Center for Equal Opportunity http://www.ceousa.org/ 2017-12-17T19:26:38-05:00 Joomla! - Open Source Content Management CEO Praises Justice Department’s Announcement 2017-08-02T15:27:11-04:00 2017-08-02T15:27:11-04:00 http://www.ceousa.org/about-ceo/press-center/1127-ceo-praises-justice-department-s-announcement CEO Staff hrothmann@hotmail.com <div class="feed-description"><p><img src="images/Harkness_1.jpg" border="0" hspace="10" vspace="10" width="350&quot;" align="left" />FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Tuesday, August 2, 2017</p> <p>CONTACT:    Roger Clegg (703) 442-0066</p> <p><span style="font-size: 22px;"><strong>CEO Praises Justice Department’s Announcement  </strong></span></p> <p><strong><span style="font-size: 14.0pt;">Affirmative action in college admissions should be examined</span></strong></p> <p>(Falls Church, VA) The Center for Equal Opportunity praises yesterday’s announcement on affirmative action in college admissions by the Justice Department. It is a welcome and overdue development that the administration will be taking a hard look at schools that insist on weighing skin color and national origin in deciding who gets admitted. Such discrimination is lamentable, although, unfortunately, the Supreme Court has not shut the door on it. However, the Court has made clear that the exception it has carved out for legal racial discrimination is a very narrow one. </p> <p>Unfortunately, the evidence is that many schools use racial preferences sloppily and don’t follow the constraints the Court has set out. By using race and ethnicity rather than actual social and economic disadvantage, racial preferences harm many low-income Asians as well as whites. But it also places many black and Hispanic beneficiaries at a disadvantage, too. Students admitted with lower test scores and GPAs often struggle at institutions where their preparation isn't sufficient, resulting in higher drop-out rates, lower college GPAs, and failure to graduate in a timely manner, increasing their debt. These same students might well have succeeded at schools where their grades and test scores were the same as those admitted without regard to race or ethnicity.</p> <p>We welcome the scrutiny of the Justice Department and the Education Department as appropriate and necessary to root out all forms of discrimination and move toward a truly colorblind society.</p> <p>The Center for Equal Opportunity is a nonprofit, nonpartisan research and educational organization that studies issues relating to race and ethnicity nationwide.</p> <p> </p> <p style="text-align: center;" align="center"><span style="color: black;">--30--</span></p></div> <div class="feed-description"><p><img src="images/Harkness_1.jpg" border="0" hspace="10" vspace="10" width="350&quot;" align="left" />FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Tuesday, August 2, 2017</p> <p>CONTACT:    Roger Clegg (703) 442-0066</p> <p><span style="font-size: 22px;"><strong>CEO Praises Justice Department’s Announcement  </strong></span></p> <p><strong><span style="font-size: 14.0pt;">Affirmative action in college admissions should be examined</span></strong></p> <p>(Falls Church, VA) The Center for Equal Opportunity praises yesterday’s announcement on affirmative action in college admissions by the Justice Department. It is a welcome and overdue development that the administration will be taking a hard look at schools that insist on weighing skin color and national origin in deciding who gets admitted. Such discrimination is lamentable, although, unfortunately, the Supreme Court has not shut the door on it. However, the Court has made clear that the exception it has carved out for legal racial discrimination is a very narrow one. </p> <p>Unfortunately, the evidence is that many schools use racial preferences sloppily and don’t follow the constraints the Court has set out. By using race and ethnicity rather than actual social and economic disadvantage, racial preferences harm many low-income Asians as well as whites. But it also places many black and Hispanic beneficiaries at a disadvantage, too. Students admitted with lower test scores and GPAs often struggle at institutions where their preparation isn't sufficient, resulting in higher drop-out rates, lower college GPAs, and failure to graduate in a timely manner, increasing their debt. These same students might well have succeeded at schools where their grades and test scores were the same as those admitted without regard to race or ethnicity.</p> <p>We welcome the scrutiny of the Justice Department and the Education Department as appropriate and necessary to root out all forms of discrimination and move toward a truly colorblind society.</p> <p>The Center for Equal Opportunity is a nonprofit, nonpartisan research and educational organization that studies issues relating to race and ethnicity nationwide.</p> <p> </p> <p style="text-align: center;" align="center"><span style="color: black;">--30--</span></p></div> Center for Equal Opportunity Applauds SCOTUS’s Affirmative Action Decision 2014-04-22T13:11:30-04:00 2014-04-22T13:11:30-04:00 http://www.ceousa.org/about-ceo/press-center/790-center-for-equal-opportunity-applauds-scotus-s-affirmative-action-decision CEO Staff test3@test.com <div class="feed-description"><p><img src="images/supreme_court.jpg" border="0" width="250" height="250" style="border: 0; float: left; margin: 10px;" /></p> <p>Calls on Federal, State, and Local Governments to Enact Similar Bans on Preferences</p> <p>4/22/14- (Falls Church, VA) The Supreme Court today upheld the right of states and local governments to ban preferential treatment on the basis of race, ethnicity, and sex. </p> </div> <div class="feed-description"><p><img src="images/supreme_court.jpg" border="0" width="250" height="250" style="border: 0; float: left; margin: 10px;" /></p> <p>Calls on Federal, State, and Local Governments to Enact Similar Bans on Preferences</p> <p>4/22/14- (Falls Church, VA) The Supreme Court today upheld the right of states and local governments to ban preferential treatment on the basis of race, ethnicity, and sex. </p> </div> CEO Praises Supreme Court’s Fisher Decision: Calls for End to Racial Admissions Preferences 2013-06-25T15:26:28-04:00 2013-06-25T15:26:28-04:00 http://www.ceousa.org/about-ceo/press-center/707-ceo-praises-supreme-courts-fisher-decision-calls-for-end-to-racial-admissions-preferences CEO Staff test3@test.com <div class="feed-description"><p><img src="images/supreme_court.jpg" border="0" width="325" height="275" align="left" style="float: left; border: 0; margin: 5px;" />(Falls Church, VA) The Center for Equal Opportunity praised the Supreme Court’s decision today in <em>Fisher v. University of Texas</em>, overturning the court appeals ruling that had upheld the University of Texas’s use of racial preferences in university admissions.  CEO had joined Pacific Legal Foundation in a series of amicus briefs in this litigation -- first in the U.S. Court of Appeals, then urging the Supreme Court to take the case, and then urging the Court to end racial preferences.  Before that, it had also filed an administrative complaint against the University’s policy.<img border="0" /></p> </div> <div class="feed-description"><p><img src="images/supreme_court.jpg" border="0" width="325" height="275" align="left" style="float: left; border: 0; margin: 5px;" />(Falls Church, VA) The Center for Equal Opportunity praised the Supreme Court’s decision today in <em>Fisher v. University of Texas</em>, overturning the court appeals ruling that had upheld the University of Texas’s use of racial preferences in university admissions.  CEO had joined Pacific Legal Foundation in a series of amicus briefs in this litigation -- first in the U.S. Court of Appeals, then urging the Supreme Court to take the case, and then urging the Court to end racial preferences.  Before that, it had also filed an administrative complaint against the University’s policy.<img border="0" /></p> </div> CEO Praises SCOTUS’s Shelby County Decision 2013-06-25T15:26:28-04:00 2013-06-25T15:26:28-04:00 http://www.ceousa.org/about-ceo/press-center/708-ceo-praises-supreme-courts-shelby-decision CEO Staff test3@test.com <div class="feed-description"><p><img src="images/supreme_court.jpg" border="0" width="325" height="275" align="left" style="float: left; border: 0; margin: 5px;" /></p> <p>(Falls Church, VA) The Center for Equal Opportunity praised the Supreme Court’s decision today striking down as unconstitutional the coverage formula of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.  CEO had filed amicus briefs at both the petition stage and on the merits, urging this result.  In addition, CEO chairman Linda Chavez and its president and general counsel Roger Clegg had testified against re-enacting Section 5 when it was before Congress in 2006.</p> </div> <div class="feed-description"><p><img src="images/supreme_court.jpg" border="0" width="325" height="275" align="left" style="float: left; border: 0; margin: 5px;" /></p> <p>(Falls Church, VA) The Center for Equal Opportunity praised the Supreme Court’s decision today striking down as unconstitutional the coverage formula of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.  CEO had filed amicus briefs at both the petition stage and on the merits, urging this result.  In addition, CEO chairman Linda Chavez and its president and general counsel Roger Clegg had testified against re-enacting Section 5 when it was before Congress in 2006.</p> </div> CEO chairman Linda Chavez discusses Donald Trump and Birthright Citizenship 2015-08-26T07:35:11-04:00 2015-08-26T07:35:11-04:00 http://www.ceousa.org/immigration-assimiliation/930-ceo-chairman-linda-chavez-discusses-donald-trump-and-birthright-citizenship CEO Staff test3@test.com <div class="feed-description"><p><img src="images/2015-08-21_7-02-12.fw.png" border="0" alt="" vspace="5" align="left" />On August 19th, CEO Chairman <a href="http://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/trump-plans-to-end-birthright-citizenship-509056579686">Linda Chavez appeared on "All in with Chris Hayes" on MSNBC</a> to discuss birthright citizenship. Duration: 11:46</p> <p>http://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/trump-plans-to-end-birthright-citizenship-509056579686</p></div> <div class="feed-description"><p><img src="images/2015-08-21_7-02-12.fw.png" border="0" alt="" vspace="5" align="left" />On August 19th, CEO Chairman <a href="http://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/trump-plans-to-end-birthright-citizenship-509056579686">Linda Chavez appeared on "All in with Chris Hayes" on MSNBC</a> to discuss birthright citizenship. Duration: 11:46</p> <p>http://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/trump-plans-to-end-birthright-citizenship-509056579686</p></div> New Deportation Rules a Cynical Move 2011-11-17T19:05:20-05:00 2011-11-17T19:05:20-05:00 http://www.ceousa.org/immigration-assimiliation/immigration-assimiliation/immigration/474-new-deportation-rules-a-cynical-move Linda Chavez test1@test.com <div class="feed-description"><p><img src="images/headshot1.png" border="0" alt="" hspace="5" vspace="5" align="left" />The Obama administration this week announced new rules governing the deportation of illegal aliens. The administration's new policy, which has been in the development stage since the summer, aims to speed the deportation of convicted criminals and halt those of many illegal immigrants without criminal records.<br /> <br /> The timing is purely political; attempting to again make illegal immigration a major factor in the upcoming presidential campaign will ultimately help Democrats, not Republicans.</p> </div> <div class="feed-description"><p><img src="images/headshot1.png" border="0" alt="" hspace="5" vspace="5" align="left" />The Obama administration this week announced new rules governing the deportation of illegal aliens. The administration's new policy, which has been in the development stage since the summer, aims to speed the deportation of convicted criminals and halt those of many illegal immigrants without criminal records.<br /> <br /> The timing is purely political; attempting to again make illegal immigration a major factor in the upcoming presidential campaign will ultimately help Democrats, not Republicans.</p> </div> The Case For Birthright Citizenship 2010-08-10T21:00:00-04:00 2010-08-10T21:00:00-04:00 http://www.ceousa.org/immigration-assimiliation/immigration-assimiliation/immigration/486-the-case-for-birthright-citizenship Linda Chavez test1@test.com <div class="feed-description"><p><img src="images/headshot1.png" border="0" alt="" hspace="10" vspace="5" align="left" />Republican leaders in Congress are now flirting with changing portions of the 14th Amendment—which grants citizenship to "all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"—to deny citizenship to children born here to illegal immigrants.</p> </div> <div class="feed-description"><p><img src="images/headshot1.png" border="0" alt="" hspace="10" vspace="5" align="left" />Republican leaders in Congress are now flirting with changing portions of the 14th Amendment—which grants citizenship to "all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"—to deny citizenship to children born here to illegal immigrants.</p> </div> CEO Praises Justice Department 2017-08-08T08:24:03-04:00 2017-08-08T08:24:03-04:00 http://www.ceousa.org/affirmative-action/1129-ceo-praises-justice-department Roger Clegg test@test.com <div class="feed-description"><p><img src="images/headshotrg.png" border="0" alt="" hspace="10" vspace="5" align="left" /></p> <div style="color: #000000; font-family: arial; font-size: small; margin: 11.25pt 0in; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;"><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; color: #333333;">Last week was a busy one here at the Center for Equal Opportunity. After word broke in the <em>New York Times</em> late <span class="aBn" style="border-bottom: 1px dashed #cccccc; position: relative; top: -2px; z-index: 0;" data-term="goog_635592401"><span class="aQJ" style="position: relative; top: 2px; z-index: -1;">Tuesday</span></span> that the Justice Department was planning to take on affirmative action in college admissions (a story I was <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/01/us/politics/trump-affirmative-action-universities.html?hp&amp;action=click&amp;pgtype=Homepage&amp;clickSource=story-heading&amp;module=first-column-region&amp;region=top-news&amp;WT.nav=top-news" target="_blank" style="color: #1155cc;" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&amp;q=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/01/us/politics/trump-affirmative-action-universities.html?hp%26action%3Dclick%26pgtype%3DHomepage%26clickSource%3Dstory-heading%26module%3Dfirst-column-region%26region%3Dtop-news%26WT.nav%3Dtop-news&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1502281261310000&amp;usg=AFQjCNGPlQl9r1jnkj13HM1xFxhfqgAMCg">quoted</a> in), a predictable media frenzy was unleashed to cover the story. Of course, the usual suspects on the Left attacked the Trump administration and played the race card, labeling any effort to stop racial preferences in college admissions as “racist,” but the Center for Equal Opportunity was out in full force to applaud the Justice Department and educate the public on the legal and moral problems created by college and universities treating applicants differently based on their skin color or ethnicity.</span></div> <div style="color: #000000; font-family: arial; font-size: small; margin: 11.25pt 0in; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;"><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; color: #333333;">We gave literally dozens of interviews on radio, TV, print media and the internet throughout the week, many of which are posted on our website (<em><a href="http://www.ceousa.org/" target="_blank" style="color: #1155cc;" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&amp;q=http://www.ceousa.org&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1502281261310000&amp;usg=AFQjCNF62VHb1ueAUGrFF8u7nVikolIGcw">www.ceousa.org</a></em>). We were quoted in both the original <em>New York Times</em> story and the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/02/us/politics/asian-americans-complaint-prompted-justice-inquiry-of-college-admissions.html" target="_blank" style="color: #1155cc;" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&amp;q=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/02/us/politics/asian-americans-complaint-prompted-justice-inquiry-of-college-admissions.html&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1502281261310000&amp;usg=AFQjCNHi8C8wGqBy0ClAAXS_MMPdPbsYEA">follow up <span class="aBn" style="border: none !important; position: static !important; top: -2px; z-index: auto !important; cursor: inherit !important;" data-term="goog_635592402"><span class="aQJ" style="position: static !important; top: 2px; z-index: auto !important; border: none !important; cursor: inherit !important;">on Wednesday</span></span></a>, as well as <em><a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/sessionss-move-to-take-on-affirmative-action-energizes-trumps-base/2017/08/02/771285b4-779f-11e7-8839-ec48ec4cae25_story.html?utm_term=.f5fc3ef51639" target="_blank" style="color: #1155cc;" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&amp;q=https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/sessionss-move-to-take-on-affirmative-action-energizes-trumps-base/2017/08/02/771285b4-779f-11e7-8839-ec48ec4cae25_story.html?utm_term%3D.f5fc3ef51639&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1502281261310000&amp;usg=AFQjCNG0KqgzAiuOgbWkqM6DPkksIDKb3Q">The Washington Post</a></em>. CEO chairman Linda Chavez appeared on CNN <span class="aBn" style="border-bottom: 1px dashed #cccccc; position: relative; top: -2px; z-index: 0;" data-term="goog_635592403"><span class="aQJ" style="position: relative; top: 2px; z-index: -1;">Wednesday</span></span> and CEO <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/02/politics/justice-department-affirmation-action-higher-education-trnd/index.html" target="_blank" style="color: #1155cc;" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&amp;q=http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/02/politics/justice-department-affirmation-action-higher-education-trnd/index.html&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1502281261310000&amp;usg=AFQjCNHqmfizIZ1PQe9CY4-KLRD3xe5A2Q">Executive Director Rudy Gersten’s full statement</a> was carried by <em>CNN.com</em> verbatim.</span></div> <div style="color: #000000; font-family: arial; font-size: small; margin: 11.25pt 0in; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;"><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; color: #333333;">It’s unclear exactly what the Trump administration’s future plans are for taking on these pervasive race-based preferences in college admissions, but we have been encouraging by this development and have been urging them to do so since Day 1. And we will continue to.</span></div> <div style="color: #000000; font-family: arial; font-size: small; margin: 11.25pt 0in; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;"><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; color: #333333;">Below  is our press release on the announcement.</span></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0px; color: #000000; font-family: arial; font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: 10pt; line-height: 15.3333px; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">* * *</span></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0px; color: #000000; font-family: arial; font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: 10pt; line-height: 15.3333px; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;"> </span></div> <div style="color: #000000; font-family: arial; font-size: small; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;"><strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><span style="font-size: 14pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; color: #333333; border: 1pt none windowtext; padding: 0in;">CEO Praises Justice Department on Affirmative Action plans </span></span></strong></div> <div style="color: #000000; font-family: arial; font-size: small; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;"><strong><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; color: #333333; border: 1pt none windowtext; padding: 0in;">Affirmative action in college admissions should be examined</span></strong></div> <div style="color: #000000; font-family: arial; font-size: small; margin: 11.25pt 0in; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;"><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; color: #333333;">The Center for Equal Opportunity (CEO) applauds the Justice Department for its plan to take on affirmative action  in college admissions. It is a welcome and overdue development that the administration will be taking a hard look at schools that insist on weighing skin color and national origin in deciding who gets admitted. Such discrimination is lamentable, although, unfortunately, the Supreme Court has not shut the door on it. However, the Court has made clear that the exception it has carved out for legal racial discrimination is a very narrow one. </span></div> <div style="color: #000000; font-family: arial; font-size: small; margin: 11.25pt 0in; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;"><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; color: #333333;">Unfortunately, the evidence is that many schools use racial preferences sloppily and don’t follow the constraints the Court has set out. By using race and ethnicity rather than actual social and economic disadvantage, racial preferences harm many low-income Asians as well as whites. But it also places many black and Hispanic beneficiaries at a disadvantage, too. Students admitted with lower test scores and GPAs often struggle at institutions where their preparation isn't sufficient, resulting in higher drop-out rates, lower college GPAs, and failure to graduate in a timely manner, increasing their debt. These same students might well have succeeded at schools where their grades and test scores were the same as those admitted without regard to race or ethnicity.</span></div> <div style="color: #000000; font-family: arial; font-size: small; margin: 11.25pt 0in; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;"><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; color: #333333;">We welcome the scrutiny of the Justice Department and the Education Department as appropriate and necessary to root out all forms of discrimination and move toward a truly colorblind society.</span></div></div> <div class="feed-description"><p><img src="images/headshotrg.png" border="0" alt="" hspace="10" vspace="5" align="left" /></p> <div style="color: #000000; font-family: arial; font-size: small; margin: 11.25pt 0in; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;"><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; color: #333333;">Last week was a busy one here at the Center for Equal Opportunity. After word broke in the <em>New York Times</em> late <span class="aBn" style="border-bottom: 1px dashed #cccccc; position: relative; top: -2px; z-index: 0;" data-term="goog_635592401"><span class="aQJ" style="position: relative; top: 2px; z-index: -1;">Tuesday</span></span> that the Justice Department was planning to take on affirmative action in college admissions (a story I was <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/01/us/politics/trump-affirmative-action-universities.html?hp&amp;action=click&amp;pgtype=Homepage&amp;clickSource=story-heading&amp;module=first-column-region&amp;region=top-news&amp;WT.nav=top-news" target="_blank" style="color: #1155cc;" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&amp;q=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/01/us/politics/trump-affirmative-action-universities.html?hp%26action%3Dclick%26pgtype%3DHomepage%26clickSource%3Dstory-heading%26module%3Dfirst-column-region%26region%3Dtop-news%26WT.nav%3Dtop-news&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1502281261310000&amp;usg=AFQjCNGPlQl9r1jnkj13HM1xFxhfqgAMCg">quoted</a> in), a predictable media frenzy was unleashed to cover the story. Of course, the usual suspects on the Left attacked the Trump administration and played the race card, labeling any effort to stop racial preferences in college admissions as “racist,” but the Center for Equal Opportunity was out in full force to applaud the Justice Department and educate the public on the legal and moral problems created by college and universities treating applicants differently based on their skin color or ethnicity.</span></div> <div style="color: #000000; font-family: arial; font-size: small; margin: 11.25pt 0in; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;"><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; color: #333333;">We gave literally dozens of interviews on radio, TV, print media and the internet throughout the week, many of which are posted on our website (<em><a href="http://www.ceousa.org/" target="_blank" style="color: #1155cc;" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&amp;q=http://www.ceousa.org&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1502281261310000&amp;usg=AFQjCNF62VHb1ueAUGrFF8u7nVikolIGcw">www.ceousa.org</a></em>). We were quoted in both the original <em>New York Times</em> story and the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/02/us/politics/asian-americans-complaint-prompted-justice-inquiry-of-college-admissions.html" target="_blank" style="color: #1155cc;" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&amp;q=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/02/us/politics/asian-americans-complaint-prompted-justice-inquiry-of-college-admissions.html&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1502281261310000&amp;usg=AFQjCNHi8C8wGqBy0ClAAXS_MMPdPbsYEA">follow up <span class="aBn" style="border: none !important; position: static !important; top: -2px; z-index: auto !important; cursor: inherit !important;" data-term="goog_635592402"><span class="aQJ" style="position: static !important; top: 2px; z-index: auto !important; border: none !important; cursor: inherit !important;">on Wednesday</span></span></a>, as well as <em><a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/sessionss-move-to-take-on-affirmative-action-energizes-trumps-base/2017/08/02/771285b4-779f-11e7-8839-ec48ec4cae25_story.html?utm_term=.f5fc3ef51639" target="_blank" style="color: #1155cc;" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&amp;q=https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/sessionss-move-to-take-on-affirmative-action-energizes-trumps-base/2017/08/02/771285b4-779f-11e7-8839-ec48ec4cae25_story.html?utm_term%3D.f5fc3ef51639&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1502281261310000&amp;usg=AFQjCNG0KqgzAiuOgbWkqM6DPkksIDKb3Q">The Washington Post</a></em>. CEO chairman Linda Chavez appeared on CNN <span class="aBn" style="border-bottom: 1px dashed #cccccc; position: relative; top: -2px; z-index: 0;" data-term="goog_635592403"><span class="aQJ" style="position: relative; top: 2px; z-index: -1;">Wednesday</span></span> and CEO <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/02/politics/justice-department-affirmation-action-higher-education-trnd/index.html" target="_blank" style="color: #1155cc;" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&amp;q=http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/02/politics/justice-department-affirmation-action-higher-education-trnd/index.html&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1502281261310000&amp;usg=AFQjCNHqmfizIZ1PQe9CY4-KLRD3xe5A2Q">Executive Director Rudy Gersten’s full statement</a> was carried by <em>CNN.com</em> verbatim.</span></div> <div style="color: #000000; font-family: arial; font-size: small; margin: 11.25pt 0in; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;"><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; color: #333333;">It’s unclear exactly what the Trump administration’s future plans are for taking on these pervasive race-based preferences in college admissions, but we have been encouraging by this development and have been urging them to do so since Day 1. And we will continue to.</span></div> <div style="color: #000000; font-family: arial; font-size: small; margin: 11.25pt 0in; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;"><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; color: #333333;">Below  is our press release on the announcement.</span></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0px; color: #000000; font-family: arial; font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: 10pt; line-height: 15.3333px; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">* * *</span></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0px; color: #000000; font-family: arial; font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: 10pt; line-height: 15.3333px; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;"> </span></div> <div style="color: #000000; font-family: arial; font-size: small; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;"><strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><span style="font-size: 14pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; color: #333333; border: 1pt none windowtext; padding: 0in;">CEO Praises Justice Department on Affirmative Action plans </span></span></strong></div> <div style="color: #000000; font-family: arial; font-size: small; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;"><strong><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; color: #333333; border: 1pt none windowtext; padding: 0in;">Affirmative action in college admissions should be examined</span></strong></div> <div style="color: #000000; font-family: arial; font-size: small; margin: 11.25pt 0in; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;"><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; color: #333333;">The Center for Equal Opportunity (CEO) applauds the Justice Department for its plan to take on affirmative action  in college admissions. It is a welcome and overdue development that the administration will be taking a hard look at schools that insist on weighing skin color and national origin in deciding who gets admitted. Such discrimination is lamentable, although, unfortunately, the Supreme Court has not shut the door on it. However, the Court has made clear that the exception it has carved out for legal racial discrimination is a very narrow one. </span></div> <div style="color: #000000; font-family: arial; font-size: small; margin: 11.25pt 0in; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;"><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; color: #333333;">Unfortunately, the evidence is that many schools use racial preferences sloppily and don’t follow the constraints the Court has set out. By using race and ethnicity rather than actual social and economic disadvantage, racial preferences harm many low-income Asians as well as whites. But it also places many black and Hispanic beneficiaries at a disadvantage, too. Students admitted with lower test scores and GPAs often struggle at institutions where their preparation isn't sufficient, resulting in higher drop-out rates, lower college GPAs, and failure to graduate in a timely manner, increasing their debt. These same students might well have succeeded at schools where their grades and test scores were the same as those admitted without regard to race or ethnicity.</span></div> <div style="color: #000000; font-family: arial; font-size: small; margin: 11.25pt 0in; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;"><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; color: #333333;">We welcome the scrutiny of the Justice Department and the Education Department as appropriate and necessary to root out all forms of discrimination and move toward a truly colorblind society.</span></div></div> Diversity Myths 2017-03-28T07:22:32-04:00 2017-03-28T07:22:32-04:00 http://www.ceousa.org/affirmative-action/1092-diversity-myths Roger Clegg test@test.com <div class="feed-description"><p><img src="images/diversity-feature2.jpg" border="0" style="border: 0; float: left; margin: 10px;" />The <em>Washington Post</em> has a “Five Myths about …” series, and over the weekend Valerie Strauss focused on college admissions.  Here’s her fifth “myth”:  “Schools don’t need affirmative action to make diverse classes.” </p> <p>Ms. Strauss begins by noting that [1] some schools have rejected racial preferences — a.k.a. affirmative action — and still improved racial diversity, and that some critics have pointed out that racial preferences “are [2] unfairly discriminatory and [3] don’t help minority students” and that [4] if “diversity” were really the goal of racial preferences, “`then preferences would be given on the basis of unusual characteristics, not on the basis of race.’”</p> <p>So, how does Ms. Strauss refute 1, 2, 3, and 4?  Well, as a matter of fact she doesn’t.  She doesn’t even try.  She just ignores them.</p> <p>Instead, she simply asserts that racial preferences “do appear” to increase diversity, and she defines diversity to be simply the percentages of black and Hispanic students at some schools and how close they come to their percentages “in the general population.”  In other words, she says that if you give an admissions preference to people of a particular race, you will admit more of them.  Wow, that’s amazing.</p> <p>She concludes with a paragraph that bemoans, “Today, affirmative action has lost much judicial support” and that public support is “mixed” (actually public support is much less than judicial support, but never mind).  She’s unhappy that under Supreme Court precedent schools are stuck with the “diversity” justification for racial preferences; she’d apparently prefer a compensatory rationale — a dubious one under any circumstances (since, for example, the overwhelming majority of blacks admitted to more selective schools are not from poor backgrounds), and especially now that Latinos outnumber African Americans among groups getting preferential treatment <strong><em><span style="text-decoration: underline;">and</span></em></strong> that those losing out now are more and more likely to be Asian Americans.  Ms. Strauss must think that for hundreds of years in this country Asian Americans owned Latino slaves.</p> <p>And here’s Ms. Strauss’s last sentence:  “Meanwhile, most minority groups remain underrepresented on college and university campuses, even though most students enrolled at the country’s K-12 public schools are minorities.”  The “most minority groups” phrasing is to acknowledge that Asian Americans and Arab Americans, for example, are not underrepresented, which is why they are now discriminated against.  And the reason that some groups are “underrepresented” on college campuses is not because of slavery, but because of the sad state of our public schools (the solutions for which are more likely to be conservative than liberal), the belief that studying hard is “acting white” (or, worse, acting Asian), and especially the fact that some groups have many more children growing up in single-parent families (which is, unsurprisingly, correlated with not doing well in school).</p> <p>*          *          *</p> <p>I should stress that Ms. Strauss’s aim of “making diverse classes” is a misguided one in any event.  The aim should be to admit the best qualified students, regardless of race or ethnicity.  The notion that there are “educational benefits” from racial and ethnic diversity is unpersuasive.</p> <p>Just what is it that we expect African-American and Latino students to say to white and Asian-American students that will provide the latter with such compelling “educational benefits” that racial discrimination by the government is justified to make it more likely that these conversations take place?</p> <p>The purported existence of such conversations — which is what the “diversity” justification boils down to — is, as Ms. Strauss concedes, the only justification for admission preferences that schools can now use.  So we need to think carefully about what these conversations might be.  Now, I am going to discuss why I think it is hard to imagine anything that will fit the bill, but those who disagree ought to spell out what oral observations they think <strong><em><span style="text-decoration: underline;">do</span></em></strong> fit the bill.  Fair enough?</p> <p>For starters, I say “oral” because they really ought not to be something that could just as easily be read, since then the observations might simply be assigned as class reading.  It would be better if the lessons were not simply about equality or tolerance or treating other people as human beings, if it is likely that such straightforward lessons have already been learned (at home or grade school or church or on Sesame Street) or can be learned elsewhere (say, at work).   And the observations should really be about something that only black and Latino students are likely to know.</p> <p>So it can’t be an observation about growing up poor, because there are poor people of all colors; and, again, the overwhelming majority of, say, African Americans who are admitted to our more selective schools — that is, the ones likely to weigh race and ethnicity — are from middle- or upper-class backgrounds (eighty-six percent, according to the race-preference bible, <em>The Shape of the River</em>).</p> <p>It can’t be an observation about growing up as a slave, or under Jim Crow, or during the Civil Rights Era — because the eighteen-year-old students getting these preferences in 2017 were born in, let’s see, 1999, thirty-five years after the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.  True, these students may have faced other discrimination — but then, so may have Asian American students and Middle Eastern students (and, for that matter, the European-American students who’ve recently applied to college).   </p> <p>If it’s not socioeconomic disadvantage or history, then perhaps there is a particular African-American perspective on calculus, or a Latino perspective on economics.  I mean, to be compelling it must have something to do with something weightier — less stereotypical — than food or rap music.  No?</p> <p>Well, there must be <em>something</em> that middle-class eighteen-year-old African Americans and Latinos can tell eighteen-year-old whites and Asians that they are incapable of thinking of or reading about on their own.  Perhaps whites and Asians have never heard of racial profiling or the Trayvon Martin case, for example.</p> <p>Whether the lesson schools are trying to teach is that African Americans have a particular point of view or, rather contradictorily, that African Americans <a href="http://www.nas.org/articles/against_diversity"><em>don’t</em> have a particular point of view</a> — both are urged with equal vigor, even though the former relies on stereotyping and the latter seems rather obvious in a country that includes Condoleezza Rice and Whoopi Goldberg, Ben Carson and Barack Obama — it is odd that schools use racial essentialism in admissions and expect students to use it when listening to someone.  At least, it is odd if students are being taught not to judge other people by their skin color.</p> <p>What’s more, schools have to have faith not only that these observations <strong><em><span style="text-decoration: underline;">can</span></em></strong> be made, but that they <strong><em><span style="text-decoration: underline;">will</span></em></strong> be made.  That is, they can’t know for sure what observations (if any) a black or Latino student might make in class; it is even harder to predict what observations that student will make outside of class.  So they have to have faith that those observations will be offered — and that a lot of counterproductive statements won’t be offered — as well as that the benefits from them being offered will justify something as ugly as racial discrimination.</p> <p>Perhaps it’s not so much <em>what</em> the student says as it is <em>how</em> he or she says it.  That is, what schools are really hoping that whites and Asians will learn from “diversity” is that African Americans and Latinos are just as smart as they are (by the way, is there any evidence that, in a country whose laws and popular culture systematically condemn racial bigotry, this is a widespread problem?).  Of course, if it is of compelling importance that this point get made, it would be foolish to create a campus where the white and Asian students are systematically required to have better academic qualifications than the black and Latino students — which is exactly what schools are doing, of course.</p> <p>Now, how compelling do these “educational benefits” have to be?  At a minimum, they have to be compelling enough to outweigh the <strong><em><span style="text-decoration: underline;">costs</span></em></strong> of using racial preferences.  In fact, they must <strong><em><span style="text-decoration: underline;">significantly</span></em></strong> outweigh those costs, since if something does as much harm as good, or even just a little more good than harm, the benefits can hardly be compelling.</p> <p>So here’s a list of the costs of using racial preferences in university admissions: It is personally unfair, passes over better qualified students, and sets a disturbing legal, political, and moral precedent in allowing racial discrimination; it creates resentment; it stigmatizes the so-called beneficiaries in the eyes of their classmates, teachers, and themselves, as well as future employers, clients, and patients; it mismatches African Americans and Latinos with institutions, setting them up for failure; it fosters a victim mindset, removes the incentive for academic excellence, and encourages separatism; it compromises the academic mission of the university and lowers the overall academic quality of the student body; it creates pressure to discriminate in grading and graduation; it breeds hypocrisy within the school and encourages a scofflaw attitude among college officials; it papers over the real social problem of why so many African Americans and Latinos are academically uncompetitive; and it gets states and schools involved in unsavory activities like deciding which racial and ethnic minorities will be favored and which ones not, and how much blood is needed to establish group membership — an untenable legal regime as America becomes an increasingly multiracial, multiethnic society and as individual Americans are themselves more and more likely to be multiracial and multiethnic.</p> <p>*          *          *</p> <p><strong>“Justice-Involved’ Individuals” – </strong>The Trump administration’s Department of Labor headlines a <a href="https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/eta/eta20170321">press release last week</a> with that “<a href="http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/04/euphemism-of-the-decade.php" target="_blank">euphemism of the decade</a>” used by the Obama administration. Come on — don’t elections have consequences?</p></div> <div class="feed-description"><p><img src="images/diversity-feature2.jpg" border="0" style="border: 0; float: left; margin: 10px;" />The <em>Washington Post</em> has a “Five Myths about …” series, and over the weekend Valerie Strauss focused on college admissions.  Here’s her fifth “myth”:  “Schools don’t need affirmative action to make diverse classes.” </p> <p>Ms. Strauss begins by noting that [1] some schools have rejected racial preferences — a.k.a. affirmative action — and still improved racial diversity, and that some critics have pointed out that racial preferences “are [2] unfairly discriminatory and [3] don’t help minority students” and that [4] if “diversity” were really the goal of racial preferences, “`then preferences would be given on the basis of unusual characteristics, not on the basis of race.’”</p> <p>So, how does Ms. Strauss refute 1, 2, 3, and 4?  Well, as a matter of fact she doesn’t.  She doesn’t even try.  She just ignores them.</p> <p>Instead, she simply asserts that racial preferences “do appear” to increase diversity, and she defines diversity to be simply the percentages of black and Hispanic students at some schools and how close they come to their percentages “in the general population.”  In other words, she says that if you give an admissions preference to people of a particular race, you will admit more of them.  Wow, that’s amazing.</p> <p>She concludes with a paragraph that bemoans, “Today, affirmative action has lost much judicial support” and that public support is “mixed” (actually public support is much less than judicial support, but never mind).  She’s unhappy that under Supreme Court precedent schools are stuck with the “diversity” justification for racial preferences; she’d apparently prefer a compensatory rationale — a dubious one under any circumstances (since, for example, the overwhelming majority of blacks admitted to more selective schools are not from poor backgrounds), and especially now that Latinos outnumber African Americans among groups getting preferential treatment <strong><em><span style="text-decoration: underline;">and</span></em></strong> that those losing out now are more and more likely to be Asian Americans.  Ms. Strauss must think that for hundreds of years in this country Asian Americans owned Latino slaves.</p> <p>And here’s Ms. Strauss’s last sentence:  “Meanwhile, most minority groups remain underrepresented on college and university campuses, even though most students enrolled at the country’s K-12 public schools are minorities.”  The “most minority groups” phrasing is to acknowledge that Asian Americans and Arab Americans, for example, are not underrepresented, which is why they are now discriminated against.  And the reason that some groups are “underrepresented” on college campuses is not because of slavery, but because of the sad state of our public schools (the solutions for which are more likely to be conservative than liberal), the belief that studying hard is “acting white” (or, worse, acting Asian), and especially the fact that some groups have many more children growing up in single-parent families (which is, unsurprisingly, correlated with not doing well in school).</p> <p>*          *          *</p> <p>I should stress that Ms. Strauss’s aim of “making diverse classes” is a misguided one in any event.  The aim should be to admit the best qualified students, regardless of race or ethnicity.  The notion that there are “educational benefits” from racial and ethnic diversity is unpersuasive.</p> <p>Just what is it that we expect African-American and Latino students to say to white and Asian-American students that will provide the latter with such compelling “educational benefits” that racial discrimination by the government is justified to make it more likely that these conversations take place?</p> <p>The purported existence of such conversations — which is what the “diversity” justification boils down to — is, as Ms. Strauss concedes, the only justification for admission preferences that schools can now use.  So we need to think carefully about what these conversations might be.  Now, I am going to discuss why I think it is hard to imagine anything that will fit the bill, but those who disagree ought to spell out what oral observations they think <strong><em><span style="text-decoration: underline;">do</span></em></strong> fit the bill.  Fair enough?</p> <p>For starters, I say “oral” because they really ought not to be something that could just as easily be read, since then the observations might simply be assigned as class reading.  It would be better if the lessons were not simply about equality or tolerance or treating other people as human beings, if it is likely that such straightforward lessons have already been learned (at home or grade school or church or on Sesame Street) or can be learned elsewhere (say, at work).   And the observations should really be about something that only black and Latino students are likely to know.</p> <p>So it can’t be an observation about growing up poor, because there are poor people of all colors; and, again, the overwhelming majority of, say, African Americans who are admitted to our more selective schools — that is, the ones likely to weigh race and ethnicity — are from middle- or upper-class backgrounds (eighty-six percent, according to the race-preference bible, <em>The Shape of the River</em>).</p> <p>It can’t be an observation about growing up as a slave, or under Jim Crow, or during the Civil Rights Era — because the eighteen-year-old students getting these preferences in 2017 were born in, let’s see, 1999, thirty-five years after the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.  True, these students may have faced other discrimination — but then, so may have Asian American students and Middle Eastern students (and, for that matter, the European-American students who’ve recently applied to college).   </p> <p>If it’s not socioeconomic disadvantage or history, then perhaps there is a particular African-American perspective on calculus, or a Latino perspective on economics.  I mean, to be compelling it must have something to do with something weightier — less stereotypical — than food or rap music.  No?</p> <p>Well, there must be <em>something</em> that middle-class eighteen-year-old African Americans and Latinos can tell eighteen-year-old whites and Asians that they are incapable of thinking of or reading about on their own.  Perhaps whites and Asians have never heard of racial profiling or the Trayvon Martin case, for example.</p> <p>Whether the lesson schools are trying to teach is that African Americans have a particular point of view or, rather contradictorily, that African Americans <a href="http://www.nas.org/articles/against_diversity"><em>don’t</em> have a particular point of view</a> — both are urged with equal vigor, even though the former relies on stereotyping and the latter seems rather obvious in a country that includes Condoleezza Rice and Whoopi Goldberg, Ben Carson and Barack Obama — it is odd that schools use racial essentialism in admissions and expect students to use it when listening to someone.  At least, it is odd if students are being taught not to judge other people by their skin color.</p> <p>What’s more, schools have to have faith not only that these observations <strong><em><span style="text-decoration: underline;">can</span></em></strong> be made, but that they <strong><em><span style="text-decoration: underline;">will</span></em></strong> be made.  That is, they can’t know for sure what observations (if any) a black or Latino student might make in class; it is even harder to predict what observations that student will make outside of class.  So they have to have faith that those observations will be offered — and that a lot of counterproductive statements won’t be offered — as well as that the benefits from them being offered will justify something as ugly as racial discrimination.</p> <p>Perhaps it’s not so much <em>what</em> the student says as it is <em>how</em> he or she says it.  That is, what schools are really hoping that whites and Asians will learn from “diversity” is that African Americans and Latinos are just as smart as they are (by the way, is there any evidence that, in a country whose laws and popular culture systematically condemn racial bigotry, this is a widespread problem?).  Of course, if it is of compelling importance that this point get made, it would be foolish to create a campus where the white and Asian students are systematically required to have better academic qualifications than the black and Latino students — which is exactly what schools are doing, of course.</p> <p>Now, how compelling do these “educational benefits” have to be?  At a minimum, they have to be compelling enough to outweigh the <strong><em><span style="text-decoration: underline;">costs</span></em></strong> of using racial preferences.  In fact, they must <strong><em><span style="text-decoration: underline;">significantly</span></em></strong> outweigh those costs, since if something does as much harm as good, or even just a little more good than harm, the benefits can hardly be compelling.</p> <p>So here’s a list of the costs of using racial preferences in university admissions: It is personally unfair, passes over better qualified students, and sets a disturbing legal, political, and moral precedent in allowing racial discrimination; it creates resentment; it stigmatizes the so-called beneficiaries in the eyes of their classmates, teachers, and themselves, as well as future employers, clients, and patients; it mismatches African Americans and Latinos with institutions, setting them up for failure; it fosters a victim mindset, removes the incentive for academic excellence, and encourages separatism; it compromises the academic mission of the university and lowers the overall academic quality of the student body; it creates pressure to discriminate in grading and graduation; it breeds hypocrisy within the school and encourages a scofflaw attitude among college officials; it papers over the real social problem of why so many African Americans and Latinos are academically uncompetitive; and it gets states and schools involved in unsavory activities like deciding which racial and ethnic minorities will be favored and which ones not, and how much blood is needed to establish group membership — an untenable legal regime as America becomes an increasingly multiracial, multiethnic society and as individual Americans are themselves more and more likely to be multiracial and multiethnic.</p> <p>*          *          *</p> <p><strong>“Justice-Involved’ Individuals” – </strong>The Trump administration’s Department of Labor headlines a <a href="https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/eta/eta20170321">press release last week</a> with that “<a href="http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/04/euphemism-of-the-decade.php" target="_blank">euphemism of the decade</a>” used by the Obama administration. Come on — don’t elections have consequences?</p></div> More Cypress, Less Facebook 2016-09-07T12:03:58-04:00 2016-09-07T12:03:58-04:00 http://www.ceousa.org/affirmative-action/1038-more-cypress-less-facebook Roger Clegg test@test.com <div class="feed-description"><p><img src="images/georgetwon.jpg" border="0" style="border: 0; float: left; margin: 10px;" /></p> <p>George Leef has a <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/georgeleef/2016/08/30/the-s-e-c-shoves-the-u-s-a-further-into-the-p-c-swamp/#9e76b7e1a6df" target="_blank">fine column in <em>Forbes</em></a> that discusses why it’s a bad thing if the federal government leans on corporations to have more “diversity” on their boards.  The whole discussion is excellent, but I especially liked this:</p> <p><strong><em>In May, 1996, Sister Doris Gormley wrote a letter to T.J. Rodgers, the founder and then-CEO of Cypress Semiconductor. She argued that Cypress ought to diversify its board by adding some women.</em></strong></p> <p><strong><em>Replying to her, Rodgers wrote, “Choosing a Board of Directors based on race and gender is a lousy way to run a company. Cypress will never do it. Furthermore, we will never be pressured into it, because bowing to well-meaning, special-interest groups is an immoral way to run a company, given all the people it would hurt. We simply cannot allow arbitrary rules to be forced on us by organizations that lack business expertise.”</em></strong></p> <p>We need more companies like Cypress and fewer like Facebook — which, <a href="http://ceousa.org/issues/1034-facebook-breaks-the-law">as I discussed a couple of weeks ago</a>, is happy to engage in illegal “diversity” discrimination.</p> <p><strong>Thoughts on Georgetown’s Announcement – </strong>Lots of ink is being spilled on Georgetown University’s announcement last week that it will give preferential treatment in admissions (on the order of that given legacy applicants) to the descendants of slaves that Maryland Jesuits sold to Southern sugar plantations in 1838 in order to help pay off the school’s debts.  On this, a few observations.</p> <p>My first reaction is to say that this makes a lot more sense than simply giving preferential treatment to all applicants of a particular skin color or national origin, as so many schools now do.  While, as I will discuss, there are serious policy problems with it, I see no legal objection. After all, this is not actually a racial preference, and most African Americans would not be eligible for Georgetown’s preference and, with intermarriage, it may even be that some of those eligible will self-identify as white.  It’s also more targeted to Georgetown’s specific wrong and its specific victims. </p> <p>But of course this preference won’t be <em>instead</em> of racial preferences at Georgetown: It will be in <em>addition</em> to them.</p> <p>Second, and mark my words, it won’t take long for the other shoe to drop.  The argument will be made that <em>all</em> universities of that era benefited, directly or indirectly, from slavery, and that <em>all</em> black people suffer and continue to suffer, directly or indirectly, from slavery and/or Jim Crow and/or continuing “implicit bias” and/or microaggressions and/or on and on.  </p> <p>And not just universities but individual wealth and corporations and governments and in fact the whole country was built by oppressing African Americans.  And so we should have not only across-the-board admissions and hiring and contracting racial preferences but also, ideally, reparations. After all, most of those suffering the effects of past and ongoing racial discrimination are not college applicants to Georgetown.  (You can read my testimony before Congress against reparations <a href="http://ceousa.org/issues/other-issues/reparations/540-roger-clegg-testifies-regarding-hr-40">here</a>.)</p> <p>Third, the fit between the historical wrong and this particular remedy is not very good when you think about it.  That is, it’s pretty tough to show that there is a particular ill-effect being suffered by some slave descendant here in 2016, many generations and 178 years later, that is going to be appropriately remedied by the rather odd trinket of an admissions preference to Georgetown University.</p> <p>To elaborate on this:  It’s hard to trace current circumstances, which will include both good and bad, back that far, and why is the best currency for paying any debt an admissions preference?  On this first point, there’s even the argument that maybe a particular descendant is, for whatever reason, actually <em>better </em>off for his ancestor having been sold off by those Maryland Jesuits — maybe the ancestor got freed sooner (Maryland was not covered by the Emancipation Proclamation), or ended up in a place where he was better off either before or after he was freed, who knows?  And, again, on the second point, why is the best currency for paying the debt an admissions preference — why shouldn’t Georgetown just write out a check to <em>all</em> the descendants, most of whom aren’t interested in going to school there?  Cheap grace.  (In fact, a friend points out to me that it’s even cheaper than that, since African American students already are likely to get more preferential treatment on the basis of race than they will get as quasi-legacy applicants!).</p> <p>It’s all very symbolic and touchy-feely.  There’s nothing necessarily wrong with that, but it shows its limitations as a model for others to follow.  Remember also the students who are better qualified (than the descendant-applicants) who now will <em>not</em> get in. College admissions is very much a zero-sum game, and that cost to innocent bystanders who might be of any color — along with all the other usual costs of preferences, like mismatch — has to be weighed. </p> <p>I know I have to be careful opposing a program not because of something inherently wrong with it but in large part because it will be twisted into something that <em>is</em> objectionable.  But the fact is that I don’t trust the motives of those who would have us obsess over America’s sad past of slavery. </p> <p>I worry that the idea is to keep white guilt alive, the better to advance an ideological agenda that is all about permanent division and identity politics, about making race relations raw rather than any genuine interest in continuing our nation’s remarkable progress.  It is insisted that there can be no healing without acknowledgment.  But this is dishonest, because it’s obvious that that there is plenty of acknowledgment.  What is wanted is obsession and skin-colored guilt and grievance, and that doesn’t heal.  Our historical failings shouldn’t be ignored or denied, but we should be looking forward more than backwards. </p></div> <div class="feed-description"><p><img src="images/georgetwon.jpg" border="0" style="border: 0; float: left; margin: 10px;" /></p> <p>George Leef has a <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/georgeleef/2016/08/30/the-s-e-c-shoves-the-u-s-a-further-into-the-p-c-swamp/#9e76b7e1a6df" target="_blank">fine column in <em>Forbes</em></a> that discusses why it’s a bad thing if the federal government leans on corporations to have more “diversity” on their boards.  The whole discussion is excellent, but I especially liked this:</p> <p><strong><em>In May, 1996, Sister Doris Gormley wrote a letter to T.J. Rodgers, the founder and then-CEO of Cypress Semiconductor. She argued that Cypress ought to diversify its board by adding some women.</em></strong></p> <p><strong><em>Replying to her, Rodgers wrote, “Choosing a Board of Directors based on race and gender is a lousy way to run a company. Cypress will never do it. Furthermore, we will never be pressured into it, because bowing to well-meaning, special-interest groups is an immoral way to run a company, given all the people it would hurt. We simply cannot allow arbitrary rules to be forced on us by organizations that lack business expertise.”</em></strong></p> <p>We need more companies like Cypress and fewer like Facebook — which, <a href="http://ceousa.org/issues/1034-facebook-breaks-the-law">as I discussed a couple of weeks ago</a>, is happy to engage in illegal “diversity” discrimination.</p> <p><strong>Thoughts on Georgetown’s Announcement – </strong>Lots of ink is being spilled on Georgetown University’s announcement last week that it will give preferential treatment in admissions (on the order of that given legacy applicants) to the descendants of slaves that Maryland Jesuits sold to Southern sugar plantations in 1838 in order to help pay off the school’s debts.  On this, a few observations.</p> <p>My first reaction is to say that this makes a lot more sense than simply giving preferential treatment to all applicants of a particular skin color or national origin, as so many schools now do.  While, as I will discuss, there are serious policy problems with it, I see no legal objection. After all, this is not actually a racial preference, and most African Americans would not be eligible for Georgetown’s preference and, with intermarriage, it may even be that some of those eligible will self-identify as white.  It’s also more targeted to Georgetown’s specific wrong and its specific victims. </p> <p>But of course this preference won’t be <em>instead</em> of racial preferences at Georgetown: It will be in <em>addition</em> to them.</p> <p>Second, and mark my words, it won’t take long for the other shoe to drop.  The argument will be made that <em>all</em> universities of that era benefited, directly or indirectly, from slavery, and that <em>all</em> black people suffer and continue to suffer, directly or indirectly, from slavery and/or Jim Crow and/or continuing “implicit bias” and/or microaggressions and/or on and on.  </p> <p>And not just universities but individual wealth and corporations and governments and in fact the whole country was built by oppressing African Americans.  And so we should have not only across-the-board admissions and hiring and contracting racial preferences but also, ideally, reparations. After all, most of those suffering the effects of past and ongoing racial discrimination are not college applicants to Georgetown.  (You can read my testimony before Congress against reparations <a href="http://ceousa.org/issues/other-issues/reparations/540-roger-clegg-testifies-regarding-hr-40">here</a>.)</p> <p>Third, the fit between the historical wrong and this particular remedy is not very good when you think about it.  That is, it’s pretty tough to show that there is a particular ill-effect being suffered by some slave descendant here in 2016, many generations and 178 years later, that is going to be appropriately remedied by the rather odd trinket of an admissions preference to Georgetown University.</p> <p>To elaborate on this:  It’s hard to trace current circumstances, which will include both good and bad, back that far, and why is the best currency for paying any debt an admissions preference?  On this first point, there’s even the argument that maybe a particular descendant is, for whatever reason, actually <em>better </em>off for his ancestor having been sold off by those Maryland Jesuits — maybe the ancestor got freed sooner (Maryland was not covered by the Emancipation Proclamation), or ended up in a place where he was better off either before or after he was freed, who knows?  And, again, on the second point, why is the best currency for paying the debt an admissions preference — why shouldn’t Georgetown just write out a check to <em>all</em> the descendants, most of whom aren’t interested in going to school there?  Cheap grace.  (In fact, a friend points out to me that it’s even cheaper than that, since African American students already are likely to get more preferential treatment on the basis of race than they will get as quasi-legacy applicants!).</p> <p>It’s all very symbolic and touchy-feely.  There’s nothing necessarily wrong with that, but it shows its limitations as a model for others to follow.  Remember also the students who are better qualified (than the descendant-applicants) who now will <em>not</em> get in. College admissions is very much a zero-sum game, and that cost to innocent bystanders who might be of any color — along with all the other usual costs of preferences, like mismatch — has to be weighed. </p> <p>I know I have to be careful opposing a program not because of something inherently wrong with it but in large part because it will be twisted into something that <em>is</em> objectionable.  But the fact is that I don’t trust the motives of those who would have us obsess over America’s sad past of slavery. </p> <p>I worry that the idea is to keep white guilt alive, the better to advance an ideological agenda that is all about permanent division and identity politics, about making race relations raw rather than any genuine interest in continuing our nation’s remarkable progress.  It is insisted that there can be no healing without acknowledgment.  But this is dishonest, because it’s obvious that that there is plenty of acknowledgment.  What is wanted is obsession and skin-colored guilt and grievance, and that doesn’t heal.  Our historical failings shouldn’t be ignored or denied, but we should be looking forward more than backwards. </p></div> A Disappointing Decision in Fisher II 2016-06-28T22:26:40-04:00 2016-06-28T22:26:40-04:00 http://www.ceousa.org/affirmative-action/1019-a-disappointing-decision-in-fisher-ii Roger Clegg test@test.com <div class="feed-description"><p><em><img src="images/11scotus-cnd-articleLarge.jpg" border="0" style="border: 0; float: left; margin: 10px;" />The Supreme Court ruled last Thursday in </em>Fisher v. University of Texas<em>, upholding that school’s use of racial and ethnic preferences in undergraduate admissions.  It’s a disappointing decision, but there are a few silver linings.  I discuss all this in the essay below which </em>Inside Higher Ed<em> requested and published:</em></p> <p>The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the University of Texas’s use of racial preferences in student admissions. The vote was 4 to 3, with Justice Anthony M. Kennedy writing the majority opinion, joined by Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor (Justice Elena Kagan was recused). Justice Samuel A. Alito wrote a powerful 51-page dissent, which he read from the bench.</p> <p>The decision came on the unlucky 13th anniversary, to the day, of <em>Gratz v. Bollinger</em> and <em>Grutter v. Bollinger</em>. And <em>Fisher I</em>, by the way, came down on a June 24, with <em>Regents of the University of California v. Bakke </em>coming down on a June 28. Something about these higher ed racial preference cases always causes the court to struggle with them to the bitter end of the term.</p> <p>Needless to say, for those of us opposed to racial discrimination in university admissions, the decision is disappointing, for all the reasons that Justice Alito explains. The discrimination that is upheld is untenable in our increasingly multiracial, multiethnic society -- indeed, a society where individual Americans are more and more likely to be multiracial and multiethnic (starting with our president), and where the victims of this politically correct discrimination are more and more likely to be members of racial and ethnic minority groups.</p> <p>But the silver lining is that today’s decision is a narrow one, both in its scope and in the extent to which it allows the use of racial preferences.</p> <p>As the court says, UT’s program “is sui generis” and the way the case was litigated “may limit its value for prospective guidance.” A big reason for this, of course, is the university’s use of a “top 10 percent plan,” which was not challenged. Rather surprisingly, by the way, Justice Kennedy seems to suggest that perhaps it should have been. He’s right: If a facially neutral plan is adopted for racial reasons, as quite arguably the percent plan was -- by automatically granting admission to any student graduating in the top 10 percent of their high-school class, the plan was sold to the state legislature as guaranteeing a fair proportion of black and Latino admittees -- then it is unconstitutional. Put the shoe on the other foot: What if Ole Miss had, back in the day, put its demographers to work and then refused to admit anyone living in a (heavily black) zip code?</p> <p>Justice Kennedy also warns the university repeatedly in his opinion that it has an ongoing duty to minimize its use of race. And race is, the court says, only a “factor of a factor of a factor” at UT, was considered contextually, does not automatically help members of any group and could in theory help the members of any group, including whites and Asian-Americans. “The fact that race consciousness played a role in only a small portion of admissions decisions should be a hallmark of narrow tailoring ….”<br /> Now, much of this may be quite false as a matter of what really happens at the University of Texas, but other colleges and universities are now obliged to jump through the hoops that the court <em>says</em> UT jumped through. They must, for example and in addition to what’s already been described, do a careful study at the outset to document why using racial preferences is essential to providing the purported educational benefits of diversity and “articulate concrete and precise goals.” Note that, at UT, the ultimate decision makers supposedly did not even know the race of the individual applicants.</p> <p>More broadly, any college or university’s use of racial preferences must pass “strict scrutiny,” and any institution using preferences must bear the burden of proving that a nonracial approach would not promote its interest in the “educational benefits of diversity” about as well.</p> <p>Look at it this way: barring a decision by the court that overruled <em>Grutter v. Bollinger </em>and said that colleges and universities may never use racial preferences because the “educational benefits of diversity” are not compelling, lots of institutions would continue to use such preferences, even if the court had left the door open only a tiny crack. If the court had said, “You can use racial preferences only if you can prove that the moon is made of green cheese,” then a number of true-believer presidents would swear on a stack of Bibles that, what do you know, our institutions have found by careful study that the moon is made of green cheese.</p> <p>That’s why I had hoped that the court would, indeed, overturn <em>Grutter</em>. But since that has not happened, and now likely will not happen for the foreseeable future, then there is no choice but to proceed institution by institution. That’s what the law was before today’s decision, and it remains what the law is after today’s decision. And, realistically, we could not have expected it to be otherwise as we awaited <em>Fisher II</em>.</p> <p>Sure, it would have been better if the court had given the opponents of racial preferences more ammunition than it did today, but we still have plenty of ammunition on “narrow tailoring” requirements -- for which, by the way, colleges and universities receive “no deference” -- from <em>Bakke</em> and <em>Grutter</em> and <em>Gratz</em> and <em>Fisher I</em> and now from <em>Fisher II</em>.</p> <p>The bottom line is that the court’s decision leaves plenty of room for future challenges to racial preference policies at other institutions -- and at UT itself for that matter. It’s interesting that, in the run-up to the decision, there was much discussion among liberals that maybe indeed there are better approaches to student admissions than UT’s. Here’s hoping that those discussions continue, prodded along by lawsuits and FOIA requests to ensure that all of Justice Kennedy’s (and Justice O’Connor’s and Justice Powell’s) hoops have been jumped through.</p> <p>And here’s hoping, as well, that the research continues to document the high costs of the use of racial preferences versus the paltry benefits. The latter are the “educational benefits” for white and Asian students of random observations by black and Latino students. (Yes, that’s what the justification for this discrimination boils down to, as I discuss <a href="http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/09/online-fisher-symposium-no-compelling-interest-no-reason-not-to-say-so/" target="_blank">here</a>.)</p> <p>And the costs? Just these: it is personally unfair, passes over better qualified students and sets a disturbing legal, political and moral precedent in allowing racial discrimination. It creates resentment. It stigmatizes the so-called beneficiaries in the eyes of their classmates, teachers and themselves, as well as future employers, clients and patients. It mismatches African-American and Latino students with institutions, setting them up for failure. It fosters a victim mind-set, removes the incentive for academic excellence and encourages separatism.</p> <p>And more: it compromises the academic mission of the university and lowers the overall academic quality of the student body. It creates pressure to discriminate in grading and graduation. It breeds hypocrisy within the college or university and encourages a scofflaw attitude among its officials. It papers over the real social problem of why so many African-American and Latino students are academically uncompetitive. And it gets states and higher education institutions involved in unsavory activities like deciding which racial and ethnic minorities will be favored and which ones not, and how much blood is needed to establish group membership --an untenable legal regime, as I said before, as America becomes an increasingly multiracial, multiethnic society.</p> <p>So the challenges to racial preferences will continue. Cases already filed against Harvard University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill that had been on hold will now proceed. The struggle goes on.</p> <p>*          *          *</p> <p>As the Center for Equal Opportunity said in its press release last week on the day of the decision:  The <em>Fisher II</em> decision is a narrow one, and leaves plenty of room for future challenges to racial preference policies at other schools.  Those challenges will continue, and CEO looks forward to participating in those challenges – and ensuring that the public is aware of the extent and severity of the discrimination.</p></div> <div class="feed-description"><p><em><img src="images/11scotus-cnd-articleLarge.jpg" border="0" style="border: 0; float: left; margin: 10px;" />The Supreme Court ruled last Thursday in </em>Fisher v. University of Texas<em>, upholding that school’s use of racial and ethnic preferences in undergraduate admissions.  It’s a disappointing decision, but there are a few silver linings.  I discuss all this in the essay below which </em>Inside Higher Ed<em> requested and published:</em></p> <p>The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the University of Texas’s use of racial preferences in student admissions. The vote was 4 to 3, with Justice Anthony M. Kennedy writing the majority opinion, joined by Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor (Justice Elena Kagan was recused). Justice Samuel A. Alito wrote a powerful 51-page dissent, which he read from the bench.</p> <p>The decision came on the unlucky 13th anniversary, to the day, of <em>Gratz v. Bollinger</em> and <em>Grutter v. Bollinger</em>. And <em>Fisher I</em>, by the way, came down on a June 24, with <em>Regents of the University of California v. Bakke </em>coming down on a June 28. Something about these higher ed racial preference cases always causes the court to struggle with them to the bitter end of the term.</p> <p>Needless to say, for those of us opposed to racial discrimination in university admissions, the decision is disappointing, for all the reasons that Justice Alito explains. The discrimination that is upheld is untenable in our increasingly multiracial, multiethnic society -- indeed, a society where individual Americans are more and more likely to be multiracial and multiethnic (starting with our president), and where the victims of this politically correct discrimination are more and more likely to be members of racial and ethnic minority groups.</p> <p>But the silver lining is that today’s decision is a narrow one, both in its scope and in the extent to which it allows the use of racial preferences.</p> <p>As the court says, UT’s program “is sui generis” and the way the case was litigated “may limit its value for prospective guidance.” A big reason for this, of course, is the university’s use of a “top 10 percent plan,” which was not challenged. Rather surprisingly, by the way, Justice Kennedy seems to suggest that perhaps it should have been. He’s right: If a facially neutral plan is adopted for racial reasons, as quite arguably the percent plan was -- by automatically granting admission to any student graduating in the top 10 percent of their high-school class, the plan was sold to the state legislature as guaranteeing a fair proportion of black and Latino admittees -- then it is unconstitutional. Put the shoe on the other foot: What if Ole Miss had, back in the day, put its demographers to work and then refused to admit anyone living in a (heavily black) zip code?</p> <p>Justice Kennedy also warns the university repeatedly in his opinion that it has an ongoing duty to minimize its use of race. And race is, the court says, only a “factor of a factor of a factor” at UT, was considered contextually, does not automatically help members of any group and could in theory help the members of any group, including whites and Asian-Americans. “The fact that race consciousness played a role in only a small portion of admissions decisions should be a hallmark of narrow tailoring ….”<br /> Now, much of this may be quite false as a matter of what really happens at the University of Texas, but other colleges and universities are now obliged to jump through the hoops that the court <em>says</em> UT jumped through. They must, for example and in addition to what’s already been described, do a careful study at the outset to document why using racial preferences is essential to providing the purported educational benefits of diversity and “articulate concrete and precise goals.” Note that, at UT, the ultimate decision makers supposedly did not even know the race of the individual applicants.</p> <p>More broadly, any college or university’s use of racial preferences must pass “strict scrutiny,” and any institution using preferences must bear the burden of proving that a nonracial approach would not promote its interest in the “educational benefits of diversity” about as well.</p> <p>Look at it this way: barring a decision by the court that overruled <em>Grutter v. Bollinger </em>and said that colleges and universities may never use racial preferences because the “educational benefits of diversity” are not compelling, lots of institutions would continue to use such preferences, even if the court had left the door open only a tiny crack. If the court had said, “You can use racial preferences only if you can prove that the moon is made of green cheese,” then a number of true-believer presidents would swear on a stack of Bibles that, what do you know, our institutions have found by careful study that the moon is made of green cheese.</p> <p>That’s why I had hoped that the court would, indeed, overturn <em>Grutter</em>. But since that has not happened, and now likely will not happen for the foreseeable future, then there is no choice but to proceed institution by institution. That’s what the law was before today’s decision, and it remains what the law is after today’s decision. And, realistically, we could not have expected it to be otherwise as we awaited <em>Fisher II</em>.</p> <p>Sure, it would have been better if the court had given the opponents of racial preferences more ammunition than it did today, but we still have plenty of ammunition on “narrow tailoring” requirements -- for which, by the way, colleges and universities receive “no deference” -- from <em>Bakke</em> and <em>Grutter</em> and <em>Gratz</em> and <em>Fisher I</em> and now from <em>Fisher II</em>.</p> <p>The bottom line is that the court’s decision leaves plenty of room for future challenges to racial preference policies at other institutions -- and at UT itself for that matter. It’s interesting that, in the run-up to the decision, there was much discussion among liberals that maybe indeed there are better approaches to student admissions than UT’s. Here’s hoping that those discussions continue, prodded along by lawsuits and FOIA requests to ensure that all of Justice Kennedy’s (and Justice O’Connor’s and Justice Powell’s) hoops have been jumped through.</p> <p>And here’s hoping, as well, that the research continues to document the high costs of the use of racial preferences versus the paltry benefits. The latter are the “educational benefits” for white and Asian students of random observations by black and Latino students. (Yes, that’s what the justification for this discrimination boils down to, as I discuss <a href="http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/09/online-fisher-symposium-no-compelling-interest-no-reason-not-to-say-so/" target="_blank">here</a>.)</p> <p>And the costs? Just these: it is personally unfair, passes over better qualified students and sets a disturbing legal, political and moral precedent in allowing racial discrimination. It creates resentment. It stigmatizes the so-called beneficiaries in the eyes of their classmates, teachers and themselves, as well as future employers, clients and patients. It mismatches African-American and Latino students with institutions, setting them up for failure. It fosters a victim mind-set, removes the incentive for academic excellence and encourages separatism.</p> <p>And more: it compromises the academic mission of the university and lowers the overall academic quality of the student body. It creates pressure to discriminate in grading and graduation. It breeds hypocrisy within the college or university and encourages a scofflaw attitude among its officials. It papers over the real social problem of why so many African-American and Latino students are academically uncompetitive. And it gets states and higher education institutions involved in unsavory activities like deciding which racial and ethnic minorities will be favored and which ones not, and how much blood is needed to establish group membership --an untenable legal regime, as I said before, as America becomes an increasingly multiracial, multiethnic society.</p> <p>So the challenges to racial preferences will continue. Cases already filed against Harvard University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill that had been on hold will now proceed. The struggle goes on.</p> <p>*          *          *</p> <p>As the Center for Equal Opportunity said in its press release last week on the day of the decision:  The <em>Fisher II</em> decision is a narrow one, and leaves plenty of room for future challenges to racial preference policies at other schools.  Those challenges will continue, and CEO looks forward to participating in those challenges – and ensuring that the public is aware of the extent and severity of the discrimination.</p></div>