In this excellent letter to the trustees of Scripps College, National Association of Scholars president Peter Wood explains why the school was wrong to disinvite columnist George Will as the commencement speaker for its most recent graduation ceremony. Antics like this college’s are, alas, more and more common — making Wood’s letter all the more welcome. And speaking of Peter Wood and NAS: I’ve written frequently in the past about their efforts to expose and critique the noxious political correctness at, especially, Bowdoin College. In this work, they have a valuable ally in Center for Equal Opportunity board member Tom …
Nonexistent “Resegregation,” Phony Polls, and More
This month the Congressional Quarterly Researcher published this short piece I wrote for them on the (purported) “resegregation” of public schools in the United States: No child today attends a segregated public school. Not one. “Segregation” means telling children they cannot attend the same school as children of a different color. It does not mean a failure to have socially engineered racial balance. It is true that there are educational disparities across racial lines, but racial imbalances in classrooms have little if anything to do with this. Black children do not need a certain number of white children in a …
English for the Children, Again
In 1998, Californians passed by a 61-to-39 percent margin Proposition 227, Ron Unz’s “English for the Children” ballot initiative. This effectively replaced “bilingual education” with structured English-immersion programs, since the former — while popular with the multicultural Left — does not succeed nearly as well as the latter in accomplishing the single most important job of public schools in immigrant-rich schools, namely teaching non-English-speakers how to speak English. Unfortunately, and despite the great success of Proposition 227 in California, Governor Jerry Brown now has before him a bill that would put a repeal measure back on the ballot. In this op-ed last week …
Disparate Impact, Affirmative Action, and Other Nonsense
Last Tuesday, September 9, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C., there was a multipanel event on “Civil Rights in the United States” sponsored jointly by the Federalist Society, the Heritage Foundation, and the Cato Institute. Needless to say, these issues are always of interest and have particular salience these days in light of the ongoing drama in Ferguson. I was the opening speaker on the opening panel, which discussed “Disparate Impact and the Rule of Law: Does Disparate Impact Liability Make Everything Illegal?” You can listen to the panel discussion here (my opening remarks start at the 5:30 mark …
A Surprisingly Bad Proposal
Why would federal lawmakers want to encourage racial and ethnic discrimination? Unfortunately, Republican senators Tim Scott (S.C.), Deb Fischer (Neb.), Rob Portman (Ohio), Rand Paul (Ky.), and Marco Rubio (Fla.), as well as Senate Democrat Mark Pryor (Ark.), recently introduced a resolution that would do just that. S. Res. 511 “encourages corporate, academic, and social entities, regardless of size or field of operation” to adopt some version of the National Football League’s “Rooney Rule.” That rule, named after Daniel Rooney, the owner of the Pittsburgh Steelers, was implemented in 2003. It requires every NFL team with a coach or general-manager …
Enablers General and Other Thoughts on Ferguson
My handy online dictionary defines “enabler” as “a person who encourages or enables negative or self-destructive behavior in another.” Another online definition: “one who enables another to persist in self-destructive behavior … by providing excuses or by making it possible to avoid the consequences of such behavior.” And that’s a fair description of the role the Left is playing, or would like to play, with respect to crime and substance abuse in many African American communities, isn’t it? And this includes, alas, the Attorney General, as the Center for Equal Opportunity’s Linda Chavez discussed in her latest column. The …
Obama Administration Follies
Recently the Obama administration’s Department of Education published a notice in the Federal Register, soliciting applications for the award of a new program: “The objective of this program is to support a Center for the Study of Distance Education and Technological Advancements at an institution of higher education … to study and develop best practices in postsecondary education for online education and the use of technology-based teaching and learning tools.” Okay, but then the notice goes on to state that, if a school is more than 85 percent white, then it is not eligible. Period. As discussed here on an …
Fisher v. University of Texas – again!
About a year ago, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a court of appeals decision that had upheld the University of Texas’s use of racial and ethnic admissions preferences, ruling that the court of appeals had not been strict enough in its scrutiny of the school’s discrimination against the plaintiff, Abigail Fisher. Last week a divided court of appeals panel on remand has again upheld the university’s discriminatory admissions policy (here are the judges’ opinions). It’s likely that this case is now headed back to the Supreme Court. The good news is that the court of appeals ruled on the merits — …
Reefer, Rights, Rand
I have frequently seen it asserted recently that, even though African Americans don’t use drugs more frequently than whites and others, the war on drugs is locking them up at a wildly disproportionate rate. Now, of course one answer is that, even if use rates are the same, it doesn’t follow that the incarceration rates should be the same. People are typically locked up not for using but for dealing. And some kinds of dealing — for example, in open-air markets — are more likely to result in arrests than others. (And I have to note that most criminals are not drug criminals …
Time to Reverse Two Bad Supreme Court Decisions
Much was written last week about the 50th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act, signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson on July 2, 1964. But recently there was another important historical landmark, namely the 35th anniversary of an unfortunate milestone in that law’s interpretation: United Steelworkers v. Weber, decided on June 27, 1979, by the Supreme Court. In this week’s email, adopted from a column I published on National Review Online, I’ll explain why this case is noteworthy. In Weber the Court allowed “affirmative action” discrimination against a white employee, notwithstanding the clear language of the 1964 Act, …