Archive for Linda Chavez
National Review Online asked a group of center-right thinkers if they believe Obama’s election is “good for blacks.”
The American Civil Rights Institute’s Ward Connerly said yes it is, in the sense that blacks have arrived as first class citizens of a country that once enslaved and degraded them because of skin color. An Obama presidency also may alleviate whites of misplaced guilt.
Additionally, Connerly believes that Obama, as a married family man, might serve as an example to a community in which intact families are rare.
The Center for Equal Opportunity’s (CEO) Roger Clegg said Obama’s election is a “powerful rebuke to the victim mindset” and that the biggest obstacle facing blacks isn’t discrimination but illegitimacy. Agreed. CEO’s Linda Chavez echoed Clegg’s sentiments:
“A President Obama could also take on issues that others have avoided: the breakdown in the black family, the latent racism inherent in holding blacks to lower standards than whites, the enervating aspect of perpetual victimhood. But while he might take on the first of these — he has experienced firsthand what it means to be abandoned by one’s father — I won’t hold my breath for him to endorse an end to racial double standards and preferences.”
I won’t hold mine, either, although the Wall Street Journal holds the view that Obama’s election is a sign that America is ready to move beyond race preferences and toward “colorblind opportunity” for all.
It matters little to me whether individuals learn to see beyond color. They can think and see whatever they’d like, as long as they don’t interfere with my rights. But government policy must be colorblind. Will this be possible with a black president in the White House? In an ideal world, yes. In this world…
Filed under: Center for Equal Opportunity, Linda Chavez, Roger Clegg, Ward Connerly | |2 Comments
When it comes to being admitted into the University of Nebraska’s law school, the odds favor blacks over whites 442 to 1. Odds favor Hispanics 90 to 1.
The Center for Equal Opportunity (CEO) released a new study that documents cases of “severe discrimination” in law school admissions. Among the 2006 and 2007 entering classes, five Hispanics, 12 Asians, and 389 whites were denied law school admission, even though their scores and grades were higher than the average black admittee.
According to the study, Asian and white residents of the state are less likely to be admitted to the University of Nebraska’s law school than black and Hispanic non-residents. Seventy-five percent of black admittees had worse scores compared to 75 percent of whites and Asians admitted to the law school.
Download the 23-page report in Word.
“Racial discrimination in university admissions is always appalling,” said CEO chair Linda Chaves. “But the extremely heavy weight given to race by the University of Nebraska College of Law is off the charts.”
This appalling condition may not exist much longer. On November 4, Nebraskans will vote for or against Initiative 424, a measure that would amend the state constitution to bar the government from discriminating against or granting preferential treatment to any individual or group based on race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education and public contracting. The imitative is supported by a coalition of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents from across the state.
Filed under: Center for Equal Opportunity, Initiative 424, Linda Chavez | |Comments off
Yesterday the Center for Equal Opportunity (CEO) released two reports that show law schools at the University of Arizona and Arizona State University, both supported by taxpayers, discriminate against white and Asian applicants in favor of blacks and Hispanics. The studies describe the discrimination as “severe.”
Black and Hispanic students are admitted with “significantly lower undergraduate” GPAs and LSAT scores. CEO chair Linda Chavez said the odds favor black students over white students at the University of Arizona 250 to 1 and 1115 to 1 at Arizona State.
“[N]early a thousand white students during the years we studied were denied admission even though they had higher undergraduate GPAs and LSATs than the average African American student who was admitted–and over a hundred Asian and Latino students were in the same boat with them,” she said.
Roger Clegg, CEO president, added that race weighed more heavily in admission decisions that residency status. “For instance, a white Arizonan in 2007 was about eight times less likely to be admitted to the University of Arizona than a black out-of-state applicant, and at Arizona State he would be twelve times less likely to be admitted.”
Undergraduate and medical school admissions at the University of Arizona also showed evidence of discrimination, though to a lesser degree. Download reports for both schools in Word documents: University of Arizona and Arizona State.
The American Civil Rights Institute (ACRI) is trying to put an end to such discrimination in taxpayer-supported schools. ACRI’s effort to add the Arizona Civil Rights Initiative (AzCRI) to the state ballot failed after the campaign ran out of time to validate some 6,000 signatures. The proposed amendment would have barred the state government from granting preferential treatment to any person on group based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in government hiring, contracting, and admissions.
AzCRI director Max McPhail said a new campaign will begin after November to place the initiative on the November 2010 ballot. In the meantime, we’ll continue exposing discrimination perpetrated in the name of “diversity.”
Filed under: AzCRI, Center for Equal Opportunity, Linda Chavez, Max McPhail, Roger Clegg | |Comments off
||
