There is no place for preferences, quotas, or other discrimination based on immutable characteristics in recruitment, selection, discipline, or student body representation in K-12 or institutions of higher education. The reasons why there is not proportional representation to the population in any given instance are complex and many.
Watch the latest video at <a href=”https://www.foxnews.com”>foxnews.com</a> Related posts: Opening Statement of Devon Westhill House Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties WATCH: Devon Westhill Speaks at Federalist Society Supreme Court Preview Devon Westhill Explains Why Affirmative Action Is BAD For Black People FILED: Two Briefs in Supreme Court Affirmative Action Cases
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Rudy Gersten (202)886-2000Friday, June 29, 2023 Center for Equal Opportunity Applauds SCOTUS ruling on Affirmative Action (Washington, D.C) Today, the Supreme Court of the United States struck down college admissions programs that gave preference to black and Hispanic students at Harvard and the University of North Carolina. In Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina, the Court held that preferential treatment based on race in college admissions violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Center for …
This column appeared originally at philanthropyroundtable.org Nearly every selective college in the country discriminates on the basis of race in admitting students because the U.S. Supreme Court has allowed it for decades. This month, the Court is expected to revoke that permission slip when it issues opinions in two cases brought by Students for Fair Admissions that challenge affirmative action at Harvard and the University of North Carolina. The good news is there are many other, better ways to support the disadvantaged than using race-based preferences. If the Court’s decision prohibits race-explicit affirmative action, some expect organizations to evade the …
On Tuesday, March 28, at 2:00 pm ET, CEO President Devon Westhill will take part in the National Association of Scholars webinar “Anti-Asian Discrimination in College Admissions.” From the NAS press release: “Every ‘plus’ on one student’s college application translates to a ‘minus’ on another student’s application. In the process of boosting the applications of so-called ‘underrepresented minorities,’ admissions offices routinely penalize Asian-American applicants, dismissing their diligence and hard work as a ‘lack of personality.’ How did the widespread discrimination against Asian-American students arise in American higher education? Why has the plight of these minority students been so disregarded by …
On October 31, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College. In perhaps the most anticipated case of this term, the court considers a challenge to the use of racially preferential undergraduate student admissions practices at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina. Experts broke down the oral argument on the same day, October 31, 2022. Featuring: Prof. Amanda Shanor, Assistant Professor of Legal Studies & Business Ethics, The Wharton School Devon Westhill, President and General Counsel, Center for Equal Opportunity Moderator: Curt Levey, President, Committee for Justice …
Related posts: Harvard Investigates Harvard Good Briefs in the Harvard Case Investigating Discrimination at Harvard Americans Don’t Like Racial Preferences
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASEContact: Devon Westhill(904) 683-6060 (Washington, D.C) This morning, the Supreme Court of the United States will hear from the lawyers arguing on both sides of the race preferences cases SFFA v. Harvard and SFFA v. UNC. The Center for Equal Opportunity (CEO) and our staff helped write and then joined six amicus briefs in these cases urging the Supreme Court to take the cases and to overturn Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) which permitted the use of race in college admissions for the supposedly compelling benefits of campus racial diversity. Our briefs argued that race preferences are unconstitutional and …
Dear friends, I am pleased to report to you that CEO has once again assisted in crafting and joined a Supreme Court amicus brief filed by our friends at the Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF). As a former civil rights government official, I also joined a brief filed by the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ). The briefs can be viewed by following the links provided in the “Merits-Stage Amicus Briefs” section below. Both briefs support petitioners in the case of Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) v. Harvard/University of North Carolina in their challenge to the schools’ use of racial preferences in …
Related posts: Linda Chavez moderates panel on Critical Race Theory Here’s Linda Chavez on The O’Reilly Factor Litigation Update: Investigating Title VI and Title IX Complaints Preferences in Maryland Higher Education: Racial and Ethnic Preferences in Undergraduate Admissions at Maryland Four-Year Public Colleges and Universities
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:Contact: Rudy GerstenWednesday April 6, 2022(703) 442-0066 (Falls Church, VA) Today, the Center for Equal Opportunity (CEO) released a new report on attitudes towards racial preferences in college admissions. Since the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision in University of California Regents v. Bakke (1978), the use of race as a factor in college admissions has roiled public opinion. Dr. Althea Nagai, Senior Research Fellow at CEO, examines data from a recent Pew Research Center survey on racial and ethnic issues that shows considerable discomfort with using race to determine who should be admitted to college. Overwhelmingly, Americans of …
