The American Civil Rights Institute’s Jennifer Gratz is featured in a story on NPR about “affirmative action,” also known as racial preferences.
The plaintiff in Gratz. v. Bollinger, in which the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the University of Michigan’s use of a racial point system in admissions, told NPR that there “were rumors in high school that the University of Michigan used race in their admissions policy. I remember hearing that and thinking, ‘There’s no way — that can’t be true.’”
Sadly, it was true, and it’s true in colleges and universities across the country.
In Grutter .v Bollinger, the companion case to Gratz, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote that the court expected racial preferences would no longer be necessary 25 years from now. How she came up with that figure is anyone’s guess, but it was just filler. The court found that the government had a “compelling state interest” in racial diversity, and if lowering standards for black students was the way to achieve it, so be it.
The article quotes people on both sides of the so-called debate. John McWhorter says he has no problem with racial preferences, but doesn’t like the lowered expectations the policy fosters.
“What concerns me is that until you get rid of a system that says B-plus is about as well as you have to do, then that’s about as good as all but a few strange shooting stars are going to do…In general, people do as well as they have to. How can black parents know what it is to qualify your student for Yale and Princeton in the way that white and Asian kids can, if black students can get into those schools without their parents having had to learn those sorts of things?”
Preferences proponent Tim Wise gets the last word, calling out the “myth” of quotas.
“The idea that colleges have to have a certain number of black students and certain number of Latino students just isn’t true. But the overwhelming majority of white folks in all the research I’ve seen believe those lies — believe those myths.”
I don’t know what sort of preferences opponents Wise has talked to, but the ones I know don’t make distinctions between racial quotas and lowered standards for blacks. The point is not that schools set quotas; it’s that schools consider race an admissions qualification, quotas or no quotas.
As far as admissions committees are concerned, race serves as a signifier of certain attributes deemed beneficial in the name of skin deep-only diversity. Rather than moving beyond racial stereotypes and assessing the individual as an individual—not as a member of a preferred racial minority group—we allow our government to hold fast to those stereotypes. As long as they “benefit” blacks. That’s not progress. That’s shameful.
Tuesday, August 17th, 2010,
by La Shawn Barber,
Filed under: Diversity, Judiciary, Quotas| |
Comments off
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.”
Friday, August 13th, 2010,
by La Shawn Barber,
Filed under: Roger Clegg| |
Comments off
The Center for Equal Opportunity’s Linda Chavez wrote about a left-leaning Los Angeles Times columnist who believes “affirmative action,” aka racial preferences, is divisive.
“I couldn’t agree more with Rodriguez’s conclusion,” Chavez writes, “but not entirely with the analysis that leads him there. Rodriguez’s opposition stems from his fear that white racial anxiety is rising and that affirmative action could lead to a destructive white backlash. ‘The combination of changing demographics and symbolic political victories on the part of nonwhites will inspire in whites a greater racial consciousness, a growing sense of beleagurement and louder calls to end affirmative or to be included in it,’ he writes.”
Chavez disagrees with Rodriguez over why racial preferences must end. He contends the policy may cause a white backlash; however, they both agree about who racial preferences were intended to benefit and why: a small minority of mostly black Americans to make up for past discrimination.
As demographics shift, such racial minorities as Hispanics and Asians benefited from racial preferences, and the reasons went beyond past discrimination.
“Ironically, Rodriguez barely addresses what I’ve always believed is one of the strongest arguments against affirmative action: its detrimental effects on the very people it’s meant to help by turning them into perpetual victims. In passing, Rodriguez warns that whites, too, might fall prey to ‘the siren song of victimology that has captivated other groups.’ Victimology and affirmative action go hand in hand. Without claiming to be a victim, you can’t make a case that you’re entitled to special treatment.”
A note on whites lured by the “siren song of victimology.” Seeing oneself as a victim is a bad way to go through life, regardless of race. Unfortunately, the victimhood cult in America is booming. In some cases, charges of racial discrimination are legitimate, as was the case with white New Haven firefighters whose exam scores were tossed because too few racial minorities scored high enough. The teeming minority rights industry ought to think twice about flinging around charges of discrimination and racism. One day, and I suspect sooner than we think, whites will be a minority in the U.S. Will they become the beneficiaries of racial preferences? If not, why not? Consistency is the bane of PC’s existence.
“It’s time to end affirmative action not because it makes whites anxious but because it perpetuates race obsession that harms all Americans, regardless of color. We’ve got to get beyond thinking of ourselves in terms of racial or ethnic origins if we are ever to live up to our ideals as Americans.”
Wednesday, August 11th, 2010,
by La Shawn Barber,
Filed under: Center for Equal Opportunity| |
Comments off
Like other cities, Syracuse operates under a consent decree, which stipulates that the city must hire a certain percentage of minority firefighters and police officers.
Would it shock you to know I think such mandates are ridiculous as well as racially discriminatory?
By the way, I put the word reverse in quotations marks, because there’s no such thing. Racial discrimination is racial discrimination.
A white voluntary firefighter who seeks employment with the fire department sued the city, claiming Syracuse is hiring lower scoring blacks over higher scoring whites. A federal court ruled against him in 2008, but an appeals court overturned the ruling and remanded the case.
According to a 30-year-old consent decree, the city is permitted to prefer black applicants over whites until the number of blacks hired reaches a certain percentage. Three decades ago, blacks comprised about one percent of firefighters and about 10 percent of the city’s employees. The court decreed that black firefighters should account for 10 percent of each rank in the department, and the percentage of blacks in the department should match that of the general pool.
Fast forward to 2010, and black firefighters account for 16.6 percent of the fire department. Five years ago, the general labor pool was 21 percent black. When will the preferences stop? How does the city of Syracuse get away with discriminating against whites? One preferences proponent’s answer:
“When people have knife wounds, they sometimes need surgery to heal. It’s more cutting with a knife. But it’s a different kind of cutting — one is the problem and one is the solution.”
People who think this way don’t seem to understand or care that the government has the power to give or to take away opportunities and set up barriers based on race. Those days are supposed to be over. As long as the government isn’t using this power to penalize blacks, however, the mainstream approves. But “reverse” discrimination is just as odious as “forward” discrimination.
As the article notes, federal courts tend to side with preferences opponents these days. For example, the highest court in the land ruled against the city of New Haven after it tossed a promotions test because too few minorities scored high enough to qualify for promotions.
I hope the court cancels the consent decree. If that happens, you can bet your life savings someone will file suit claiming the employment exam is “discriminatory.” And the battle to bar the use of race in government hiring decisions continues.
Tuesday, August 10th, 2010,
by La Shawn Barber,
Filed under: General| |
Comments off
The American Civil Rights Institute’s Ward Connerly will speak at a luncheon in Arizona on Tuesday, August 31, 2010 at 11:30 a.m. at the Prescott Resort.
The Republican Women of Prescott invited Connerly to talk about racial neutrality in government and other topics. In November, Arizona voters will vote yes or no on Proposition 107, which would amend the state constitution to bar their government from discriminating against or granting preferences to individuals based on race in government employment, education, or contracting.
“We are thrilled to be having such a well-known author and patriot to be our guest speaker in August,” group president Kay Harlan said. “The public is always invited, and we hope many from our community will attend Mr. Connerly’s timely message on current race relations in the United States, especially since Arizona will be voting on Prop. 107 this November.”
Follow this link for more information and to RSVP.
Tuesday, August 10th, 2010,
by La Shawn Barber,
Filed under: AzCRI, Ward Connerly| |
Comments off
In 1996, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Hopwood v. Texas that using racial preferences in college admissions to achieve “diversity” was unconstitutional. Texas subsequently adopted the so-called Ten Percent Plan to increase diversity without explicit reference to race. Regardless of a high school’s academic standards, a Texas high school student who graduates in the top 10 percent of his class is guaranteed admission to any government college or university in the state.
Four years later, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal on whether Texas schools should be allowed to admit students based on skin color. However, the University of Texas (UT) stands accused of using race in admissions. In 2008, Abigail Fisher and Rachel Michalewicz challenged UT’s use of racial preferences. They lost in district court, and the 5th Circuit agreed to hear the case.
On Tuesday, a three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit heard arguments in Fisher v. University of Texas. At this writing, the court has not issued a ruling. Either party to the case may appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Last year, UT president William Powers discussed an unintended consequence of the Ten Percent Plan. He said if legislators didn’t alter the policy, UT would run out of room for students who are not admitted under the plan. (Source)
Thursday, August 5th, 2010,
by La Shawn Barber,
Filed under: Judiciary| |
1 Comment
Yesterday, a federal judge temporarily barred the New York City Fire Department (FDNY) from hiring rookie firefighters, because the department used what the court called an exam that discriminates against blacks and Hispanics.
Three years ago, the Department of Justice (DOJ) under George W. Bush filed suit against the FDNY for violating the Civil Rights Act. The FDNY requires all candidates seeking employment, regardless of race, to take an exam that assesses “reading comprehension, problem solving, spatial recognition and applying rules to general concepts.” Blacks disproportionately scored lower on the test than other candidates. Among other things, the DOJ said the department’s “SAT-like questions” didn’t measure an applicant’s firefighting ability.
Last summer, a federal judge ruled that the FDNY discriminated against blacks and Hispanics with an exam used in 1999 and 2002. Earlier this year, the same judge ruled that New York City intentionally discriminated against minorities by continuing to use the exam.
Thursday, August 5th, 2010,
by La Shawn Barber,
Filed under: Diversity| |
Comments off
The Pacific Legal Foundation’s Sharon Browne and the Center for Equal Opportunity’s Roger Clegg have created a model brief (31 pages PDF) for contractors and subcontractors who’ve been shut out of government contracts because of racial preferences.
Preferences proponents typically cite sentiment over the law to justify government discrimination. Black American’s ancestors were slaves, and blacks still living today were oppressed under Jim Crow. Until the “playing field” is level, they argue, the government should be allowed to consider race a hiring, contracting, and admissions qualification, as long as preferred minorities are not on the negative end of the discrimination.
The law is clear on the government’s use of race. It violates the Equal Protection Clause, which mandates that no state shall deny any person within its jurisdiction equal protection of the laws. It protects the rights of the individual, and racial classifications are group classifications. The question becomes, has the personal right to equal protection been infringed by the particular law? Race-based government action, therefore, receives the highest scrutiny by the judicial system. If the race-based measure is narrowly tailored to further a compelling government interest, it’s deemed constitutional.
Browne and Clegg outline the most important arguments against government racial preferences. An excerpt:
RACIAL CLASSIFICATIONS ARE PRESUMPTIVELY UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNDER THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE AND MUST BE SUBJECTED TO THE STRICTEST JUDICIAL SCRUTINY
[This section can be shortened based upon the knowledge and experience of the court.]
Decisions of the United States Supreme Court have made clear that distinctions between persons based solely upon their ancestry “are by their very nature odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality.” Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200, 214 (1995) (quoting Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U.S. 81, 100 (1943)). All racial classifications by government are “inherently suspect,” id. at 223, and “presumptively invalid.” Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630, 643-44 (1993). Accordingly, the core purpose of the Equal Protection Clause is to eliminate governmentally sanctioned racial distinctions. City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469, 495 (1989).
Where the government proposes to ensure participation of “some specified percentage of a particular group merely because of its race or ethnic origin, such a preferential purpose must be rejected . . . as facially invalid. Preferring members of any one group for no reason other than race or ethnic origin is discrimination for its own sake. This the Constitution forbids.” Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265, 307 (1978).
All governmental action based on explicit racial classifications are subject to strict scrutiny to ensure that the personal right to equal protection has not been infringed. Adarand, 515 U.S. at 227. Thus, before resorting to a race-conscious measure, the government must “identify [the] discrimination [to be remedied], public or private, with some specificity,” and must have a “strong basis in evidence” upon which “to conclude that remedial action [is] necessary.” Croson, 488 U.S. 8 at 500. And even where there is a compelling interest supported by a strong basis in evidence, the program must be narrowly tailored to further that interest. Id. at 506; Adarand, 515 U.S. at 238-39. Moreover, the Supreme Court does not single out hard quotas and set-asides for strict scrutiny. The Court refers generally to any racial classification, and any racially defined goal or target.
Thursday, August 5th, 2010,
by La Shawn Barber,
Filed under: Center for Equal Opportunity, Judiciary, Pacific Legal Foundation, Roger Clegg| |
Comments off
For almost three decades, the city of San Francisco set aside a certain percentage of government contracts for businesses owned by minorities and women, claiming preferences were necessary to remedy discrimination against these groups. After the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held the ordinance unconstitutional, the city eliminated the set-asides but retained bid discounts and other perks. Coral Construction sued the city on the grounds that the ordinance violated the state’s ban on race- and sex-based preferences.
Yesterday, the California Supreme Court agreed. In a 6-1 ruling, the court upheld the ban. (Download the 81-page opinion in PDF.)
Almost 14 years ago, over half the voters barred the government from discriminating against or granting preferences to individuals or groups based on race in employment, contracting, and education. Since then, opponents have tried to circumvent Proposition 209, and they will continue trying to circumvent Proposition 209.
Last month, a Sacramento Superior Court judge voided a law signed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger last year that directed state departments to award government contracts to the lowest responsible bidder subcontracting 15 percent of the work to minority-owned businesses and five percent to female-owned businesses.
In Coral Construction, the court rejected San Francisco’s argument that racial preferences are justified by past discrimination in contracting. And although Proposition 209 exempts state programs that are required to use preferences to remain eligible for federal funds, the court rejected the city’s argument that it qualified for an exemption. The court found that none of the federal regulations San Francisco relied on required the use of preferences.
“Today’s ruling, upholding Proposition 209, is a powerful victory for equal justice under law, and for the rights of all Californians, of every race and color,” Pacific Legal Foundation attorney Sharon Browne said. “As the court recognized, Proposition 209 is a civil rights measure that protects everyone, regardless of background. Under Proposition 209, no one can be victimized by unfair government policies that discriminate or grant preferences based on sex or skin color.”
The court remanded San Francisco’s claim that the U.S. Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause required the ordinance. If the city chooses to re-argue this issue, it will have to show that it “purposefully or intentionally” discriminated against minorities and women, that the ordinance was a remedy, that the ordinance was narrowly tailored, and that discriminating against people on the basis of race and sex is the only or most likely way to rectify the “injury.”
In other words, San Francisco must convincingly argue that purposefully and intentionally discriminating against non-minorities and men is necessary to rectify alleged discrimination against preferred minorities and women.
Good luck with that!
(Photo source: iStock)
Tuesday, August 3rd, 2010,
by La Shawn Barber,
Filed under: Judiciary, Pacific Legal Foundation| |
Comments off
The American Civil Rights Institute’s Ward Connerly was quoted in a story about the diversity of transfer students to the University of California at San Diego (UCSD). From San Diego Union-Tribune:
UCSD is set to receive a “record number” of transfer students mostly from community colleges, which will increase “diversity” on campus. The director of admissions said “we” don’t factor race into admissions decisions but “recognize that the community college population has a natural diversity…diverse by race, age, income…”
She’s correct on that note, and wouldn’t it be wonderful if diversity of many factors—age, income, geography—were as important to admissions committees as skin color? An excerpt:
“The 2010-11 transfer class will have 82 percent more African Americans that last year, 43 percent more Mexican Americans, 52 percent more Latinos and 75 percent more Native Americans…The number of underrepresented minorities is also up significantly in the freshman class, though not as dramatically as among transfers.”
Connerly, who believes UC should be focusing on community colleges, said “I would say it complies with 209 and I would say it is good educational policy.”
Monday, August 2nd, 2010,
by La Shawn Barber,
Filed under: Diversity, UC, Ward Connerly| |
1 Comment
« Next Entries | | Previous Entries »
