CEO president Roger Clegg urges Department of Education not to renew the law-school accreditation authority of the American Bar Association. Read Letter
See also March 7, 2006 Comment letter to the U.S. Departent of Education regarding ABA
CEO Is Concerned That The American Bar Association Accreditation Process May Pressure Law Schools Into Adopting Preferences Based on Race, Ethnicity, and Sex
As discussed elsewhere on our website CEO is concerned that the American Bar Association accreditation process may pressure law schools into adopting preferences based on race, ethnicity, and sex in its student admission and faculty hiring policies.
Accordingly, CEO has used the freedom-of-information laws to request information related to the ABA accreditation process from a number of law schools. We are posting some of the documents we have received in response to these information requests.
|
|
|
Petition to Princeton University that it release average test scores and admission rates on its applicants by race and ethnic group.
Is Princeton University discriminating against Asian-American applicants?
|
|
|
Federal and State Bills Would Require Universities to Detail Affirmative Action Policies
The Center for Equal Opportunity has drafted both federal and state legislation that would, respectively, require federally-funded universities and state-run institutions to reveal whether and how they grant admission preferences on the basis of race and ethnicity. The federal bill has been shared with Senate education committee staff, and the state legislation has been submitted to the American Legislative Exchange Council, an association of state legislators. Federal Legislation / State Legislation
|
|
Read more...
|
|
|
CEO president Roger Clegg and senior fellow Edward Blum have filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in the Texas redistricting cases, which will be argued on March 1. The brief argues that the Texas plan is not illegal, and that the state should not be required to engage in racial gerrymandering.
|
|
The word “diversity” is ubiquitous these days, especially in academia. Peter Wood, a professor of anthropology at Boston University, has written an invaluable book, Diversity: The Invention of a Concept, that explores the rise of the concept and, one hopes, will hasten its demise. There is, I must quickly add, nothing wrong with diversity per se, meaning a variety of people, with different skin colors and national origins, outlooks, and experiences. The trouble is that, whenever one hears the term, it is almost certainly because the speaker has an agenda that favors racial and ethnic discrimination in order to achieve a particular and predetermined demographic mix, while opposing merit and assimilation to American culture.
|
|
|
Suggests Legislative Ban on University Discrimination on Anniversary of Grutter and Gratz
In written testimony submitted to the Texas Senate Subcommittee on Higher Education, for its hearings on the state’s Ten Percent Plan, the Center for Equal Opportunity criticizes the Plan as racially discriminatory and bad educational policy. It adds, however, that the Plan is better than the use of overt racial and ethnic preferences, which it attacks as illegal and unfair. The testimony recommends that preferences be banned by the legislature before the University of Texas starts to use them again.
|
|
|
Request from Office for Civil Rights Results in Identification of Dozens More Programs
The Center for Equal Opportunity has uncovered over 60 racially discriminatory programs at Virginia Tech, in addition to at least 10 such programs that were earlier identified by the state Attorney General’s office. CEO found these programs in the course of responding to a request from the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR), which is investigating a complaint against Virginia Tech filed in April by CEO.
[Memorandum listing VA Tech's discriminatory programs-pdf] [Attachments to Memorandum]
|
|
Read more...
|
|
Virginia Attorney General Advises
Universities on Use of Racial Preferences
The memorandum below was obtained by CEO from one of the memo's recipients. Please refer to CEO's Virginia Law School page for information about the extent to which racial preferences are used at Virginia's public colleges and universities. CEO has issued a press release concerning the Attorney General's memo and will continue to keep the public advised about its ramifications.
|
|
Read more...
|
|
|
|
The Center for Equal Opportunity (CEO) has sent a letter to the University of Michigan’s general counsel questioning the legality of 12 race-and-ethnicity-exclusive programs offered by theuniversity. The programs include the Minority Research Summer Fellowship program, the LEAD program in Business, the Research Experience for Undergraduates and the Program in Scholarly Research for Urban Minority High School Students.
|
|
Read more...
|
|
Amicus brief filed by CEO in Supreme Court, supporting petition for review in Grutter v. Bollinger (2003 landmark racial preference case).
|
|
Urges Court to Reject “Diversity” Justification for Racial and Ethnic Discrimination The Center for Equal Opportunity filed a brief with the Supreme Court, urging the justices to reject the University of Michigan’s use of racial and ethnic preferences in its admission decisions. The American Civil Rights Institute and the Independent Women’s Forum also joined the brief, which was drafted by Mark Pickrell and CEO general counsel Roger Clegg.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Says All Races Will Win If Court Ends Discrimination in Admissions
Linda Chavez, president of the Center for Equal Opportunity, applauded the decision by the Supreme Court today to grant review in Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger, two cases challenging the use of racial and ethnic preferences in university admissions.
|
|
Read more...
|
|
Introduction by Linda Chavez
The Shape of the River, the new defense of Affirmative Action in college admissions by former Princeton and Harvard presidents William G. Bowen and Derek Bok, has been hailed by The New York Times as "striking confirmation of the success of affirmative action." A host of similar op-eds and reviews have followed suit, praising the book both for its scholarship and its defense of affirmative action. Few reviewers, however, have actually subjected the book's claims or methodology to serious, critical examination. This Policy Brief is an attempt to do so.
|
|
Read more...
|
|
Our Focus Areas 
