Townhall93%

DOJ Probe Finds That Duke Law School Intentionally Tried to Keep Whites and Asians Out 79%

By Joseph Chalfant100%

8/7/2026, 2:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 28 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Appeal to Emotion, and Negativity Bias, with Confirmation Bias as the most egregious example at 38.6% saturation with 165 hits. Analysis detected 1,443 faulty-reasoning hits from 428 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 61.9% and a BS Rank of 79% (6,674 of 30,584 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 78.20% of the article peer group.

The Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division announced on Thursday that an investigation into Duke University School of Law found a deliberate attempt to exclude white and Asian students from admittance in violation of the Civil Rights Act. 
At Duke Law, REJECTED white & Asian applicants had higher LSATs than admitted black applicants. 
With similar credentials: black applicants have a 3.5x higher chance of admission than Asians. 
This isn’t a coincidence—Duke Law discriminates & the @CivilRights Division will end it! 
 
The Justice Department’s probe discovered that, despite a 2023 Supreme Court ruling preventing affirmative action in school admittances, “Duke Law emphasized racial diversity in admissions and engaged in a deliberate effort to preserve race-based outcomes for its incoming classes.” 
The investigation further discovered that applicants were instructed to provide short answers to questions in hopes of providing a “diversity of perspective and experience.” 
Reviewers were then instructed to “tag” responses that fit Duke’s progressive agenda with labels like “Diversity/Services” or similar tags to denote characteristics correlated to an applicant’s race, allowing admissions staff to fulfill the school’s desires to enact a racial quota. 
The probe concluded that black or hispanic applicants had “a substantially higher likelihood of admission” to Duke’s law school as compared to white or Asian applicants with a similar academic background. 
It further found that the median LSAT scores of white or Asian applicants who were rejected exceeded the median scores of blacks or hispanics who were admitted into Duke Law. 
Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. 
Dhillon of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division claims that black applicants had a 3.5 times higher chance of receiving admission over Asian students. 
“Duke Law School doesn’t get a free pass to discriminate against white and Asian students simply because it thinks it has good intentions,” Dhillon said in a press release. 
“Using ‘diversity’ essay questions to identify preferred races for admission is still illegal discrimination based on race, and this Department is committed to eliminating it everywhere we find it, including in our nation’s law schools.” 
The Justice Department has said that, in cases where racial discrimination is discovered, that settlement negotiations will be opened with the violating party. 
Should negotiations fail, the Justice Department will file lawsuits. 
Editor's Note: Do you enjoy Townhall's conservative reporting that takes on the radical left and woke media? 
Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth. 
Join Townhall VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 38.6%Joseph Chalfant: 7.6%Townhall: 5.5%Confirmation Bias38.6%This article: 10.5%Joseph Chalfant: 1.2%Townhall: 0.7%Anchoring Bias10.5%This article: 5.6%Joseph Chalfant: 4.4%Townhall: 2.6%Availability Heuristic5.6%This article: 10.5%Joseph Chalfant: 1.6%Townhall: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic10.5%This article: 9.1%Joseph Chalfant: 1.2%Townhall: 0.7%Hindsight Bias9.1%This article: 5.6%Joseph Chalfant: 1.9%Townhall: 1.6%Overconfidence Bias5.6%This article: 7.5%Joseph Chalfant: 20.6%Townhall: 10.0%Framing Effect7.5%This article: 3.3%Joseph Chalfant: 0.7%Townhall: 0.4%Loss Aversion3.3%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 0.5%Townhall: 0.3%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 0.0%Townhall: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 3.7%Townhall: 1.2%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 3.0%Joseph Chalfant: 2.1%Townhall: 1.8%Pessimism Bias3.0%This article: 22.7%Joseph Chalfant: 20.5%Townhall: 13.2%Negativity Bias22.7%This article: 3.0%Joseph Chalfant: 2.5%Townhall: 1.5%Self-Serving Bias3.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 2.0%Townhall: 2.0%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 0.0%Townhall: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 6.8%Townhall: 4.3%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 3.5%Townhall: 3.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 2.7%Townhall: 1.4%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 2.1%Townhall: 1.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 0.0%Townhall: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 2.3%Townhall: 1.2%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 0.6%Townhall: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 0.0%Townhall: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 7.1%Townhall: 5.4%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 4.0%Joseph Chalfant: 2.5%Townhall: 1.9%Straw Man4.0%This article: 34.6%Joseph Chalfant: 5.5%Townhall: 3.8%Appeal to Authority34.6%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 2.6%Townhall: 1.9%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 9.1%Joseph Chalfant: 1.9%Townhall: 1.7%Slippery Slope9.1%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 0.0%Townhall: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 13.8%Joseph Chalfant: 13.7%Townhall: 9.4%Hasty Generalization13.8%This article: 5.6%Joseph Chalfant: 1.1%Townhall: 0.6%Red Herring5.6%This article: 4.0%Joseph Chalfant: 1.4%Townhall: 1.2%Bandwagon4.0%This article: 29.7%Joseph Chalfant: 18.0%Townhall: 10.4%Appeal to Emotion29.7%This article: 22.7%Joseph Chalfant: 3.2%Townhall: 2.1%Begging the Question22.7%This article: 9.1%Joseph Chalfant: 4.2%Townhall: 2.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)9.1%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 1.2%Townhall: 0.6%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 21.5%Joseph Chalfant: 1.5%Townhall: 1.5%Burden of Proof21.5%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 0.0%Townhall: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 0.0%Townhall: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 1.1%Townhall: 1.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 0.1%Townhall: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 20.8%Joseph Chalfant: 3.4%Townhall: 1.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)20.8%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 0.0%Townhall: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 0.2%Townhall: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 0.7%Townhall: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 0.0%Townhall: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 1.5%Townhall: 0.5%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 9.3%Joseph Chalfant: 3.3%Townhall: 3.0%Unattributed Quote9.3%This article: 6.8%Joseph Chalfant: 2.9%Townhall: 2.5%Quote-first Misdirection6.8%This article: 6.5%Joseph Chalfant: 25.0%Townhall: 15.6%Biased Writer Voice6.5%This article: 3.0%Joseph Chalfant: 5.5%Townhall: 5.1%Indoctrination3.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 0.4%Townhall: 0.5%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 7.0%Joseph Chalfant: 23.7%Townhall: 13.7%Politically Right Leaning Bias7.0%This article: 10.3%Joseph Chalfant: 6.7%Townhall: 5.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…10.3%

428 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers28%attributed speech308writer words
Selected voice

Harmeet K. Dhillon

100%flagged-word coverage
88 attributed words73% of attributed speech98% writer coverage
0%17.5%35.0%Quote-first Misdirection+33.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Harmeet K. Dhillon: 33.0%33.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -14.3 ptsWriter: 14.3%Harmeet K. Dhillon: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-13.0 ptsWriter: 13.0%Harmeet K. Dhillon: 0.0%0.0%Politically Right Leaning -9.7 ptsWriter: 9.7%Harmeet K. Dhillon: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-9.1 ptsWriter: 9.1%Harmeet K. Dhillon: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-4.2 ptsWriter: 4.2%Harmeet K. Dhillon: 0.0%0.0%

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.