In addition to the Center for Equal Opportunity’s speaking on campuses and other venues, media outreach, and general research and writing (in National Review Online, Commentary Magazine, The New York Times, and other magazines, newspapers, and publications), here are just a few highlights of CEO’s work this past year. An overarching point: Last year, we hired former Reagan administration official, author, and prominent affirmative action critic, Terry Eastland, as our new senior fellow. He has been working on a variety of anti-preference projects, joining forces with CEO research fellow Althea Nagai, who published an important article on microaggressions and critical article on “unconscious bias” in the past year, as well two recent studies on discrimination against Asian Americans at Harvard (discussed below).
Trump Administration – CEO is in constant contact with the Trump administration to help steer them in the right direction on racial preferences and disparate impact—including both formal comments and informal discussions. For instance, our president and general counsel Roger Clegg recently met with Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos on school discipline. We have worked with the administration to make executive branch appointments and fashion policies consistent with colorblind law. We feel we have had success in both areas so far (we were prominently quoted in top media stories on the Trump administration’s withdrawal of Obama administration guidance on racially preferential education policies), but more remains to be done. One example: As discussed later, CEO plays an important role on a Regulatory Transparency Project committee that has recommended withdrawal of Obama administration “Dear Colleague” letters regarding transgender students and Title IX (done), campus sexual assault (done), and applying the disparate-impact approach to school discipline (pending).
Empirical Studies – CEO has published three studies over the past year and is working on a number of others. The first debunked the “Implicit Association Test” that purportedly demonstrates “unconscious bias”; the second documented strong evidence that Harvard and MIT (but not Caltech) have set a ceiling on the number of Asian American students each school is willing to admit; and the third analyzes data in an internal study by Harvard itself, showing that it demonstrates severe admissions discrimination against Asian American applicants. The latter two studies were cited in an amicus brief we helped draft and joined in the Harvard case, discussed below. Our ongoing studies focus on more issues involving racial preferences in higher education, and we are developing proposals in other areas, too.
Court Cases – In just the past six months, we worked to draft and file briefs regarding felon reenfranchisement in Florida, constitutional problems with the federalization of “hate crime” prosecutions, and the Harvard case challenging admissions discrimination against Asian Americans. We actively monitor all levels of the federal judiciary for amicus opportunities, advise conservative litigating organizations, and join and help write briefs, especially at the appellate and Supreme Court level. Relatedly, we have supported the Trump administration’s efforts to identify, nominate, and get confirmed good judges and justices (most recently, Justice Kavanaugh).
Federal Register – We review this and file formal comments on proposed rules and regulations. We have succeeded in removing racially preferential language in a wide variety of programs, and have been most active this past year regarding disparate-impact issues (e.g., urging that the current administration revise Obama administration regulations under the Fair Housing Act).
Lawmaking (With and Without Congress)– Consistent with our nonprofit status, we continue to play a key role in identifying and publicizing objectionable legislation (in particular, post–Shelby County voting bills). We recently and successfully opposed a proposal (carried over from the Obama administration) to expand the federal government’s use of racial classifications in its programs. We have been extremely active this year in explaining to the public why the automatic re-enfranchisement of felons is a bad idea, and why racial disparities do not prove racial discrimination in areas like law enforcement and school discipline.
Contracting – We have sent memoranda to a wide variety of local governments—and been in touch with local officials—warning them not to use racial preferences; just as we have been involved as amici in litigation, we are advising other actual and potential litigants; and we are working with Hill staff to commission a GAO study on the (legally dubious) use of such preferences. Perhaps most importantly, we have recently advised key executive-branch departments on this issue.
Coordination and Clearinghouse – Finally, the Center for Equal Opportunity plays an important role in disseminating information on our issues to other conservative groups (for that matter, we also serve as an “early warning system” for conservatives on nonracial civil-rights issues as well, like sexual-assault and free-speech issues on campus and sexual identity/bathroom access). For instance, it began and continues to co-host (with the Heritage Foundation) a monthly Civil Rights Working Group lunch attended by like-minded organizations, congressional staff, and other government officials. Mr. Clegg draws up the meeting’s agenda and leads the discussion. He also leads the discussion of equal protection issues at the Heritage Foundation’s semiannual Legal Strategy Forum, and advises individuals and organizations that have run afoul of politically correct (and racially discriminatory) policies. Equally valuable is Mr. Clegg’s work over the years on the Executive Committee of the Federalist Society’s civil rights practice group; both he and Ms. Chavez speak frequently to Federalist Society student and lawyer chapters. Ms. Chavez is chairing the working group on “Race and Sex” in the Federalist Society’s new Regulatory Transparency Project; Mr. Clegg is also on the working group.
