From Roger Clegg, president and general counsel of the Center for Equal Opportunity:
“This year, the Justice Department filed an amicus brief that aggressively defended the University of Texas’ use of racial and ethnic preferences in its undergraduate admissions. (That case was argued last week.) More recently, evidence has surfaced that the administration weighed race in deciding which car dealerships to close.
“The administration also has declared that it will be aggressive in filing ‘disparate impact’ complaints. Under this theory, actions that are nondiscriminatory by their terms, in their intent, and in their execution are nonetheless challenged if they lead to politically incorrect numbers. Thus, for example, the administration has challenged a physical test for prison guards because, in its view, it was too difficult for women to pass; it likewise has warned schools that their discipline policies will be scrutinized for racial imbalances. Such an approach guarantees the implementation of surreptitious quotas.
“Racial preferences also are often expressed in the administration’s Federal Register notices (which the Center for Equal Opportunity monitors daily) and, of course, the president has picked federal judges who favor race-conscious policies, like the nominee for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, Goodwin Liu, not to mention ‘wise Latina’ Sonia Sotomayor.”
Comments on this entry are closed.