Center for Equal Opportunity

The nation’s only conservative think tank devoted to issues of race and ethnicity.

Sun12172017

Last update07:18:57 AM

Back You are here: Home Affirmative Action

Affirmative Action

DOJ Investigating Harvard’s Racial Preferences

Over the summer, it was reported that the U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division was taking steps to investigate Harvard University’s use of racial preferences in admissions, especially insofar as they discriminate against Asian-American applicants.

You may recall that the Center for Equal Opportunity was mentioned prominently as encouraging the investigation (see the statement we issued here) when the story was first reported in the New York Times.  Well, news stories are now confirming that this investigation is, indeed, under way.

Good. As I explain here, such an investigation is entirely appropriate. What’s more, such discrimination should be stopped at all schools, and here’s hoping that challenges to politically correct racial and ethnic preferences continue — and that the Trump administration supports them.

*          *          *
By the way, one of the points I make in the essay linked to the preceding paragraph is that no one really believes in the “diversity” justification for racial preferences, and that the only purported justification for such discrimination that people do believe in is one that the Supreme Court has (quite correctly) rejected, namely that we have to have discrimination now in favor of some groups in order to make up for historical past discrimination against them. 

Well, evidence that I’m right is found in this article here, about how a number of black students at Cornell are demanding that the school focus its preference efforts less on blacks from recently immigrated families and more on “black students whose families were affected directly by the African Holocaust in America. Cornell must work to actively support students whose families have been impacted for generations by white supremacy and American fascism.”

Now, whatever this overwrought justification is, it is not about “diversity,” since one would expect recently immigrated African Americans to provide more, not less, diversity of outlook and experiences than non–recently immigrated African Americans.

*          *          *

New Challenge to P.C. Racial Gerrymandering – The indispensable law firm (who knew there could be such a thing?) Consovoy McCarthy Park filed an important lawsuit on last week, challenging the constitutionality of the California Voting Rights Act. That statute requires in particular that race-based single-member districts be created and that they replace at-large systems if “racially polarized” voting exists; the complaint alleges that this violates the Fourteenth Amendment because such “race-based sorting of voters” does not serve a compelling government interest and is not narrowly tailored.

The lawsuit is important not just because it challenges an aggressive, identity-politics-uber-alles law in our nation’s largest state, but because the federal Voting Rights Act is frequently used to coerce racially gerrymandered districts as well.  The Center for Equal Opportunity has been loud and clear over the years on this point, testifying before Congress, filing amicus briefs in the courts, and writing innumerable columns and op-eds (CEO chairman Linda Chavez also condemned the practice in her book, Out of the Barrio: Toward a New Politics of Hispanic Assimilation.   

To be sure, the California law goes further than the federal law has (so far), and indeed was passed to circumvent limits put on racial gerrymandering by the U.S. Supreme Court. But a successful lawsuit here could have salutary effects in other states and at the federal level, too.

So kudos all around: to the law firm, to the plaintiff (a former mayor, Don Higginson), and to the Project for Fair Representation, which acted as matchmaker for the two.

*          *          *

That’s Not Funny – Here’s my favorite joke of the light-bulb genre:  How many left-wing feminists does it take to screw in a light bulb?  Answer:  That’s not funny.

I don’t mean to pick on left-wing feminists — well, not just on the feminists at least.  A lack of sense of humor describes the Left generally and its protestors in particular.  This is related to its obsession with grievance and backward-looking stubbornness:  Not a recipe for a sense of humor or perspective.

And so the choice between the mindset of organizations like the Center for Equal Opportunity on our side of the aisle and the Left could not be starker.  We are impatient with racial discrimination, racial preferences, and race-based decisionmaking of all kinds (including the disparate-impact approach to civil-rights enforcement), so our side does not lack seriousness of purpose.  But it is forward-looking, positive, and optimistic.  It recognizes past wrongdoings but does not obsess over them, and keeps them in perspective, recognizing that America is all in all a great country — the greatest ever, in fact — that affords unrivaled opportunities for all its citizens.

So lighten up.

“Diversity” and Other Euphemisms

Last week, the Los Angeles Times ran an op-ed complaining that the word “diversity” is a euphemism, since its proponents really want nothing more than nondiscrimination.  My published rejoinder to this dubious claim:

I wish it were true that those asking for “diversity” were asking only for nondiscrimination, as Noah Berlatsky writes. But in many contexts the opposite is true: The last thing they want is nondiscrimination, and what they are asking for is precisely discrimination, albeit of the politically correct sort. (“'Diversity' is a euphemism. We should be careful how we use it,” Opinion, July 10)

Thus, when universities try to increase “diversity,” they do so through the use of preferential treatment; in general, it discriminates not only against whites but also against Asian Americans. The same is true in the employment and contracting context, although the victims sometimes change. What stays the same is that what’s wanted is not to ignore skin color or national origin or gender, but to weigh it in the decision-making.

I agree that the term “diversity” is a euphemism, but much of the time it cloaks politically correct discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity and sex. Such preferential treatment is wrong, and it should stop.

*          *          *

I might have added that, if all the proponents of “diversity” wanted was nondiscrimination, they would not have needed to come up with a new word for their program.  In fact, it’s precisely because they not want nondiscrimination that they needed to come up with some new phrase.

And this this is not the first time that the Left has come up with a euphemism for politically correct discrimination.  Here’s a piece I wrote ten years ago on this theme, on the occasion of Martin Luther King Day:

Are You “Overrepresented”?

Today we celebrate the birthday of the man who spoke movingly of his dream that one day his children would be judged not by the content of their character, but by whether they were underrepresented or not.

No, wait, I must have been having a bad dream. Let me explain.

Last March, my eye was caught by a story in which a Yale official bragged about how his school is doing great things when it comes to improving the numbers of “underrepresented minorities” there. In April, the James Irvine Foundation issued a report, “The Revolving Door for Underrepresented Minority Faculty in Higher Education,” lamenting the high turnover rate for these “URM” teachers. In May, an article in UMass Magazine talked about the efforts there “to increase the numbers of underrepresented minorities in the STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) disciplines.” In June, Duke noted that a research fellows program it runs, funded by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, “specifically targets women and underrepresented minorities.” In July, a camp for high-school students was held at the University of Texas’s Arlington School of Nursing; it was “made possible by a … grant that aims to recruit traditionally underrepresented minorities into nursing education.” In August, I received an e-mail from my alma mater, Rice University, about a high-school program it has designed “to convince underrepresented minority students that math isn’t something to be feared or avoided.” And finally, in September and just in time for the beginning of the current academic year, we were back to Yale, with a story that alludes to a separate fund that it maintains just for hiring women and “underrepresented minorities.”

But those are just a few examples: The phrase “underrepresented minority” is everywhere. And this is a good day to talk about it.

You have to hand it to the Left when it comes to rhetorical subterfuge in the service of racial discrimination. Its facility with words puts one in mind of Animal Farm’s pig Squealer, another clever defender of the indefensible.

Using the phrase “affirmative action” — which originally meant taking positive steps, proactive measures (just what it sounds like it ought to mean, right?) — to cloak affirmative discrimination (Nathan Glazer’s apter phrase) was sly. Even more resourceful was turning the innocent word “diversity” into a synonym for “Let’s put a ceiling on the number of whites (and, usually, Asians),” as documented by Peter Wood in his wonderful book, Diversity: The Invention of a Concept. But insufficient credit has been given to an equally ingenious and now ubiquitous term: “underrepresented minority.”

As with “affirmative action” and “diversity,” much of the genius lies in the fact that it seems so hard to be in the opposition. Thus, whatever the opposite of “affirmative action” is — “passive inaction”? “negative action”? — who could favor it? And, likewise with respect to “diversity,” who in a multiethnic society could favor — let alone fight for — “monochromism,” or even “homogeneity” or “uniformity”?

Similarly, who can want minorities to be “underrepresented”? Deep in our republican — small “r” — psyches is a sympathy with and commitment to representation. How can it be fair, therefore, that any group be underrepresented?
And it’s not just that the opposites seem so untenable, but that being supportive seems so, well, correct. Doesn’t taking affirmative action sound like the bold, energetic, right thing to do? Isn’t diversity smart, like when you’re putting together an investment portfolio? And representation — why, our country is built on that, after all!

Well, perhaps the rebuttal starts with the observation that, if it is bad for groups to be underrepresented, it must follow as night follows day that it is bad as well for groups to be overrepresented. This is not just the opposite side of the same coin: It is the same side of the same coin.

So, you know, we must not judge too harshly those WASPs who, back in the day, took steps to ensure that those overachieving, overrepresented Jews did not take over the Ivy League, right? And there really wasn’t anything wrong with Bill Clinton’s ominous 1995 warning that “there are universities that could fill their entire freshman classes nothing but Asian-Americans,” was there?

Squirming yet? But obviously that’s what the adjective “underrepresented” is there for: to make sure that some minorities, the overrepresented ones, get discriminated against just like the WASP kids.

The fact is that, in this country at least, we do not “represent” a color. We represent only our individual selves. There is no reason that our qualifications should be judged differently just because more or fewer of those already chosen happen to share or not share our particular melanin content.

One can almost have some sympathy with the Left. It must constantly dream up and promulgate new euphemisms since sooner or later the old ones always wear gossamer thin and it becomes all too easy to see what it is trying to cover up.

You can call it “affirmative action” or you can celebrate “diversity” or you can set goals for “underrepresented minorities,” but when you consider a person’s skin color in deciding whether to award her an admissions slot, or a contract, or a job — then you are engaging in racial discrimination.

It’s spinach, and to hell with it.

We’re Watching You, College Officials

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.

“Cultural Flavor” and University Admissions

Some documents recently uncovered at Princeton show that, when awarding a preference on the basis of race or ethnicity, the admissions office wants to make sure that the student being considered has a strong “cultural flavor.” That is, for example, you can’t just be Hispanic, you have to act Hispanic, whatever that means for the admissions office.

Offensive, of course, but unsurprising. After all, the “diversity” rationale for such racial and ethnic discrimination is premised on such stereotyping. That is, there are supposed to be “educational benefits” to exposing students to people with different backgrounds and perspectives; if the recipient of the preference isn’t supplying the different background or perspective, then why give him or her a preference?

Add this to the long list of costs of using racial and ethnic preferences in university admissions: You encourage admissions officers to use stereotypes, and you encourage students to conform to them. Conversely, you discourage people from seeing others and themselves as individuals and as Americans first.

And the other costs of using racial and ethnic preferences? So glad you asked: 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.

*          *          *

I noted in an earlier email that I appeared on Samantha Bee’s show to discuss felon voting (she’s for, I’m against).  A recent article did a fact-check on that show, in the specific context of Florida, and quotes me:

Bee interviewed one person who opposes automatic restoration of rights for felons generally: Roger Clegg, a former deputy assistant attorney general in the Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations. He has called for states to address restoration on a case-by-case basis.

Clegg said that of course some crimes appear less serious than others, but the ones Bee cited are serious for the victims. For example, if someone sells a car that has 200,000 miles on it but has tampered with the odometer to show only 20,000 miles, that is cheating the buyer out of thousands of dollars.

"You can ask someone who makes his or her living as a lobster fisherman if it’s a trivial matter if someone ‘molests’ (the statute’s word) his or her traps," he said.

Here’s some more of what I told the fact-checker in our exchange of emails (she sent me the first one, asking a series of questions): 

Thanks, Amy.  I’m not aware of that data on number of convictions per statute in Florida; I would think the state attorney general would be the best place to start, or perhaps the court system keeps it (if the state supreme court has an administrative office, you could start there).

As for why felons should lose their voting rights:  If you aren’t willing to follow the law yourself, then you can’t demand a role in making the law for everyone else, which is what you do when you vote.  The right to vote can be restored to felons, but it should be done carefully, on a case-by-case basis after a person has shown that he or she has really turned over a new leaf, not automatically on the day someone walks out of prison.  After all, the unfortunate truth is that most people who walk out of prison will be walking back in. 

Or look at it this way:  We don't let everyone vote:  Not children, not noncitizens, not the mentally incompetent, and not felons.  We have certain minimum, objective standards of responsibility and commitment to our laws that we require before people are entrusted with a role in the solemn enterprise of self-government.  People who have committed serious crimes against their fellow citizens cannot be entrusted with this right until they earn it back.  If the Florida system is too slow or cumbersome, I think it makes more sense to focus on improving it rather than automatically reenfranchising all felons on the day they walk out of prison. 

Felonies (versus misdemeanors) are by definition serious crimes according to the state legislature.  That said, certainly some felonies are more serious than others, and that’s something that can be considered in deciding how soon to restore a right, along with how recently the crime was committed and if it was part of a series of criminal violations.  You can always find some crimes that appear less serious than others, but actually I’m not that impressed with Ms. Bee’s list.  It’s not absurd to make some drugs illegal, and most states have marijuana in that category; I assume that penalizing odometer tampering is to prevent sales fraud (if you sell someone a car that has 200,000 miles on it and tell them that it has only 20,000 miles on it, you may well be cheating them out of hundreds or thousands of dollars); you can ask someone who makes his or her living as a lobster fisherman if it’s a trivial matter if someone “molests” (the statute’s word) his or her traps.  BTW, as I recall Ms. Bee suggested that this is all just Florida state silliness, but I’m sure there are federal laws about drugs and odometers and I bet there are for lobster traps, too (see https://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/sustainable/species/lobster/ ).

Another BTW:  You are right to be curious about that conviction data.  Most people in state prison are there for crimes that just about everyone would consider serious.   

As for other information, here’s a paper I coauthored (see especially pages 7 on, since most of pages 1-6 is on Congress’s power in this area):  http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/2015/pdf/LM145.pdf

Thanks for reaching out, and feel free to call me …. 

*          *          *

Finally, the Center for Equal Opportunity has frequently teamed up over the years with the James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal in North Carolina, so I wanted to acknowledge a couple of recent columns by George Leef, who does great work there — one on Second Amendment issues and one on academic freedom.  Putting the two together, I think George should conclude that we need to do a better job arming the few conservative professors we have!

Racial Preferences in Higher Education

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.

Skin Color Determines “Who Gets In”

A new book by Rebecca Zwick, Who Gets In?, has some interesting data on, among other things, the effect of racial preferences on university admissions.  According to the discussion this week in Inside Higher Ed:

What she found is that an admissions system based solely on grades and test scores would result in significant increases in Asian [and white] enrollments and declines in enrollments of underrepresented minority [i.e., black and Latino, and sometimes American Indian] students. …

Model for Impact of Different Admissions Models at Colleges That Admit Less Than 10% of Applicants


Race/Ethnicity

Current

If Decisions Based Only on Grades/Test Scores

If Race-Based Affirmative Action Added

If Socioeconomic Affirmative Action Added

Asian

12.1%

15.6%

12.5%

14.9%

Underrepresented

12.4%

2.5%

15.6%

5.6%

More than one race

3.8%

1.5%

1.4%

2.3%

White

71.7%

80.4%

70.5%

77.2%

The article notes, “Zwick is a major proponent of affirmative action, but some of the data in the book may well be useful to those trying to eliminate the consideration of race in admissions.”  You bet.  And of course the Center for Equal Opportunity has done many, many studies (scroll down to the bottom of this page on our website for more information) that likewise document the heavy weight schools are giving to race in their admissions.

*          *          *

The lead editorial in the New York Times on Monday this week bemoaned “Segregation in New York Schools.”  Of course, there are no segregated public schools in New York or anywhere in this country in 2017:  Segregated means telling kids of one color that, because of their color, they cannot attend schools with kids of a different color, and that doesn’t happen.  What we have are racial imbalances, but those imbalances are labeled “segregation” if they are of a sort that the Left doesn’t like. 

But the silliness of the editorial continues beyond its title.  The Times is unhappy not only with imbalances that can be traced only to residential living patterns, but also if they are a result of school choice.  In particular, the Times doesn’t like the fact that sometimes school choice is limited by a student’s ability to pass some sort of academic requirement.  Can’t have that! 

No doubt if parents of certain colors are, statistically speaking, more likely to become informed about where the good schools are and to put their children in those schools — well, that too would be “segregation.”  The Times admits that its criterion for whether the choice system is working or not is whether it meets the racial quotas that its editorial writers want.

*          *          *

I was on the Samantha Bee show last week, to defend the practice of disenfranchising felons until they have shown they have turned over a new leaf.  Ms. Bee is not my favorite television personality, but she was kind enough to invite me and introduce me as “the leading voice” on our side of the aisle.  Here was my basic message to her:

If you aren’t willing to follow the law yourself, then you can’t demand a role in making the law for everyone else, which is what you do when you vote.  The right to vote can be restored to felons, but it should be done carefully, on a case-by-case basis after a person has shown that he or she has really turned over a new leaf, not automatically on the day someone walks out of prison.  After all, the unfortunate truth is that most people who walk out of prison will be walking back in. 

I suppose if Jesus felt obliged to eat with sinners and tax collectors, I should be willing to talk with Samantha Bee.

*          *          *

Speaking of the felon voting issue, a bill that would automatically reenfranchise felons has passed both houses of the Nevada state legislature.  Here’s hoping that Nevada governor Brian Sandoval will veto it when it’s presented to him, as Nebraska governor Pete Ricketts did last month.  The Center for Equal Opportunity had urged Governor Ricketts to take that action, by the way, and we have done so with Governor Sandoval as well.

*          *          *

Samuel Johnson famously said, “People need to be reminded more often than they need to be instructed.”  And so in that spirit, let me remind you of the mission statement of the Center for Equal Opportunity:

The Center for Equal Opportunity is the nation’s only conservative think tank devoted to issues of race and ethnicity. Our fundamental vision is straightforward: America always has been a multiethnic and multiracial nation, and is becoming even more so; this makes it imperative that our national policies not divide our people according to skin color and national origin; but rather, these policies should emphasize and nurture the principles that unify us. E pluribus unum. . . out of many, one.

We work to promote a colorblind society, one within which race and skin color are no longer an issue and so accordingly we oppose admission, hiring, and contracting policies that discriminate, sort, or prefer on the basis of race or ethnicity. We oppose racial gerrymandering. We oppose bilingual education, because it segregates students by national origin, encourages identity politics, and fails to teach children English — the single most important skill they can learn and the most important social glue holding our country together. And, whatever one believes to be an acceptable level of immigration, all should agree that those coming to America must become Americans, and this means that assimilation is not a dirty word, but a national necessity.

When you think about it, what — besides protection from foreign enemies — is more important to our country’s long-term health than making sure Americans are not divided into racial or ethnic enclaves, but instead share fundamental common values and see each other and themselves as, first and foremost, Americans? And can there be any doubt that we need to attend to this with more care than we have in recent years? Doing so is the mission of the Center for Equal Opportunity.

It seemed to be a good time for such a reminder. Sad to say but there are still racial and ethnic divisions, and of course it is always important to ensure the assimilation of our immigrants.  The path forward is not identity politics (of Left or Right); or multiculturalism; or institutionalized discrimination of the politically correct kind — or lowered standards — to ensure predetermined racial results.  The right policy remains colorblind equal opportunity and the principle of E pluribus unum, of sharing fundamental common values and seeing and treating each other as Americans first.

Trump Talking Points for Fisher

As we await the Supreme Court’s decision in Fisher v. University of Texas–Austin, challenging the school’s use of preferences for African Americans and Latinos in admissions, I was thinking about what I would like to hear Donald Trump say when asked about the opinion (I know what Hillary Clinton will say).  Normally, I would hope that the Republican nominee, at least, would be supportive of the expected Court decision rejecting or at least limiting such preferences, but it’s more complicated with Mr. Trump. 

The trouble is that, if he said the right thing, then the response of the Left, the media, and others would be, “Well, there you go.  We always said that those opposing affirmative action are bigots, and sure enough, Donald Trump — whom we all know to be a bigot — opposes affirmative action.”  Not helpful.

So here’s a response from Mr. Trump that would better advance the ball:  “The Court’s decision is a yuuuuuuuuuge disappointment.  I think it’s very important for schools to be able to get the Mexican perspective in classroom discussions, as well as of course the perspective of the blacks.  There’s a time and a place for everything.  I mean, I don’t want the Mexican perspective when it comes to the lawsuit against Trump University, so I don’t want a Mexican judge there.  But it’s different in the classroom.  So, sure, schools should be able to admit the right number of the Mexicans and the blacks to get their perspective, since they think about things differently.  And on this I’m sure that Hillary and I agree.” 

And then the press could ask Secretary Clinton whether in fact she agreed with Mr. Trump on this and, if not, then exactly what her disagreement was.

Diversity without Discrimination – And speaking of the Fisher case, there’s an interesting article in the College Fix here, headlined, “Texas A&M sees 114% growth in diversity without affirmative action, it admits students based on merit.”  This is in contradistinction to the Aggies’ rival, the tea-sips at the University of Texas, whose use of racial preferences in admissions has, as noted above, been challenged in a case that that the Supreme Court will decide any day now. 

The principal argument made by the plaintiff in Fisher is that UT has had and can have plenty of diversity without discrimination; the College Fix article seems to say the same thing.  Go Aggies!  Gig the ‘Horns!

Meet That Quota! – Last week the Office for Civil Rights in the Obama administration’s Education Department sent out a “Dear Colleague” letter on “gender equity” in career and technical education. The accompanying press release ties this in with the White House’s “United State of Women” summit, which immediately raises eyebrows: Why is this “significant guidance” regarding, supposedly, complying with the law being timed to coincide with a political event? 

Oh, well. As you might expect, the principal bogeyman here is not having enough females in auto repair programs and not enough males in nursing programs — that sort of thing. It’s made clear that mere equal opportunity is not enough if there aren’t equal results accompanying it, and that you better get your numbers right.

Some examples: States must “meet negotiated targets for participation and completion rates of males and females in programs that are nontraditional for their sex“; “Despite efforts to increase enrollment of male and female students in fields that are non-traditional for their sex, disparities persist in certain fields”; and so let’s “tak[e] proactive steps to expand participation of students in fields where one sex is underrepresented.”

There are also a couple of warnings about “implicit bias” and “ambient bias.”

One way to ensure that the numbers come out right is to take the beloved (to the Obama administration) “disparate impact” approach to civil-rights enforcement. Even though the language of Title IX prohibits only actual “disparate treatment” on the basis of sex, the educrats and their rules and regulations look askance at any policy that has a disproportionate effect. It doesn’t matter if the policy is nondiscriminatorily written, intended, and applied.

Thus: “Recipients also may not use any test or criterion for admission to a school or degree program that has a disproportionately adverse effect on individuals of one sex unless certain criteria are met” — i.e., “A school may use such a test or criterion for admission [only] if it is shown to predict validly success in the education program or activity in question and alternative tests or criteria that do not have such a disproportionately adverse effect are shown to be unavailable” (emphasis added).

Here’s a specific example the letter helpfully gives: “A community college requires students who wish to enroll in its construction management program to have taken classes in construction technology in high school. Few female students are enrolled in the college’s construction management program. Each year a number of female students who express interest in the program are not able to enroll because they did not take classes in construction technology in high school. [OCR will] prohibit schools from using admissions criteria that have a disproportionate adverse effect on students of one sex unless the criteria are validated as essential to participate in the program and are shown to predict success in the program.”

Gotta meet those quotas, interest and qualifications be damned.   

*          *          *

A recent Washington Postcolumn complained about racial disparities and preschool suspensions.   It relied on an article by a couple of professors (Skiba and Williams) but, the suggestion of that article to the contrary notwithstanding, there is plenty of evidence that at least part of the reason “black students are suspended at higher rates [is] because their behavior is worse.”   See this article from the Journal of Criminal Justice.  And see also this discussion, by an attorney who used to work at the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights.

Note that the Journal of Criminal Justice article addresses a number of earlier articles by Skiba.  Conversely, the Skiba & Williams article did not cite the JCL article, though to be fair it’s not clear which one first appeared (since both were 2014 articles).  

After bringing all this to the Post columnist’s attention, I urged him in the future to reach out to experts with a different view.  I told him that I’m open to the possibility that school discipline policies can be improved (conservatives have been among the critics of zero-tolerance policies, for example), including for preschoolers, but we shouldn’t be so quick to play the race card.

We’ll see.

*          *          *

In the wake of the Orlando mass shooting, and the fact that the killer was America-born but obviously not America-loyal, I thought I would repost my top-ten list of what we should expect from those who want to become Americans — and those who are already Americans.  It’s a list, then, of what assimilation means:  We don’t all have to eat the same foods and listen to the same music, but we do have to have some common values if our multiracial, multiethnic, multifaith society is to work.

The list was first published in a National Review Online column, and it is fleshed out in Congressional testimony:

1. Don’t disparage anyone else’s race or ethnicity.
2. Respect women.
3. Learn to speak English.
4. Be polite.
5. Don’t break the law.
6. Don’t have children out of wedlock.
7. Don’t demand anything because of your race or ethnicity.
8. Don’t view working and studying hard as “acting white.”
9. Don’t hold historical grudges.
10. Be proud of being an American.

Keeping an Eye on College Admission Officers

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.

She continued:

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:

  1. Not factoring race into admissions is what most people favor, as the Gallup poll showed.
  2. There are no legal problems with not using racial preferences.
  3. It is fairer. Poverty and privilege come in all colors. Using skin color as a proxy for disadvantage is unjust.
  4. 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.

Answering Linda Greenhouse’s Question

Linda Greenhouse recently had a meandering New York Times column about Fisher v. University of Texas – in which  the Supreme Court is considering a challenge to racial and ethnic preferences in student admissions –  in which she unhappily concedes that the “diversity” rationale is the only way that universities can legally justify their use of such preferences. And she poses the core question that follows this way: “If diversity is the only acceptable rationale for taking account of race, as the court insists, then what is the rationale for diversity?”

Luckily (or unluckily) for her, I answered this question earlier on ScotusBlog.  It’s a detailed answer, but I think an important one, and I hope worth devoting this week’s email to:

Here’s the basic question in Fisher:  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?

The purported existence of such conversations – which is what the “diversity” justification boils down to – is the only justification for admission preferences that the University of Texas is using or can use.  The Court has rejected the remedial justification in this context (and rightly so); it has rejected the role model justification (and rightly so); there is nothing else left (and rightly so).

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 do fit the bill.  Fair enough?

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.

So it can’t be an observation about growing up poor, because there are poor people of all colors; and of course 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, The Shape of the River).

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 2012 were born in, let’s see, 1994, thirty years after the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.  True, these students may have faced other discrimination – but then, so may have Asian students and Middle Eastern students (and, for that matter, the European-American students who’ve recently applied to college).   One reason that, say, Justice O’Connor might have assumed that all black people and all white people live in different worlds growing up was that, for her when she was growing up, there was a lot more truth to that than there is today.

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?

Well, there must be something 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.

Whether the lesson schools are trying to teach is that African Americans have a particular point of view or, rather contradictorily, that African Americans don’t have a particular point of view – 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, Bill Cosby and Snoop Dogg, Herman Cain 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.

What’s more, schools have to have faith not only that these observations can be made, but that they will 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.

Perhaps it’s not so much what the student says as it is how 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.

Now, how compelling do these “educational benefits” have to be?  At a minimum, they have to be compelling enough to outweigh the costs of using racial preferences.  In fact, they must significantly 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.

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 (starting with our president).

By the way, the social-science evidence that there are compelling educational benefits that outweigh the costs is underwhelming, as discussed in the amicus briefs filed in Fisher by Abigail Thernstrom et al., Richard Sander and Stuart Taylor, Jr., Gail Heriot et al., the Pacific Legal Foundation et al., (including my organization), and a group of economics and statistics scholars.  My point in this post is that, simply as a matter of logic, it could hardly be otherwise.

*          *          *

Finally, we hope that all of you who were in the way of this weekend’s big snowstorm are safe and warm!