Category Archive

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 …

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 …

In his recently published memoir, Woody Allen writes:   I’ve taken some criticism over the years that I didn’t use African-Americans in my movies. And while affirmative action can be a fine solution in many instances, it does not work when it comes to casting. I always cast the person who fits the part most believably in my mind’s eye. He’s strictly meritocratic, in other words. As he has said elsewhere: “I cast only what’s right for the part. Race, friendship means nothing to me except who is right for the part.” In light of Mr. Allen’s insistence that, nonetheless, “affirmative …

The struggle against the Left on racial matters — in which I include politically correct race-based decisionmaking, identity politics, and related and supporting ideologies — is part legal and part cultural. The legal part is straightforward enough and is going tolerably well.  The Center for Equal Opportunity opposes the use of racial preferences, which are now legally constrained to a degree but still far too common in education, employment, and contracting; and it opposes the use of the “disparate impact” approach in the enforcement of our civil-rights laws, which is likewise constrained but not nearly enough.  I’m reasonably optimistic right now that we will continue to make progress — maybe …

A bill banning preferential treatment on the basis of race, ethnicity, and sex in public contracting, education, and employment — a.k.a. “affirmative action” — has advanced through the Idaho legislature’s relevant house committee. The heart of the bill is straightforward and should not (in a sane world) be controversial: “The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.” Whatever finally happens in Idaho, here’s hoping that state legislators in more states follow Idaho representative …

The Center for Equal Opportunity last week submitted a formal comment on a notice of proposed rulemaking by the Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP).  The matter involves “Nondiscrimination Obligations of Federal Contractors and Subcontractors: Procedures to Resolve Potential Employment Discrimination.” Set out below is our actual comment, which is quite brief.  It incorporates, however, the analysis from a law review article that I wrote and specific edits to the existing regulations.  Both the law review article and the edits are posted on our website, and you can click on the links to them.  As a …