Exclusive | Two top California colleges dragged into shocking discrimination fight ⁠24%

By Benjamin Brown⁠0%

6/29/2026, 9:00:38 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 24 faulty reasoning types, including Ambiguity (Equivocation), Appeal to Authority, and Biased Writer Voice, with Confirmation Bias as the most egregious example at 23.9% saturation with 135 hits. Analysis detected 1,376 faulty-reasoning hits from 565 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 36.7% and a BS Rank of ⁠24% (16,706 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 76.30% of the article peer group.

Two private California universities are facing a civil rights complaint for allegedly sponsoring and facilitating a program that limits participation to students who only identify as Hispanic. 
The Equal Protection Project (EPP) is demanding the US Department of Education to investigate whether USC and Loyola Marymount University (LMU) violated federal civil rights laws by participating in the Youth Leadership Institute — a college-access and leadership-development program for Latino students, according to the complaint obtained by The Post. 
“That program discriminates on its face and unequivocally on the basis of national origin,” William Jacobson, president and founder of EPP said. 
“The universities get involved and potentially become responsible because they support it, they host it on their campuses, they provide all sorts of other facilities for it,” Jacobson said. 
“We think this is pretty egregious. 
It's open discrimination, they don't try to hide it,” Jacobson told the Post. 
“The program says it's only open to students who identify as Hispanic, only those students can participate in these events on campus and by definition, if those are the only students who can participate, those are the only ones who can receive the benefit of temporary housing.” 
Jacobson points out that even though the universities are private, they still receive some federal funding and are subject to federal civil rights law. 
“If this had simply been an outside nonprofit unrelated to the universities, runs a program off the university campus, they wouldn't be responsible,” Jacobson said. 
“Because the universities have voluntarily taken on the burden of promoting the programs, supporting the programs, hosting the programs, providing lodging for participants in the programs they now fully adopted this as their program.” 
The complaint alleges the universities are violating Title VI, which prohibits discrimination based on race, color or national origin by offering to host, provide speakers, and on-campus lodging for YLI events because it excludes students who are not of Hispanic-heritage. 
LMU, which describes itself as a sponsor and host of the program, recently held an in-person event for YLI from June 24 to June 28 while USC is scheduled to host its own YLI overnight component in July, according to the complaint. 
YLI is a program of the Hispanic Scholarship Fund, which administers and operates the program. 
It has been praised by both universities for boosting admission for Latino students, and described as “educational partners” by USC. 
The complaint further argues both universities are in violation of Title II by restricting on-campus lodging to only Hispanic students as it relates to the program. 
Jacobson is calling on the DOE to investigate the alleged Title IV violations, while the Title II complaint would fall under the DOJ due to a new intra-agency partnership between the two federal agencies that changed how federal civil rights complaints are handled 
USC and LMU are not the only California institutions coming under fire over federal civil rights violations — back in May, the Department of Justice sued the University of California Los Angeles for its “deliberate indifference to race and national origin discrimination against Jewish and Israeli students” on campus. 
Earlier this month, the DOJ launched an investigation into four California public school districts for allegedly violating Title XI by teaching students about sexual orientation and gender ideology under the guise of “LGBTQ history and social studies” while failing to notify parents. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 23.9%Benjamin Brown: 6.7%California Post: 4.1%Confirmation Bias23.9%This article: 0.0%Benjamin Brown: 2.0%California Post: 1.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 8.7%Benjamin Brown: 5.2%California Post: 4.2%Availability Heuristic8.7%This article: 0.0%Benjamin Brown: 0.5%California Post: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Benjamin Brown: 0.3%California Post: 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 7.6%Benjamin Brown: 1.8%California Post: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias7.6%This article: 6.7%Benjamin Brown: 14.1%California Post: 10.3%Framing Effect6.7%This article: 0.0%Benjamin Brown: 2.1%California Post: 0.9%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Benjamin Brown: 0.8%California Post: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Benjamin Brown: 0.1%California Post: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Benjamin Brown: 3.2%California Post: 2.5%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Benjamin Brown: 2.7%California Post: 1.5%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 17.5%Benjamin Brown: 20.6%California Post: 16.0%Negativity Bias17.5%This article: 6.0%Benjamin Brown: 4.3%California Post: 2.4%Self-Serving Bias6.0%This article: 5.1%Benjamin Brown: 3.0%California Post: 1.5%Fundamental Attribution Error5.1%This article: 0.0%Benjamin Brown: 0.3%California Post: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Benjamin Brown: 0.8%California Post: 1.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Benjamin Brown: 0.8%California Post: 1.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 3.5%Benjamin Brown: 1.4%California Post: 3.1%Halo Effect3.5%This article: 0.0%Benjamin Brown: 0.6%California Post: 0.6%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Benjamin Brown: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 16.1%Benjamin Brown: 2.4%California Post: 1.6%Recency Bias16.1%This article: 0.0%Benjamin Brown: 0.6%California Post: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Benjamin Brown: 0.2%California Post: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Benjamin Brown: 2.1%California Post: 2.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Benjamin Brown: 0.4%California Post: 0.5%Straw Man0.0%This article: 20.7%Benjamin Brown: 4.5%California Post: 4.2%Appeal to Authority20.7%This article: 4.4%Benjamin Brown: 2.0%California Post: 1.5%False Dilemma4.4%This article: 0.0%Benjamin Brown: 0.9%California Post: 0.9%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 8.3%Benjamin Brown: 0.8%California Post: 0.2%Circular Reasoning8.3%This article: 0.0%Benjamin Brown: 10.1%California Post: 5.5%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 16.1%Benjamin Brown: 1.3%California Post: 0.7%Red Herring16.1%This article: 0.0%Benjamin Brown: 0.4%California Post: 1.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 3.5%Benjamin Brown: 8.3%California Post: 8.9%Appeal to Emotion3.5%This article: 3.9%Benjamin Brown: 1.1%California Post: 1.1%Begging the Question3.9%This article: 0.0%Benjamin Brown: 3.8%California Post: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Benjamin Brown: 0.5%California Post: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 14.7%Benjamin Brown: 1.5%California Post: 0.8%Burden of Proof14.7%This article: 0.0%Benjamin Brown: 0.2%California Post: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Benjamin Brown: 0.2%California Post: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 2.3%Benjamin Brown: 5.5%California Post: 3.6%Anecdotal2.3%This article: 0.0%Benjamin Brown: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 23.9%Benjamin Brown: 2.4%California Post: 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)23.9%This article: 0.0%Benjamin Brown: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Benjamin Brown: 0.3%California Post: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Benjamin Brown: 0.2%California Post: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 6.0%Benjamin Brown: 1.1%California Post: 0.2%Special Pleading6.0%This article: 0.0%Benjamin Brown: 0.0%California Post: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 8.8%Benjamin Brown: 2.5%California Post: 3.2%Unattributed Quote8.8%This article: 8.1%Benjamin Brown: 1.4%California Post: 2.1%Quote-first Misdirection8.1%This article: 18.9%Benjamin Brown: 12.1%California Post: 13.1%Biased Writer Voice18.9%This article: 1.1%Benjamin Brown: 1.1%California Post: 1.4%Indoctrination1.1%This article: 0.0%Benjamin Brown: 0.1%California Post: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 7.4%Benjamin Brown: 3.6%California Post: 3.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias7.4%This article: 0.0%Benjamin Brown: 1.2%California Post: 6.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

565 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers62%attributed speech215writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageEqual Protection Project (EPP) • 50 words • 100.0% coverageWilliam Jacobson • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWilliam Jacobson • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWilliam Jacobson • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWilliam Jacobson • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWilliam Jacobson • 47 words • 0.0% coverageWilliam Jacobson • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWilliam Jacobson • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWilliam Jacobson • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 0.0% coverageLMU • 42 words • 0.0% coverageHispanic Scholarship Fund • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWilliam Jacobson • 43 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 49 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 42 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

William Jacobson

100%flagged-word coverage
243 attributed words69% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%17.5%35.0%Biased Writer Voice+16.9 ptsWriter: 14.4%William Jacobson: 31.3%31.3%Politically Right Leaning -19.5 ptsWriter: 19.5%William Jacobson: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection+9.3 ptsWriter: 5.1%William Jacobson: 14.4%14.4%Indoctrination+2.5 ptsWriter: 0.0%William Jacobson: 2.5%2.5%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.