All content tagged with: Affirmative Action

Filter

  • Negative Action Versus Affirmative Action: Asian Pacific Americans are Still Caught in the Crossfire

    The author concludes that Espenshade and Chung's inattention to the distinction between negative action and affirmative action effectively marginalizes APAs and contributes to a skewed and divisive public discourse about affirmative action, one in which APAs are falsely portrayed as conspicuous adversaries of diversity in higher education. The author will also argue that there is ample reason to be concerned about the harmful effects of divisive and empirically unsupported claims about APAs influencing the public debate over affirmative action, particularly in Michigan, where an anti-affirmative action initiative nearly identical to California's Proposition 209 will appear on the November 2006 ballot. For example, in commenting to the press about Espenshade and Chung's study, Roger Clegg of the Center for Equal Opportunity-a leading advocacy group working to dismantle affirmative Action- cast the issue in starkly (and falsely) divisive terms: "If eliminating race-based admissions results in more Asian students or fewer African American students being admitted to top schools, so be it"

  • The Diversity Rationale: Unprovable, Uncompelling

    Student body diversity-and the purported educational benefits diversity bestows- is the final Supreme Court-endorsed justification for affirmative action by public universities. Are the benefits of diversity indeed "substantial," as the Grutter majority claimed? The author analyzes the social scientific research upon which the Court relied in articulating the diversity interest. By critiquing its theory and methodology, the author shows how the research fails to prove educational benefits; and by considering the logic underlying social science generally, he shows how the causal relationship is, technically, not provable. The author questions, then, how the diversity interest can possibly be compelling.

  • Does a Diverse Judiciary Attain a Rule of Law That is Inclusive?: What Grutter V. Bollinger Has To Say About Diversity on the Bench

    This Article concludes that political dialogue engendered by controversial minority judicial nominations, like those of Miguel Estrada and Janice Rogers Brown, could be an avenue to educating the polity as to why it is important to achieve greater minority representation on the bench. The pluralistic process-based model of judging advocates that a critical mass of diverse judges be achieved, not that the minority judges be liberal rather than conservative, communitarian rather than individualist, or Democrat rather than Republican. The goal is that there be a critical mass of minority judges on benches that make decisions as a group, like circuit courts and supreme courts. This ideal is one towards which pluralist polities must strive.

  • Brief of Amici Curiae on Behalf of a Committee of Concerned Black Graduates of ABA Accredited Law Schools: Vicky L. Beasley, Devon W. Carbado, Tasha L. Cooper, Kimberlé Crenshaw, Luke Charles Harris, Shavar Jeffries, Sidney Majalya, Wanda R. Stansbury, Jory Steele, Et Al., In Support of Respondents

    In the Supreme Court of the United States. Barbara Grutter V. Lee Bollinger

  • Conscious Use of Race as a Voluntary Means to Educational Ends in Elementary and Secondary Education: A Legal Argument Derived From Recent Judicial Decisions

    This paper provides an in-depth examination of the ten recent court decisions concerning race-based student selection processes. As these cases will illustrate, school districts face increasing demands to justify any race-conscious selection process. The significance of meeting the demands and the implications for what appears to be an evolving legal theory is national in scope and broad in application. Some have even argued that some of these cases mark a departure away from the Court's thinking in Brown v. the Board of Education. It should also be noted that each of the cases mentioned above occurred in the context of some form of school choice, which heightens the significance of the research and the implications of its findings.

  • Direct Measures: An Alternative Form of Affirmative Action

    Part I of this essay sets out in detail the direct measures affirmative action program. This section also compares the program to other alternative affirmative action program experiments undertaken by various educational institutions. Parts II and III discuss the constitutionality of a direct measures program.

  • Racial Profiling: “Driving While Mexican” and Affirmative Action

    This Essay will focus on "racial profiling" not just in the way many people think about the term-that is, with respect to stopping motorists for traffic violations based solely on their race, so-called "Driving While Mexican" or "Driving While Black"-but also in the context of "affirmative action"-namely, using race as a factor in employment and educational decisions. More broadly, then, the author wants us to think of "racial profiling" as simply "the use of race to develop an understanding of an individual," which moves us slightly away from more pejorative notions of the phrase that have seeped into the national consciousness.

  • Introduction

    The last Supreme Court decision addressing the use of race in admissions to institutions of higher education, Bakke v. Regents of the University of California, affirmed that the role of diversity in colleges and universities is both essential and compelling. Since Bakke, opponents and proponents have wrestled with ideology and theory, but have never had the benefit of a comprehensive theoretical framework that has been tested by reliable empirical data. The University of Michigan has drawn on several of the nation's leading, and most respected, researchers and scholars, to develop such a framework and verify its legitimacy with empirical proof. The evidence submitted by these leaders in the fields of history, sociology, education, economics, psychology, and law, confirms Bakke's holding and establishes the continuing imperative for diversity-including racial and ethnic diversity-in higher education.

  • Foxes Guarding the Chicken Coop: Intervention as of Right and the Defense of Civil Rights Remedies

    This article focuses on the recent spate of cases in which educational institutions on the grounds that their race-conscious admissions policies are unconstitutional. The author analyzes the role of minority students and organizations who are the beneficiaries of those polices at the defendant institutions and their recent attempts to intervene in the lawsuits pursuant to Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. First, the author argues that under the traditional interpretation of Rule 24(a); intervention of right should be granted to minority students and organizations in the great majority of instances. Second, the author looks at the reasons that courts have denied intervention, analyzing both the rights and interests of the beneficiaries and the presumption that government parties provide adequate representation. Third, the author examines the conflicts between the interests and goals of defendant institutions and beneficiaries, noting the consequences of denying intervention. The author concludes by arguing that where the affirmative action admissions policies of educational institutions are challenged, district courts should embrace a practical presumption in favor of intervention for minority students and organizations

  • The Compelling Need for Diversity in Higher Education

    The University of Michigan has brought together a team of leading scholars to serve as its experts in these cases to establish the basis for the University's argument that there is a compelling need for diversity in higher education. Their research is evidence that the use of race in higher education admissions is not only constitutional, but of vital importance to education and to our society.