Federal District Court Upholds University of Texas Equal Opportunity Admissions Policy
September 25, 2009 - Posted by Whitney Gusby
In a major victory for equal opportunity, a federal district court ruled in favor of the University of Texas at Austin's current admissions policy, in which race is only part of the consideration process for students' admission to the university.
The court's decision, issued by Judge Sam Sparks, lauds University of Texas' plan to "break down racial stereotypes, enable students to better understand persons of different races, better prepare students to function in a multi-cultural workforce, cultivate the next set of national leaders, and prevent minority students from serving as 'spokespersons' for their race."
The case, Fisher v. Texas, is the first to challenge the Supreme Court's 2003 decision in Grutter v. Bollinger, which upheld the use of race as one of many factors colleges and universities can use in admissions.
In recent years, Texas has been a hotbed for both advocates and opponents of equal opportunity admissions. From 1996-2003, consideration of race in the admissions process was deemed unconstitutional in Texas by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which resulted in a sharp decline of minority enrollment at Texas colleges and universities. University of Texas at Austin's current admissions policy was adopted following Grutter, and works in tandem with a state law guaranteeing admission to the state university school system for high school students ranking in the top 10 percent of their graduating class.
Link to this post
President Obama Nominates Jacqueline Berrien to Head EEOC
July 17, 2009 - Posted by Rachel Eggleston
 Yesterday, President Obama nominated Jacqueline Berrien, associate director-counsel for the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund (LDF), to chair the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 created the EEOC to combat employment discrimination. It investigates and prosecutes employment discrimination complaints based on a person's race, color, national origin, religion, gender, age, disability and as well as complaints of retaliation for reporting or opposing discriminatory practices and policies. It also coordinates all of the federal government's equal opportunity programs.
Berrien, a graduate of Harvard Law School, has served as LDF's associate director-counsel since 2004. She has also worked for the Ford Foundation's Peace and Social Justice Program, the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights, and the American Civil Liberties Union.
"Each of us deserves a fair chance to succeed in our workplace and make a contribution to this nation, and I'm confident that Jacqueline's passion and leadership will ensure that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is living up to that mission," said President Obama.
The Senate must confirm Berrien before she assumes the post.
Link to this post
Missouri Court Rejects Anti-Equal Opportunity Initiative
July 8, 2009 - Posted by Dayo Adiatu
A Missouri circuit court judge recently rejected a proposed ballot initiative, sponsored by Ward Connerly and his anti-equal opportunity supporters in the state, that would amend the state's constitution to outlaw the state's equal opportunity programs in higher education, employment, and contracting. Circuit Judge Richard Callahan rejected the initiative because of a technical error in the submission, but also said that the language of the initiative was unclear and misleading to voters.
In December 2008, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit charging that the anti-equal opportunity ballot initiative violates the Missouri Constitution by using vague language and seeking to trick and mislead the state's voters into supporting the initiative.
Read more >>
Link to this post
Arizona’s Equal Opportunity Programs under Threat
June 26, 2009 - Posted by Andrew Noakes
Arizona's equal opportunity programs are facing a renewed assault this week after the state legislature voted to place an anti-equal opportunity initiative onto the 2010 Arizona General Election ballot.
California businessman and millionaire Ward Connerly had attempted to qualify the initiative for the ballot in 2008. However, the so-called Arizona "Civil Rights" Initiative, Proposition 104, failed to get on the ballot after the Arizona's Secretary of State disqualified more than 40 percent of the petition signatures collected by Connerly's campaign. Connerly had faced numerous allegations of fraudulent activities and even profiteering around these initiatives in Arizona and other states. Under Arizona state law, an initiative must have 230,047 valid signatures from the public before it is placed on the ballot. Having failed to garner enough public support with valid petition signatures, Connerly and his supporters have chosen to go through the legislature, which is currently controlled by Republicans.
The vote on this anti-equal opportunity ballot initiative in 2010 could affect programs that many Arizonans consider essential for ensuring that all Arizonans have equal access to opportunities in education and employment. Speaking after the state Senate vote Monday, state Sen. Rebecca Rios, D. Apache Junction, noted that although some progress has been made in providing equal opportunity, there is still a great "need" for programs that are designed to level the playing field. Programs that could be affected include an Arizona State University initiative that helps Native Americans transition from life on the reservation to life at college and a counseling program for teen fathers in Phoenix.
Link to this post
Today in Civil Rights History: Bakke Decision Upholds Use of Race in Public University Admissions
June 23, 2009 - Posted by Alex Goldman
Today is the 31st anniversary of Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, a 1978 Supreme Court case that banned race-based quotas in college admissions while stating that these institutions have a "compelling state interest" in achieving diverse student bodies. The Court ruled that admissions boards can use race as one of many factors to achieve diversity.
The University of California-Davis School of Medicine had two admissions processes, one for standard applicants, and another for minority and economically disadvantaged students. After not being able to attain the desired minority and economically disadvantaged students it sought, UC Davis created the special admissions process in 1973. Each year, 16 of the 100 slots for medical school students were reserved for admits under the special program.
Read more >>
Link to this post
California Attorney General Says State's Ban on Equal Opportunity Is "Unconstitutional"
April 30, 2009 - Posted by Tyler Lewis
In a letter to the California Supreme Court, California Attorney General Jerry Brown said that implementation of the state's ban on equal opportunity to outlaw race- and gender-conscious programs and initiatives is unconstitutional because it creates "an unequal political structure based on race and gender."
"Ironically, by effectively disadvantaging racial minorities and women in the political process, without an evident compelling governmental reason for doing so, Section 31 seems to accomplish the very evil it purported to eliminate, viz. racial and gender discrimination," said Brown, in the letter.
Article 1, Section 31 is the section of the California Constitution added by Proposition 209, which was passed by the state's voters in 1996. It bans the consideration of race, gender, ethnicity, and national origin in "the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting." This includes hiring and the awarding of contracts by the California state government, by local governments, and by public schools, colleges, and universities. It also includes admissions at public colleges and universities.
The letter was filed after the court requested the state's opinion in Coral Construction v. City and County of San Francisco. The case, before the court now, was filed by white-owned construction companies claiming that a San Francisco ordinance designed to increase minority- and women-owned businesses' access to city contracts violates Section 31.
Brown's letter (PDF).
Link to this post
Case Alleging Discrimination against Whites in Employment Reaches Supreme Court
April 22, 2009 - Posted by Maggie Owner
Today, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Ricci v. DeStefano, a race discrimination lawsuit against the city of New Haven, Connecticut, by White and Latino firefighters who claim that the city's decision not to certify the results of a firefighter promotion test discriminated against them.
Two lower courts agreed that the city made the correct decision.
In 2003, the city administered a test to firefighters seeking promotion to the positions of lieutenant and captain. After the test, the city learned that only two out of 50 minority candidates would have been eligible for the promotion based on the exam results.
New Haven is a racially mixed city. About 44 percent of its residents are White, 37 percent are Black, and 21 percent are Latino.
As an employer under employment discrimination laws, the city was responsible for re-examining the process to ensure that it was fair. The city concluded the process was flawed and chose to abandon the discriminatory exam. It ultimately found less discriminatory alternatives that accomplished the same goal.
Victor Bolden, the city's acting corporation counsel, said, "I understand [the white firefighters] disappointment, but this test had an adverse impact [on minorities]. The city did the right thing. It made a measured response in a difficult circumstance."
A decision is expected later this year.
Link to this post
California School Districts Can Consider Racial Makeup of Neighborhoods in School Assignments
April 10, 2009 - Posted by Isha Mehmood
In a unanimous decision, a state appeals court ruled recently that a Berkeley Unified School District diversity plan that considers neighborhood racial composition for student placement does not violate Proposition 209.
Proposition 209, voted into law in 1996, is an amendment to the California constitution that bans the consideration of race, gender, ethnicity, and national origin in public hiring, contracting, and admissions to public colleges and universities.
The Berkeley policy considers the racial makeup of neighborhoods as one factor in determining which school in the district a student will attend. The school district also considers two other factors – average household income and average education level of adults in the neighborhood where the student lives.
The court said that the policy does not violate Proposition 209 because "all students in a given residential area are treated equally – regardless of the student's individual race or other personal characteristics."
The decision, though likely to be appealed to the California Supreme Court, is positive for supporters of equal opportunity and provides school districts with some flexibility in ensuring that their schools are diverse.
Link to this post
The State of Equal Opportunity
April 8, 2009 - Posted by Katie Kohn
Equal opportunity initiatives ensure equal access to educational and professional opportunities for qualified minorities, women, and members of other underrepresented communities. In the 2003 Supreme Court case Grutter v. Bollinger, the Court reaffirmed the importance of these policies and stated that race could be used as one of many factors in college admissions.
California, Washington, and Michigan passed ballot initiatives that banned equal opportunity initiatives in public hiring, contracting, and admissions to public colleges and universities.
The leading proponent of these anti-equal opportunity initiatives is Ward Connerly, a California businessman and former University of California regent. Following his success in those three states, Connerly tried to pass similar ballot initiatives in five states in 2008 – Arizona, Colorado, Missouri, Nebraska, and Oklahoma.
However, local and national supporters of equal opportunity were successful in exposing Connerly's deceptive practices and tactics, ensuring his initiatives only qualified for the ballots in Colorado and Nebraska.
In November 2008, voters in Colorado rejected Amendment 46 (49 percent - 51 percent), becoming the first state to vote down a Connerly anti-equal opportunity ballot initiative. However, Nebraska voters passed Initiative 424 (58 percent - 42 percent), making Nebraska the fourth state to ban equal opportunity.
Preceding the election, Nebraskans United, a coalition of civil rights and civic organizations and equal opportunity supporters, filed a lawsuit challenging the validity of many of the petition signatures submitted to qualify the initiative for the ballot. However, in January 2009, a Nebraska judge ruled against the coalition and upheld the state's ban on equal opportunity.
Link to this post
Texas Considers Bill to Cap College Admits under Top 10 Percent Plan
April 1, 2009 - Posted by Isha Mehmood
The Texas House of Representatives is considering a bill that would cap the number of students accepted into state universities under the state's "top 10 percent plan."
In 1997, the Texas legislature passed a law that requires Texas state universities to automatically admit Texas students who graduate in the top 10 percent of their high school class.
The current bill, which passed in the Senate last week, will still require state universities to admit students under the plan, but it will allow them to cap these admissions at 60 percent of the incoming freshman class.
Some college administrators support the bill because it will give them more flexibility in admissions. However, if passed, the bill will mostly affect the University of Texas-Austin, which estimates that almost 90 percent of its incoming freshmen class next year will be admitted under the plan.
Originally intended to address the decline in minority enrollment and create equal opportunity for students from both inner-city and rural schools, the "top 10 percent plan" was enacted after a federal appeals court decision in Hopwood v. Texas banned equal opportunity programs in Texas. However, the U.S. Supreme Court's 2003 decision in Grutter v. Bollinger, stated that race can be used as one of many factors in college admissions, invalidating Hopwood.
Link to this post
|
|
