Race Should Not Be a Factor I don’t usually spend time looking at opinion surveys. But a poll out the other day caught my attention on account of its main finding, which is that race should not play any factor in college admissions. This was the work of the Marquette Law Poll, a nationwide survey of voters sponsored by the Catholic University law school, and the arresting number is 77, as in the percent of voters who oppose Supreme Court decisions upholding the use of race as one factor in deciding which applicants get in. Preferences typically poll well—I mean …
Preferences in Washington Higher Education
Next month, voters in the state of Washington will decide whether to leave in place the ban there on discrimination and preferences in their state and local government contracting, employment, and education that they overwhelmingly endorsed in a similar ballot initiative in 1998. Just before that election, the Center for Equal Opportunity published a study that documented the extent to which such discrimination was found at the University of Washington and Washington State University. We have recently sent this study to some of our allies out there, noting that it is fair to point out to the voters this time …
Meaningful Numbers
How About 10 Percent? Reading the district court’s decision upholding Harvard College’s use of race in its admissions program, I was struck by Judge Allison Burroughs’ treatment of the term “critical mass.’’ It entered the affirmative action vocabulary in 1992, when the University of Michigan Law School adopted a new admissions policy that would use race to admit a more diverse student body. Barbara Grutter sought entry to the school but was turned down. She sued the law school, ultimately losing in the Supreme Court in 2003. That ruling, Grutter v. Bollinger, is the leading case on “consideration” of race …
Harvard Beats Asian Americans
For now, at least. A federal trial judge has ruled that, while race is considered by Harvard in determining who gets in and who doesn’t (“the use of race in and of itself is admitted”), and while the plaintiff group has standing in this case to challenge the resulting discrimination against Asian Americans (in line with an earlier ruling), nonetheless Harvard is not breaking the law. The outcome was not surprising, and the judge’s 130-page opinion is unlikely to change many minds or alter the expected trajectory of the case to the Supreme Court. The judge found, “Race is only …
William Bradford Reynolds, 1942-2019
Making the Case for Colorblind Law News came the other day that William Bradford Reynolds had passed away, from cancer. He was 77. It was in the summer of 1981 that President Reagan named Reynolds to run the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. He was a surprising choice. Reynolds was a stellar litigator but had little experience in civil rights law. In an interview years ago for a book I was writing on the Reagan presidency, Reynolds said he had been hoping to be appointed to head up the Civil Division. Prior to Reynolds’s appointment, William …
New Study Alert: Racial Preferences in Virginia Higher Education
The Regulatory Transparency Project, an initiative of the Federalist Society, will be hosting a panel to release the findings of a new study by the Center for Equal Opportunity: Racial Preferences in Virginia Higher Education. Media is invited to attend the event.When: Tuesday, September 10, 2019, 12:00 PM Where: The National Press Club, 13th Floor 529 14th St NW Washington, DC 20045 Panelists: Hans Von Spakovsky, Althea Nagai, Todd F. Gaziano Moderator: Linda Chavez RSVP: Erica Nurnberg, enurnberg@crcstrategies.com Related posts: Mt. Holly and “Disparate Impact” Eastman is wrong: the Constitution does guarantee birthright citizenship Google and Mismatch Hillary Clinton’s Voting-Rights Speech
Diversity at War on Campus
The Assault on American Excellence In 1978, when the Supreme Court upheld race-based admissions in the Bakke case, there was just one Justice who said that the attainment of a diverse student body was a compelling state interest. Today “diversity” is no longer so obscure. Indeed, it is “the most powerful word in higher education today,” says Anthony Kronman. Kronman is a Yale Law professor and former dean of the Yale Law school. His politics are liberal yet he has not been fooled by the diversity cult. The Assault on American Excellence is his new book, which he previewed in …
Achieving, or Not, Critical Mass
Inside Higher Education The Supreme Court’s leading race-based admissions case remains Grutter v. Bollinger, which was decided in 2003. In the course of upholding the use of race in the admissions policy at the Michigan Law School, the Supreme Court, with Justice O’Connor writing for a majority of five, decided that diversity can be a compelling interest the pursuit of which can justify the narrowly tailored use of race in selecting applicants. O’Connor said the policy has “the potential to enrich everyone’s education.” Which can be done by enrolling a “critical mass” of underrepresented minority students, thus ensuring their ability …
Keeping skin color and sex out of government contracting
Last month, the Center for Equal Opportunity weighed in with Nassau County in New York regarding the issue of preferences based on race, ethnicity, and sex in its contracting. Here’s what we said (and this is typical of what we have said to many state and local jurisdictions over the years): June 22, 2019 To: Laura Curran Nassau County Executive From: Roger Clegg General Counsel, Center for Equal Opportunity Re: Proposed disparity study For the legal and policy reasons stated in the attached redacted memorandum, which we sent to another jurisdiction, we urge that the County reconsider whether to …
Discrimination by Government: A History in Brief
Does the Constitution permit government officials to discriminate on the basis of race? Courts first reviewed the question more than 100 years ago, and it has been at the heart of the racial admissions cases. The answer is yes, but— meaning the Constitution allows discrimination by government but only on rare occasions. The courts have said that classifying by race—that is, sorting people by race—is “presumptively impermissible.” The courts have also made clear that racial classifications are subject to “strict scrutiny,” the most stringent standard of constitutional review. To satisfy strict scrutiny, a racial classification must be “narrowly tailored” to …










