The Supreme Court may have an opportunity to do some good soon in the fight against preferential treatment based on race and ethnicity. That’s because last Friday the petition for rehearing en banc (that is, asking the full court of appeals to rehear the case after a panel decision) was denied in Fisher v. University of Texas. Related posts: TESTIMONY OF ROGER CLEGG, PRESIDENT AND GENERAL COUNSEL, CENTER FOR EQUAL OPPORTUNITY BEFORE THE U.S. COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS REGARDING THE PROPOSED EMPLOYMENT NON-DISCRIMINATION ACT Obama Issues Executive Order on Diversity Here’s Linda Chavez on The O’Reilly Factor Update on the …
New and Un-Improved Justification for Affirmative Action
The Chronicle of Higher Education recently had a piece by Professor Elizabeth Anderson titled “Affirmative Action Is about Helping All of Us,” in which she laments “the same tired arguments on the left” that are being used to defend affirmative action in higher education, and then proposes her own new and (supposedly) improved theory to be used in defending such discrimination from those attacks by “the right that reflect ignorance of the realities of race in America.” Related posts: Why Racial Preferences Remain Wrongheaded Update on the Struggle against Universities’ Affirmative Discrimination TESTIMONY OF ROGER CLEGG, PRESIDENT AND GENERAL COUNSEL, CENTER …
A Bad Bill for Hawaii — and All Americans
Recently the Center for Equal Opportunity learned that there will be a push during the lame-duck session of Congress to pass the so-called Akaka bill, named for U.S. Senator Daniel Akaka of Hawaii. The bill would allow Native Hawaiians to become recognized as an Indian tribe. The reason for this counter-historical exercise is to make it easier to defend racially preferential programs for this particular ethnic group, since Indian tribes are not considered to be racial or ethnic classifications. This brings to mind one of President Lincoln’s favorite jokes: If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does …
Five Mistakes Some Conservatives Are Making on Immigration Policy
The purpose of this essay is to suggest that there are five mistakes some conservatives are currently making on immigration policy. The first is a sin of omission: Some are so concerned about levels of immigration—and, in particular, the problem of illegal immigration—that they are neglecting the more important task of ensuring immigrant assimilation. There are also three discrete constitutional issues (each with policy implications) on which some conservatives have lined up on the wrong side: opposing birthright citizenship, supporting racial profiling, and supporting state enforcement policies that are at odds with federal enforcement policies. Finally, and in some ways …
Title VI Can’t Be Used to Ban “Disparate Impact”
Title VI Can’t Be Used to Ban “Disparate Impact” Related posts: The Center for Equal Opportunity on “Disparate Impact” at Cato Disparate Impact Delenda Est “Disparate Impact” at Harvard Law School Disparate Impact Insanity