- Published Date
- Written by Roger Clegg
The Supreme Court may have an opportunity to do some good soon in the fight against preferential treatment based on race and ethnicity. That’s because last Friday the petition for rehearing en banc (that is, asking the full court of appeals to rehear the case after a panel decision) was denied in Fisher v. University of Texas.
- Published Date
- Written by Roger Clegg
The Chronicle of Higher Education recently had a piece by Professor Elizabeth Anderson titled “Affirmative Action Is about Helping All of Us,” in which she laments “the same tired arguments on the left” that are being used to defend affirmative action in higher education, and then proposes her own new and (supposedly) improved theory to be used in defending such discrimination from those attacks by “the right that reflect ignorance of the realities of race in America.”
- Published Date
- Written by CEO Staff
Your Anti-Discrimination Hotline
In most instances, the use of preferences on the basis of race or ethnicity in education, employment, or government contracting violates federal law. This is true even in cases of "affirmative action" and "diversity" programs.
The Center for Equal Opportunity is interested in hearing about such discrimination. In many instances, we may be able to do something about it. This is especially true when the discrimination is openly stated--as is often the case, believe it or not. CEO will not serve as your attorney, but in many cases we will contact the alleged discriminator, and in other cases we may be able to help you find a lawyer.
Please reference the adjacent program types and fill the form linked to below to tell CEO about discrimination that you have witnessed.
Type A Programs
Select this if the discrimination you have witnessed is advertised or described as being open only to some racial or ethnic groups, or where it is advertised that members of certain racial or ethnic groups are preferred.
- Minority job fairs
- Minority-only or nonminority-only scholarships or financial aid
- Minority-only summer programs or internships
- Private or government (municipal, state, or federal) contract set-asides
- On-the-job training or mentoring programs open only to members of certain racial or ethnic groups.
TYPE B PROGRAMS
Select this if the discrimination you have witnessed comes about because of a desire to reach a predetermined racial or ethnic quota or goal. Describe the statement or announcement of the quota or goal, and a brief description of the discrimination that resulted from it.
TYPE C PROGRAMS
Select this if the discrimination you have witnessed involves racial preferences or quotas that you can describe but cannot be documented by a paper trail. Describe as specifically as possible the use of racial preferences or quotas that you have witnessed.
- Published Date
- Written by CEO Staff
- Published Date
- Written by Roger Clegg
Ashley Thorne, executive director of the National Association of Scholars, recently posted an essay on Minding the Campus (“Dismissing the Reality of Affirmative Action”) that was both kind and accurate regarding the word of the Center for Equal Opportunity.
The Gallup Organization and Inside Higher Ed co-hosted a conference in Washington on September 15, “Not out of the Woods: Colleges, Diversity and Affirmative Action after a Year of Protest and Court Battles.” Most of those in attendance were university officials of one kind or another.
Ms. Thorne, who attended the whole conference (I did not), said those officials were
determined to ignore the results of a Gallup survey for IHE showing that nearly two-thirds of Americans oppose affirmative action in college admissions. About 75 to 100 attendees, mostly college administrators, focused on reaction to the Supreme Court decision last June 23rd— Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin – in which the court upheld racial preferences. Educators and student affairs administrators found the survey results mysterious but chalked them up to white privilege, bias, and ignorance.
Only one person on the conference program represented the opinion of the public to this audience. That was Roger Clegg, president of the Center for Equal Opportunity, who spoke in the opening session on the court’s decision. Inside Higher Ed editor Scott Jaschik introduced him saying, “For those who think you’re safe, Roger’s watching you.”
I’m grateful to Mr. Jaschik for inviting me, even if I was the only one on my side of the aisle there, and I could not have asked for a better encapsulation of the message I wanted to send those attending: You’re being watched.
Ms. Thorne then summarized what I had to say — which I will do, too, in a moment — and concluded:
[Mr. Clegg] said his organization will bring FOIA requests and lawsuits against colleges that use racial preferences without jumping through all the necessary hoops.
The room seemed tense after Clegg spoke, but his fellow panelists and the audience basically ignored the substance of his remarks and did not refer to him again the rest of the day. After that panel, the atmosphere settled into one of complacency and the assumption that everyone agreed that racial diversity has educational benefits.
Even during his panel, another speaker, Art Coleman (Managing Partner and Co-Founder, Education Counsel) said, “Forget the law.” He said if you want to do the “educationally right thing,” you should figure that out first, then the law. The University of Texas, he said, had told the Supreme Court what the law should be.
All accurate, as I said.
More on What I Said
On my panel were, in addition to Art Coleman, Art Rodriguez (dean of admission and financial aid at Vassar College), and Harold Levy of the Jack Kent Cooke Foundation.
I began by agreeing with Art Coleman that it is important to keep in mind that none of the Court’s decisions on the use of racial preferences in university admissions — Bakke, Gratz, Grutter, and Fisher I and II — has reversed any of the other decisions.
And those decisions, while unfortunately keeping the door open for racial preferences, have also put constraints on their use. In a word, schools must document that the use of such preferences is the only way to achieve the “educational benefits” of a “diverse” student body. I had elaborated on those constraints for IHE here (Fisher II), as I had earlier for the Chronicle of Higher Education here (Fisher I).
And despite Mr. Coleman’s rather inartful suggestion that schools “Forget the law,” he’s actually made clear over the years that they should not do so, and has himself described the hoops that need to be, and should be, jumped through. He’s not the only left-of-center person to recognize this reality; Mark Yudof and Rachel Moran made the same point, post–Fisher II, in the Chronicle of Higher Education.
I corrected Mr. Coleman’s suggestion that all of the justices accept the purported “educational benefits” of “diversity” as being a “compelling” enough interest to justify racial discrimination. There’s certainly no reason to think that the Chief Justice, let alone Justice Alito, let alone Justice Thomas, would be unwilling to overturn Grutter.
I also corrected Mr. Coleman’s suggestion that treating people without regard to skin color somehow deprives them of their “dignity,” to use Justice Kennedy’s word of the moment, which Mr. Coleman had quoted.
And then, as Ms. Thorne notes, I structured the rest of my remarks around the three choices that schools now have in the wake of Fisher II with regard to the way they use admission preferences on the basis of race and ethnicity.
The first and best choice is simply to end the use of racial preferences. This is not a complete pipe dream: Most schools, indeed, do not use preferences, if for no reason other than the fact that they are not terribly selective. One hopes that some schools, whose use of preferences in only marginal, might be persuaded to take the pledge and adopt colorblind admissions. Consider, after all, the strong pros for that approach, and the strong cons against continued discrimination; Ms. Thorne summarized what I said this way:
- Not factoring race into admissions is what most people favor, as the Gallup poll showed.
- There are no legal problems with not using racial preferences.
- It is fairer. Poverty and privilege come in all colors. Using skin color as a proxy for disadvantage is unjust.
- It avoids the costs of discrimination, including stigmatization, resentment, mismatch, and encouragement of an unhealthy obsession with race that spills over into protests.
The second choice schools might adopt is to continue to use racial and ethnic admission preferences, but to do so in a way that is legal — that is, that jumps through the hoops that the Supreme Court has set out. On this point, I noted that the courts might be headed to requiring extensive documentation of the necessity for using racial preferences before they can be used, analogous to the “disparity studies” now required prior to using such preferences in government contracting. Professor George La Noue, of the University of Maryland/Baltimore County, is an expert on the latter and has made this point; I also noted that these studies can be expensive and must be frequently updated.
The third choice available to schools is, I noted, the worst choice but the one that many would, alas, make: To use racial preferences illegally.
Morality aside, the problem with breaking the law here is that you’ll be caught. Our organization, the Center for Equal Opportunity, has filed many, many FOIA requests with universities over the years, and that’s not going to change. We will ask for all documents related to the various hoops that schools are supposed to jump through: for example, the studies mentioned above that Justice Kennedy wants done, the consideration of race-neutral alternatives, the periodic review of racially preferential measures, and so forth. Schools that respond that they have no such records are admitting that they have not jumped through those hoops; you cannot do all this without a paper trail.
And they’ll be sued. CEO will turn over this information to a litigating organization, or to Edward Blum’s lawyers, or at least to friendly members in a state legislature, and the fun will begin.
Brisk Business Likely
Initial indications are that we’ll have plenty of business. Inside Higher Ed had a story recently on its latest survey of college and university admission directors, and it contains much of interest.
For example, “in a potentially notable finding, a significant minority of college admissions directors now say (in contrast to past surveys but consistent with the views of many advocates for Asian-American applicants) that their colleges generally admit only Asian applicants with higher grades and test scores than other applicants.” That is, four out of ten directors at both public and private schools indicated that they believe Asian-American applicants are held to a higher standard at “some” places; and 41 percent of public-school respondents and 30 percent of private-school respondents admitted that this was the case at their own university or college. That is, indeed, “notable.”
Another juicy tidbit has to do with the Supreme Court ruling in Fisher II. The new IHE report notes that the Court “cited the research the school did over the years to show why it needed to consider race in admissions — and the decision said that colleges need to have conducted such studies to consider race.” But, the report continues, the recent “survey results suggest that relatively few colleges have done or plan to do such studies.” Indeed, “only 13 percent of colleges said they conducted studies similar to those the Supreme Court cited as making the Texas approach legal. And only 24 percent said they planned to either start or continue such studies.” And this, the report correctly notes, “could make some colleges vulnerable to lawsuits.”
To look at it another way, three out of four schools interpret Fisher as giving them a green light to engage in admissions discrimination for the foreseeable future, and only 4 percent said they planned to change admissions practices in light of the Court’s ruling.
Trustees and alumni should take note of this, by the way. No matter how sympathetic one is to political correctness, it’s irresponsible for a school to break the law and set itself up for a ruinous lawsuit.
Which brings us back again to my main message for the college officials: You’re being watched. If you use racial preferences, we’ll find out. You’ll then be required by the FOIA laws to document that you have jumped through the hoops that the Supreme Court has set out; and if you can’t do that, you will be sued, and you will lose.
- Published Date
- Written by CEO Staff
The study is based on data supplied by the universities themselves. The study was prepared by Dr. Althea Nagai, a resident fellow at CEO, and can be viewed on the organization’s website, www.ceousa.org . The executive summaries of the studies are attached.
CEO chairman Linda Chavez said: “Racial discrimination in university admissions is always appalling. But the degree of discrimination we have found here, at both schools but especially at Arizona State, is off the charts.” She noted that the odds ratio favoring African Americans over whites was 250 to 1 at the University of Arizona and 1115 to 1 at Arizona State. “As a result, nearly a thousand white students during the years we studied were denied admission even though they had higher undergraduate GPAs and LSATs than the average African American student who was admitted--and over a hundred Asian and Latino students were in the same boat with them.”
CEO president Roger Clegg agreed, and stressed that, not only was race weighed, but it was weighed much more heavily that residency status. “For instance, a white Arizonan in 2007 was about eight times less likely to be admitted to the University of Arizona than a black out-of-state applicant, and at Arizona State he would be twelve times less likely to be admitted.”
CEO also analyzed undergraduate and medical school admissions at the University of Arizona, but found less statistical evidence of discrimination there, based on the data provided by the university pursuant to an information request filed by CEO and the Arizona Association of Scholars (AAS also joined CEO in its request for data from the University of Arizona law school).
Arizona State University
College of Law
University of Arizona
College of Law
The Center for Equal Opportunity is a nonprofit research and educational organization that studies issues related to civil rights, bilingual education, and immigration and assimilation nationwide.
- Published Date
- Written by Roger Clegg
The Pope Center for Higher Education Policy asked me to write about my recent appearance at a conference in Washington, D.C., at which I warned college officials that the Center for Equal Opportunity was watching their use of racial and ethnic preferences in admissions. Here’s the essay that I sent the Pope Center and that it published (there’s also a link here):
The Gallup Organization and Inside Higher Ed co-hosted a conference in Washington on September 15. They called it “Not Out of the Woods: Colleges, Diversity and Affirmative Action after a Year of Protest and Court Battles.” Most of those in attendance were university officials of one kind or another.
I was the sole participant who takes a negative view of racial preferences in college admissions, which I regard as both legally defective and educationally damaging, among other pernicious defects.
Two subjects were up for discussion: the legal environment for racial preferences in college admissions following the Supreme Court’s recent decisions in Fisher v. University of Texas and a Gallup poll showing low levels of approval for racial preferences among the public. I spoke mainly on the former, but as to the latter, Ashley Thorne of the National Association of Scholars observed in this essay that “Educators and student affairs administrators found the survey results mysterious but chalked them up to white privilege, bias, and ignorance.”
I was introduced by Scott Jaschik of Inside Higher Ed who explained that my organization (the Center for Equal Opportunity) opposes racial preferences and then added, “For those of you who think you’re safe, Roger is watching you.” He’s right.
In my presentation, I argued that, following Fisher, college officials have three options.
First, they can choose not to use racial preferences at all.
Second, if they do consider a student’s race in admission decisions, they can do so in ways that are narrowly tailored to some legitimate objective (not merely to fill an arbitrary quota), showing that they have first tried race-neutral options. That is, they can follow the legal constraints that have been put on using racial preferences.
Third, they can use racial preferences illegally. But schools that appear to do that will be scrutinized, hit with Freedom of Information Act requests, and possibly sued.
I went on to explain why colleges should drop racial preferences: They are not only legally problematic but widely unpopular with the public, as the poll showed; using race as a proxy for disadvantage is unjust and inaccurate; and schools that don’t use preferences avoid a host of problems including stigmatization, resentment, mismatch, and the encouragement of an unhealthy obsession with race.
My arguments were not greeted with wild applause. As Ashley Thorne (who stayed for the entire event, which I could not) wrote in her essay, “The room seemed tense after Clegg spoke, but his fellow panelists and the audience basically ignored the substance of his remarks and did not refer to him again the rest of the day. After that panel, the atmosphere settled into one of complacency and the assumption that everyone agreed that racial diversity has educational benefits.”
An excellent example of that complacency was this statement by one of the members of my panel, Art Coleman(managing partner and co-founder of the Education Counsel):“Forget the law.” If you want to do the “educationally right thing,” he declared, you should figure that out first, then the law. The University of Texas, Coleman stated, had told the Supreme Court “what the law should be.”
I agreed with Coleman that it is important to keep in mind that none of the Court’s decisions on racial preferences in university admission—Bakke, Gratz, Grutter, and Fisher I and II—has reversed any of the other decisions. And those decisions, while unfortunately keeping the door open for racial preferences, have also put constraints on their use. Schools must, the Court has held, document that the use of such preferences is the only way to achieve the “educational benefits” of a “diverse” student body.
And despite Coleman’s rather inartful suggestion that schools “forget the law,” he himself has actually made clear over the years that they should not do so, and has himself described the hoops that need to be, and should be, jumped through. Colleges that don’t comply with the law risk lawsuits.
I corrected Mr. Coleman’s suggestion that all of the justices accept the purported “educational benefits” of “diversity” as being a “compelling” enough interest to justify racial discrimination. There’s certainly no reason to think that the Chief Justice, let alone Justice Alito and Justice Thomas, accept the claim that diversity produces any educational benefits, much less ones so substantial as to justify discrimination against American students who are not classified as being in a “diverse” group.
I also disputed Coleman’s suggestion that treating people without regard to skin color somehow deprives them of their “dignity.” I think it’s the other way around.
Morality aside, the problem with breaking the law here is that schools will be caught.
My organization, the Center for Equal Opportunity, has filed many, many FOIA requests with universities over the years, and that’s not going to change. We will ask for all documents related to the various hoops that schools are supposed to jump through: for example, the studies that Justice Kennedy wants done, the consideration of race-neutral alternatives, the periodic review of racially preferential measures, and so forth.
Schools that respond that they have no such records are admitting that they have not done what the law requires of them. They cannot blissfully engage in racial preferences without a paper trail, no matter how much officials may believe that they’re “doing the right thing.”
Trustees and alumni should take note of this. No matter how sympathetic one is to political correctness, it is irresponsible for a school to break the law and set itself up for a ruinous lawsuit.
Which brings us back to my message for college officials: You are being watched.
- Published Date
- Written by Roger Clegg
Stanford and Yale are destroying student records that would likely open them to charges of illegal racial discrimination. See this news story in the Chronicle of Higher Education.
This ought to be a very big deal. And note this: “Students for Fair Admissions, an advocacy group that has filed lawsuits challenging the race-conscious admissions policies of Harvard University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, on Thursday sent Yale and several other Ivy League institutions letters warning that they put themselves at legal risk if they destroy such records.”
* * *
Maryland’s medical marijuana commission will be required by statute to “seek to achieve racial, ethnic, and geographic diversity when licensing medical marijuana growers,” to encourage “applicants who qualify as a minority business enterprise,” and to “seek to achieve racial, ethnic, and geographic diversity when licensing dispensaries.”
Now, the usual justification for race-based decision-making is remedying past discrimination in a particular industry or agency, but it’s hard to see how that would apply here, since the marijuana business — at least, the legal marijuana business — is quite new in Maryland. So it must be that pot grown and dispensed by African Americans is somehow different from that grown and dispensed by white Marylanders. Who knew?
* * *
Well, so much for sports uniting us: The Washington Post reports, “ESPN 980 began developing a morning program built around [Jason] Reid and Chris Paul . . . The idea: a local sports-talk show hosted by two white personalities and aimed at white men . . . ”
Just kidding! Of course, the show was to be hosted by “two African American personalities” and was to be “aimed at African American men.” That’s fine, whereas the former would have been illegal and racist.
* * *
John McWhorter casts a skeptical eye here on the “white privilege” fad, and rightly so.
My take: It is, for starters, a divisive phrase, much more likely to hurt race relations than help them, as it lumps together all white people – many of whom cannot be considered “privileged” by any reasonable standard – and points an accusatory finger at them, asserting, “You don’t deserve what you have.” It is, at bottom, just another way of complaining about stereotyping, even though all racial groups – indeed, all groups, period – face stereotyping, some negative and some positive, and there’s nothing new or remarkable about it. It overstates the extent to which stereotyping occurs and the consequences it has. And, finally, playing this particular race card suggests that racial disparities — and, indeed, racial stereotyping — are due solely to racism simpliciter, and have nothing to do with culture and, in particular, cultural dysfunctions.
It is, in other words, the “conversation on race” that we have come to expect from the left: All whites must accept blame for all disparities of any kind, and any suggestion that some nonwhites have failed to act responsibly is blaming the victim.
* * *
Finally, the Federalist Society recently posted an interesting podcast, involving the 2008 financial crisis. The conventional narrative is that this crisis was caused by Wall Street’s actions and insufficient regulation of the financial system. But a competing narrative is that, in fact, the crisis was caused not by bad actors on Wall Street, but by government housing policies. In the podcast, Peter Wallison marshals evidence in support of this view, which is also the thesis of his recently-released book, Hidden in Plain Sight: What Really Caused the World’s Worst Financial Crisis and Why It Could Happen Again.
And what does all this have to do with the Center for Equal Opportunity? Well, those “government housing policies” were largely race-driven — that is, the feds brought pressure to bear on lenders to “get their numbers right” and make more loans to certain people because of their skin color or national origin. You can read the related testimony I gave to Congress here in the wake of the crisis.
During the podcast, you can hear me read in this part of that testimony, to get Mr. Wallison’s reaction:
By the way, if there was an uptick in subprime lending in the recent past, it may have come about because lenders were being pressured by government and quasigovernment agencies to make more loans to individuals with marginal creditworthiness. The response of the lenders might have been, “Fine, but if we have to make these loans, we will have to charge higher interest rates to make them economically feasible.” Thus, the same people who are lamenting “predatory lending” may have caused it by pushing for more loans to members of this or that racial, ethnic, or income group.
Mr. Wallison agreed. Another bad government policy, driven by race, with disastrous consequences. Here’s how I concluded my testimony:
It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that the last thing the government should do is encourage lenders to worry about anything other than creditworthiness in making loans. …. Ramping up the use of disparate-impact civil-rights enforcement, and any other kind of pressure on lenders to make sure that they get their racial and ethnic numbers right, is a bad idea. … [O]ur fair housing laws should and do make it illegal for lenders to treat people differently on the basis of race or ethnicity, and that is how they should be enforced. As a matter of law, legal policy, and economics, those laws should not be used to coerce lenders into arriving at politically correct statistical results.
- Published Date
- Written by Roger Clegg
A couple of months ago, the Supreme Court handed down its disappointing decision in Fisher v. University of Texas, and race and higher education continue to be in the news. This past week has seen controversy over student housing ads expressing a preference of “people of color” and separate student sections in courses for minority students, and there’s been a call this week for “diversity” to be graded in school rankings by U.S. News & World Report — all bad ideas, in my humble opinion, and each showing in its own way why politically correct racial discrimination should not be part of higher education, despite the Supreme Court’s pronouncement.
Here’s what I wrote about the Fisher decision at the time in Minding the Campus. I thought it was important to make the point that, while the decision was disappointing, the fight is not over.
The Supreme Court today upheld the University of Texas’s use of racial preferences in student admissions. The vote was 4-3, with Justice Kennedy writing the majority opinion, joined by Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, and Sotomayor (Justice Kagan was recused). Justice Alito wrote a powerful, 51-page dissent, which he read from the bench.
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. But the silver lining is that today’s decision is a narrow one.
As the Court says, UT’s program “is sui generis” and the way the case was litigated “may limit its value for prospective guidance.”
Justice Kennedy also warns the university repeatedly in his opinion that it has an ongoing duty to minimize its use of race. 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.
Now, much of this may be quite false as a matter of what really happens at the University of Texas, but other schools are now obliged to jump through the hoops that the Court says UT jumped through.
So look at it this way: Barring a decision by the Court that overruled Grutter v. Bollinger and said that schools may never use racial preferences because the “educational benefits of diversity” are not compelling, lots of schools 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 the school can prove XYZ,” then every Ivy League president would swear that, what do you know, we have found XYZ.” And it doesn’t matter what XYZ is.
That’s what the law was before today’s decision, and it remains what the law is after today’s decision. Sure, it would have been better if the Court had given the opponents of racial preferences more ammunition than it did today to attack those XYZ claims, but we still have plenty of ammunition from the Court’s earlier decisions.
The bottom line is that the Court’s decision leaves plenty of room for future challenges to racial preference policies at other schools, and at UT itself for that matter. It’s interesting that in the run-up to the decision, there was much discussion even among liberals that maybe indeed there are better approaches to student admissions that UT’s. Here’s hoping that those discussions continue, prodded along by lawsuits and FOIA requests to ensure that all of Justice Kennedy’s hoops have been jumped through.
So the challenges to racial preferences will continue; cases already filed against Harvard and the University of North Carolina–Chapel Hill that had been on hold will now proceed. And the Supreme Court has also made clear that states are free to act on their own to ban racial preferences, through ballot initiatives or legislation. The struggle goes on.
I had a similar take on National Review Online here. You can listen to me talk about the case on this Federalist Society teleforum; I also was interviewed on a Chinese-American radio station, and I was quoted in the New York Times, Washington Post, and elsewhere.
* * *
And just before the decision, Columbia president Lee Bollinger had an essay in the New York Times favoring racial preferences, which I responded to in National Review Online:
[Bollinger’s essay] makes three points, which can be briefly stated and refuted:
- As the book Mismatch and others have documented, while the number of African Americans and Latinos admitted to a couple of California universities may have gone down in the wake of banning racial preferences there, the number of students who have graduated in the University of California system has gone up dramatically.
- Exposure to different viewpoints can be an educational positive, but it doesn’t justify something as ugly as racial discrimination, with all its costs, and in all events there is no reason to use race as a proxy for having a different viewpoint.
- As for using racial discrimination to achieve racial balancing, this is nothing more than the “discrimination for its own sake” that Justice Powell explicitly rejected decades ago in his Bakke opinion.
* * *
Finally, I should note that, no surprise, Justice Kennedy’s lame opinion did nothing to persuade the overwhelming majority of Americans that racial discrimination in university admissions is a bad idea.
In the wake of the Supreme Court’s Fisher decision, a poll of the public by Gallup, with questions drafted with Inside Higher Ed, finds that the general public disagrees with the Court and college leaders. Nearly two-thirds (65 percent) of those surveyed by Gallup between June 29 and July 2, 2016, said they disagreed with the decision. The ruling was backed by 31 percent, and 4 percent had no opinion.
You can read IHE’s article here, which gives details on how deep and wide the public’s disapproval is. Note also that the article has a sidebar about a September 15 conference (I’ve agreed to be a panelist at the latter).
I’m quoted at the end of the IHE article:
Roger Clegg, president and general counsel of the Center for Equal Opportunity, which opposes the consideration of race in admissions, said he was not surprised or alarmed by the poll results. “Americans have been brought up to believe that it’s a bad thing to treat people differently because of their skin color or where their ancestors came from,” he said. “None of this is surprising.”
Clegg said that public colleges and universities that feel secure in considering race in admissions should also remember that voters or legislators can pass laws that bar them from doing so. And in fact, that has happened. In 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the right (in some circumstances) of the University of Michigan to consider race in admissions. In 2006, the state’s voters barred public universities in the state from considering race in admissions–and that ban stands.
Asked about greater public support for considering athletic ability or alumni status than race in admissions decisions, Clegg acknowledged that the motivations of colleges for wanting to favor athletes or alumni children were not “the noblest” of all college motivations.
But he said that he agreed with the public that it’s better to consider those factors than race. “Discriminating against people on the basis of skin color is uniquely ugly, and I am not surprised and not bothered by the fact that more Americans should be offended by that than because applicants can throw a football well.
* * *
As I said, the fight will go on against racial preferences in higher education.