Education

Here’s an interesting case: A medical school has been sued for racial discrimination because an admissions officer there advised a (white) applicant that her chances of admission would be better if she took a DNA test and could point to some African American or Native American blood. Now, surely, this has to be filed in the category of “appalling but not surprising.” That is, under the lamentable current state of the law, schools can weigh race and ethnicity in admissions, and this helps you if you belong to some groups and hurts you if you belong to other groups, so …

Earlier this month, the trial ended in the lawsuit brought against Harvard University, challenging the school’s racially preferential admission system as illegally discriminating against Asian Americans.  The Center for Equal Opportunity has followed the matter closely, issuing two studies documenting Harvard’s discrimination that you can read here and here, and helping to write and joining an amicus brief in the case that you can read here.  And earlier this month, John S. Rosenberg — who edits the blogsite www.discriminations.us — and I wrote the piece below that appeared (slightly revised) in The Weekly Standard. The 20 Arguments for Discriminating Against …

In case you’re coming late to the story: a lawsuit has been filed against Harvard College alleging racial discrimination against Asian American applicants in its admissions programs. The headline above invites the question of whether the case might spell the end of race preferences in admissions. After all, at some point, as Justice Sandra Day O’Connor pointed out, race-based preferences must have “a termination point.” They can’t go on forever. They are morally and legally discriminatory, and they make no sense in our multi-racial, multi-culture country. Maybe Harvard will settle before the trial in October and quit its racial admissions, …

I wrote this piece last month (for The Weekly Standard) on the case in which a student group is charging that Harvard College in its admissions program racially discriminates against Asian American applicants. The case could prove a turning point in the more than half-century-old debate over the use of race in admissions. The arguments in favor of using race have become weaker and weaker, as this article shows. The trial is scheduled for October 15. Visit us here at the Center for Equal Opportunity for our continuing treatment of the issues at stake. The judge in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard …

It’s against Asian American applicants Last week’s news brought the story that New York City mayor Bill de Blasio wants to scrap admissions policies for three public high schools in the city that are among the best in the country. Apparently, too many Asian Americans get in while too few blacks and Latinos do. De Blasio speaks favorably about new policies based on “new definitions of merit.” Let’s hope that the mayor recovers his wits before he imposes a cap or ceiling on the number of Asian Americans the schools accept. Our research fellow Althea Nagai discusses below in a …

How many minority students = a critical mass? That’s a good exam question, but not one that advocates of race preferences in admissions have been able to answer, as I explained below in this article for The Weekly Standard. In 2003 Justice O’Connor said that schools may seek to enroll a “critical mass” of minority students. But she didn’t say what that term required, nor has any other Justice since then. Justice Scalia, ever the great wordsmith, used a dissenting opinion to refer to critical mass as “the mystical critical mass” and “the fabled critical mass.” Good adjectives for a …

Is the end in sight for race-conscious college admissions? I wrote this piece three years ago for The Weekly Standard. It was basically a “backgrounder” on what were then new challenges to admissions preferences–one brought against Harvard and the other against the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. There has been some “discovery” in the cases, and seven months ago the Justice Department confirmed that it is considering whether it might enter the Harvard case. We hope that the department decides to get involved—and that it will argue for non-discrimination in admissions. In Grutter v. Bollinger, decided in 2003, Justice Sandra Day …

Over the summer, it was reported that the U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division was taking steps to investigate Harvard University’s use of racial preferences in admissions, especially insofar as they discriminate against Asian-American applicants. You may recall that the Center for Equal Opportunity was mentioned prominently as encouraging the investigation (see the statement we issued here) when the story was first reported in the New York Times.  Well, news stories are now confirming that this investigation is, indeed, under way. Good. As I explain here, such an investigation is entirely appropriate. What’s more, such discrimination should be stopped …

Last week, the Los Angeles Times ran an op-ed complaining that the word “diversity” is a euphemism, since its proponents really want nothing more than nondiscrimination.  My published rejoinder to this dubious claim: I wish it were true that those asking for “diversity” were asking only for nondiscrimination, as Noah Berlatsky writes. But in many contexts the opposite is true: The last thing they want is nondiscrimination, and what they are asking for is precisely discrimination, albeit of the politically correct sort. (“‘Diversity’ is a euphemism. We should be careful how we use it,” Opinion, July 10) Thus, when universities …