CEO joins Pacific Legal Foundation to file Supreme Court amicus brief

Devon WesthillEducation

Dear friends and supporters, I am pleased to report to you that CEO joined a Supreme Court amicus brief filed yesterday by our friends at the Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF). The brief supports petitioners in the case of Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) v. University of North Carolina in their challenge to the university’s use of racial preferences in admissions. The brief builds on the arguments made in a separate brief submitted by PLF, and joined by CEO, in the racial preferences case of SFFA v. Harvard. Our hope is that the Supreme Court will agree to hear these cases together and ultimately, …

What’s the EEOC So Afraid Of?

Center for Equal OpportunityRacial Preferences

NCLA’s Executive Director and General Counsel, Mark Chenoweth, chats with Devon Westhill, President and General Counsel at Center for Equal Opportunity. Mr. Westhill was recently invited to testify before the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on the topic of “Civil Rights Implications of the COVID-19 Pandemic.” As the former Deputy Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights for the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, Mr. Westhill was eminently qualified to speak on the most important civil rights issue facing the EEOC: discrimination by employers on the basis of race or sex. Mr. Westhill sent a courtesy copy of …

Why Did California’s Prop 16 Fail? A County-by-County Assessment

Althea NagaiEducation

By a margin of 57% to 43%, California voters in 2020 rejected Proposition 16, which would have allowed the state and local governments to use race and gender as factors in public college admissions, government jobs, and state and local contracting. This essay, based on two research papers for the Center for Equal Opportunity, shows how widespread the rejection was. Background Back in 1996, voters passed Prop 209, which prohibited the use of race, ethnicity, and gender in government jobs, government contracts, and public higher education. Back then, whites were the majority, and Prop 209 won with 55% of the vote. The prohibition was …

Pervasive Preferences 2.0

Althea NagaiDocuments, Education

Years ago, Robert Lerner and I produced many studies of racial and ethnic preferences in public higher education for the Center for Equal Opportunity (CEO). In 2001, we summarized these individual statistical reports in “Pervasive Preferences.” This report, “Pervasive Preferences 2.0,” is a statistical compilation of the undergraduate and law school reports that I’ve done since Grutter v. Bollinger (2003). Part I covers preferences in undergraduate admissions. Part II summarizes the findings of preferences in law school admissions. Related posts: Good Briefs in the Harvard Case Politicized external review panels as unguided “diversity” missiles: California university administrators remain ultra-slow learners …

Campus Diversity and Student Discontent: The Costs of Race and Ethnic Preferences in College Admissions

Althea NagaiDocuments, Racial Preferences

Read now [PDF]: Campus Diversity and Student Discontent: The Costs of Race and Ethnic Preferences in College Admissions The Supreme Court has declared that campus diversity creates numerous education benefits and that race could be used as a factor in pursuit of diversity. As a result, many colleges and universities pass over white and Asian American applicants with better academic preparation, favoring blacks and (to a lesser extent) Hispanics. Research shows however that racial preference policies create a mismatch of academic qualifications between minorities receiving preferences and the rest of their entering class, and the academic disparities continue throughout college. Especially in the …

CEO Condemns Racial Preferences in Oregon Covid-19 Vaccine Access

Linda ChavezRacial Preferences

(Falls Church, VA) – The Center for Equal Opportunity denounces a recommendation by the vaccine advisory committee (committee) of the Oregon Health Authority (OHA) to allow some residents to skip others in line for the COVID-19 vaccine, based solely on the color of their skin. This preferential treatment based on race would be both unconstitutional and simply odious. On January 14th, the OHA committee recommended prioritizing COVID-19 vaccines for: “Historically underserved communities of color (especially Black/African American/African Immigrant, Hispanic/Latino/a/x and Pacific Islanders) and Indigenous, Tribal and urban based American Indian/Alaska Natives. In short, the people who experience the impacts of …

The Failure of Proposition 16: A Post-Election Analysis

Althea NagaiRacial Preferences

Many Biden Voters Voted No on Prop 16 California voters overwhelmingly voted for Joe Biden, 64% to 34%.1 But most voters also voted against Proposition 16, that sought to bring back the use of race, ethnicity, and gender in public university admissions, government hiring, and government contracting. Roughly 57% voted no on Prop 16; 43% voted yes.    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 Race, Ethnicity, and California Prop 16 Politicized external review panels as unguided “diversity” missiles: California …

Race, Ethnicity, and California Prop 16

CEO StaffRacial Preferences

California voters overwhelmingly voted for Joe Biden in the recent election, 64% to 34%. To the surprise of California’s elite, most also voted against Proposition 16, that would revise the state constitution and again allow the use of race and gender in university admissions, government hiring, and government contracting. Roughly 57% voted no on Prop 16, 43% voted yes. The following study is a statistical summary of county-level demographic data and a county’s support for Prop 16. It shows the following: • There was no correlation between proportion of Hispanics and votes for or against Prop 16 (p. 8). • Counties with greater percentages of …

CEO Condemns Appeals Court Ruling in Harvard Case

CEO StaffEducation

The Center for Equal Opportunity (CEO) today criticized the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruling upholding Harvard’s use of racial and ethnic preferences in its undergraduate admissions. CEO urges the Supreme Court to now take the case. CEO Chairman Linda Chavez noted, “Data from Harvard’s own internal analysis of its admissions criteria suggest that low-income Asian American applicants with higher grades and test scores may have been excluded in favor of wealthier blacks and Hispanics. Though this ruling was predictable from the oral argument, we are hopeful the Supreme Court will make the right decision and strike …

New CEO Report: If California Restores Race Discrimination: Implications for Higher Education

CEO StaffEducation

(Falls Church, VA) The Center for Equal Opportunity (CEO) today released a new report, If California Restores Race Discrimination: Implications for Higher Education, which demonstrates how race may once again dominate the college admissions process if voters adopt Proposition 16 on the ballot in California this November. Proposition 16 seeks to override a state constitutional ban on racial and ethnic preferences, adopted overwhelmingly by California voters in a 1996 ballot initiative. CEO’s report, available here, was written by research fellow Dr. Althea Nagai. The study concludes that when colleges use race as a factor in the admissions process, it is …