessary, suspend federal funds until compliance is secured. For those worried about mission creep in higher education, this case is a moment to press colleges to compete on merit and opportunity, not identity quotas.
UCLA and the governor’s office had not provided comment to the outlet cited at the time the complaint was filed, and the process now moves to federal officials for review. The outcome could reshape how public universities design scholarships and whether identity-conscious language remains an acceptable practice when federal dollars are involved. Either way, the complaint forces a choice: preserve universal access and legal compliance, or keep policies that treat applicants unequally based on traits the law protects.
