With praise from disability groups and business organizations alike, President George W. Bush has signed into law amendments to the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) that will significantly expand the protections afforded to disabled individuals. The new law, entitled the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (“ADAAA”), expressly overturns several landmark Supreme Court decisions narrowly interpreting the definition of “disability” and will make disposing of ADA cases prior to trial more challenging for employers. The changes to the ADA take effect on January 1, 2009.
Background
The ADA was signed into law by President Bush’s father, President George H. W. Bush, on July 26, 1990. Title I of the ADA prohibits employers from discriminating against a qualified individual with a “disability.”
When the ADA was enacted, the definition of “disability” already had been interpreted broadly by the courts under the Rehabilitation Act, a law upon which the ADA was modeled. The ADA’s flexible definition of “disability” triggered claims by individuals with relatively minor or temporarily disabling conditions.
Beginning in the late 1990s, the U.S. Supreme Court decided a series of cases in which it confronted, for the first time, the ADA’s potential broad coverage. Fearing that the ADA’s coverage would be much more expansive than Congress intended, the Supreme Court narrowed the scope of the ADA’s “disability” definition by seizing on the ADA’s “findings” that “some 43,000,000 Americans have one or more physical or mental disabilities” and that individuals with disabilities are a “discrete and insular minority.” In the years that followed, studies revealed that employers prevailed in more than 90 percent of all ADA cases.
In the aftermath of these decisions and research, the National Council on Disability (“NCD”) issued a report in December 2004 stating that new legislation was needed to “restore” the ADA and proposed a draft bill entitled the ADA Restoration Act of 2004. Although it declined to pursue the broad proposal urged by the NCD, in 2007, Congress introduced its own ADA Restoration Act, which sought to eliminate the requirement that plaintiffs prove impairments “substantially limit” one or more “major life activities.”
Fearing the pendulum might shift too far in the other direction and, in some ways, lower the value of the ADA’s protections for people with more disabling conditions, members of Congress later pushed for a more limited bill with a better chance of enactment. Disability groups and business organizations, along with Democrats and Republicans in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, worked together to forge a compromise bill. Their efforts culminated in the ADA Amendments Act of 2008, which passed through Congress with overwhelming bipartisan support.
According to Jackson Lewis Partner and National Coordinator of the Firm’s Disability, Leave and Health Management Practice Group, Frank Alvarez, “Many of the ADAAA’s changes are good and the final bill is much better than the legislation that was initially introduced. It essentially puts the ADA back to where most thought it would be when it became effective in 1992.”
A Closer Look at the ADAAA’s Provisions
Congressional Findings and Purposes
The ADAAA propounds an extensive list of congressional findings and purposes that will shape how the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and courts interpret and apply the ADA. Explicitly rejecting the Supreme Court’s decisions in Sutton v. United Airlines, Inc. and Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams, the legislation provides: “[T]he question of whether an individual’s impairment is a disability under the ADA should not demand extensive analysis.” The legislation also directs the EEOC to draft new regulations requiring a less demanding standard for an individual to establish a substantially limiting physical or mental impairment under the ADA.
The ADAAA removes the original findings in the ADA regarding the number of Americans with disabilities (43 million) and the finding that individuals with disabilities are “a discrete and insular minority.” By removing this language, Congress explicitly enlarged the class of individuals the ADA is intended to protect, thus eliminating the historical basis cited by the Supreme Court for narrowly construing the definition of “disability” under the ADA.
A Closer Look at the ADAAA’s Provisions
Congressional Findings and Purposes
The ADAAA propounds an extensive list of congressional findings and purposes that will shape how the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and courts interpret and apply the ADA. Explicitly rejecting the Supreme Court’s decisions in Sutton v. United Airlines, Inc. and Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams, the legislation provides: “[T]he question of whether an individual’s impairment is a disability under the ADA should not demand extensive analysis.” The legislation also directs the EEOC to draft new regulations requiring a less demanding standard for an individual to establish a substantially limiting physical or mental impairment under the ADA.
The ADAAA removes the original findings in the ADA regarding the number of Americans with disabilities (43 million) and the finding that individuals with disabilities are “a discrete and insular minority.” By removing this language, Congress explicitly enlarged the class of individuals the ADA is intended to protect, thus eliminating the historical basis cited by the Supreme Court for narrowly construing the definition of “disability” under the ADA.
Definition of Disability
While the ADAAA retains the ADA’s definition of “disability,” it provides that term “shall be construed in favor of broad coverage of individuals . . . to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of [the ADA.]” The ADAAA also clarifies that “[a]n impairment that is episodic or in remission is a disability if it would substantially limit a major life activity when active.” The ADAAA’s congressional findings and purposes state the EEOC’s existing regulations interpreting the term “substantially limits” are “inconsistent with congressional intent, by expressing too high a standard” and express “Congress’ expectation that the [EEOC] will revise that portion of its current regulations that defines the term ‘substantially limits’ as ‘significantly restricted’ to be consistent with [the ADA].”
It is unclear precisely what the EEOC’s revised standard will be. However, given the ADAAA’s
congressional findings “that the question of whether an individual’s impairment is a disability under the ADA should not demand extensive analysis,” whether an individual’s impairment rises to the level of a “disability” under the ADA will certainly be an easier standard to meet and, as a corollary, likely will not be a determinative factor in resolving summary judgment motions in an employer’s favor.
No Consideration of Mitigating Measures
Overruling the Supreme Court’s Sutton v. United Air Lines decision, the ADAAA prevents courts and employers from considering mitigating measures an individual may be using when determining whether the individual is disabled. The only exceptions are ordinary eyeglasses and contact lenses.
“Regarded As” Having a Disability
The ADAAA lowers the standard to prove an employer discriminated against an individual whom it “regarded as” having a disability. Traditionally, individuals claiming they were “regarded as” having disabilities had to prove the employer mistakenly regarded them as having impairments that substantially limited a major life activity. The ADAAA will now hold an employer liable under a “regarded as” theory if individuals can prove discrimination because of an actual or perceived physical or mental impairment, whether or not the impairment actually limits or is perceived to limit a major life activity.
There is some good news for employers on the “regarded as” front. The ADAAA clarifies that “regarded as” claims cannot be based on transitory and minor impairments where the impairment is expected to last less than six months. Also, employers are not required to provide a reasonable accommodation to individuals who are regarded as disabled, an issue over which the federal courts of appeals were previously split.
The Potential Impact of the ADAAA on Employers
Litigation under the ADA will no doubt become more complex as the emphasis shifts away from whether plaintiffs are disabled and toward questions of whether employers have complied with the law. While employers have traditionally prevailed in more than 90 percent of all ADA lawsuits, this was principally due to the difficulty plaintiffs had in proving they were “disabled” under the statute. With this largely removed, employers should be prepared to litigate more challenging issues, such as the scope and meaning of “reasonable accommodation,” “undue hardship” and “essential job functions” to establish compliance with ADA obligations.
Some other emerging ADA areas will likely include: whether specific performance or conduct standards are “job-related and consistent with business necessity”; what workplace risks satisfy the ADA’s “direct threat” standard; and standards for determining whether an employer has sufficiently explored “reassignment” as a reasonable accommodation. Employers are also likely to see a rise in “regarded as” claims in light of the ADAAA’s lower evidentiary standard for proving these claims. Beyond litigation, employers will need to provide reasonable accommodations with much greater frequency.
What Employers Should Do Now
With the ADAAA going into effect on January 1, 2009, now is the time for employers to review existing procedures for ADA compliance at every stage, including hiring, medical testing, accommodation, leave and termination. Employers must prepare to inject flexibility into their policies and practices to meet the ADA’s demanding standard for reasonable accommodations. According to Mr. Alvarez, “Employers should train supervisors on individualized assessments and develop protocols or guidelines for responding to workplace limitations posed by injuries or illnesses. Forget about trying to discern whether someone meets the ADA definition of ‘disability’ – it’s a litigation issue at best, and, in most cases, a losing one.”
Among other things, Mr. Alvarez suggests employers review job descriptions since they are frequently a starting point for an individualized assessment. Employers also should consider implementing a formalized process for addressing reasonable accommodation requests or reviewing reasonable accommodation procedures already in place. Employers skilled in “individualized assessment” often rely on forms, internal guidelines, or template letters to help facilitate communication with individuals with disabilities and their healthcare providers. These practices will become both more common and indispensable as employers grapple with a more demanding and relevant ADA.
Summing up the import of the ADAAA’s passage, Mr. Alvarez offered the following: “The nation clearly supports efforts to protect people with disabilities. No one can argue with the statute’s intentions. But supporting and implementing this law are two different things. Employers need to accept, embrace and master uncertainty. The ADA is a concept law. There are few bright lines or hard and fast rules. People with disabilities feel like they have been denied the rights they were promised back in 1990. Come January 1, 2009, employers should expect to see a significant shift in efforts to enforce the ADA’s prohibitions against disability discrimination. Some employers are ready. Many are not.”
Prepared by Jackson Lewis LLP. www.jacksonlewis.com
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
OFCCP Makes Minimal Changes to EEO Poster
We have learned that there were minimal changes to the new OFCCP EEO poster. Contractors may continue to use their current posters or they may download free posters from OFCCP’s website at
http://www.dol.gov/esa/ofccp/regs/compliance/posters/ofccpost.htm .
http://www.dol.gov/esa/ofccp/regs/compliance/posters/ofccpost.htm .
OFCCP Orders Full Compliance Reviews for Every 50th Contractor
On September 17, 2008, OFCCP Deputy Assistant Secretary Charles James issued a directive on the Active Case Management System. In his directive, he announces that as a "Quality Control" measure, "to ensure that contractors are developing and implementing AAPs and that they are maintaining the required supporting data, a full desk audit of the materials submitted is to be conducted on every 25th contractor listed in the Federal Data Selection System (FCSS), even in the absence of systemic discrimination indicators. In addition, a full compliance review -- including an onsite review -- is to be conducted on every 50th contractor listed in the FCSS, even in the absence of systemic discrimination indicators."
Included in the desk audit and full review will be an assessment of compliance with Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act and the Vietnam Veterans Readjustment Assistance Act (VEVRAA) along with Executive Order 13201.
For a copy of the directive, go to: http://www.dol.gov/esa/ofccp/regs/compliance/directives/dir285.pdf
Included in the desk audit and full review will be an assessment of compliance with Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act and the Vietnam Veterans Readjustment Assistance Act (VEVRAA) along with Executive Order 13201.
For a copy of the directive, go to: http://www.dol.gov/esa/ofccp/regs/compliance/directives/dir285.pdf
Ritter: Anti-affirmative action initiative will ‘destroy years of progress’
The Colorado Independent
By Naomi Zeveloff 9/29/08 6:20 PM
Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter lambasted Amendment 46 at a press conference this afternoon, saying that the anti-affirmative action ballot measure will hurt our economy.
“We are in a time in this country and in this state where we have to keep our economy moving forward,” said Ritter, who spoke surrounded by supporters on the west steps of the state Capitol. “Amendment 46 takes us in the wrong direction.”
Ritter said that diversity in the workforce helps the economy and that the ballot measure, which seeks to end race and sex preferences in public contracting, hiring and education, will “destroy years of progress” that the state has made in improving health care, education and jobs.
Ritter’s announcement follows a long trail of similar denunciations. Most recently, the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce decried the measure.
Amendment 46, known as the Colorado Civil Rights Initiative, is part of a multistate effort by California businessman Ward Connerly to demolish affirmative action. According to a recent analysis by the progressive Ballot Initiative Strategy Center, Connerly has gleaned more than $7 million from his two nonprofits, the American Civil Rights Institute and the American Civil Rights Coalition.
Ritter called Connerly a “constitutional amendment carpetbagger,” saying “it is wrong to allow him to do that to our state, to our Constitution, to our people.”
When asked which state programs will be cut should Amendment 46 pass, Ritter pinpointed the Fatherhood Initiative, a gender-based program that supports struggling fathers and their families. [To read the entire story, go to: http://coloradoindependent.com/9651/ritter-anti-affirmative-action-initiative-will ]
By Naomi Zeveloff 9/29/08 6:20 PM
Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter lambasted Amendment 46 at a press conference this afternoon, saying that the anti-affirmative action ballot measure will hurt our economy.
“We are in a time in this country and in this state where we have to keep our economy moving forward,” said Ritter, who spoke surrounded by supporters on the west steps of the state Capitol. “Amendment 46 takes us in the wrong direction.”
Ritter said that diversity in the workforce helps the economy and that the ballot measure, which seeks to end race and sex preferences in public contracting, hiring and education, will “destroy years of progress” that the state has made in improving health care, education and jobs.
Ritter’s announcement follows a long trail of similar denunciations. Most recently, the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce decried the measure.
Amendment 46, known as the Colorado Civil Rights Initiative, is part of a multistate effort by California businessman Ward Connerly to demolish affirmative action. According to a recent analysis by the progressive Ballot Initiative Strategy Center, Connerly has gleaned more than $7 million from his two nonprofits, the American Civil Rights Institute and the American Civil Rights Coalition.
Ritter called Connerly a “constitutional amendment carpetbagger,” saying “it is wrong to allow him to do that to our state, to our Constitution, to our people.”
When asked which state programs will be cut should Amendment 46 pass, Ritter pinpointed the Fatherhood Initiative, a gender-based program that supports struggling fathers and their families. [To read the entire story, go to: http://coloradoindependent.com/9651/ritter-anti-affirmative-action-initiative-will ]
Report From Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles at UCLA Praises Kentucky’s Success in Diversifying its Colleges
*** NEWS RELEASE ***FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Gary Orfield
(310) 267-5562
September 29, 2008
Report From Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles at UCLA Praises
Kentucky’s Success in Diversifying its Colleges
Findings Outlines Challenges Ahead
LOS ANGELES ¬– The Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles, one ofthe nation's leading research centers on issues of civil rights and racial inequality, yesterday presented its report, "Building on Success," to theKentucky Council on Postsecondary Education (CPE) in Lexington. Thiscomprehensive study of equity in the entire Kentucky system not only assessesthe state’s progress under plans developed to comply with federal civilrights law over the past 26 years, but also recommends strategies for the nextgeneration. The Council, which governs the state’s higher education system,discussed the report and directed its Committee for Educational Opportunity toprepare a new plan by early 2009.This independent assessment of Kentucky’s public colleges and universities by scholars from across the country concluded that the state had made majorprogress. The 168-page report, "Building on Success," documented the state’s progress in providing growing access for black students to its historicallywhite institutions at all levels -- an historic accomplishment -- from community college to doctoral studies. Analysis of survey data from the state’s campuses showed that, in general, African American students feel comfortable and welcome on their campuses. The survey respondents indicated,however, that rich discussion of diversity, much more likely to occur on multiracial campuses, was lagging. The study found that more work was needed assome commitments had not yet been realized. In particular, the state needs totake a broader view in its future diversity planning, one that would build onthe momentum for African American access, and include the state’s rapidlygrowing Hispanic community, as well as, perhaps, whites from highlyimpoverished areas. Two years ago the CPE commissioned the assessment and granted the Civil RightsProject, when it was still at Harvard, full access to data from the Kentuckycampuses and to the system’s leaders. Professor Gary Orfield, who directedthe team of researchers, comments: “The state’s leaders took a bold andunusual risk in giving us unrestricted access to the system without any controlof the final report. We think they have created a positive example for higher education systems across the country and we hope that this report will help carry their accomplishments to the next level in order to realize the state’svery ambitious goal of doubling its number of college graduates. This is something that can only be done if they fully develop the talents of studentsfrom groups that were once excluded or neglected.” Orfield then challengedother states to follow Kentucky’s steps and prepare for the next generation.Recommendations for Improvement:The recommendations for improvement focus on severe leakages in the pipeline ofopportunity in the state: a high dropout rate from high school; a relativelylow rate of enrollment in college coming out of high school; a weak transferrate from community college to four-year campuses; students who take longer tograduate, and graduate at lower numbers from the four year campuses, comparedto national averages. All of these transition points tend to pose risksparticularly for minority students. The study also finds that the state’s commitments to transform it’shistorically black campus, Kentucky State University, have not been yet beenfulfilled after more than 25 years of plans. KSU is still very small comparedto the other campuses, attracts mostly undergraduates with weak academicbackgrounds in need of serious remediation, and has far to go in producing astrong graduation rate for the students it enrolls. In fact, 87 percent ofKentucky’s black college graduates hail from historically white institutions. The report goes on to say that in spite of its status as a vital resource, KSUhas not been upgraded sufficiently to become genuinely competitive."Building on Success" concludes that the state monitoring has been criticallyimportant to the success of the effort to date and recommends ways in which theprocess could be improved -- by more collaboration between state officials andcampus leaders and by encouraging researchers on campuses to carefully evaluatetheir programs to support diversity and make recommendations for improvingthem. The report also advocates that the Kentucky Council on Higher Educationcontinue to oversee statewide progress and monitor the performance of variousinstitutions, though in a more collaborative manner. Engaging researchers atthe eight public universities not only will develop knowledge through studiesof their campus approaches and plans, but also will produce strong and credibleresearch for better policy in Kentucky. The full text of the report will be available at:www.civilrightsproject.ucla.edu
About the Civil Rights Project at UCLA
Founded in 1996 by former Harvard professors Gary Orfield and Christopher EdleyJr., the Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles is now co-directed byOrfield and Patricia Gándara, professors at UCLA. Its mission is to create anew generation of research in social science and law on the critical issues ofcivil rights and equal opportunity for racial and ethnic groups in the UnitedStates. It has commissioned more than 400 studies, published 14 books andissued numerous reports from authors at universities and research centersacross the country. The Supreme Court, in its 2003 Grutter v. Bollingerdecision, cited the Civil Rights Project's research.###
Contact: Gary Orfield
(310) 267-5562
September 29, 2008
Report From Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles at UCLA Praises
Kentucky’s Success in Diversifying its Colleges
Findings Outlines Challenges Ahead
LOS ANGELES ¬– The Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles, one ofthe nation's leading research centers on issues of civil rights and racial inequality, yesterday presented its report, "Building on Success," to theKentucky Council on Postsecondary Education (CPE) in Lexington. Thiscomprehensive study of equity in the entire Kentucky system not only assessesthe state’s progress under plans developed to comply with federal civilrights law over the past 26 years, but also recommends strategies for the nextgeneration. The Council, which governs the state’s higher education system,discussed the report and directed its Committee for Educational Opportunity toprepare a new plan by early 2009.This independent assessment of Kentucky’s public colleges and universities by scholars from across the country concluded that the state had made majorprogress. The 168-page report, "Building on Success," documented the state’s progress in providing growing access for black students to its historicallywhite institutions at all levels -- an historic accomplishment -- from community college to doctoral studies. Analysis of survey data from the state’s campuses showed that, in general, African American students feel comfortable and welcome on their campuses. The survey respondents indicated,however, that rich discussion of diversity, much more likely to occur on multiracial campuses, was lagging. The study found that more work was needed assome commitments had not yet been realized. In particular, the state needs totake a broader view in its future diversity planning, one that would build onthe momentum for African American access, and include the state’s rapidlygrowing Hispanic community, as well as, perhaps, whites from highlyimpoverished areas. Two years ago the CPE commissioned the assessment and granted the Civil RightsProject, when it was still at Harvard, full access to data from the Kentuckycampuses and to the system’s leaders. Professor Gary Orfield, who directedthe team of researchers, comments: “The state’s leaders took a bold andunusual risk in giving us unrestricted access to the system without any controlof the final report. We think they have created a positive example for higher education systems across the country and we hope that this report will help carry their accomplishments to the next level in order to realize the state’svery ambitious goal of doubling its number of college graduates. This is something that can only be done if they fully develop the talents of studentsfrom groups that were once excluded or neglected.” Orfield then challengedother states to follow Kentucky’s steps and prepare for the next generation.Recommendations for Improvement:The recommendations for improvement focus on severe leakages in the pipeline ofopportunity in the state: a high dropout rate from high school; a relativelylow rate of enrollment in college coming out of high school; a weak transferrate from community college to four-year campuses; students who take longer tograduate, and graduate at lower numbers from the four year campuses, comparedto national averages. All of these transition points tend to pose risksparticularly for minority students. The study also finds that the state’s commitments to transform it’shistorically black campus, Kentucky State University, have not been yet beenfulfilled after more than 25 years of plans. KSU is still very small comparedto the other campuses, attracts mostly undergraduates with weak academicbackgrounds in need of serious remediation, and has far to go in producing astrong graduation rate for the students it enrolls. In fact, 87 percent ofKentucky’s black college graduates hail from historically white institutions. The report goes on to say that in spite of its status as a vital resource, KSUhas not been upgraded sufficiently to become genuinely competitive."Building on Success" concludes that the state monitoring has been criticallyimportant to the success of the effort to date and recommends ways in which theprocess could be improved -- by more collaboration between state officials andcampus leaders and by encouraging researchers on campuses to carefully evaluatetheir programs to support diversity and make recommendations for improvingthem. The report also advocates that the Kentucky Council on Higher Educationcontinue to oversee statewide progress and monitor the performance of variousinstitutions, though in a more collaborative manner. Engaging researchers atthe eight public universities not only will develop knowledge through studiesof their campus approaches and plans, but also will produce strong and credibleresearch for better policy in Kentucky. The full text of the report will be available at:www.civilrightsproject.ucla.edu
About the Civil Rights Project at UCLA
Founded in 1996 by former Harvard professors Gary Orfield and Christopher EdleyJr., the Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles is now co-directed byOrfield and Patricia Gándara, professors at UCLA. Its mission is to create anew generation of research in social science and law on the critical issues ofcivil rights and equal opportunity for racial and ethnic groups in the UnitedStates. It has commissioned more than 400 studies, published 14 books andissued numerous reports from authors at universities and research centersacross the country. The Supreme Court, in its 2003 Grutter v. Bollingerdecision, cited the Civil Rights Project's research.###
Monday, September 29, 2008
OFCCP Webinar Presentation Available
OFCCP's September 10, 2008 Webinar Presentation, "OFCCP: The Homestretch" is now available. The presentation addresses the agency's accomplishments, new directives, online application systems, the Good Faith Initiative for Veterans Employment (G-FIVE), electronic recordkeeping, retention provisions, new web design, and Federal Contractor Selection System schedule. For a copy of the presentation click here: http://www.dol.gov/esa/ofccp/Presentation/homestretch_pres.pdf
or go to: http://www.dol.gov/esa/ofccp/.
or go to: http://www.dol.gov/esa/ofccp/.
SDSU, ex-swim coach reach $1.45 million settlement
Sign on San Diego.com
Lawsuit had alleged sex discrimination
By Brent Schrotenboer
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
September 26, 2008
Former San Diego State swim coach Deena Deardurff Schmidt has reached a $1.45 million settlement in her Title IX sex discrimination lawsuit against the school.
The settlement includes a $317,420 lump sum and $682,580 in an annuity. The settlement also provides $450,000 in attorneys' fees. Her attorney, Thomas Tosdal, said an undisclosed part of those attorneys' fees also went to Schmidt.
“We are glad that San Diego State came forward and made a fair and reasonable settlement so both sides can put it behind them,” Tosdal said.
Schmidt declined to comment. An Olympic gold medalist in 1972, she filed suit in November 2007, alleging several years of mistreatment at the school, plus “unequal and inadequate” facilities, pay, practice times and administrative support during her tenure from 1994-2007. Schmidt claimed her chances of success as a coach were diminished when SDSU closed its old campus pool in 2000, forcing the team to train off-campus. Her swimming and diving program had finished last in the Mountain West Conference championships during her previous five seasons.
Her suit said she had fought to build a new pool. But after SDSU's new $12 million pool facility opened in March 2007, SDSU Athletic Director Jeff Schemmel told Schmidt in June 2007 that her contract wasn't being renewed. At the time, Schmidt was making $68,000 annually. She also was scheduled to undergo surgery for melanoma and previously had been diagnosed with breast cancer.
“The parties agreed that this settlement recognizes the substantial efforts by Schmidt to implement, develop and improve the women's swimming program at SDSU, and reflects her contributions as a coach,” SDSU said in a statement. “The case was settled at its early stages before any determination of liability was considered or reached.” [To read the entire story, go to: http://www.signonsandiego.com/sports/aztecs/20080926-9999-1s26azsuit.html ]
Lawsuit had alleged sex discrimination
By Brent Schrotenboer
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
September 26, 2008
Former San Diego State swim coach Deena Deardurff Schmidt has reached a $1.45 million settlement in her Title IX sex discrimination lawsuit against the school.
The settlement includes a $317,420 lump sum and $682,580 in an annuity. The settlement also provides $450,000 in attorneys' fees. Her attorney, Thomas Tosdal, said an undisclosed part of those attorneys' fees also went to Schmidt.
“We are glad that San Diego State came forward and made a fair and reasonable settlement so both sides can put it behind them,” Tosdal said.
Schmidt declined to comment. An Olympic gold medalist in 1972, she filed suit in November 2007, alleging several years of mistreatment at the school, plus “unequal and inadequate” facilities, pay, practice times and administrative support during her tenure from 1994-2007. Schmidt claimed her chances of success as a coach were diminished when SDSU closed its old campus pool in 2000, forcing the team to train off-campus. Her swimming and diving program had finished last in the Mountain West Conference championships during her previous five seasons.
Her suit said she had fought to build a new pool. But after SDSU's new $12 million pool facility opened in March 2007, SDSU Athletic Director Jeff Schemmel told Schmidt in June 2007 that her contract wasn't being renewed. At the time, Schmidt was making $68,000 annually. She also was scheduled to undergo surgery for melanoma and previously had been diagnosed with breast cancer.
“The parties agreed that this settlement recognizes the substantial efforts by Schmidt to implement, develop and improve the women's swimming program at SDSU, and reflects her contributions as a coach,” SDSU said in a statement. “The case was settled at its early stages before any determination of liability was considered or reached.” [To read the entire story, go to: http://www.signonsandiego.com/sports/aztecs/20080926-9999-1s26azsuit.html ]
Friday, September 26, 2008
Advocates Praised as Bush Signs Bill to Restore ADA
ADAWatch.org
National Coalition for Disability Rights
601 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 900S
Washington, DC 20004
NEWS RELEASE
September 25, 2008
ADA Watch and the National Coalition for Disability Rights Praises Advocates and Policymakers As President Bush Signs ADA Amendments Act into Law
(Washington, DC) For nearly two years, disability rights advocates have traveled the Nation in a modified bus educating citizens and policymakers alike of the pressing need to restore vital civil rights protections of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Today, President Bush signed the ADA Amendments Act into law and ADA Watch and the National Coalition for Disability Rights, the nonprofit organizations behind the Road To Freedom bus tour, praised all of those involved in this successful campaign to advance disability rights.
In recent years, the ADA - the world's first human rights law for people with disabilities - has been dramatically narrowed in the courts leaving citizens with epilepsy, diabetes, mental illness, HIV-AIDS and other disabilities unprotected from discrimination. The ADA Amendments Act clarifies the intent of Congress and reverses the "judicial activism" that has resulted in more than 95% of employment-related ADA cases being dismissed on summary judgment.
Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), lead sponsor of the ADA Amendments Act, acknowledged ADA Watch/NCDR's role in passage of this legislation on the floor of the Senate, thanking the Road To Freedom's crew for "dedicating almost 2 years of their lives traveling on a bus around the country to every State, showing people about the importance of restoring the protections of ADA."
ADA Watch/NCDR founder and president, Jim Ward stated today, "This is a monumental victory for people with disabilities. As America seeks to respond to the economic challenges we face, this law - if enforced - will ensure that people with disabilities are fairly included in the workforce and that we can do our jobs free from discrimination."
"ADA Watch and the National Coalition for Disability Rights praises the thousands of Americans who produced and participated in Road To Freedom bus stops as, together, we called for restoration of the ADA. Likewise, we praise the tireless efforts of advocates such as Andy Imparato, Sandy Finucane, Curt Decker, Chai Feldblum, Jennifer Mathis, Arlene Mayerson, Shereen Arent, Donna Meltzer, Nancy Zirkin, Michael Collins, Yoshiko Dart, Tom Olin, Debbie Fletter Ward and so many others." ADA Watch and the National Coalition for Disability Rights (NCDR) is a coalition of national, state and local disability, civil rights and social justice organizations united to protect and promote the human rights of children and adults with physical and mental disabilities. For more information, go to www.adawatch.org and www.roadtofreedom.org
###
National Coalition for Disability Rights
601 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 900S
Washington, DC 20004
NEWS RELEASE
September 25, 2008
ADA Watch and the National Coalition for Disability Rights Praises Advocates and Policymakers As President Bush Signs ADA Amendments Act into Law
(Washington, DC) For nearly two years, disability rights advocates have traveled the Nation in a modified bus educating citizens and policymakers alike of the pressing need to restore vital civil rights protections of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Today, President Bush signed the ADA Amendments Act into law and ADA Watch and the National Coalition for Disability Rights, the nonprofit organizations behind the Road To Freedom bus tour, praised all of those involved in this successful campaign to advance disability rights.
In recent years, the ADA - the world's first human rights law for people with disabilities - has been dramatically narrowed in the courts leaving citizens with epilepsy, diabetes, mental illness, HIV-AIDS and other disabilities unprotected from discrimination. The ADA Amendments Act clarifies the intent of Congress and reverses the "judicial activism" that has resulted in more than 95% of employment-related ADA cases being dismissed on summary judgment.
Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), lead sponsor of the ADA Amendments Act, acknowledged ADA Watch/NCDR's role in passage of this legislation on the floor of the Senate, thanking the Road To Freedom's crew for "dedicating almost 2 years of their lives traveling on a bus around the country to every State, showing people about the importance of restoring the protections of ADA."
ADA Watch/NCDR founder and president, Jim Ward stated today, "This is a monumental victory for people with disabilities. As America seeks to respond to the economic challenges we face, this law - if enforced - will ensure that people with disabilities are fairly included in the workforce and that we can do our jobs free from discrimination."
"ADA Watch and the National Coalition for Disability Rights praises the thousands of Americans who produced and participated in Road To Freedom bus stops as, together, we called for restoration of the ADA. Likewise, we praise the tireless efforts of advocates such as Andy Imparato, Sandy Finucane, Curt Decker, Chai Feldblum, Jennifer Mathis, Arlene Mayerson, Shereen Arent, Donna Meltzer, Nancy Zirkin, Michael Collins, Yoshiko Dart, Tom Olin, Debbie Fletter Ward and so many others." ADA Watch and the National Coalition for Disability Rights (NCDR) is a coalition of national, state and local disability, civil rights and social justice organizations united to protect and promote the human rights of children and adults with physical and mental disabilities. For more information, go to www.adawatch.org and www.roadtofreedom.org
###
New Study: Men’s Football, Basketball Programs Limit Other Men’s Sports, Not Title IX
Diverse Issues in Higher Education
by Lois Elfman
Sep 26, 2008, 12:40
Another men’s college wrestling program is discontinued and familiar accusations fly: it’s the fault of Title IX and money being spent on women’s sports. Time and again critics point to Title IX as the reason for cuts in men’s sports.
“We really believe that the Title IX blame game should end,” said Dr. Marj Snyder, chief planning and programming officer for the Women’s Sports Foundation (WSF). On Sept. 24, in honor of the 35th anniversary of Billie Jean King’s victory over Bobby Riggs in “The Battle of the Sexes,” the WSF released the detailed study “Who’s Playing College Sports? Money, Race and Gender.”
Dr. John Cheslock, the report’s author and an associate professor in the Center for the Study of Higher Education at the University of Arizona, repeatedly noted that his research showed clear evidence that both men’s and women’s participation have increased during the last 15 years.
“For Title IX, I present three different pieces of evidence that indicate that, on average, schools have responded to Title IX by increasing women’s participation rather than decreasing men’s participation,” Cheslock said.
He said there are no simple explanations why sports like wrestling and men’s gymnastics have declined in participation, but possible reasons could be the relatively high number of injuries and the high cost of insurance. Sports that have seen increases in participation, such as lacrosse, have students with high academic qualifications and tend to be of higher income levels, things that are of potential interest to college presidents and athletic directors. [To read the entire story, go to: http://diverseeducation.com/artman/publish/article_11739.shtml ]
by Lois Elfman
Sep 26, 2008, 12:40
Another men’s college wrestling program is discontinued and familiar accusations fly: it’s the fault of Title IX and money being spent on women’s sports. Time and again critics point to Title IX as the reason for cuts in men’s sports.
“We really believe that the Title IX blame game should end,” said Dr. Marj Snyder, chief planning and programming officer for the Women’s Sports Foundation (WSF). On Sept. 24, in honor of the 35th anniversary of Billie Jean King’s victory over Bobby Riggs in “The Battle of the Sexes,” the WSF released the detailed study “Who’s Playing College Sports? Money, Race and Gender.”
Dr. John Cheslock, the report’s author and an associate professor in the Center for the Study of Higher Education at the University of Arizona, repeatedly noted that his research showed clear evidence that both men’s and women’s participation have increased during the last 15 years.
“For Title IX, I present three different pieces of evidence that indicate that, on average, schools have responded to Title IX by increasing women’s participation rather than decreasing men’s participation,” Cheslock said.
He said there are no simple explanations why sports like wrestling and men’s gymnastics have declined in participation, but possible reasons could be the relatively high number of injuries and the high cost of insurance. Sports that have seen increases in participation, such as lacrosse, have students with high academic qualifications and tend to be of higher income levels, things that are of potential interest to college presidents and athletic directors. [To read the entire story, go to: http://diverseeducation.com/artman/publish/article_11739.shtml ]
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Kay Jewelers parent faces EEOC sex-discrimination suit
David Schepp
The Journal News
September 25, 2008
BUFFALO - Federal officials yesterday charged Sterling Jewelers Inc., which operates Kay Jewelers stores in malls in Yorktown Heights and West Nyack, with discriminating against female employees by paying them less than their male counterparts and denying them promotions.
Female retail-sales employees were victims of a system in which promotion and compensation decisions were made in an "excessively subjective" fashion, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission said in a statement announcing its lawsuit against the company, the nation's largest specialty-jewelry retailer.
Sterling Jewelers permitted or encouraged managers to deny female employees equal pay compared with men in similar positions and equal access to promotions, the EEOC said.
A spokesman for the Akron, Ohio-based company wasn't available for comment by phone and didn't respond to an e-mail message.
"We hope this case is a wake-up call to corporate America that sex discrimination in employment must be taken seriously and addressed appropriately," EEOC New York District Director Spencer H. Lewis Jr. said in a statement.
It should be a "no-brainer" in the 21st century that women should be paid and promoted based on merit, not gender, he said. [Full Story at: http://www.lohud.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080925/BUSINESS01/809250424 ]
The Journal News
September 25, 2008
BUFFALO - Federal officials yesterday charged Sterling Jewelers Inc., which operates Kay Jewelers stores in malls in Yorktown Heights and West Nyack, with discriminating against female employees by paying them less than their male counterparts and denying them promotions.
Female retail-sales employees were victims of a system in which promotion and compensation decisions were made in an "excessively subjective" fashion, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission said in a statement announcing its lawsuit against the company, the nation's largest specialty-jewelry retailer.
Sterling Jewelers permitted or encouraged managers to deny female employees equal pay compared with men in similar positions and equal access to promotions, the EEOC said.
A spokesman for the Akron, Ohio-based company wasn't available for comment by phone and didn't respond to an e-mail message.
"We hope this case is a wake-up call to corporate America that sex discrimination in employment must be taken seriously and addressed appropriately," EEOC New York District Director Spencer H. Lewis Jr. said in a statement.
It should be a "no-brainer" in the 21st century that women should be paid and promoted based on merit, not gender, he said. [Full Story at: http://www.lohud.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080925/BUSINESS01/809250424 ]
Companies Brace for the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs' List of Compliance Evaluations
Workforce Management
September 2008
Self-audits can provide protection from the dreaded on-site investigations that occur when the agency suspects discriminatory hiring practices.
By Fay Hansen
October 1 marks the beginning of a new annual enforcement cycle for the U.S. Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs as the agency unfurls a long list of companies selected for compliance evaluations.
The last cycle, which covered nearly 5,000 employers, ended with a series of million-dollar settlements against companies that could not adequately defend their hiring practices against charges of systemic discrimination.
Companies selected for the new round of evaluations may see nothing more than a desk audit of their hiring procedures. But such an audit could evolve into a highly invasive on-site investigation, with federal agents conducting face-to-face interviews with hiring managers who must defend their selection criteria.
Agency staff have consistently rejected any criteria that may be subjective or "tainted" by the potential for systemic discrimination. In fiscal year 2007, systemic-discrimination charges accounted for 98 percent of the agency’s record $51.7 million in back-pay collections.
The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs defines systemic discrimination as a pattern or recurring practice of discrimination against a protected group.
"The OFCCP is now focused on becoming the premier agency for systemic discrimination," says Julia Judish, counsel, employment and labor law, at Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman in Washington. "The EEOC’s [Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s] focus is on individual charges. By contrast, the OFCCP is looking to put its limited resources to the best use by concentrating on federal contractors with systemic discrimination.
"The OFCCP has made it clear that it wants to pursue big cases."
Self-audit protection Employers on the OFCCP compliance list receive a letter stipulating that the agency will conduct an evaluation. The list is based on a mathematical analysis of the Employer Information Report (EEO-1) forms that companies submit as part of their federal contract obligations.
"You can’t predict whether you will receive a letter, so aim as if you might and attempt to limit the impact to a desk audit," Judish advises.
Every federal contractor should conduct regular self-audits in anticipation of a compliance review. [To read the entire story, go to: http://www.workforce.com/section/06/feature/25/77/81/index.html ]
September 2008
Self-audits can provide protection from the dreaded on-site investigations that occur when the agency suspects discriminatory hiring practices.
By Fay Hansen
October 1 marks the beginning of a new annual enforcement cycle for the U.S. Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs as the agency unfurls a long list of companies selected for compliance evaluations.
The last cycle, which covered nearly 5,000 employers, ended with a series of million-dollar settlements against companies that could not adequately defend their hiring practices against charges of systemic discrimination.
Companies selected for the new round of evaluations may see nothing more than a desk audit of their hiring procedures. But such an audit could evolve into a highly invasive on-site investigation, with federal agents conducting face-to-face interviews with hiring managers who must defend their selection criteria.
Agency staff have consistently rejected any criteria that may be subjective or "tainted" by the potential for systemic discrimination. In fiscal year 2007, systemic-discrimination charges accounted for 98 percent of the agency’s record $51.7 million in back-pay collections.
The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs defines systemic discrimination as a pattern or recurring practice of discrimination against a protected group.
"The OFCCP is now focused on becoming the premier agency for systemic discrimination," says Julia Judish, counsel, employment and labor law, at Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman in Washington. "The EEOC’s [Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s] focus is on individual charges. By contrast, the OFCCP is looking to put its limited resources to the best use by concentrating on federal contractors with systemic discrimination.
"The OFCCP has made it clear that it wants to pursue big cases."
Self-audit protection Employers on the OFCCP compliance list receive a letter stipulating that the agency will conduct an evaluation. The list is based on a mathematical analysis of the Employer Information Report (EEO-1) forms that companies submit as part of their federal contract obligations.
"You can’t predict whether you will receive a letter, so aim as if you might and attempt to limit the impact to a desk audit," Judish advises.
Every federal contractor should conduct regular self-audits in anticipation of a compliance review. [To read the entire story, go to: http://www.workforce.com/section/06/feature/25/77/81/index.html ]
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
FedEx loses appeal on EEOC's bid for records
www.azstarnet.com
By Howard Fischer
CAPITOL MEDIA SERVICES
Tucson, Arizona Published: 09.22.2008
PHOENIX — A federal appeals court has rejected efforts by FedEx Corp. to shield information about its personnel records from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
In a unanimous decision, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the federal agency is entitled to the materials as part of its investigation of whether the company has discriminated against blacks and Hispanics.
This is the second time the company has lost its legal battle to withhold the documents. A federal court judge in Tucson issued a similar ruling nearly two years ago.
The case has gained the attention of the national business community, to the point that an attorney representing the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Equal Employment Advisory Council filed legal papers on behalf of FedEx.
"This is a huge decision," said Sally Shanley, the regional trial attorney for the EEOC.
She said her agency has gotten "a lot of resistance" to these kinds of requests. Shanley said the appellate court ruling should make clear to companies that they cannot balk.
Calls to the FedEx's lawyer in Tennessee were not returned.
Central to the issue is a complaint filed four years ago by Tyrone Merritt, a FedEx employee in Phoenix. Merritt, a handler, said he failed the basic skills test that is required to be promoted to other positions, including customer service agent and courier.
According to Merritt, the test has a "statistically significant adverse impact" on blacks and Hispanics, though the claim does not explain the reasoning behind that contention. He also charged that Anglo employees were promoted over him for other positions such as dispatcher.
In an effort to investigate the case, the EEOC issued a subpoena demanding that FedEx provide what amounts to a list of all the types of personnel information and documents it has in its computers. Shanley said that would provide her agency with a road map to decide specifically what it needed.
FedEx objected for a variety of reasons.
One was purely technical: The company pointed out that Merritt decided to pursue his own civil lawsuit. That, the attorneys argued, stripped the EEOC of any power to investigate further.
But appellate Judge Wallace Tashima, writing for the court, said Merritt had alleged a pattern or practice of discrimination by the company against others. The judge said that gives the EEOC the power to investigate further. [To read the entire story, go to: http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/business/258577.php ]
By Howard Fischer
CAPITOL MEDIA SERVICES
Tucson, Arizona Published: 09.22.2008
PHOENIX — A federal appeals court has rejected efforts by FedEx Corp. to shield information about its personnel records from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
In a unanimous decision, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the federal agency is entitled to the materials as part of its investigation of whether the company has discriminated against blacks and Hispanics.
This is the second time the company has lost its legal battle to withhold the documents. A federal court judge in Tucson issued a similar ruling nearly two years ago.
The case has gained the attention of the national business community, to the point that an attorney representing the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Equal Employment Advisory Council filed legal papers on behalf of FedEx.
"This is a huge decision," said Sally Shanley, the regional trial attorney for the EEOC.
She said her agency has gotten "a lot of resistance" to these kinds of requests. Shanley said the appellate court ruling should make clear to companies that they cannot balk.
Calls to the FedEx's lawyer in Tennessee were not returned.
Central to the issue is a complaint filed four years ago by Tyrone Merritt, a FedEx employee in Phoenix. Merritt, a handler, said he failed the basic skills test that is required to be promoted to other positions, including customer service agent and courier.
According to Merritt, the test has a "statistically significant adverse impact" on blacks and Hispanics, though the claim does not explain the reasoning behind that contention. He also charged that Anglo employees were promoted over him for other positions such as dispatcher.
In an effort to investigate the case, the EEOC issued a subpoena demanding that FedEx provide what amounts to a list of all the types of personnel information and documents it has in its computers. Shanley said that would provide her agency with a road map to decide specifically what it needed.
FedEx objected for a variety of reasons.
One was purely technical: The company pointed out that Merritt decided to pursue his own civil lawsuit. That, the attorneys argued, stripped the EEOC of any power to investigate further.
But appellate Judge Wallace Tashima, writing for the court, said Merritt had alleged a pattern or practice of discrimination by the company against others. The judge said that gives the EEOC the power to investigate further. [To read the entire story, go to: http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/business/258577.php ]
Judge dismisses complaints that anti-affirmative action petitioners misled voters
The Colorado Independent
By Naomi Zeveloff 9/24/08 7:24 AM
An administrative law judge has thrown out charges that Amendment 46 petition circulators misled people into signing onto the anti-affirmative action measure.
Amendment 46 seeks to end preferential treatment for women and minorities in public employment, education and contracting. The controversially named Colorado Civil Rights Initiative is part of a five-state effort launched by California businessman Ward Connerly to end affirmative action.
Connerly’s campaign has been criticized as a misleading attempt to make voters believe that they are promoting equal opportunity rather than destroying it. And in Colorado, at least a half-dozen people filed complaints with the secretary of state’s office, saying they were duped by petition circulators who told them that signing onto Amendment 46 would uphold diversity programs.
But last Friday, an administrative law judge dismissed those claims because they did not provide enough detail. And though several of the six complainants say they may file their grievances again, the months-long process has left them demoralized.
“I think all of us are going through some form of shock right now,” says Venita Vinson, a retired Denver resident who used to work for former Colorado Rep. Pat Schroeder, a Democrat. Vinson says that she was approached by a petition circulator for the Colorado Civil Rights Initiative last October outside of a King Soopers in Denver. The circulator asked her to sign on for affirmative action. “When I said to the circulator, ‘But we already have affirmative action,’ her response was ‘But it is due to expire.’” Vinson did not read the text of the petition but signed it anyway.
It wasn’t until months later, at a community meeting, that she found out about the true intent of the initiative. “At that point, I was like, ‘Oh my goodness, I signed it.’” The revelation prompted her to file a complaint with the secretary of state to get her name struck from the petition.
Others, like Candace Frie, read the text of the initiative but still signed, not understanding that she was opting to abolish affirmative action. She was approached last February outside a King Soopers in Arvada. “I was going in and a fellow came up to me, an African-American male, and asked me to sign a petition to end discrimination in Colorado,” she says. “I asked if I could read it and it did say it would end discrimination. I didn’t see anything that raised any red flags.” (The language of the initiative prohibits preferential treatment and discrimination.) [To read the entire story, go to: http://coloradoindependent.com/9009/judge-dismisses-compliants ]
By Naomi Zeveloff 9/24/08 7:24 AM
An administrative law judge has thrown out charges that Amendment 46 petition circulators misled people into signing onto the anti-affirmative action measure.
Amendment 46 seeks to end preferential treatment for women and minorities in public employment, education and contracting. The controversially named Colorado Civil Rights Initiative is part of a five-state effort launched by California businessman Ward Connerly to end affirmative action.
Connerly’s campaign has been criticized as a misleading attempt to make voters believe that they are promoting equal opportunity rather than destroying it. And in Colorado, at least a half-dozen people filed complaints with the secretary of state’s office, saying they were duped by petition circulators who told them that signing onto Amendment 46 would uphold diversity programs.
But last Friday, an administrative law judge dismissed those claims because they did not provide enough detail. And though several of the six complainants say they may file their grievances again, the months-long process has left them demoralized.
“I think all of us are going through some form of shock right now,” says Venita Vinson, a retired Denver resident who used to work for former Colorado Rep. Pat Schroeder, a Democrat. Vinson says that she was approached by a petition circulator for the Colorado Civil Rights Initiative last October outside of a King Soopers in Denver. The circulator asked her to sign on for affirmative action. “When I said to the circulator, ‘But we already have affirmative action,’ her response was ‘But it is due to expire.’” Vinson did not read the text of the petition but signed it anyway.
It wasn’t until months later, at a community meeting, that she found out about the true intent of the initiative. “At that point, I was like, ‘Oh my goodness, I signed it.’” The revelation prompted her to file a complaint with the secretary of state to get her name struck from the petition.
Others, like Candace Frie, read the text of the initiative but still signed, not understanding that she was opting to abolish affirmative action. She was approached last February outside a King Soopers in Arvada. “I was going in and a fellow came up to me, an African-American male, and asked me to sign a petition to end discrimination in Colorado,” she says. “I asked if I could read it and it did say it would end discrimination. I didn’t see anything that raised any red flags.” (The language of the initiative prohibits preferential treatment and discrimination.) [To read the entire story, go to: http://coloradoindependent.com/9009/judge-dismisses-compliants ]
Senate Democrats Hold Hearing on Pay Equity for Women
CNSNews.com
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
By Fred Lucas, Staff Writer
Capitol Hill (CNSNews.com) – Lilly Ledbetter, a former Goodyear Tire plant manager who became a cause célèbre among advocates of gender pay-equity issues, told the Senate Judiciary Committee Tuesday that she has become a second-class citizen. At one point in the hearing, the committee chairman echoed a line from an ‘Obama for President’ television ad, criticizing Republican presidential candidate John McCain’s position on the issue. “My retirement is based on what I earned,” Ledbetter told the panel. “This means I’m treated like a second-class citizen all of my life because that never changes.” Ledbetter lost a pay discrimination lawsuit against Goodyear after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that she filed the complaint too late. She retired after working 19 years at the Goodyear plant in Gadsden, Ala. The high court said that, under the 1964 Civil Rights Act, an employee must sue within 180 days regarding alleged pay discrimination. Speaking to a group of mostly Democratic senators – some of whom were quick to make electioneering statements – Ledbetter had a sympathetic audience. Senate Democrats introduced the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act this year. If passed, the law would extend the limit on how long an employee can wait before suing an employer for pay discrimination. The bill was stopped by a Republican-led filibuster. Of the two presidential candidates, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) voted for cloture so the bill could come up for a final vote, while Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) was not present during the vote but voiced his opposition. Echoing a line from an Obama campaign ad, Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) referred to McCain, saying, “One senior senator, who didn’t show up to vote on the act, said quote ‘women just need more education and job training.’” Ledbetter said she was “strongly offended” by the McCain statement and that she frequently took continuing education courses while working for Goodyear. [To read the entire story, go to: http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=36189 ]
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
By Fred Lucas, Staff Writer
Capitol Hill (CNSNews.com) – Lilly Ledbetter, a former Goodyear Tire plant manager who became a cause célèbre among advocates of gender pay-equity issues, told the Senate Judiciary Committee Tuesday that she has become a second-class citizen. At one point in the hearing, the committee chairman echoed a line from an ‘Obama for President’ television ad, criticizing Republican presidential candidate John McCain’s position on the issue. “My retirement is based on what I earned,” Ledbetter told the panel. “This means I’m treated like a second-class citizen all of my life because that never changes.” Ledbetter lost a pay discrimination lawsuit against Goodyear after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that she filed the complaint too late. She retired after working 19 years at the Goodyear plant in Gadsden, Ala. The high court said that, under the 1964 Civil Rights Act, an employee must sue within 180 days regarding alleged pay discrimination. Speaking to a group of mostly Democratic senators – some of whom were quick to make electioneering statements – Ledbetter had a sympathetic audience. Senate Democrats introduced the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act this year. If passed, the law would extend the limit on how long an employee can wait before suing an employer for pay discrimination. The bill was stopped by a Republican-led filibuster. Of the two presidential candidates, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) voted for cloture so the bill could come up for a final vote, while Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) was not present during the vote but voiced his opposition. Echoing a line from an Obama campaign ad, Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) referred to McCain, saying, “One senior senator, who didn’t show up to vote on the act, said quote ‘women just need more education and job training.’” Ledbetter said she was “strongly offended” by the McCain statement and that she frequently took continuing education courses while working for Goodyear. [To read the entire story, go to: http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=36189 ]
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
A losing proposition
USA Today
September 23, 2008
Republicans since Reagan have lined up to oppose affirmative action but have found little political gain in doing so. After a summer fling with the issue, McCain appears to have concluded that he need not go there.
By Peter Schmidt
When Sen. John McCain voiced support over the summer for a proposed Arizona ballot measure curtailing the use of affirmative-action preferences, some critics said he was latching onto a wedge issue long used by the GOP to split Democrats along racial lines.
In the two months since McCain's remarks to ABC's George Stephanopoulos, the senator of Arizona has been conspicuously silent on the issue. Given the politics of affirmative action, that may well be a wise decision.
(Keith Simmons, USA TODAY)
After all, it's a mistake to assume McCain stands only to gain politically by supporting such measures, which appear likely to be on the ballot in Colorado and Nebraska this November.
Affirmative action is indeed a wedge issue. But this wedge has not just divided Democrats. It has also has badly split the GOP.
Social conservatives may have cheered McCain's opposition to affirmative-action preferences by public colleges and other government entities, but his stand could cost him support among other key Republican constituencies.
Many leaders of big business, for example, have long embraced affirmative action as a cost-effective tool for staving off discrimination complaints and diversifying their workforces. When the U.S. Supreme Court weighed in on affirmative action in college admissions in 2003 — in two cases involving the University of Michigan — nearly 70 Fortune 500 companies signed on to friend-of-the-court briefs urging the justices to leave the university's race-conscious admissions policies intact.
Meanwhile, Republican political pragmatists have long worried that opposition to affirmative action will alienate the nation's growing Hispanic electorate and limit the GOP's appeal among women. If McCain's critics are able to use his affirmative action stand — or his increasingly tough stand on immigration — to paint him as racially insensitive, he could lose support from moderate voters.
Avoiding the affirmative-action issue probably was not an option for any presidential candidate this election year, even if the state ballot measures had not come up. The political rise of Democratic nominee Barack Obama — who opposes such ballot initiative as threatening the progress of minorities and women and "all too often designed to drive a wedge between people" — almost naturally evokes discussions of how much the nation has moved beyond its past racial divisions, and whether blacks and other minorities still need the leg up that affirmative action offers.
But in allying himself with those who seek to abolish such preferences, McCain is charging off in a direction where no recent GOP president has gotten far.
Ronald Reagan harshly criticized affirmative action, but in two terms in office, he failed to issue a single executive order ending or even restricting its use by the federal government. His administration was left gun-shy as a result of the uproar over its attempt in 1982 to restore the tax-exempt status of South Carolina's private Bob Jones University, which prohibited interracial dating. (It took just days for his administration to reverse itself.) [To read the entire story, go to: http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/09/a-losing-propos.html ]
September 23, 2008
Republicans since Reagan have lined up to oppose affirmative action but have found little political gain in doing so. After a summer fling with the issue, McCain appears to have concluded that he need not go there.
By Peter Schmidt
When Sen. John McCain voiced support over the summer for a proposed Arizona ballot measure curtailing the use of affirmative-action preferences, some critics said he was latching onto a wedge issue long used by the GOP to split Democrats along racial lines.
In the two months since McCain's remarks to ABC's George Stephanopoulos, the senator of Arizona has been conspicuously silent on the issue. Given the politics of affirmative action, that may well be a wise decision.
(Keith Simmons, USA TODAY)
After all, it's a mistake to assume McCain stands only to gain politically by supporting such measures, which appear likely to be on the ballot in Colorado and Nebraska this November.
Affirmative action is indeed a wedge issue. But this wedge has not just divided Democrats. It has also has badly split the GOP.
Social conservatives may have cheered McCain's opposition to affirmative-action preferences by public colleges and other government entities, but his stand could cost him support among other key Republican constituencies.
Many leaders of big business, for example, have long embraced affirmative action as a cost-effective tool for staving off discrimination complaints and diversifying their workforces. When the U.S. Supreme Court weighed in on affirmative action in college admissions in 2003 — in two cases involving the University of Michigan — nearly 70 Fortune 500 companies signed on to friend-of-the-court briefs urging the justices to leave the university's race-conscious admissions policies intact.
Meanwhile, Republican political pragmatists have long worried that opposition to affirmative action will alienate the nation's growing Hispanic electorate and limit the GOP's appeal among women. If McCain's critics are able to use his affirmative action stand — or his increasingly tough stand on immigration — to paint him as racially insensitive, he could lose support from moderate voters.
Avoiding the affirmative-action issue probably was not an option for any presidential candidate this election year, even if the state ballot measures had not come up. The political rise of Democratic nominee Barack Obama — who opposes such ballot initiative as threatening the progress of minorities and women and "all too often designed to drive a wedge between people" — almost naturally evokes discussions of how much the nation has moved beyond its past racial divisions, and whether blacks and other minorities still need the leg up that affirmative action offers.
But in allying himself with those who seek to abolish such preferences, McCain is charging off in a direction where no recent GOP president has gotten far.
Ronald Reagan harshly criticized affirmative action, but in two terms in office, he failed to issue a single executive order ending or even restricting its use by the federal government. His administration was left gun-shy as a result of the uproar over its attempt in 1982 to restore the tax-exempt status of South Carolina's private Bob Jones University, which prohibited interracial dating. (It took just days for his administration to reverse itself.) [To read the entire story, go to: http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/09/a-losing-propos.html ]
Plaintiffs in Workplace Discrimination Cases Face Uphill Battle
AmLaw Litigation Daily
September 23, 2008
For any attorney who specializes in workplace discrimination cases, the findings of a recent study by two Cornell Law School professors are troubling. (Hat Tip to Legal Blog Watch, which first reported on the study.) The Cornell profs analyzed federal district court records from 1979 to 2006 and found that plaintiffs who brought job discrimination claim cases won a measly 15 percent of the time.Plaintiffs didn't fare any better at the appellate level, where courts reversed fewer than 9 percent of the 2,042 cases that plaintiffs lost between 1988 to 2004. By contrast, the study found that defendants who lost at trial were able to convince appellate courts to reverse 41 percent of the time. But defense attorneys shouldn't be too quick to gloat. The study also found that there was a 37 percent drop in the number of cases brought from 1999 to 2000. Translation: less work for defense lawyers.
September 23, 2008
For any attorney who specializes in workplace discrimination cases, the findings of a recent study by two Cornell Law School professors are troubling. (Hat Tip to Legal Blog Watch, which first reported on the study.) The Cornell profs analyzed federal district court records from 1979 to 2006 and found that plaintiffs who brought job discrimination claim cases won a measly 15 percent of the time.Plaintiffs didn't fare any better at the appellate level, where courts reversed fewer than 9 percent of the 2,042 cases that plaintiffs lost between 1988 to 2004. By contrast, the study found that defendants who lost at trial were able to convince appellate courts to reverse 41 percent of the time. But defense attorneys shouldn't be too quick to gloat. The study also found that there was a 37 percent drop in the number of cases brought from 1999 to 2000. Translation: less work for defense lawyers.
Monday, September 22, 2008
NAACP files OFCCP complaint against SEWRPC
JS Online
By TOM HELD
theld@journalsentinel.com
Posted: Sept. 20, 2008
A complaint filed against the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission accuses the agency of failing to follow federal affirmative action rules and threatens to bar the agency from receiving millions of dollars in federal contracts.
The Milwaukee Branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People filed its complaint with the U.S. Department of Labor and asked for an investigation into hiring practices at the agency and enforcement of rules covering recruitment, hiring and accommodation of minorities.
The complaint was drafted by lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union in Milwaukee, which targeted SEWRPC last month for allegedly violating civil rights rules in recommending development of an interchange to serve the Pabst Farms development off I-94 in Oconomowoc.
Both complaints build off charges that the region’s primary planning agency favors suburban interests and ignores the transportation needs of minorities and low-income residents in Milwaukee.
SEWRPC officials have countered that its regional plans recommend significant expansion of public transit, and that the burden for putting in more rail and bus service rests with the state and local governments. [To read the entire story, go to: http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=797173 ]
By TOM HELD
theld@journalsentinel.com
Posted: Sept. 20, 2008
A complaint filed against the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission accuses the agency of failing to follow federal affirmative action rules and threatens to bar the agency from receiving millions of dollars in federal contracts.
The Milwaukee Branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People filed its complaint with the U.S. Department of Labor and asked for an investigation into hiring practices at the agency and enforcement of rules covering recruitment, hiring and accommodation of minorities.
The complaint was drafted by lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union in Milwaukee, which targeted SEWRPC last month for allegedly violating civil rights rules in recommending development of an interchange to serve the Pabst Farms development off I-94 in Oconomowoc.
Both complaints build off charges that the region’s primary planning agency favors suburban interests and ignores the transportation needs of minorities and low-income residents in Milwaukee.
SEWRPC officials have countered that its regional plans recommend significant expansion of public transit, and that the burden for putting in more rail and bus service rests with the state and local governments. [To read the entire story, go to: http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=797173 ]
South Africa: Affirmative Action Without a Plan Ruled Discriminatory
AllAfrica.com
19 September 2008
Ernest Mabuza
Johannesburg
AN EMPLOYER cannot discriminate against a prospective employee on the basis of race if the employer did not have an affirmative action policy or plan in place, according to a Supreme Court of Appeal judgment on Wednesday.
The court reversed a decision of the Labour Court and found that the appointment of RZ Mkongwa to the post of deputy director at Greys Hospital in Pietermaritzburg unfairly discriminated against Martin Gordon - a white male.
It ruled Gordon had succeeded in showing that the failure to appoint him was inherently arbitrary and therefore amounted to unfair discrimination.
Gordon retired in 2003 and the judgment will not affect Mkongwa's position.
The appeal court ordered the health department to pay Gordon the difference between what he would have earned, had he been appointed to the position in June 1996, and what he actually earned, for the period June 1 1996 to the date of his retirement in March 2003, including interest.
In April 1996, the KwaZulu-Natal health department advertised the post and Mkongwa and Gordon were among the applicants. Gordon had started working for the department in 1967 and was an administrator of three hospitals when he applied for the post.
Mkongwa had started his career with the department in June 1974 as an assistant administrator and had progressed to the position of administration officer in June 1989.
The selection panel decided that Gordon was the most suitable for the post. However, the provincial Public Service Commission did not accept the department's recommendation and directed the department to appoint Mkongwa instead. [To read the entire post, go to: http://allafrica.com/stories/200809190067.html
19 September 2008
Ernest Mabuza
Johannesburg
AN EMPLOYER cannot discriminate against a prospective employee on the basis of race if the employer did not have an affirmative action policy or plan in place, according to a Supreme Court of Appeal judgment on Wednesday.
The court reversed a decision of the Labour Court and found that the appointment of RZ Mkongwa to the post of deputy director at Greys Hospital in Pietermaritzburg unfairly discriminated against Martin Gordon - a white male.
It ruled Gordon had succeeded in showing that the failure to appoint him was inherently arbitrary and therefore amounted to unfair discrimination.
Gordon retired in 2003 and the judgment will not affect Mkongwa's position.
The appeal court ordered the health department to pay Gordon the difference between what he would have earned, had he been appointed to the position in June 1996, and what he actually earned, for the period June 1 1996 to the date of his retirement in March 2003, including interest.
In April 1996, the KwaZulu-Natal health department advertised the post and Mkongwa and Gordon were among the applicants. Gordon had started working for the department in 1967 and was an administrator of three hospitals when he applied for the post.
Mkongwa had started his career with the department in June 1974 as an assistant administrator and had progressed to the position of administration officer in June 1989.
The selection panel decided that Gordon was the most suitable for the post. However, the provincial Public Service Commission did not accept the department's recommendation and directed the department to appoint Mkongwa instead. [To read the entire post, go to: http://allafrica.com/stories/200809190067.html
Poll shows gap between blacks and whites over racial discrimination
Yahoo News
By CHARLES BABBINGTON, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) — Since the nation's birth, Americans have discussed race and avoided it, organized neighborhoods and political movements around it, and used it to divide and hurt people even as relations have improved dramatically since the days of slavery, Reconstruction and legal segregation.
Now, in what could be a historic year for a black presidential candidate, a new Associated Press-Yahoo! News poll, conducted with Stanford University, shows just how wide a gap remains between whites and blacks. It shows that a substantial portion of white Americans still harbor negative feelings toward blacks. It shows that blacks and whites disagree tremendously on how much racial prejudice exists, whose fault it is and how much influence blacks have in politics.
One result is that Barack Obama's path to the presidency is steeper than it would be if he were white.
Until now, social scientists have not closely examined racial sentiments on a nationwide scale at a moment when race is central to choosing the next president. The poll, which featured a large sample of Americans — more than 2,200 — and sophisticated survey techniques rarely used in media surveys, reflected the complexity, change and occasional contradictions of race relations.
More whites apply positive attributes to blacks than negative ones, and blacks are even more generous in their descriptions of whites. Racial prejudice is lower among college-educated whites living outside the South. And many whites who think most blacks are somewhat lazy, violent or boastful are willing or even eager to vote for Obama over Republican John McCain, who is white.
The poll, however, shows that blacks and whites see racial discrimination in starkly different terms. When asked "how much discrimination against blacks" exists, 10 percent of whites said "a lot" and 45 percent said "some."
Among blacks, 57 percent said "a lot" and all but a fraction of the rest said "some."
Asked how much of America's existing racial tension is created by blacks, more than one-third of white respondents said "most" or "all," and 9 percent said "not much." Only 3 percent of blacks said "most" or "all," while half said "not much at all."
Nearly three-fourths of blacks said white people have too much influence in American politics. Only 12 percent of whites agreed. Almost three times as many blacks as whites said blacks have too little influence. [ To read the complete story, go to: http://news.yahoo.com/page/election-2008-political-pulse-race-in-america;_ylt=AmLbC7oTeEEaTPaN7zje456s0NUE ]
By CHARLES BABBINGTON, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) — Since the nation's birth, Americans have discussed race and avoided it, organized neighborhoods and political movements around it, and used it to divide and hurt people even as relations have improved dramatically since the days of slavery, Reconstruction and legal segregation.
Now, in what could be a historic year for a black presidential candidate, a new Associated Press-Yahoo! News poll, conducted with Stanford University, shows just how wide a gap remains between whites and blacks. It shows that a substantial portion of white Americans still harbor negative feelings toward blacks. It shows that blacks and whites disagree tremendously on how much racial prejudice exists, whose fault it is and how much influence blacks have in politics.
One result is that Barack Obama's path to the presidency is steeper than it would be if he were white.
Until now, social scientists have not closely examined racial sentiments on a nationwide scale at a moment when race is central to choosing the next president. The poll, which featured a large sample of Americans — more than 2,200 — and sophisticated survey techniques rarely used in media surveys, reflected the complexity, change and occasional contradictions of race relations.
More whites apply positive attributes to blacks than negative ones, and blacks are even more generous in their descriptions of whites. Racial prejudice is lower among college-educated whites living outside the South. And many whites who think most blacks are somewhat lazy, violent or boastful are willing or even eager to vote for Obama over Republican John McCain, who is white.
The poll, however, shows that blacks and whites see racial discrimination in starkly different terms. When asked "how much discrimination against blacks" exists, 10 percent of whites said "a lot" and 45 percent said "some."
Among blacks, 57 percent said "a lot" and all but a fraction of the rest said "some."
Asked how much of America's existing racial tension is created by blacks, more than one-third of white respondents said "most" or "all," and 9 percent said "not much." Only 3 percent of blacks said "most" or "all," while half said "not much at all."
Nearly three-fourths of blacks said white people have too much influence in American politics. Only 12 percent of whites agreed. Almost three times as many blacks as whites said blacks have too little influence. [ To read the complete story, go to: http://news.yahoo.com/page/election-2008-political-pulse-race-in-america;_ylt=AmLbC7oTeEEaTPaN7zje456s0NUE ]
Rights for the Disabled
The Washington Post
Editorial
Congress approves landmark protections for disabled workers.
Monday, September 22, 2008; A14
IT WENT largely unnoticed in a week of economic upheaval, but Congress approved one of the more momentous pieces of civil rights legislation in recent years. The bill, passed overwhelmingly in the House and by unanimous consent in the Senate, will significantly broaden protections for the disabled. It instructs the Supreme Court to act "in favor of broad coverage," a distinction that should make it easier for disabled workers to claim discrimination. By explicitly arguing for a less constrictive interpretation, lawmakers sought to restore the intent of the original Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990; the Supreme Court has imposed a consistently narrow interpretation of the ADA. President Bush has said that he will sign the bill into law despite previous concerns that the legislation would spur excess litigation.
The legislation is the result of two years of remarkable cooperation between business groups and disability rights organizations. The compromise strikes a balance as it guarantees rights for workers with "actual or perceived impairments." For example, airlines can no longer discriminate against prospective pilots if the applicants employ "mitigating measures," such as corrective eyewear. At the same time, the bill limits unwarranted claims by requiring that workers prove they have a disability that "would substantially limit a major life activity when active." The bill will also provide protection, for the first time, to workers with serious ailments such as diabetes, epilepsy and cancer.
Business and disability groups are pleased with the final version of the bill and said that collaborating on the legislation should reduce the number of lawsuits over its implementation. The direct language of the bill, and the laudable cooperation that forged it, should also improve employment levels for the disabled. Two out of three people with significant disabilities are unemployed, a disturbing statistic that disability organizations say is unchanged from when the original ADA became law. This time, Congress's intent is clear, and we hope the courts follow it. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/21/AR2008092101645.html?wpisrc=newsletter
Editorial
Congress approves landmark protections for disabled workers.
Monday, September 22, 2008; A14
IT WENT largely unnoticed in a week of economic upheaval, but Congress approved one of the more momentous pieces of civil rights legislation in recent years. The bill, passed overwhelmingly in the House and by unanimous consent in the Senate, will significantly broaden protections for the disabled. It instructs the Supreme Court to act "in favor of broad coverage," a distinction that should make it easier for disabled workers to claim discrimination. By explicitly arguing for a less constrictive interpretation, lawmakers sought to restore the intent of the original Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990; the Supreme Court has imposed a consistently narrow interpretation of the ADA. President Bush has said that he will sign the bill into law despite previous concerns that the legislation would spur excess litigation.
The legislation is the result of two years of remarkable cooperation between business groups and disability rights organizations. The compromise strikes a balance as it guarantees rights for workers with "actual or perceived impairments." For example, airlines can no longer discriminate against prospective pilots if the applicants employ "mitigating measures," such as corrective eyewear. At the same time, the bill limits unwarranted claims by requiring that workers prove they have a disability that "would substantially limit a major life activity when active." The bill will also provide protection, for the first time, to workers with serious ailments such as diabetes, epilepsy and cancer.
Business and disability groups are pleased with the final version of the bill and said that collaborating on the legislation should reduce the number of lawsuits over its implementation. The direct language of the bill, and the laudable cooperation that forged it, should also improve employment levels for the disabled. Two out of three people with significant disabilities are unemployed, a disturbing statistic that disability organizations say is unchanged from when the original ADA became law. This time, Congress's intent is clear, and we hope the courts follow it. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/21/AR2008092101645.html?wpisrc=newsletter
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Affirmative Action is Still Relevant and Needed
Diverse Issues in Higher Education
September 18, 2008
By Elwood Watson
A few weeks ago, the anti-affirmative action ballot measure in Arizona that was supported by Republican presidential candidate John McCain and Black conservative opportunist and hypocrite Ward Connerly failed to garner enough support to be placed on the ballot. Earlier this year, a similar referendum in Oklahoma faced a similar fate. I must admit that I was surprised, yet, gratified to see voters of the traditionally conservative states reject these ingenuous initiatives that were put forth by Connerly and his merry little band of dishonest distorters.
After all, there have been more than a few individuals in the Republican Party who have opposition to affirmative action, an unwritten plank of the GOP platform. What is often interesting is the fact many Republicans and others who oppose affirmative action argue is that what they want is a color-blind society. My response to this is that many of us across racial lines would like to see our nation and the world at large evolve into such a force; however, the sad reality is that we do not live in a society that resembles such a racial utopia by any standard of the imagination. While it is true that affirmative action has been instrumental in integrating many previous segregated institutions, White people have very little to be alarmed about in regards to such a policy. In fact, many businesses and corporations have avidly adopted such inclusionary measures, realizing such a practice that makes good business sense. This was evident when many of these institutions banned together to rally in support for affirmative action which was partly upheld by the Supreme Court. Moreover, it should be well known by now that the biggest beneficiaries of affirmative action are White professional women.
Because Blacks, non-European Latinos and many women, for the most part, have not achieved relative parity with White males, the rationale for such a program still exists. In addition, affirmative action should not be seen as an entity that rewards subpar and incompetent minorities. The vast majority of Blacks who have benefitted from affirmative action are qualified individuals who are fully competent to hold the positions they hold. [To read the entire post, go to: http://diverseeducation.wordpress.com/ ]
September 18, 2008
By Elwood Watson
A few weeks ago, the anti-affirmative action ballot measure in Arizona that was supported by Republican presidential candidate John McCain and Black conservative opportunist and hypocrite Ward Connerly failed to garner enough support to be placed on the ballot. Earlier this year, a similar referendum in Oklahoma faced a similar fate. I must admit that I was surprised, yet, gratified to see voters of the traditionally conservative states reject these ingenuous initiatives that were put forth by Connerly and his merry little band of dishonest distorters.
After all, there have been more than a few individuals in the Republican Party who have opposition to affirmative action, an unwritten plank of the GOP platform. What is often interesting is the fact many Republicans and others who oppose affirmative action argue is that what they want is a color-blind society. My response to this is that many of us across racial lines would like to see our nation and the world at large evolve into such a force; however, the sad reality is that we do not live in a society that resembles such a racial utopia by any standard of the imagination. While it is true that affirmative action has been instrumental in integrating many previous segregated institutions, White people have very little to be alarmed about in regards to such a policy. In fact, many businesses and corporations have avidly adopted such inclusionary measures, realizing such a practice that makes good business sense. This was evident when many of these institutions banned together to rally in support for affirmative action which was partly upheld by the Supreme Court. Moreover, it should be well known by now that the biggest beneficiaries of affirmative action are White professional women.
Because Blacks, non-European Latinos and many women, for the most part, have not achieved relative parity with White males, the rationale for such a program still exists. In addition, affirmative action should not be seen as an entity that rewards subpar and incompetent minorities. The vast majority of Blacks who have benefitted from affirmative action are qualified individuals who are fully competent to hold the positions they hold. [To read the entire post, go to: http://diverseeducation.wordpress.com/ ]
SCOLARI’S TO PAY $425,000 TO SETTLE EEOC SEX HARASSMENT AND RETALIATION SUIT
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
September 18, 2008
Teens Among Many Victims of Abuse at Markets, Federal Agency Charged
RENO, Nev. – Scolari’s Warehouse Markets will pay $425,000 and furnish other relief to settle a class sexual harassment and retaliation lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today.
The EEOC charged in its lawsuit that 19 female employees, several of whom were teenagers at the time, were subjected to repeated and sometimes severe sexual harassment by the company’s senior officers across multiple stores in the Reno area. The EEOC asserted that Scolari’s senior officers and managers inappropriately touched female employees, propositioned them, made lewd comments and passed around naked photos of themselves, among other acts. In addition, the EEOC charged that Scolari’s management failed to address and correct the unlawful conduct, even when the victims complained about it. Instead, the women were fired or were forced to abandon their jobs after they complained about the harassment.
All this alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Nevada after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement (EEOC v. Scolari’s Warehouse Markets, CV 04-229 DAE - RAM). A consent decree setting forth the terms of the agreement was approved by the court on Sept. 5.
Under the three-year consent decree resolving the case, Scolari’s agreed to pay $425,000 to the employees identified by the EEOC to have been sexually harassed or retaliated against. As part of the injunctive relief, Scolari’s further agreed to provide training to all employees; provide reports to the EEOC regarding its employment practices for a period of three years; and, to hire a consultant to review its harassment policies and procedures.
“In a case like this, where several of the victims were young women new to the work force, victims of harassment often feel further isolated and marginalized,” said EEOC Los Angeles Regional Attorney Anna Y. Park. “This case shows that employers need to investigate and act on complaints of harassment before the problem mushrooms.”
EEOC’s Los Angeles District Director Olophius Perry added, “Nevada employers need to be vigilant in protecting workers who have the courage to speak out against harassment. The EEOC is determined to protect the civil rights of all workers, and that includes protecting their right to protest illegal mistreatment.”
In September 2004, EEOC Chair Naomi C. Earp (then vice chair) launched the federal agency’s national Youth@Work Initiative -- a comprehensive outreach and education campaign designed to inform teens about their employment rights and responsibilities and to help employers create positive first work experiences for young adults. The EEOC has held more than 3,700 Youth@Work events nationwide sincethe program was launched, reaching more than 229,000 students, education professionals, and employers.
Further information about the Youth@Work campaign, including how to schedule a free Youth@Work outreach presentation, is available on the agency’s web site at http://www.eeoc.gov/initiatives/youth/index.html. Specific EEOC-related information for teens is available on the Youth@Work web site at http://www.youth.eeoc.gov
The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on the agency’s web site at www.eeoc.gov.
September 18, 2008
Teens Among Many Victims of Abuse at Markets, Federal Agency Charged
RENO, Nev. – Scolari’s Warehouse Markets will pay $425,000 and furnish other relief to settle a class sexual harassment and retaliation lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today.
The EEOC charged in its lawsuit that 19 female employees, several of whom were teenagers at the time, were subjected to repeated and sometimes severe sexual harassment by the company’s senior officers across multiple stores in the Reno area. The EEOC asserted that Scolari’s senior officers and managers inappropriately touched female employees, propositioned them, made lewd comments and passed around naked photos of themselves, among other acts. In addition, the EEOC charged that Scolari’s management failed to address and correct the unlawful conduct, even when the victims complained about it. Instead, the women were fired or were forced to abandon their jobs after they complained about the harassment.
All this alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Nevada after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement (EEOC v. Scolari’s Warehouse Markets, CV 04-229 DAE - RAM). A consent decree setting forth the terms of the agreement was approved by the court on Sept. 5.
Under the three-year consent decree resolving the case, Scolari’s agreed to pay $425,000 to the employees identified by the EEOC to have been sexually harassed or retaliated against. As part of the injunctive relief, Scolari’s further agreed to provide training to all employees; provide reports to the EEOC regarding its employment practices for a period of three years; and, to hire a consultant to review its harassment policies and procedures.
“In a case like this, where several of the victims were young women new to the work force, victims of harassment often feel further isolated and marginalized,” said EEOC Los Angeles Regional Attorney Anna Y. Park. “This case shows that employers need to investigate and act on complaints of harassment before the problem mushrooms.”
EEOC’s Los Angeles District Director Olophius Perry added, “Nevada employers need to be vigilant in protecting workers who have the courage to speak out against harassment. The EEOC is determined to protect the civil rights of all workers, and that includes protecting their right to protest illegal mistreatment.”
In September 2004, EEOC Chair Naomi C. Earp (then vice chair) launched the federal agency’s national Youth@Work Initiative -- a comprehensive outreach and education campaign designed to inform teens about their employment rights and responsibilities and to help employers create positive first work experiences for young adults. The EEOC has held more than 3,700 Youth@Work events nationwide sincethe program was launched, reaching more than 229,000 students, education professionals, and employers.
Further information about the Youth@Work campaign, including how to schedule a free Youth@Work outreach presentation, is available on the agency’s web site at http://www.eeoc.gov/initiatives/youth/index.html. Specific EEOC-related information for teens is available on the Youth@Work web site at http://www.youth.eeoc.gov
The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on the agency’s web site at www.eeoc.gov.
Saturday, September 20, 2008
VETS-100 FORM DUE SEPTEMBER 30TH FOR SOME FEDERAL CONTRACTORS
The Federal Contractor Program requires that any contractor receiving a contract before December 1, 2003 from the federal government in the amount of $25,000 or more, or any subcontractor receiving a contract in the amount of $25,000 or more from such a covered contractor must file a VETS-100 Report on an annual basis. In addition, any federal contractor or subcontractor is also required to take affirmative action to hire and promote qualified special disabled veterans, veterans of the Vietnam-era and any veterans who served on active duty during a war or in a campaign or expedition for which a campaign badge has been authorized. The filing deadline is September 30, 2008. Employers can file reports at the DOL’s Web site or submit a diskette in the data format specified by the DOL.
To see the Frequently Asked Questions for the VETS 100 form, including sanctions for failure to file, go to: http://www.dol.gov/vets/contractor/main.htm
To contact VETS about the form, please contact the VETS-100 office by e-mail at helpdesk@vets100.com or by phone at (301) 306-6752 for further assistance.
To see the Frequently Asked Questions for the VETS 100 form, including sanctions for failure to file, go to: http://www.dol.gov/vets/contractor/main.htm
To contact VETS about the form, please contact the VETS-100 office by e-mail at helpdesk@vets100.com or by phone at (301) 306-6752 for further assistance.
Bar Exam Data Debate About Privacy, Not Affirmative Action
Equal Justice Society
By Anthony Solana, Jr. and Sara Jackson
A Sept. 17 Times editorial characterizes a UCLA law professor’s request for the confidential data of state bar exam takers as a debate over affirmative action.Proponents of equal opportunity do not fear Prof. Richard Sander’s hypothesis that affirmative action puts Black law students in institutions where they are doomed to fail. Our opposition to his specific request for bar exam data is rooted in the protection of exam takers’ privacy and compliance with the law.The Times editorial dismisses these concerns as “spurious” and then provides no explanation to support that view. Instead the Times advances Sander’s and the California First Amendment Coalition’s attempts to convert this into a controversy over affirmative action because their anti-privacy arguments have no merit.For example, Sander wants exam takers’ undergraduate and law school GPA, LSAT as well as bar scores – even though individuals who take the bar cannot access these scores themselves.The State Bar cannot disclose information provided by exam applicants, irrespective of its relevance in a public policy debate, because state and federal law precludes its disclosure absent consent. One’s private records do not become public records, accessible to anyone, simply because a person applies to take a state exam and becomes part of a database.It is on these legal grounds that the State Bar Board of Governors voted unanimously to deny Sander’s request and why many prominent lawyers support the Bar’s protection of bar exam takers data. In a Nov. 7, 2007, letter to the State Bar president and chair of the Bar’s Regulations, Admissions & Discipline Committee, 28 lawyers and leaders of bar organizations, both local and statewide, wrote:“The State Bar holds the confidential information of Bar applicants in trust. It is not at liberty to divulge these applicants’ confidential information because they have a right to privacy in this information and a right to due process with respect to its disclosure.”Sander's research design solves neither the problem of consent nor the problem of privacy. Given the current demographic makeup of many of California’s top law schools, simply removing names and other identifying characteristics does not ensure the confidentiality of all applicants.At UC Berkeley and UCLA Law Schools, several classes have had 10 or fewer Black students since the adoption of Proposition 209. Small numbers of Black students in a class are typical of some private law schools as well. Under such circumstances, even “anonymized” data can still render persons easily traceable, and in such cases the law prohibits disclosure of academic records without consent. As Dean Larry Kramer of Stanford Law School stated in a letter to the State Bar on this issue last year: “[t]he use of these records envisioned by the Sander team would violate FERPA [the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act of 1974].”The disclosure of such educational records presents a serious legal question, not fairly characterized as “spurious.”And to the extent that the issue of political motivation or orthodoxy is invoked, it surely should be considered with respect to all sides. After all, Sander’s research is funded by a $1 million grant from the conservative Scaife Foundation $1.2 million grant from the Searle Freedom Trust and enjoys the full support of all of the conservatives now in control of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, including Gail Heriot—one of the authors of Proposition 209. That Sander has a right to advocate his position is undeniable. He doesn’t have the right to acquire personal and confidential information of bar exam takers when the law mandates otherwise. Anthony Solana, Jr., is president and chairperson of For People of Color, Inc. Sara Jackson is the Equal Justice Society Judge Constance Baker Motley Civil Rights Fellow. For more information on this issue, visit www.equaljusticesociety.org.
By Anthony Solana, Jr. and Sara Jackson
A Sept. 17 Times editorial characterizes a UCLA law professor’s request for the confidential data of state bar exam takers as a debate over affirmative action.Proponents of equal opportunity do not fear Prof. Richard Sander’s hypothesis that affirmative action puts Black law students in institutions where they are doomed to fail. Our opposition to his specific request for bar exam data is rooted in the protection of exam takers’ privacy and compliance with the law.The Times editorial dismisses these concerns as “spurious” and then provides no explanation to support that view. Instead the Times advances Sander’s and the California First Amendment Coalition’s attempts to convert this into a controversy over affirmative action because their anti-privacy arguments have no merit.For example, Sander wants exam takers’ undergraduate and law school GPA, LSAT as well as bar scores – even though individuals who take the bar cannot access these scores themselves.The State Bar cannot disclose information provided by exam applicants, irrespective of its relevance in a public policy debate, because state and federal law precludes its disclosure absent consent. One’s private records do not become public records, accessible to anyone, simply because a person applies to take a state exam and becomes part of a database.It is on these legal grounds that the State Bar Board of Governors voted unanimously to deny Sander’s request and why many prominent lawyers support the Bar’s protection of bar exam takers data. In a Nov. 7, 2007, letter to the State Bar president and chair of the Bar’s Regulations, Admissions & Discipline Committee, 28 lawyers and leaders of bar organizations, both local and statewide, wrote:“The State Bar holds the confidential information of Bar applicants in trust. It is not at liberty to divulge these applicants’ confidential information because they have a right to privacy in this information and a right to due process with respect to its disclosure.”Sander's research design solves neither the problem of consent nor the problem of privacy. Given the current demographic makeup of many of California’s top law schools, simply removing names and other identifying characteristics does not ensure the confidentiality of all applicants.At UC Berkeley and UCLA Law Schools, several classes have had 10 or fewer Black students since the adoption of Proposition 209. Small numbers of Black students in a class are typical of some private law schools as well. Under such circumstances, even “anonymized” data can still render persons easily traceable, and in such cases the law prohibits disclosure of academic records without consent. As Dean Larry Kramer of Stanford Law School stated in a letter to the State Bar on this issue last year: “[t]he use of these records envisioned by the Sander team would violate FERPA [the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act of 1974].”The disclosure of such educational records presents a serious legal question, not fairly characterized as “spurious.”And to the extent that the issue of political motivation or orthodoxy is invoked, it surely should be considered with respect to all sides. After all, Sander’s research is funded by a $1 million grant from the conservative Scaife Foundation $1.2 million grant from the Searle Freedom Trust and enjoys the full support of all of the conservatives now in control of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, including Gail Heriot—one of the authors of Proposition 209. That Sander has a right to advocate his position is undeniable. He doesn’t have the right to acquire personal and confidential information of bar exam takers when the law mandates otherwise. Anthony Solana, Jr., is president and chairperson of For People of Color, Inc. Sara Jackson is the Equal Justice Society Judge Constance Baker Motley Civil Rights Fellow. For more information on this issue, visit www.equaljusticesociety.org.
Friday, September 19, 2008
Statement of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund on Promoting Diversity in Schools
September 16, 2008
Statement of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund on Promoting Diversity in Schools
A Response to OCR's August 28, 2008 "Dear Colleague" Letter
On August 28, 2008, the Office for Civil Rights in the U.S. Department of Education (OCR) issued a "Dear Colleague" letter providing informal guidance regarding how OCR plans to assess the use of race in assigning students to schools. OCR adopted a narrow and limited reading of the United States Supreme Court's decision in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School Dist. No. 1, 127 S.Ct. 2738 (2007) as support for this guidance. Because LDF believes that OCR's interpretation of the decision is inaccurate in a number of respects, we now write to clarify the legal standards applicable to elementary and secondary schools. In Parents Involved, a majority of the Supreme Court justices (the four Justices who would have upheld the student assignment plans from Seattle and Louisville at issue in the case, and Justice Kennedy, who found some aspects of those plans unacceptable but approved of their purpose) recognized that school districts have compelling interests in promoting student diversity and avoiding racial isolation in elementary and secondary school settings. The majority agreed that, in Justice Kennedy's words, a school district can, in its "discretion and expertise", take affirmative steps to avoid racial isolation and to achieve a diverse student population, Parents Involved, 127 S.Ct. at 2797, and that school officials may "consider the racial makeup of schools and adopt general policies to encourage a diverse student body, one aspect of which is its racial composition." Parents Involved, 127 S.Ct. at 2792. Specifically, schools and communities may take account of race in using the following student assignment methods to promote diversity: "strategic site selection of new schools; drawing attendance zones in general recognition of the demographics of neighborhoods; allocating resources for special programs; recruiting students and faculty in a targeted fashion; and tracking enrollments, performance, and other statistics by race." Parents Involved, 127 S.Ct. at 2792. The Court also clarified what school districts cannot do: individual students cannot be assigned to school solely on the basis of their race. Instead, school districts should consider race along with other demographic factors when implementing specific student assignment methods. Parents Involved, 127 S.Ct. at 2797. Furthermore, while the Court held that the Seattle and Louisville school districts had not presented sufficient evidence that they had seriously considered "race-neutral" alternatives, there is no requirement in Parents Involved that school districts only use race-neutral means to promote the compelling interests in diversity and avoiding racial isolation in their schools. School districts should be able to demonstrate that they seriously considered workable race-neutral alternatives, but need not exhaust every possibility. As Justice Kennedy recognized, "[t]his Nation has a moral and ethical obligation to fulfill its historic commitment to creating an integrated society that ensures equal opportunity for all of its children." Parents Involved, 127 S.Ct. at 2797. Schools and communities nationwide therefore can and should continue to take steps to promote a high quality, inclusive education for all children and to address the pervasive harms of continued racial isolation in schools. The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund is America's legal counsel on issues of race. LDF pursues racial justice to move our nation toward a society that fulfills the promise of equality for all Americans. Following the Supreme Court's Parents Involved ruling, LDF issued Still Looking to the Future: Voluntary K-12 School Integration, a Manual for educators, parents and advocates that provides comprehensive information about what we can and should do to promote high quality, inclusive schools in our communities. Click on the link under Publications in the right hand column to access the Manual. Other related resources are also located on this website. http://www.naacpldf.org/content.aspx?article=1317
Statement of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund on Promoting Diversity in Schools
A Response to OCR's August 28, 2008 "Dear Colleague" Letter
On August 28, 2008, the Office for Civil Rights in the U.S. Department of Education (OCR) issued a "Dear Colleague" letter providing informal guidance regarding how OCR plans to assess the use of race in assigning students to schools. OCR adopted a narrow and limited reading of the United States Supreme Court's decision in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School Dist. No. 1, 127 S.Ct. 2738 (2007) as support for this guidance. Because LDF believes that OCR's interpretation of the decision is inaccurate in a number of respects, we now write to clarify the legal standards applicable to elementary and secondary schools. In Parents Involved, a majority of the Supreme Court justices (the four Justices who would have upheld the student assignment plans from Seattle and Louisville at issue in the case, and Justice Kennedy, who found some aspects of those plans unacceptable but approved of their purpose) recognized that school districts have compelling interests in promoting student diversity and avoiding racial isolation in elementary and secondary school settings. The majority agreed that, in Justice Kennedy's words, a school district can, in its "discretion and expertise", take affirmative steps to avoid racial isolation and to achieve a diverse student population, Parents Involved, 127 S.Ct. at 2797, and that school officials may "consider the racial makeup of schools and adopt general policies to encourage a diverse student body, one aspect of which is its racial composition." Parents Involved, 127 S.Ct. at 2792. Specifically, schools and communities may take account of race in using the following student assignment methods to promote diversity: "strategic site selection of new schools; drawing attendance zones in general recognition of the demographics of neighborhoods; allocating resources for special programs; recruiting students and faculty in a targeted fashion; and tracking enrollments, performance, and other statistics by race." Parents Involved, 127 S.Ct. at 2792. The Court also clarified what school districts cannot do: individual students cannot be assigned to school solely on the basis of their race. Instead, school districts should consider race along with other demographic factors when implementing specific student assignment methods. Parents Involved, 127 S.Ct. at 2797. Furthermore, while the Court held that the Seattle and Louisville school districts had not presented sufficient evidence that they had seriously considered "race-neutral" alternatives, there is no requirement in Parents Involved that school districts only use race-neutral means to promote the compelling interests in diversity and avoiding racial isolation in their schools. School districts should be able to demonstrate that they seriously considered workable race-neutral alternatives, but need not exhaust every possibility. As Justice Kennedy recognized, "[t]his Nation has a moral and ethical obligation to fulfill its historic commitment to creating an integrated society that ensures equal opportunity for all of its children." Parents Involved, 127 S.Ct. at 2797. Schools and communities nationwide therefore can and should continue to take steps to promote a high quality, inclusive education for all children and to address the pervasive harms of continued racial isolation in schools. The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund is America's legal counsel on issues of race. LDF pursues racial justice to move our nation toward a society that fulfills the promise of equality for all Americans. Following the Supreme Court's Parents Involved ruling, LDF issued Still Looking to the Future: Voluntary K-12 School Integration, a Manual for educators, parents and advocates that provides comprehensive information about what we can and should do to promote high quality, inclusive schools in our communities. Click on the link under Publications in the right hand column to access the Manual. Other related resources are also located on this website. http://www.naacpldf.org/content.aspx?article=1317
Freedom Riders experience joyous, triumphant reunion
Tennessean.com
By MICHAEL CASS and JENNIFER BROOKS
September 19, 2008
TSU gave honorary degrees Thursday to 14 Freedom Riders, former students who put their lives on the line in 1961 to protest racial segregation and paid the price when they were thrown in jail and expelled from school.
It was a joyous day for the 10 living Freedom Riders and the family members representing the deceased.
"I grew up on this campus," said Pauline Knight-Ofosu, an honorary degree recipient. "I grew up with an appreciation of the arts. ... At the time that I grew up, this might have been one of the few places that we could go and we could appreciate the arts and not be in a segregated area.
"All of this is just so fantastic. I don't know how I can stand it," she said.
When the ceremony was over, the reunion complete, they swayed to Tennessee State University's alma mater.
"Alma Mater, how we love thee, love thy white and blue," the former students sang of the university that once exiled them for their acts of courage and sacrifice.
The Freedom Riders rode buses through the volatile heart of the Jim Crow South to protest segregation in interstate transportation. A few months later, their actions caused President John F. Kennedy's administration to enforce earlier Supreme Court rulings banning segregation along America's bus and train lines.
TSU President Melvin Johnson said the students' "extraordinary achievements" were worthy of the belated recognition, which the Tennessee Board of Regents initially refused to grant.
"These degrees serve to remind this generation of a time when young people were willing to risk their reputations, careers, freedom and lives for a higher cause," said Johnson, who lobbied for the awards.
The Board of Regents, which oversees TSU, bowed to widespread criticism and reversed itself a few weeks after its initial decision last spring. Kwame Leo Lillard, a TSU graduate and former Metro councilman who helped organize fellow students' participation in the Freedom Rides, gave the board credit for coming around. [To read the entire story, go to: http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080919/NEWS01/809190409 ]
By MICHAEL CASS and JENNIFER BROOKS
September 19, 2008
TSU gave honorary degrees Thursday to 14 Freedom Riders, former students who put their lives on the line in 1961 to protest racial segregation and paid the price when they were thrown in jail and expelled from school.
It was a joyous day for the 10 living Freedom Riders and the family members representing the deceased.
"I grew up on this campus," said Pauline Knight-Ofosu, an honorary degree recipient. "I grew up with an appreciation of the arts. ... At the time that I grew up, this might have been one of the few places that we could go and we could appreciate the arts and not be in a segregated area.
"All of this is just so fantastic. I don't know how I can stand it," she said.
When the ceremony was over, the reunion complete, they swayed to Tennessee State University's alma mater.
"Alma Mater, how we love thee, love thy white and blue," the former students sang of the university that once exiled them for their acts of courage and sacrifice.
The Freedom Riders rode buses through the volatile heart of the Jim Crow South to protest segregation in interstate transportation. A few months later, their actions caused President John F. Kennedy's administration to enforce earlier Supreme Court rulings banning segregation along America's bus and train lines.
TSU President Melvin Johnson said the students' "extraordinary achievements" were worthy of the belated recognition, which the Tennessee Board of Regents initially refused to grant.
"These degrees serve to remind this generation of a time when young people were willing to risk their reputations, careers, freedom and lives for a higher cause," said Johnson, who lobbied for the awards.
The Board of Regents, which oversees TSU, bowed to widespread criticism and reversed itself a few weeks after its initial decision last spring. Kwame Leo Lillard, a TSU graduate and former Metro councilman who helped organize fellow students' participation in the Freedom Rides, gave the board credit for coming around. [To read the entire story, go to: http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080919/NEWS01/809190409 ]
Investigators: Flaws in how U of I handled case
Des Moines Register
September 18, 2008
JOHN NAUGHTON
jnaughton@dmreg.com
Coralville — An independent investigator's report found the University of Iowa failed to adequately protect the alleged victim of a sexual assault by athletes and detailed substantial flaws with the school's behavior, an attorney told the Iowa Board of Regents this afternoon."The university's response was simply not adequate," said James Sears Bryant, who led a legal team from the Stolar Partnership, a firm based in St. Louis and Dallas, that was charged with investigating the university's reaction to an incident involving two former football players in October, 2007.
Two former U of I football players, Abe Satterfield and Cedric Everson, have been charged with sex abuse in connection with the alleged assault at Hillcrest Residence Hall on Oct. 14. Cedric Everson, 19, and Abe Satterfield, 20, are accused of sexually assaulting a female student-athlete in an unoccupied dorm room. They have pleaded not guilty and are scheduled for trial Nov. 3.
Among the findings in today's report, which discovered flaws in the university's administration proceeding, was the alleged victim was harassed by student-athletes at the school that included physical threats and shouts.Although the investigators found significant problems there was no evidenceof an attempted cover-up, Bryant said.The university needs to address the problems with the process, Bryant said.Among the other criticisms: University officials did not turn over documents to the Board of Regents during the investigation following the event, the school did not provide adequate counseling support for the student when the victim was interviewed by university officials, and university administrators in some cases failed to act together because of territorial disputes. [To view the entire story, go to: http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080918/NEWS/80918025/0/NEWS09 ]
September 18, 2008
JOHN NAUGHTON
jnaughton@dmreg.com
Coralville — An independent investigator's report found the University of Iowa failed to adequately protect the alleged victim of a sexual assault by athletes and detailed substantial flaws with the school's behavior, an attorney told the Iowa Board of Regents this afternoon."The university's response was simply not adequate," said James Sears Bryant, who led a legal team from the Stolar Partnership, a firm based in St. Louis and Dallas, that was charged with investigating the university's reaction to an incident involving two former football players in October, 2007.
Two former U of I football players, Abe Satterfield and Cedric Everson, have been charged with sex abuse in connection with the alleged assault at Hillcrest Residence Hall on Oct. 14. Cedric Everson, 19, and Abe Satterfield, 20, are accused of sexually assaulting a female student-athlete in an unoccupied dorm room. They have pleaded not guilty and are scheduled for trial Nov. 3.
Among the findings in today's report, which discovered flaws in the university's administration proceeding, was the alleged victim was harassed by student-athletes at the school that included physical threats and shouts.Although the investigators found significant problems there was no evidenceof an attempted cover-up, Bryant said.The university needs to address the problems with the process, Bryant said.Among the other criticisms: University officials did not turn over documents to the Board of Regents during the investigation following the event, the school did not provide adequate counseling support for the student when the victim was interviewed by university officials, and university administrators in some cases failed to act together because of territorial disputes. [To view the entire story, go to: http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080918/NEWS/80918025/0/NEWS09 ]
Guidance or Spin on Affirmative Action Rulings?
Inside Higher Ed
September 19, 2008
More than five years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down two landmark decisions about the consideration of race in college admissions decisions — permitting race to be considered, but only in some circumstances.
Citing “numerous inquiries,” the U.S. Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights recently issued a “Dear Colleague” letter to colleges, outlining its interpretations of the rulings. Calling systems that rely on race “highly suspect,” the department draws attention to the limits on the consideration of race. While everyone agrees that that the Supreme Court did set limits, the letter is being criticized in some quarters as designed to discourage colleges from legal and educationally necessary use of affirmative action.
OCR interpretations of the state of the law are important because the agency investigates complaints from people who believed they have suffered illegal discrimination in education. Many times colleges will settle complaints with OCR, even saying that they disagree with the agency, to avoid a protracted fight with the agency. On the other hand, the Bush administration is in a lame duck stage that gives colleges more leeway.
The OCR’s new letter and the controversy over it concerns what everyone agrees was a “yes, but…” answer from the Supreme Court on the legality of affirmative action. While the Supreme Court absolutely barred quotas (as it had previously) and affirmed that race and ethnicity could be considered, it is in the limitations that the Supreme Court set that the legal fights continue. Generally, the Supreme Court said that colleges needed to consider applicants — minority and white alike — as individuals, going through the same admissions system, and that there are broad reasons to pursue diversity.
After the Supreme Court decisions came down, many colleges adjusted their admissions policies, with systems that gave points for minority status replaced with programs that involved more individual consideration of applicants. Other colleges added essays or eliminated the use of standardized test scores.
In its letter to colleges, OCR reminded them that they “bear the burden of providing sufficient detail” about programs so the agency can judge their legality. The agency then described the “parameters” it would use in evaluating the consideration of race in admissions:
“Use of race must be essential to an institution’s mission and stated goals.”
“The diversity sought by the postsecondary institution must be broader than mere racial diversity.”
“Providing individualized consideration is paramount and there must be no undue burden on other-race applicants.”
“Before using race, there must be serious good faith consideration of workable race-neutral alternatives.”
“Periodic reviews are necessary and the use of race must have a logical end point.”
Taking issue with the letter on Thursday was the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, which noted that the legal standards were set by the Supreme Court five years ago, and raised questions about why this guidance would be arriving now. “There is no reason for such clarification at this time,” the Legal Defense Fund said in a statement. “Rather, it seems that more than five years after those decisions, OCR is issuing this letter to further its efforts to subvert and give unnecessary pause to higher education institutions that are pursuing a racially diverse student population in a constitutional manner.” [To read the entire story, go to: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/09/19/ocr ]
AAAA NOTE: The OCR Guidance Letter is printed in its entirety on this blog. See below.
September 19, 2008
More than five years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down two landmark decisions about the consideration of race in college admissions decisions — permitting race to be considered, but only in some circumstances.
Citing “numerous inquiries,” the U.S. Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights recently issued a “Dear Colleague” letter to colleges, outlining its interpretations of the rulings. Calling systems that rely on race “highly suspect,” the department draws attention to the limits on the consideration of race. While everyone agrees that that the Supreme Court did set limits, the letter is being criticized in some quarters as designed to discourage colleges from legal and educationally necessary use of affirmative action.
OCR interpretations of the state of the law are important because the agency investigates complaints from people who believed they have suffered illegal discrimination in education. Many times colleges will settle complaints with OCR, even saying that they disagree with the agency, to avoid a protracted fight with the agency. On the other hand, the Bush administration is in a lame duck stage that gives colleges more leeway.
The OCR’s new letter and the controversy over it concerns what everyone agrees was a “yes, but…” answer from the Supreme Court on the legality of affirmative action. While the Supreme Court absolutely barred quotas (as it had previously) and affirmed that race and ethnicity could be considered, it is in the limitations that the Supreme Court set that the legal fights continue. Generally, the Supreme Court said that colleges needed to consider applicants — minority and white alike — as individuals, going through the same admissions system, and that there are broad reasons to pursue diversity.
After the Supreme Court decisions came down, many colleges adjusted their admissions policies, with systems that gave points for minority status replaced with programs that involved more individual consideration of applicants. Other colleges added essays or eliminated the use of standardized test scores.
In its letter to colleges, OCR reminded them that they “bear the burden of providing sufficient detail” about programs so the agency can judge their legality. The agency then described the “parameters” it would use in evaluating the consideration of race in admissions:
“Use of race must be essential to an institution’s mission and stated goals.”
“The diversity sought by the postsecondary institution must be broader than mere racial diversity.”
“Providing individualized consideration is paramount and there must be no undue burden on other-race applicants.”
“Before using race, there must be serious good faith consideration of workable race-neutral alternatives.”
“Periodic reviews are necessary and the use of race must have a logical end point.”
Taking issue with the letter on Thursday was the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, which noted that the legal standards were set by the Supreme Court five years ago, and raised questions about why this guidance would be arriving now. “There is no reason for such clarification at this time,” the Legal Defense Fund said in a statement. “Rather, it seems that more than five years after those decisions, OCR is issuing this letter to further its efforts to subvert and give unnecessary pause to higher education institutions that are pursuing a racially diverse student population in a constitutional manner.” [To read the entire story, go to: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/09/19/ocr ]
AAAA NOTE: The OCR Guidance Letter is printed in its entirety on this blog. See below.
The Use of Race in Postsecondary Student Admissions
OCR Guidance: The Use of Race in Postsecondary Student Admissions
US. Department of Education
Office for Civil Rights
The Office for Civil Rights in the U.S. Department of Education issues this guidance to provide postsecondary institutions with information on how OCR assesses the use of race in admissions consistent with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000d (Title VI). This guidance sets out the applicable Title VI principles, including pertinent standards enunciated by the U.S. Supreme Court in the past five years.
This guidance represents the Department’s current thinking on this topic. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person. This guidance does not impose any requirements beyond those required under applicable law and regulations.
If you are interested in commenting on this guidance, please email us your comment at OCR@ed.gov or write to us at the following address: Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, D.C. 20202-1100.
AUG 28 2008
Dear Colleague:
I am writing to clarify how the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) in the United States Department of Education evaluates whether the use of race in admissions by a postsecondary institution is consistent with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (hereinafter “Title VI”). OCR is responsible for enforcing Title VI, which prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin by recipients of Federal financial assistance, including public, and most private, postsecondary institutions.
OCR has received numerous inquiries, from postsecondary institutions, individuals and private organizations, about the impact of the Supreme Court’s 2003 decisions in Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244 (2003) (“Gratz”), and Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306, (2003) (“Grutter”). In Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003), the Supreme Court (hereinafter “the Court”) concluded, “student body diversity is a compelling state interest that can justify the use of race in university admissions.” The Court therefore found lawful the way that the Law School at the University of Michigan had sought to achieve diversity. In contrast, the Court found the use of race in the related case of Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244 (2003), to be unlawful. In Gratz, which involved the undergraduate college of the University of Michigan, the Court found unlawful the way the undergraduate school had made race “a decisive factor for virtually every minimally qualified underrepresented minority applicant.” Id. at 274. The undergraduate school had failed to consider “each applicant's individualized qualifications, including the contribution each individual's race or ethnic identity will make to the diversity of the student body, taking into account diversity within and among all racial and ethnic groups.” Id. at 277.
The Court’s response to the different approaches chosen by the Law School and undergraduate college provides broad parameters to guide postsecondary institutions through the constitutional and Title VI issues that arise if race (as well as color or national origin) is used in admissions. Specifically, the Court applies “strict scrutiny” to admissions policies in order to ensure that burdens placed on individuals because of their race are narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest.
Consistent with these decisions, OCR’s policy continues to be that racial classifications in admissions policies are impermissible unless they are “narrowly tailored” to meet a “compelling governmental interest” such as the remediation of past discrimination or, in the context of higher education, to achieve appropriate student body diversity. Due to their highly suspect nature, racial classifications will only be permitted if there exists “the most exact connection between justification and classification.” Id. at 270 (quoting Fullilove v. Klutznick, 448 U.S. 448, 537, 65 L. Ed. 2d 902, 100 S. Ct. 2758 (1980) (Stevens, J., dissenting))
As a result, if a postsecondary institution seeks to use racial classifications in admissions, it will bear the burden of providing sufficient detail about its process to enable OCR to determine whether the institution is complying with Title VI. Under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, a public educational institution is the government actor that must be able to justify its decision to use racial classifications. Both public and private institutions receiving Federal financial assistance are required under Title VI to be able to justify these decisions. The Title VI regulations require recipients to keep records and to submit “timely, complete and accurate compliance reports” when such a report is necessary to enable OCR to ascertain whether the recipient is in compliance with the Title VI regulations, 34 C.F.R. § 100.6(b).
When developing admissions policies, postsecondary institutions must comply with the constitutional principles of equal protection. OCR is available to provide more detailed technical assistance to individual postsecondary institutions on a case-by-case basis.
The parameters outlined below describe factors that have been and will continue to be used by OCR in assessing whether the particular use of race in admissions by a postsecondary institution receiving Federal financial assistance is permissible. OCR will apply these parameters when undertaking Title VI investigations and in OCR’s other applicable enforcement activities:
Use of race must be essential to an institution’s mission and stated goals;
The diversity sought by the postsecondary institution must be broader than mere racial diversity;
Quotas are impermissible;
Providing individualized consideration is paramount and there must be no undue burden on other-race applicants;
Before using race, there must be serious good faith consideration of workable race-neutral alternatives; and
Periodic reviews are necessary and the use of race must have a logical end point.
I look forward to continuing our work together to ensure equal access to education and to promote educational excellence throughout the nation. Thank you for your efforts on behalf of America’s students.
Sincerely,
Stephanie J. MonroeAssistant Secretaryfor Civil Rights
http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/raceadmissionpse.html
US. Department of Education
Office for Civil Rights
The Office for Civil Rights in the U.S. Department of Education issues this guidance to provide postsecondary institutions with information on how OCR assesses the use of race in admissions consistent with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000d (Title VI). This guidance sets out the applicable Title VI principles, including pertinent standards enunciated by the U.S. Supreme Court in the past five years.
This guidance represents the Department’s current thinking on this topic. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person. This guidance does not impose any requirements beyond those required under applicable law and regulations.
If you are interested in commenting on this guidance, please email us your comment at OCR@ed.gov or write to us at the following address: Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, D.C. 20202-1100.
AUG 28 2008
Dear Colleague:
I am writing to clarify how the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) in the United States Department of Education evaluates whether the use of race in admissions by a postsecondary institution is consistent with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (hereinafter “Title VI”). OCR is responsible for enforcing Title VI, which prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin by recipients of Federal financial assistance, including public, and most private, postsecondary institutions.
OCR has received numerous inquiries, from postsecondary institutions, individuals and private organizations, about the impact of the Supreme Court’s 2003 decisions in Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244 (2003) (“Gratz”), and Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306, (2003) (“Grutter”). In Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003), the Supreme Court (hereinafter “the Court”) concluded, “student body diversity is a compelling state interest that can justify the use of race in university admissions.” The Court therefore found lawful the way that the Law School at the University of Michigan had sought to achieve diversity. In contrast, the Court found the use of race in the related case of Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244 (2003), to be unlawful. In Gratz, which involved the undergraduate college of the University of Michigan, the Court found unlawful the way the undergraduate school had made race “a decisive factor for virtually every minimally qualified underrepresented minority applicant.” Id. at 274. The undergraduate school had failed to consider “each applicant's individualized qualifications, including the contribution each individual's race or ethnic identity will make to the diversity of the student body, taking into account diversity within and among all racial and ethnic groups.” Id. at 277.
The Court’s response to the different approaches chosen by the Law School and undergraduate college provides broad parameters to guide postsecondary institutions through the constitutional and Title VI issues that arise if race (as well as color or national origin) is used in admissions. Specifically, the Court applies “strict scrutiny” to admissions policies in order to ensure that burdens placed on individuals because of their race are narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest.
Consistent with these decisions, OCR’s policy continues to be that racial classifications in admissions policies are impermissible unless they are “narrowly tailored” to meet a “compelling governmental interest” such as the remediation of past discrimination or, in the context of higher education, to achieve appropriate student body diversity. Due to their highly suspect nature, racial classifications will only be permitted if there exists “the most exact connection between justification and classification.” Id. at 270 (quoting Fullilove v. Klutznick, 448 U.S. 448, 537, 65 L. Ed. 2d 902, 100 S. Ct. 2758 (1980) (Stevens, J., dissenting))
As a result, if a postsecondary institution seeks to use racial classifications in admissions, it will bear the burden of providing sufficient detail about its process to enable OCR to determine whether the institution is complying with Title VI. Under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, a public educational institution is the government actor that must be able to justify its decision to use racial classifications. Both public and private institutions receiving Federal financial assistance are required under Title VI to be able to justify these decisions. The Title VI regulations require recipients to keep records and to submit “timely, complete and accurate compliance reports” when such a report is necessary to enable OCR to ascertain whether the recipient is in compliance with the Title VI regulations, 34 C.F.R. § 100.6(b).
When developing admissions policies, postsecondary institutions must comply with the constitutional principles of equal protection. OCR is available to provide more detailed technical assistance to individual postsecondary institutions on a case-by-case basis.
The parameters outlined below describe factors that have been and will continue to be used by OCR in assessing whether the particular use of race in admissions by a postsecondary institution receiving Federal financial assistance is permissible. OCR will apply these parameters when undertaking Title VI investigations and in OCR’s other applicable enforcement activities:
Use of race must be essential to an institution’s mission and stated goals;
The diversity sought by the postsecondary institution must be broader than mere racial diversity;
Quotas are impermissible;
Providing individualized consideration is paramount and there must be no undue burden on other-race applicants;
Before using race, there must be serious good faith consideration of workable race-neutral alternatives; and
Periodic reviews are necessary and the use of race must have a logical end point.
I look forward to continuing our work together to ensure equal access to education and to promote educational excellence throughout the nation. Thank you for your efforts on behalf of America’s students.
Sincerely,
Stephanie J. MonroeAssistant Secretaryfor Civil Rights
http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/raceadmissionpse.html
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Connerly Cashes In
The American Conservative
The anti-preferences activist gets rich off of affirmative action.
By Michael Brendan Dougherty
This was supposed to be a banner year for Ward Connerly, the former University of California regent and the Right’s most visible anti-affirmative-action activist. His 2000 biography, Creating Equal: My Fight Against Racial Preferences, was re-released in February. His latest book, Lessons From My Uncle James, was set to hit shelves this summer. More significantly, he was to be the driving force behind a series of ballot initiatives that would have forbidden state governments from “grant[ing] preferential treatment to any group or individual on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in areas of public contracting, public education, or public employment.” He marketed this effort as Super Tuesday for Equal Rights.
George Will gave his imprimatur to Connerly and his mission in a Washington Post column: “Will the superstitions surrounding race ever fade away? Not before governance is cleansed of the sort of race-based policies opposed by Connerly, who intimately knows the increasing absurdity of racial classifications and the folly of government preferences based on them.”
But Connerly’s plans are unraveling. His biography is absent from most stores and barely registered in conservative book clubs. His second book is mysteriously delayed. His ballot ambitions were scaled back, first from 10 states to five. Then legal challenges and organized opposition winnowed the tally down to just two.
This is unfortunate because anti-affirmative-action ballot measures usually pass when put to a vote. Connerly would know. He and the nonprofit organizations he founded helped three such measures pass—in California in 1996, Washington in 1998, and Michigan in 2006.
But don’t spend too much sympathy on Ward Connerly. The Right’s point man on affirmative action doesn’t need political successes to be a success. While his plans sputter and his former achievements are overturned, Connerly is still being handsomely rewarded. Once he received favored status from the conservative movement, his future was guaranteed. As an activist, Connerly has made millions opposing affirmative action. As a businessman and consultant, he has also made hundreds of thousands in large part because of it. [To read the entire article, go to: http://www.amconmag.com/article/2008/sep/22/00016/ ]
The anti-preferences activist gets rich off of affirmative action.
By Michael Brendan Dougherty
This was supposed to be a banner year for Ward Connerly, the former University of California regent and the Right’s most visible anti-affirmative-action activist. His 2000 biography, Creating Equal: My Fight Against Racial Preferences, was re-released in February. His latest book, Lessons From My Uncle James, was set to hit shelves this summer. More significantly, he was to be the driving force behind a series of ballot initiatives that would have forbidden state governments from “grant[ing] preferential treatment to any group or individual on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in areas of public contracting, public education, or public employment.” He marketed this effort as Super Tuesday for Equal Rights.
George Will gave his imprimatur to Connerly and his mission in a Washington Post column: “Will the superstitions surrounding race ever fade away? Not before governance is cleansed of the sort of race-based policies opposed by Connerly, who intimately knows the increasing absurdity of racial classifications and the folly of government preferences based on them.”
But Connerly’s plans are unraveling. His biography is absent from most stores and barely registered in conservative book clubs. His second book is mysteriously delayed. His ballot ambitions were scaled back, first from 10 states to five. Then legal challenges and organized opposition winnowed the tally down to just two.
This is unfortunate because anti-affirmative-action ballot measures usually pass when put to a vote. Connerly would know. He and the nonprofit organizations he founded helped three such measures pass—in California in 1996, Washington in 1998, and Michigan in 2006.
But don’t spend too much sympathy on Ward Connerly. The Right’s point man on affirmative action doesn’t need political successes to be a success. While his plans sputter and his former achievements are overturned, Connerly is still being handsomely rewarded. Once he received favored status from the conservative movement, his future was guaranteed. As an activist, Connerly has made millions opposing affirmative action. As a businessman and consultant, he has also made hundreds of thousands in large part because of it. [To read the entire article, go to: http://www.amconmag.com/article/2008/sep/22/00016/ ]
Perspectives: Keeping the Affirmative Action Debate in Context
Diverse Issues in Higher Education
by María Ledesma
Sep 17, 2008, 00:14
We stand on the cusp of an epic moment: the chance to vote into office the first Black president in the history of the United States. This historic event is set to potentially redefine and reframe the manner in which we speak about, and handle, race in America. However, as we embark down this never before traveled path, it is critical that we keep in mind the historic events that have enabled someone like Sen. Barack Obama to ascend to the highest levels of politics.
Some have already begun to argue that, as evidenced by the senator’s success, the time has come to dismantle affirmative action programs. Anti-affirmative action proponents further argue the fact that a Black man stands one step away from the presidency of the United States is proof enough that the time has come to end all affirmative action programs. A historical accounting will tell us otherwise. A historical accounting would posit that Sen. Obama’s ascendancy into politics has been, in part, because of, not in spite of, affirmative action programs.
However, most discussions and arguments about affirmative action happen within a historical vacuum. Close analysis reveals that affirmative action has been decoupled from its historical roots, resulting in an ahistorical and acontextual framing of the policy that misinforms the general public as well as scholars and political pundits. Unfortunately, what results is a popular narrative that defines affirmative action around sound bites. This ahistorical and acontextual narrative frames the policy as nothing more than “out-dated” and “preference-laden” “quota systems.” These buzz words not only sensationalize and corrupt sincere discussions around the policy, they prejudice and completely ignore the important historical events that have helped usher in social justice programs like affirmative action. [To view the entire opinion, go to: http://diverseeducation.com/artman/publish/article_11689.shtml ]
by María Ledesma
Sep 17, 2008, 00:14
We stand on the cusp of an epic moment: the chance to vote into office the first Black president in the history of the United States. This historic event is set to potentially redefine and reframe the manner in which we speak about, and handle, race in America. However, as we embark down this never before traveled path, it is critical that we keep in mind the historic events that have enabled someone like Sen. Barack Obama to ascend to the highest levels of politics.
Some have already begun to argue that, as evidenced by the senator’s success, the time has come to dismantle affirmative action programs. Anti-affirmative action proponents further argue the fact that a Black man stands one step away from the presidency of the United States is proof enough that the time has come to end all affirmative action programs. A historical accounting will tell us otherwise. A historical accounting would posit that Sen. Obama’s ascendancy into politics has been, in part, because of, not in spite of, affirmative action programs.
However, most discussions and arguments about affirmative action happen within a historical vacuum. Close analysis reveals that affirmative action has been decoupled from its historical roots, resulting in an ahistorical and acontextual framing of the policy that misinforms the general public as well as scholars and political pundits. Unfortunately, what results is a popular narrative that defines affirmative action around sound bites. This ahistorical and acontextual narrative frames the policy as nothing more than “out-dated” and “preference-laden” “quota systems.” These buzz words not only sensationalize and corrupt sincere discussions around the policy, they prejudice and completely ignore the important historical events that have helped usher in social justice programs like affirmative action. [To view the entire opinion, go to: http://diverseeducation.com/artman/publish/article_11689.shtml ]
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
American Constitution Society Announces Issue Brief "The State-by-State Assault on Equal Opportunity"
ACS is pleased to distribute an Issue Brief by Melissa Hart, Associate Professor of Law at the University of Colorado Law School, entitled The State-by-State Assault on Equal Opportunity.In this Issue Brief, Professor Hart describes the effort to place measures on the ballot in states around the country to eliminate all forms of affirmative action, the arguments being made in support of these initiatives, and the impact they have had in the states where they have been adopted. Professor Hart argues that affirmative action programs help foster true equality and ensure civil rights for women and people of color, by removing down barriers to opportunity and giving long-excluded communities a fair chance to achieve their full potential. Nonetheless, according to Professor Hart, a small group of well-funded opponents of equal opportunity, working state-by-state to make affirmative action illegal, have succeeded in three states so far (California, Washington and Michigan) and are likely to have their initiatives on the ballot this November in Colorado and Nebraska.Professor Hart argues that the proponents of these measures use deceptive language and foster confusion over its meaning, that they rely on false premises and a notion of formal equality that ignores the discrimination that persists in our society, and that where these measures have been adopted, they have had very harmful consequences - most notably, reducing diversity on university campuses. She further suggests that these measures and the debates they spark change the discourse on equal opportunity in damaging ways going beyond any single state's boundaries. Objecting to the idea that proponents of equal opportunity should "surrender," however, she notes that efforts in several states to fight back against these initiatives have been successful, most recently in Arizona, where last month the Secretary of State ruled that an insufficient number of valid signatures had been gathered for placement of the measure on that state's ballot. Professor Hart concludes that "with concerted political and educational efforts, supporters of equal opportunity can prevail against this misleading and destructive campaign. It will require focus and a sense of urgency, but success is eminently possible - and well worth the effort."The American Constitution Society for Law and Policy is one of the nation's leading progressive legal organizations. Founded in 2001, ACS is a rapidly growing network of lawyers, law students, scholars, judges, policymakers and other concerned individuals. Our mission is to ensure that fundamental principles of human dignity, individual rights and liberties, genuine equality, and access to justice enjoy their rightful, central place in American law. For more information about the organization, which has established student chapters at over 160 law schools around the country and lawyer chapters in 30 cities, please visit, www.ACSLaw.org.The views of the authors are their own and should not be attributed to ACS. This issue brief is available online at http://www.acslaw.org/node/7123.
Contributed by: Marshall Rose, AAAA Task Force on Equity in the States
Contributed by: Marshall Rose, AAAA Task Force on Equity in the States
Saginaw Valley State University overcomes Proposal 2, attracts more minority freshmen
by Andy Hoag The Saginaw News
Saturday September 13, 2008, 4:42 AM
Michigan's ban on affirmative action has hurt minority recruiting at some colleges, but Saginaw Valley State University isn't among them.
By using focused recruiting and special scholarships as tools, SVSU has increased its share of under-represented minorities -- blacks, Hispanics and American Indians -- by 4.25 percent this fall, to 245 freshmen from 235.This is the first full freshman class since voters passed Proposal 2 in November 2006, banning preferential treatment based on race. Some minorities already had received scholarships for fall 2007 before the proposal's passage.
It has hampered colleges such as Grand Valley State University in Allendale, where the number of under-represented minorities is down 30 percent this fall.
At Ann Arbor-based University of Michigan, which defended its affirmative action policy all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, enrollment of minority students dropped to 10.47 percent this year from 10.85 percent last year.
While accepting students based on ethnicity is illegal in Michigan, encouraging diversity and actively searching for it is not, U-M officials say.
That's what SVSU -- it has never had separate admissions criteria based on race -- has done, officials said.
"We make sure our admissions representatives are visiting high schools that have a large percentage of minority students," SVSU spokesman J.J. Boehm said.
SVSU also has relied on other scholarships -- private ones, which Proposal 2 does not affect -- to keep up minority freshmen enrollment. [To read the entire story, go to: http://www.mlive.com/saginawnews/news/index.ssf/2008/09/saginaw_valley_state_universit_9.html ]
Saturday September 13, 2008, 4:42 AM
Michigan's ban on affirmative action has hurt minority recruiting at some colleges, but Saginaw Valley State University isn't among them.
By using focused recruiting and special scholarships as tools, SVSU has increased its share of under-represented minorities -- blacks, Hispanics and American Indians -- by 4.25 percent this fall, to 245 freshmen from 235.This is the first full freshman class since voters passed Proposal 2 in November 2006, banning preferential treatment based on race. Some minorities already had received scholarships for fall 2007 before the proposal's passage.
It has hampered colleges such as Grand Valley State University in Allendale, where the number of under-represented minorities is down 30 percent this fall.
At Ann Arbor-based University of Michigan, which defended its affirmative action policy all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, enrollment of minority students dropped to 10.47 percent this year from 10.85 percent last year.
While accepting students based on ethnicity is illegal in Michigan, encouraging diversity and actively searching for it is not, U-M officials say.
That's what SVSU -- it has never had separate admissions criteria based on race -- has done, officials said.
"We make sure our admissions representatives are visiting high schools that have a large percentage of minority students," SVSU spokesman J.J. Boehm said.
SVSU also has relied on other scholarships -- private ones, which Proposal 2 does not affect -- to keep up minority freshmen enrollment. [To read the entire story, go to: http://www.mlive.com/saginawnews/news/index.ssf/2008/09/saginaw_valley_state_universit_9.html ]
When will Affirmative Action, Equity, and Diversity Initiatives as Tools for Social Justice become Unnecessary,Unwarranted, and Anachronistic?
In Motion Magazine
by Jose J. Soto
Lincoln, Nebraska
April 5, 2008
Efforts to eliminate affirmative action as a tool for attaining equal opportunity and social justice are current and active in five states (Arizona, Colorado, Missouri, Nebraska, and Oklahoma). The time will come when affirmative action should be eliminated, and when that time comes I will ardently champion its elimination. I believe, however, that time is not yet here.
In Grutter v. Bollinger [539 U.S. 306 (2003)] the U.S. Supreme Court opined, through Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, that attaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body was a sufficiently compelling interest to warrant taking race into account in making admissions decisions to higher education. The majority opinion in Grutter stated that "(w)e expect that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today."
Ward Connerly and others ... at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, in Lincoln, and throughout Nebraska ... seem to feel that administrative tools and efforts that take race into account have served their purpose and no longer have a role in advancing our quest for inclusion, representation, and social justice. From their perspective, the "When?" is now.
I beg to differ .... the Connerly-inspired efforts currently being advanced in Nebraska and 4 other states are wholly premature.
But, I do believe, and am hopeful, there will come a time when we will not need these mechanisms and efforts to exact social justice. From my experience and observation, that day is not today, nor will it be in April 2009, or 2010, maybe not even by Justice O’Connor's "magic" date of 2028. However, the day will come when we will know that we've "arrived." And when, you might ask, will that be? How will we know?
Let me share my list of ten indicators that will lead me to champion the elimination of affirmative action, equity, and diversity efforts in higher education, business and industry, and government.
1) When women and minorities have attained their proportionate share of leadership and decision-making roles in our institutions of higher education, in business and industry, and in government. [To see the entire article, go to: http://www.inmotionmagazine.com/opin/jsoto_aa_08.html ]
by Jose J. Soto
Lincoln, Nebraska
April 5, 2008
Efforts to eliminate affirmative action as a tool for attaining equal opportunity and social justice are current and active in five states (Arizona, Colorado, Missouri, Nebraska, and Oklahoma). The time will come when affirmative action should be eliminated, and when that time comes I will ardently champion its elimination. I believe, however, that time is not yet here.
In Grutter v. Bollinger [539 U.S. 306 (2003)] the U.S. Supreme Court opined, through Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, that attaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body was a sufficiently compelling interest to warrant taking race into account in making admissions decisions to higher education. The majority opinion in Grutter stated that "(w)e expect that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today."
Ward Connerly and others ... at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, in Lincoln, and throughout Nebraska ... seem to feel that administrative tools and efforts that take race into account have served their purpose and no longer have a role in advancing our quest for inclusion, representation, and social justice. From their perspective, the "When?" is now.
I beg to differ .... the Connerly-inspired efforts currently being advanced in Nebraska and 4 other states are wholly premature.
But, I do believe, and am hopeful, there will come a time when we will not need these mechanisms and efforts to exact social justice. From my experience and observation, that day is not today, nor will it be in April 2009, or 2010, maybe not even by Justice O’Connor's "magic" date of 2028. However, the day will come when we will know that we've "arrived." And when, you might ask, will that be? How will we know?
Let me share my list of ten indicators that will lead me to champion the elimination of affirmative action, equity, and diversity efforts in higher education, business and industry, and government.
1) When women and minorities have attained their proportionate share of leadership and decision-making roles in our institutions of higher education, in business and industry, and in government. [To see the entire article, go to: http://www.inmotionmagazine.com/opin/jsoto_aa_08.html ]
Senate Approves Legislation to Expand Workplace Disability Law
Workforce Management
September 11, 2008
—Mark Schoeff Jr.
A bill that would expand workplace protections for disabled Americans gained unanimous Senate approval on Thursday, September 11.
The legislation, which was co-sponsored by 77 senators, sailed through on a voice vote. Both presidential nominees, Sens. John McCain, R-Arizona, and Barack Obama, D-Illinois, came out in support of the bill weeks ago.
The measure clarifies that Congress meant for the Americans with Disabilities Act to be broadly interpreted. The original measure, which became law in the early 1990s, required employers to make accommodations for disabled employees.
The new bill, the ADA Amendments Act, addresses Supreme Court decisions that critics say restricted the law. The court ruled in several cases that mitigating measures—such as medication or prosthesis—make a person ineligible for coverage.
In an unusual show of cooperation, disability advocates and the business lobby compromised on the final bill, ensuring broad support on Capitol Hill. In late June, the House approved a similar bill, 402-17.
“This was a slam-dunk,” said Keith Smith, director of employment and labor policy at the National Association of Manufacturers. “The biggest hurdle was the Senate calendar.”
Congress returned from its August recess on Monday and will be in session until late September, when it will take another break to allow members to go home and campaign.
It’s not clear whether all legislative business will be concluded by October, but the window is closing quickly.
Both the House and Senate versions of the ADA bill reiterate that the definition of a disability is a physical or mental impairment that “substantially limits” one or more major life activities. They also increase the number of activities covered, add a category of bodily functions and allow workers to sue if they are “regarded as” disabled.
The House bill defines “substantially limits” as “materially restricts.” In an effort to garner more support, the Senate avoids such sharpening of the language.
“Instead, the bill takes several specific and general steps that, individually and in combination, direct courts toward a more generous meaning and application of the definition,” Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, said in a Congressional Record statement in July.
Differences between the House and Senate bills won’t slow down the measure, Smith said. He anticipates that the House will take up and pass the Senate measure, bypassing the need for a conference committee. [To see the entire article, go to: http://www.workforce.com/section/00/article/25/76/20.php ]
September 11, 2008
—Mark Schoeff Jr.
A bill that would expand workplace protections for disabled Americans gained unanimous Senate approval on Thursday, September 11.
The legislation, which was co-sponsored by 77 senators, sailed through on a voice vote. Both presidential nominees, Sens. John McCain, R-Arizona, and Barack Obama, D-Illinois, came out in support of the bill weeks ago.
The measure clarifies that Congress meant for the Americans with Disabilities Act to be broadly interpreted. The original measure, which became law in the early 1990s, required employers to make accommodations for disabled employees.
The new bill, the ADA Amendments Act, addresses Supreme Court decisions that critics say restricted the law. The court ruled in several cases that mitigating measures—such as medication or prosthesis—make a person ineligible for coverage.
In an unusual show of cooperation, disability advocates and the business lobby compromised on the final bill, ensuring broad support on Capitol Hill. In late June, the House approved a similar bill, 402-17.
“This was a slam-dunk,” said Keith Smith, director of employment and labor policy at the National Association of Manufacturers. “The biggest hurdle was the Senate calendar.”
Congress returned from its August recess on Monday and will be in session until late September, when it will take another break to allow members to go home and campaign.
It’s not clear whether all legislative business will be concluded by October, but the window is closing quickly.
Both the House and Senate versions of the ADA bill reiterate that the definition of a disability is a physical or mental impairment that “substantially limits” one or more major life activities. They also increase the number of activities covered, add a category of bodily functions and allow workers to sue if they are “regarded as” disabled.
The House bill defines “substantially limits” as “materially restricts.” In an effort to garner more support, the Senate avoids such sharpening of the language.
“Instead, the bill takes several specific and general steps that, individually and in combination, direct courts toward a more generous meaning and application of the definition,” Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, said in a Congressional Record statement in July.
Differences between the House and Senate bills won’t slow down the measure, Smith said. He anticipates that the House will take up and pass the Senate measure, bypassing the need for a conference committee. [To see the entire article, go to: http://www.workforce.com/section/00/article/25/76/20.php ]
Advising Students to the Ph.D.: Are We Equitable in Our Support?
Diverse Issues in Higher Education
September 15, 2008
A recent report published in Diverse: Issues In Higher Education states that Ph.D. completion varies by gender and race. Specifically, the 10-year completion rate for Whites was 55 percent, for Hispanics it was 51 percent, for Asian Americans it was 50 percent and for African Americans the rate was only 47 percent. Of course there are many factors that play a part in the lower completion rates for racial and ethnic minorities compared to their White counterparts. However, I’d like to focus on one of these factors: attention and support of one’s faculty advisor.
As a faculty member, every so often, I write down the name of all my doctoral advisees, noting the collaborations that I have with them or the introductions to opportunities that I have made for them. I do this to see if I am being equitable in my support of students. Sometimes as faculty, we tend to send all of the opportunities for scholarship, teaching, and professional service to one or two students. These students often “think like us” and are eager to do whatever we ask. But what about our other advisees? I think that as faculty we need to ask ourselves periodically if we are making connections with and for all of our students.
Are we passing on opportunities to teach and write to students of color? Are we collaborating on research projects with students of color? [To read the entire article, go to: http://diverseeducation.wordpress.com/2008/09/15/advising-students-to-the-phd-are-we-equitable-in-our-support/ ]
September 15, 2008
A recent report published in Diverse: Issues In Higher Education states that Ph.D. completion varies by gender and race. Specifically, the 10-year completion rate for Whites was 55 percent, for Hispanics it was 51 percent, for Asian Americans it was 50 percent and for African Americans the rate was only 47 percent. Of course there are many factors that play a part in the lower completion rates for racial and ethnic minorities compared to their White counterparts. However, I’d like to focus on one of these factors: attention and support of one’s faculty advisor.
As a faculty member, every so often, I write down the name of all my doctoral advisees, noting the collaborations that I have with them or the introductions to opportunities that I have made for them. I do this to see if I am being equitable in my support of students. Sometimes as faculty, we tend to send all of the opportunities for scholarship, teaching, and professional service to one or two students. These students often “think like us” and are eager to do whatever we ask. But what about our other advisees? I think that as faculty we need to ask ourselves periodically if we are making connections with and for all of our students.
Are we passing on opportunities to teach and write to students of color? Are we collaborating on research projects with students of color? [To read the entire article, go to: http://diverseeducation.wordpress.com/2008/09/15/advising-students-to-the-phd-are-we-equitable-in-our-support/ ]
Graduate Enrollments Are Up, but Uneven
Inside Higher Ed
September 16, 2008
Total graduate enrollments in the United States hit 1,698,445 — up 3 percent — according to a study being released today by the Council of Graduate Schools. The 3 percent increase is a fairly steady figure; it is the average annual increase over the last 10 years, although if past economic downturns are any indication, enrollments may grow more over the next year, with new college graduates facing tighter job markets. But even as total graduate enrollments are going up around the expected rate, the increases vary by demographic group and field of study.
Health sciences and engineering enrollments saw the largest increases (9 percent and 5 percent, respectively), while humanities enrollments were flat and business and education enrollments were each down by 1 percent. Enrollments of non-U.S. citizens or permanent residents outpaced U.S. enrollments (up 7 percent vs. up 3 percent).
Enrollments of men grew at slightly higher rates than those for women (4 percent vs. 3 percent), but women continue to dominate graduate enrollments, making up 59 percent of all graduate students and 66 percent at master’s level institutions.
Among U.S. citizens, gains were larger for non-white students than for white students, continuing a diversification of graduate enrollments that has been going on for some time. Gains were the largest for black and Native American students — and some of those gains were in fields in which enrollment for those groups has historically been low. At the same time, the percentage increases are applied to an overall graduate student body that remains largely white. [To see the entire story, please go to: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/09/16/grad ]
September 16, 2008
Total graduate enrollments in the United States hit 1,698,445 — up 3 percent — according to a study being released today by the Council of Graduate Schools. The 3 percent increase is a fairly steady figure; it is the average annual increase over the last 10 years, although if past economic downturns are any indication, enrollments may grow more over the next year, with new college graduates facing tighter job markets. But even as total graduate enrollments are going up around the expected rate, the increases vary by demographic group and field of study.
Health sciences and engineering enrollments saw the largest increases (9 percent and 5 percent, respectively), while humanities enrollments were flat and business and education enrollments were each down by 1 percent. Enrollments of non-U.S. citizens or permanent residents outpaced U.S. enrollments (up 7 percent vs. up 3 percent).
Enrollments of men grew at slightly higher rates than those for women (4 percent vs. 3 percent), but women continue to dominate graduate enrollments, making up 59 percent of all graduate students and 66 percent at master’s level institutions.
Among U.S. citizens, gains were larger for non-white students than for white students, continuing a diversification of graduate enrollments that has been going on for some time. Gains were the largest for black and Native American students — and some of those gains were in fields in which enrollment for those groups has historically been low. At the same time, the percentage increases are applied to an overall graduate student body that remains largely white. [To see the entire story, please go to: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/09/16/grad ]
Monday, September 15, 2008
CHAIR EARP NAMES SYSTEMIC INVESTIGATION PROGRAM MANAGER
EEOC Affirms Commitment to Combat Systemic Discrimination in the Workplace
Tuesday, Sept. 9, 2008
WASHINGTON – Naomi C. Earp, Chair of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), today announced the selection of Dana Hutter as the new Systemic Investigation Program Manager. Hutter, a veteran agency official, will assume the new position on September 15 after serving nearly five years as the Washington Field Office Director.
In his new role, Hutter will be responsible for promoting development of systemic investigations through collaboration among field offices, as well as among field investigative and legal units.
“Eliminating systemic barriers to equal employment opportunity continues to be a top priority,” said Chair Earp. “Systemic cases are an effective way of leveraging the EEOC’s resources to have the widest possible reach. This new position will facilitate the goals of the systemic program through a coordinated, strategic, and effective approach to maximize results.”
The Commission adopted the systemic program in April 2006 following a comprehensive study by an internal task force. Since then, the identification, investigation, and litigation of systemic discrimination cases has been an integral part of the EEOC’s work. A systemic case is a pattern or practice, policy, and/or class case where the alleged discrimination has a broad impact on an industry, profession, company, or geographic area.
Under the systemic program, the EEOC will oversee the following operational enhancements:
National Law Firm Model – The EEOC is working on staffing systemic lawsuits based on the needs of the case, rather than based on the office where the case arose. This will result in the district offices improving how they work with each other, allowing the EEOC to make better use of existing expertise and cultivate staff to develop additional expertise nationwide.
Technology – The EEOC is expanding its use of technology and information systems to serve as tools that can help investigators and attorneys identify systemic discrimination. For example, the EEOC is integrating EEO-1 reports with charge data to more readily identify potential systemic issues.
Early Identification – Investigators and attorneys are working together to identify systemic cases early in the process.
Education – Field attorneys and investigators will continue to receive specialized training on investigating and litigating systemic cases.
Partnering – District offices are expanding their efforts to partner with one another, as well as with the plaintiff’s bar, advocacy groups, and other state and federal agencies. They are also reaching out to employer groups to encourage employers to identify and address any discriminatory practices proactively.
Commenting on his new position, Hutter said: “Chair Earp is affirming her continued commitment to combating systemic discrimination, and wants to make systemic work part of the fabric of the agency. I look forward to taking on the important responsibilities of this new position, and especially advocating that field staff receive the support they need to ensure the success of the systemic program.”
The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the Commission is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.
Tuesday, Sept. 9, 2008
WASHINGTON – Naomi C. Earp, Chair of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), today announced the selection of Dana Hutter as the new Systemic Investigation Program Manager. Hutter, a veteran agency official, will assume the new position on September 15 after serving nearly five years as the Washington Field Office Director.
In his new role, Hutter will be responsible for promoting development of systemic investigations through collaboration among field offices, as well as among field investigative and legal units.
“Eliminating systemic barriers to equal employment opportunity continues to be a top priority,” said Chair Earp. “Systemic cases are an effective way of leveraging the EEOC’s resources to have the widest possible reach. This new position will facilitate the goals of the systemic program through a coordinated, strategic, and effective approach to maximize results.”
The Commission adopted the systemic program in April 2006 following a comprehensive study by an internal task force. Since then, the identification, investigation, and litigation of systemic discrimination cases has been an integral part of the EEOC’s work. A systemic case is a pattern or practice, policy, and/or class case where the alleged discrimination has a broad impact on an industry, profession, company, or geographic area.
Under the systemic program, the EEOC will oversee the following operational enhancements:
National Law Firm Model – The EEOC is working on staffing systemic lawsuits based on the needs of the case, rather than based on the office where the case arose. This will result in the district offices improving how they work with each other, allowing the EEOC to make better use of existing expertise and cultivate staff to develop additional expertise nationwide.
Technology – The EEOC is expanding its use of technology and information systems to serve as tools that can help investigators and attorneys identify systemic discrimination. For example, the EEOC is integrating EEO-1 reports with charge data to more readily identify potential systemic issues.
Early Identification – Investigators and attorneys are working together to identify systemic cases early in the process.
Education – Field attorneys and investigators will continue to receive specialized training on investigating and litigating systemic cases.
Partnering – District offices are expanding their efforts to partner with one another, as well as with the plaintiff’s bar, advocacy groups, and other state and federal agencies. They are also reaching out to employer groups to encourage employers to identify and address any discriminatory practices proactively.
Commenting on his new position, Hutter said: “Chair Earp is affirming her continued commitment to combating systemic discrimination, and wants to make systemic work part of the fabric of the agency. I look forward to taking on the important responsibilities of this new position, and especially advocating that field staff receive the support they need to ensure the success of the systemic program.”
The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the Commission is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.
America's Heroes at Work
The U.S. Department of Labor has launched a new website, "America's Heroes at Work," to support the Employment Success of Returning Service Members with Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). Designed for employers and the workforce development system, this Web site is a link to information and tools to help returning service members affected by TBI and/or PTSD succeed in the workplace - particularly service members returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.
America's Heroes at Work is managed jointly by DOL's Office of Disability Employment Policy (ODEP) and Veterans' Employment and Training Service (VETS) in collaboration with other federal agencies engaged in TBI and PTSD programs, including the Departments of Defense, Veterans Affairs, Health and Human Services and Education, the Small Business Administration, the Social Security Administration and others.
Visit the website at: http://www.americasheroesatwork.gov/.
America's Heroes at Work is managed jointly by DOL's Office of Disability Employment Policy (ODEP) and Veterans' Employment and Training Service (VETS) in collaboration with other federal agencies engaged in TBI and PTSD programs, including the Departments of Defense, Veterans Affairs, Health and Human Services and Education, the Small Business Administration, the Social Security Administration and others.
Visit the website at: http://www.americasheroesatwork.gov/.
Mismatched Minorities?
Inside Higher Ed
September 15, 2008
Addressing the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Friday, a panel of researchers discussed whether minority students are doomed to failure if admitted into highly selective science programs on the basis of racial preferences.
The commission’s briefing centered on the “mismatch” theory, which suggests minority students are less successful in science majors when they are placed in colleges with academic standards that far exceed the students’ preparation.
“Race preferences in admissions … are harming the aspirations of blacks,” said Rogers Elliott, professor emeritus of psychological and brain sciences at Dartmouth College.
The controversial mismatch theory purports to explain, in part, why black and Hispanic students are less likely than whites to complete degrees in the so-called STEM disciplines of science.
Richard Sander, a law professor at the University of California at Los Angeles, drew upon data from the University of Michigan’s graduation rates to illustrate the mismatch theory. He noted that for black students who entered Michigan in 1999, 73 percent who were given “no preference” graduated in four years compared with 70 percent of white students with the same credentials. But for black students who were given “large preference,” just 21 percent graduated in four years, compared with 35 percent of whites who were also given a large preference.
In order to determine the level of preference given to applicants, Sander used an index that included standardized test scores and grade point averages. A 50-point difference on the verbal SAT, for instance, would be considered a moderate preference under Sander’s analysis. A 90-point difference would be considered a large preference. (Michigan officials could not be reached for comment, but in previous debates over affirmative action they have rejected the idea that applicants can be grouped by SAT scores alone to judge their relative ability.)
Sander introduced his mismatch analysis of black law school students in 2004. Since that time, his argument that some minority students might be better served at less prestigious institutions has been met with criticism by affirmative action advocates, who say that race-blind admissions in law schools, for instance, would ultimately undercut minority participation altogether.
California Data Shows Mismatch, Sander Says
The University of California System also served as a model for Sander’s research. Citing unpublished data from the system, Sander noted that black and Latino students have far greater success rates in science when they enroll in the California’s less selective campuses. Minority students were about half as likely to earn bachelor’s degrees in science at Berkeley or UCLA, for instance, as they were to earn science degrees from five of the of the other six campuses in the system, according to Sander’s study of those entering between 1998 and 2000.
“All those [data] show very compelling evidence that there really is some mismatching going on,” he said.
Michael Yaki, a member of the commission, was the lone commissioner to publicly criticize Sander’s analysis at Friday’s briefing.
“Part of what we’re talking about is the potentiality of human beings, and that’s not something you can really measure,” said Yaki, a rare Democrat on the Republican-dominated commission.
Richard Tapia, a panelist at the briefing and a math professor at Rice University, expressed concern about steering minorities to less rigorous academic programs – just for the sake of increasing degree production in the sciences. The net result, he argued, will be fewer minorities on faculty at prestigious institutions, which are disinclined to hire professors lacking in academic pedigree.
“Our current path will lead to a permanent underclass,” he said.
Tapia, a Los Angeles native whose parents emigrated from Mexico, renounced the “sink or swim” mentality that some embrace in higher education. Retention and mentoring programs can work for minorities, he argued, if they are given funding and support.
“Treating everyone the same is not good enough,” Tapia said. [To read the entire story, go to: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/09/15/mismatch ]
September 15, 2008
Addressing the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Friday, a panel of researchers discussed whether minority students are doomed to failure if admitted into highly selective science programs on the basis of racial preferences.
The commission’s briefing centered on the “mismatch” theory, which suggests minority students are less successful in science majors when they are placed in colleges with academic standards that far exceed the students’ preparation.
“Race preferences in admissions … are harming the aspirations of blacks,” said Rogers Elliott, professor emeritus of psychological and brain sciences at Dartmouth College.
The controversial mismatch theory purports to explain, in part, why black and Hispanic students are less likely than whites to complete degrees in the so-called STEM disciplines of science.
Richard Sander, a law professor at the University of California at Los Angeles, drew upon data from the University of Michigan’s graduation rates to illustrate the mismatch theory. He noted that for black students who entered Michigan in 1999, 73 percent who were given “no preference” graduated in four years compared with 70 percent of white students with the same credentials. But for black students who were given “large preference,” just 21 percent graduated in four years, compared with 35 percent of whites who were also given a large preference.
In order to determine the level of preference given to applicants, Sander used an index that included standardized test scores and grade point averages. A 50-point difference on the verbal SAT, for instance, would be considered a moderate preference under Sander’s analysis. A 90-point difference would be considered a large preference. (Michigan officials could not be reached for comment, but in previous debates over affirmative action they have rejected the idea that applicants can be grouped by SAT scores alone to judge their relative ability.)
Sander introduced his mismatch analysis of black law school students in 2004. Since that time, his argument that some minority students might be better served at less prestigious institutions has been met with criticism by affirmative action advocates, who say that race-blind admissions in law schools, for instance, would ultimately undercut minority participation altogether.
California Data Shows Mismatch, Sander Says
The University of California System also served as a model for Sander’s research. Citing unpublished data from the system, Sander noted that black and Latino students have far greater success rates in science when they enroll in the California’s less selective campuses. Minority students were about half as likely to earn bachelor’s degrees in science at Berkeley or UCLA, for instance, as they were to earn science degrees from five of the of the other six campuses in the system, according to Sander’s study of those entering between 1998 and 2000.
“All those [data] show very compelling evidence that there really is some mismatching going on,” he said.
Michael Yaki, a member of the commission, was the lone commissioner to publicly criticize Sander’s analysis at Friday’s briefing.
“Part of what we’re talking about is the potentiality of human beings, and that’s not something you can really measure,” said Yaki, a rare Democrat on the Republican-dominated commission.
Richard Tapia, a panelist at the briefing and a math professor at Rice University, expressed concern about steering minorities to less rigorous academic programs – just for the sake of increasing degree production in the sciences. The net result, he argued, will be fewer minorities on faculty at prestigious institutions, which are disinclined to hire professors lacking in academic pedigree.
“Our current path will lead to a permanent underclass,” he said.
Tapia, a Los Angeles native whose parents emigrated from Mexico, renounced the “sink or swim” mentality that some embrace in higher education. Retention and mentoring programs can work for minorities, he argued, if they are given funding and support.
“Treating everyone the same is not good enough,” Tapia said. [To read the entire story, go to: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/09/15/mismatch ]
Thursday, September 11, 2008
ADA Amendments Act will Restore Vital Civil Rights Protections for Americans with Disabilities
ADA Watch/National Coalition for Disability Rights (NCDR)
601 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 900S Washington, DC 20004
Media Contact: Jim Ward, Founder and President 202-415-4753 jimward@ncdr.org
(Washington, DC) The leaders of a national coalition of disability, civil rights and social justice organizations praised the U.S. Senate today for taking bipartisan action to restore vital civil rights protections under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). In recent years, the ADA - the world's first human rights law for people with disabilities - has been dramatically narrowed in the courts leaving citizens with epilepsy, diabetes, mental illness, HIV-AIDS and other disabilities unprotected from discrimination. The ADA Amendments Act clarifies the intent of Congress and reverses the "judicial activism" that has resulted in more than 90% of employment-related ADA cases being dismissed on summary judgment.
For more than 8 years, ADA Watch and the National Coalition for Disability Rights has called for restoration of the ADA. Since 2006, our Road To Freedom bus tour and disability rights exhibit has traveled to all 50 states, generating widespread media attention and collecting thousands of petition signatures calling on Congress to restore the ADA. The organization's "Campaign for Fair Judges" promotes awareness of the importance of supporting candidates who will advance judicial nominees supportive of disability rights and civil rights generally.
ADA Watch/NCDR founder and president, Jim Ward stated today, "This legislation will move the courts away from narrow interpretations of the ADA and the expending of resources on determining if a person is "disabled" enough to deserve the protections of the ADA. The courts should now move to fairly determining whether there has been discrimination."
Board member, Marcie Roth added, "While hopeful, we remain concerned that the rights of the more than 54 Americans with disabilities may still be in jeopardy if activist judges continue to disregard the intent of Congress. We call on both presidential candidates to support judges who will uphold the intent of Congress so that we can lessen discrimination and see a reduction in the shamefully high rates of poverty and unemployment among people with disabilities."ADA Watch and the National Coalition for Disability Rights (NCDR) is a coalition of national, state and local disability, civil rights and social justice organizations united to protect and promote the human rights of children and adults with physical and mental disabilities. For more information, go to www.adawatch.org and www.roadtofreedom.org
601 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 900S Washington, DC 20004
Media Contact: Jim Ward, Founder and President 202-415-4753 jimward@ncdr.org
(Washington, DC) The leaders of a national coalition of disability, civil rights and social justice organizations praised the U.S. Senate today for taking bipartisan action to restore vital civil rights protections under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). In recent years, the ADA - the world's first human rights law for people with disabilities - has been dramatically narrowed in the courts leaving citizens with epilepsy, diabetes, mental illness, HIV-AIDS and other disabilities unprotected from discrimination. The ADA Amendments Act clarifies the intent of Congress and reverses the "judicial activism" that has resulted in more than 90% of employment-related ADA cases being dismissed on summary judgment.
For more than 8 years, ADA Watch and the National Coalition for Disability Rights has called for restoration of the ADA. Since 2006, our Road To Freedom bus tour and disability rights exhibit has traveled to all 50 states, generating widespread media attention and collecting thousands of petition signatures calling on Congress to restore the ADA. The organization's "Campaign for Fair Judges" promotes awareness of the importance of supporting candidates who will advance judicial nominees supportive of disability rights and civil rights generally.
ADA Watch/NCDR founder and president, Jim Ward stated today, "This legislation will move the courts away from narrow interpretations of the ADA and the expending of resources on determining if a person is "disabled" enough to deserve the protections of the ADA. The courts should now move to fairly determining whether there has been discrimination."
Board member, Marcie Roth added, "While hopeful, we remain concerned that the rights of the more than 54 Americans with disabilities may still be in jeopardy if activist judges continue to disregard the intent of Congress. We call on both presidential candidates to support judges who will uphold the intent of Congress so that we can lessen discrimination and see a reduction in the shamefully high rates of poverty and unemployment among people with disabilities."ADA Watch and the National Coalition for Disability Rights (NCDR) is a coalition of national, state and local disability, civil rights and social justice organizations united to protect and promote the human rights of children and adults with physical and mental disabilities. For more information, go to www.adawatch.org and www.roadtofreedom.org
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Evidence for Educational Value of Diversity
Inside Higher Ed
Sept. 10
Evidence for Educational Value of Diversity
A relationship exists between the diversity of medical schools and the perceived preparation of white medical students to care for diverse groups of patients, according to a study being published today in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
The study found that white students who attend medical schools with greater racial and ethnic diversity in the student body are more likely to rate themselves as highly prepared to care for minority populations. Those white students within the highest quintile for student body diversity, measured by the proportion of underrepresented minority students, were 33 percent more likely to rate themselves as highly prepared to care for minority patients than were those in the lowest diversity quintile. The correlation between diversity and preparedness to care for minority patients was highest at medical schools where students perceived a high degree of interracial interaction.
The findings were based on a survey by the Association of American Medical Colleges to 20,112 graduating medical students (64 percent of graduating students in 2003 and 2004) from 118 medical schools in the United States. Historically black and Puerto Rican medical schools were excluded. For non-white students, the study did not find correlations between student body diversity and preparedness to serve diverse populations.
Generally, the study found that underrepresented minority students were much more likely than other students to plan to practice in areas not well served by medical services. Nearly half of underrepresented minority students plan to do so, while less than 20 percent of other medical students have such plans.
The findings about medical school — and particularly about the impact of diversity on white students — are being praised by supporters of affirmative action as strengthening a crucial legal argument in favor of allowing colleges and universities to consider race and ethnicity in admissions decisions. The Supreme Court’s 2003 decision in Grutter v. Bollinger, upholding the right to consider race, specifically noted the argument that diversity has educational value and said that affirmative action is not intended simply to help individuals who gain admission under such policies. Similarly, the 1978 Supreme Court decision upholding affirmative action (while barring quotas) in admissions, Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, cited educational values — and was decided with regard to medical school admissions, in that case at the University of California at Davis.
The new study’s authors write that their work “lends empirical support for the Supreme Court’s rationale” for upholding affirmative action in admissions. The study “indicates that a diverse student body is likely to be necessary but not sufficient.... Additionally, our analysis supports the concept of ‘critical mass,’ whereby a certain proportion of minority students is considered necessary to realize the benefits of diversity.” [To read the entire story, go to: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/09/10/jama ]
Sept. 10
Evidence for Educational Value of Diversity
A relationship exists between the diversity of medical schools and the perceived preparation of white medical students to care for diverse groups of patients, according to a study being published today in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
The study found that white students who attend medical schools with greater racial and ethnic diversity in the student body are more likely to rate themselves as highly prepared to care for minority populations. Those white students within the highest quintile for student body diversity, measured by the proportion of underrepresented minority students, were 33 percent more likely to rate themselves as highly prepared to care for minority patients than were those in the lowest diversity quintile. The correlation between diversity and preparedness to care for minority patients was highest at medical schools where students perceived a high degree of interracial interaction.
The findings were based on a survey by the Association of American Medical Colleges to 20,112 graduating medical students (64 percent of graduating students in 2003 and 2004) from 118 medical schools in the United States. Historically black and Puerto Rican medical schools were excluded. For non-white students, the study did not find correlations between student body diversity and preparedness to serve diverse populations.
Generally, the study found that underrepresented minority students were much more likely than other students to plan to practice in areas not well served by medical services. Nearly half of underrepresented minority students plan to do so, while less than 20 percent of other medical students have such plans.
The findings about medical school — and particularly about the impact of diversity on white students — are being praised by supporters of affirmative action as strengthening a crucial legal argument in favor of allowing colleges and universities to consider race and ethnicity in admissions decisions. The Supreme Court’s 2003 decision in Grutter v. Bollinger, upholding the right to consider race, specifically noted the argument that diversity has educational value and said that affirmative action is not intended simply to help individuals who gain admission under such policies. Similarly, the 1978 Supreme Court decision upholding affirmative action (while barring quotas) in admissions, Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, cited educational values — and was decided with regard to medical school admissions, in that case at the University of California at Davis.
The new study’s authors write that their work “lends empirical support for the Supreme Court’s rationale” for upholding affirmative action in admissions. The study “indicates that a diverse student body is likely to be necessary but not sufficient.... Additionally, our analysis supports the concept of ‘critical mass,’ whereby a certain proportion of minority students is considered necessary to realize the benefits of diversity.” [To read the entire story, go to: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/09/10/jama ]
Justice Thomas Says Constitution Forbids Racial Preference
Diverse Issues in Higher Education
By ASSOCIATED PRESS
Sep 10, 2008, 21:08
WASHINGTON
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas said Tuesday that African-Americans are better served by colorblind programs than affirmative action.
Thomas, addressing leaders of historically Black colleges, said affirmative action "has become this mantra and there almost has become this secular religiosity about it. I think it almost trumps thinking."
A longtime opponent of race-based preferences in hiring and school admissions, Thomas said, "Just from a constitutional standpoint, I think we're going to run into problems if we say the Constitution says we can consider race sometimes."
Thomas, 60, has voted on the court to outlaw the use of race in college admissions and in determining which public schools students will attend. He wrote with evident resentment in his autobiography "My Grandfather's Son" that he felt he was allowed to attend Yale Law School in the 1970s because of his race and took a tough course load to prove he was as able as his White classmates.
"My suggestion would be to stop the buzz words and to focus more on the practical effect of what we're doing," he said Tuesday.
"I can tell you when you have fudge words, it leaves a lot of room for mischief," he said. "People have a tendency to read their personal opinions into fudge words. You want, when it comes to the issue of race, absolute words." [To read the entire story, go to: http://diverseeducation.com/artman/publish/article_11663.shtml ]
By ASSOCIATED PRESS
Sep 10, 2008, 21:08
WASHINGTON
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas said Tuesday that African-Americans are better served by colorblind programs than affirmative action.
Thomas, addressing leaders of historically Black colleges, said affirmative action "has become this mantra and there almost has become this secular religiosity about it. I think it almost trumps thinking."
A longtime opponent of race-based preferences in hiring and school admissions, Thomas said, "Just from a constitutional standpoint, I think we're going to run into problems if we say the Constitution says we can consider race sometimes."
Thomas, 60, has voted on the court to outlaw the use of race in college admissions and in determining which public schools students will attend. He wrote with evident resentment in his autobiography "My Grandfather's Son" that he felt he was allowed to attend Yale Law School in the 1970s because of his race and took a tough course load to prove he was as able as his White classmates.
"My suggestion would be to stop the buzz words and to focus more on the practical effect of what we're doing," he said Tuesday.
"I can tell you when you have fudge words, it leaves a lot of room for mischief," he said. "People have a tendency to read their personal opinions into fudge words. You want, when it comes to the issue of race, absolute words." [To read the entire story, go to: http://diverseeducation.com/artman/publish/article_11663.shtml ]
Perspectives: Obama’s Election to Undercut Affirmative Action? Not a Chance
Diverse Issues in Higher Education
by Wayne A. Jones
Sep 10, 2008, 21:02
The title for this article was selected in response to this writer’s initial and continued uneasiness in relationship to the question posed by the title of a Diverse Online article of July 2, 2008, “Might Obama’s Success Undercut Affirmative Action?”
The July 2 piece would have its readers confront many questions to include: Does the fact that Sen. Barack Obama is the first African-American to become the nominee of a major political party (Democratic Party) for the presidency manifest itself in undercutting further gains in affirmative action? Secondly, is this a clear indication of our country’s movement to a position of racial equality and thus can we not remove what has been special consideration to place minorities in positions of employment and schools?
The article intimates the significant achievement of one African-American senator to become the nominee of his party for the highest office in the land in and of itself translates that we as a society and nation have conquered the oldest and most evil vestiges of racism and discrimination; thus there is no longer a need for affirmative action. Senator Obama’s carefully orchestrated and arduously successful campaign to win the Democratic nomination is an indication of the willingness of many persons from different ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds to take an objective look at the candidates and the issues and to make their selection. It is not and was not a vote on affirmative action.
Affirmative action is an interesting concept whose definition confuses many persons, as many incorrectly have the idea that it means that employers are required to give jobs to underqualified persons in order to satisfy government mandates or that colleges and universities must admit students of color who would otherwise not be accepted.
In my capacity as a professor, in the Department of Political Science and Public Administration at Virginia State University, the subject of affirmative action is discussed in several classes. I usually ask my students to explain affirmative action in their own words prior to providing an explanation and history of this important policy. As a part of this exercise I also ask students for their opinion of the continuing need for affirmative action. The results always bring a plethora of interesting, and usually misconstrued, responses defining affirmative action and reasons for or against its continuing need.
A quick examination of the myriad of explanations of affirmative action reveals why there is much confusion on this matter. In We the People: an Introduction to American Politics, Dr. Thomas Patterson cites that equality and liberty are two of America’s core ideals. An ideal is a concept: concepts request actions by those individuals who believe in them. True equality would mean all persons, regardless of race, age, gender, nationality, ethnicity, sexual orientation or socioeconomic status would have the opportunity to benefit from the resources of this country.
The history of America shows that its actions have not always followed its ideals especially as they relate to equality. American history provides numerous examples of our troubled path on the journey towards justice to become truly an equalized society. One result of the many attempts to rectify our country’s deplorable record on race and equality was the implementation of affirmative action. Patterson adroitly writes in his chapter on equal rights … “affirmative action is a deliberate effort to provide full and equal opportunities in employment, education and other areas for members of traditionally disadvantaged groups.” [To read the entire commentary, go to: http://diverseeducation.com/artman/publish/article_11663.shtml ]
by Wayne A. Jones
Sep 10, 2008, 21:02
The title for this article was selected in response to this writer’s initial and continued uneasiness in relationship to the question posed by the title of a Diverse Online article of July 2, 2008, “Might Obama’s Success Undercut Affirmative Action?”
The July 2 piece would have its readers confront many questions to include: Does the fact that Sen. Barack Obama is the first African-American to become the nominee of a major political party (Democratic Party) for the presidency manifest itself in undercutting further gains in affirmative action? Secondly, is this a clear indication of our country’s movement to a position of racial equality and thus can we not remove what has been special consideration to place minorities in positions of employment and schools?
The article intimates the significant achievement of one African-American senator to become the nominee of his party for the highest office in the land in and of itself translates that we as a society and nation have conquered the oldest and most evil vestiges of racism and discrimination; thus there is no longer a need for affirmative action. Senator Obama’s carefully orchestrated and arduously successful campaign to win the Democratic nomination is an indication of the willingness of many persons from different ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds to take an objective look at the candidates and the issues and to make their selection. It is not and was not a vote on affirmative action.
Affirmative action is an interesting concept whose definition confuses many persons, as many incorrectly have the idea that it means that employers are required to give jobs to underqualified persons in order to satisfy government mandates or that colleges and universities must admit students of color who would otherwise not be accepted.
In my capacity as a professor, in the Department of Political Science and Public Administration at Virginia State University, the subject of affirmative action is discussed in several classes. I usually ask my students to explain affirmative action in their own words prior to providing an explanation and history of this important policy. As a part of this exercise I also ask students for their opinion of the continuing need for affirmative action. The results always bring a plethora of interesting, and usually misconstrued, responses defining affirmative action and reasons for or against its continuing need.
A quick examination of the myriad of explanations of affirmative action reveals why there is much confusion on this matter. In We the People: an Introduction to American Politics, Dr. Thomas Patterson cites that equality and liberty are two of America’s core ideals. An ideal is a concept: concepts request actions by those individuals who believe in them. True equality would mean all persons, regardless of race, age, gender, nationality, ethnicity, sexual orientation or socioeconomic status would have the opportunity to benefit from the resources of this country.
The history of America shows that its actions have not always followed its ideals especially as they relate to equality. American history provides numerous examples of our troubled path on the journey towards justice to become truly an equalized society. One result of the many attempts to rectify our country’s deplorable record on race and equality was the implementation of affirmative action. Patterson adroitly writes in his chapter on equal rights … “affirmative action is a deliberate effort to provide full and equal opportunities in employment, education and other areas for members of traditionally disadvantaged groups.” [To read the entire commentary, go to: http://diverseeducation.com/artman/publish/article_11663.shtml ]
Many Black Women Veer Off Path to Tenure, Researchers Say
The Chronicle of Higher Education
September 9, 2008
Washington — Black women appear to be substantially less likely than other segments of the population to get on and stay on academe’s tenure track, according to a forthcoming report commissioned by the National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education.
The report, the highlights of which the association presented here today, says survey data collected from doctoral recipients suggest that “black women have a distaste for or trouble navigating some aspects of the tenure process,” even though they do not appear to have any distaste for academe itself.
“We don’t know what is going on, but the data suggest that black women are not faring as well” as other groups, said Rhonda Vonshay Sharpe, a professor of economics at the University of Vermont and research fellow at the Institute for Higher Education Law and Governance. Ms. Sharpe is a co-author of the report, along with William A. Darity Jr., a professor of African-American studies, economics, and public policy at Duke University, and Omari H. Swinton, an assistant professor of economics at Howard University.
The researchers based their analysis on data from surveys that the National Science Foundation has administered to the same doctoral recipients repeatedly since the the early 1990s, to track their progress over time. The fields covered by the surveys included engineering, mathematics, the sciences, and the social sciences. [To read the full story, go to: http://chronicle.com/news/article/5111/many-black-women-veer-off-path-to-tenure-researchers-say?utm_source=at&utm_medium=en ]
September 9, 2008
Washington — Black women appear to be substantially less likely than other segments of the population to get on and stay on academe’s tenure track, according to a forthcoming report commissioned by the National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education.
The report, the highlights of which the association presented here today, says survey data collected from doctoral recipients suggest that “black women have a distaste for or trouble navigating some aspects of the tenure process,” even though they do not appear to have any distaste for academe itself.
“We don’t know what is going on, but the data suggest that black women are not faring as well” as other groups, said Rhonda Vonshay Sharpe, a professor of economics at the University of Vermont and research fellow at the Institute for Higher Education Law and Governance. Ms. Sharpe is a co-author of the report, along with William A. Darity Jr., a professor of African-American studies, economics, and public policy at Duke University, and Omari H. Swinton, an assistant professor of economics at Howard University.
The researchers based their analysis on data from surveys that the National Science Foundation has administered to the same doctoral recipients repeatedly since the the early 1990s, to track their progress over time. The fields covered by the surveys included engineering, mathematics, the sciences, and the social sciences. [To read the full story, go to: http://chronicle.com/news/article/5111/many-black-women-veer-off-path-to-tenure-researchers-say?utm_source=at&utm_medium=en ]
Hispanics Overlooked in Affirmative Action
The Cornell Daily Sun
September 10, 2008 - 12:00am
By Gabriel Arana
Discussions about “affirmative action” tend to revolve around the same scenario: two applicants to a single position, identical down to the last detail except that one is black and the other is white. They tend not to go beyond the answer to the question, “Is it fair for the black applicant to be admitted over the white one?” Nor does the scenario ever seem to involve a white and an Asian student, or a black and Hispanic pair. In fact the participants seem to ignore altogether that the only “fair” outcome — if one concedes that race should not be taken into account — would be to admit neither candidate and find a more qualified applicant to break the intractable deadlock. Or to hire or admit both.
The issue at heart is about demographics. While 12 percent of the U.S. population is black, there is a single African-American senator, Barack Obama (there should be six). There are 435 representatives in the House and 24 are Hispanic, far below the nearly 70 representatives one would expect. The premise of “affirmative action” programs is that it is in the interest of universities to educate members of under-represented groups (and thereby direct them into the ranks of government and business) in a number commensurate to their composition of the population. While many academics subscribe to the notion that education’s purpose is to enlighten, in practical terms it grants access to power and money.
The issue is also about demographic change. While discussions about access to education rightfully address the disparity between the percentage of blacks in the population and their representation in higher education, the representation of Hispanics in higher education is less frequently mentioned, although the gap is much more pronounced. It is especially unsettling that the Hispanic population is increasing rapidly while universities educate Hispanics at a slightly lower rate than blacks. Blacks account for 12 percent of the population, Hispanics 16 percent. In 40 years, 13 percent of the population is projected to be black (a one-percent increase), but the percentage of Hispanics is predicted to nearly double to 30 percent.
At Cornell, the 2011 entering class is 5.6 percent African-American; there are under half as many African-American students in the class as there should be. But there are about a third as many Hispanics. By and large, Hispanics are the most under-represented major minority group.
By saying that Hispanics have gotten the short shrift, I in no way mean to downplay the importance of focusing on the representation of blacks in higher education. For a poor black child, access to education is as important as it is for a Hispanic child. But universities should take into account and prepare for the monumental demographic shift that is expected in the U.S. population. Namely, universities should be preparing Hispanic students for positions of leadership in government and society in anticipation of the boom. At Cornell, 5.2 percent of the class of 2011 is Hispanic, which is approximately the national rate of Hispanic enrollment. [To read the entire editorial, go to: http://cornellsun.com/node/31546 ]
September 10, 2008 - 12:00am
By Gabriel Arana
Discussions about “affirmative action” tend to revolve around the same scenario: two applicants to a single position, identical down to the last detail except that one is black and the other is white. They tend not to go beyond the answer to the question, “Is it fair for the black applicant to be admitted over the white one?” Nor does the scenario ever seem to involve a white and an Asian student, or a black and Hispanic pair. In fact the participants seem to ignore altogether that the only “fair” outcome — if one concedes that race should not be taken into account — would be to admit neither candidate and find a more qualified applicant to break the intractable deadlock. Or to hire or admit both.
The issue at heart is about demographics. While 12 percent of the U.S. population is black, there is a single African-American senator, Barack Obama (there should be six). There are 435 representatives in the House and 24 are Hispanic, far below the nearly 70 representatives one would expect. The premise of “affirmative action” programs is that it is in the interest of universities to educate members of under-represented groups (and thereby direct them into the ranks of government and business) in a number commensurate to their composition of the population. While many academics subscribe to the notion that education’s purpose is to enlighten, in practical terms it grants access to power and money.
The issue is also about demographic change. While discussions about access to education rightfully address the disparity between the percentage of blacks in the population and their representation in higher education, the representation of Hispanics in higher education is less frequently mentioned, although the gap is much more pronounced. It is especially unsettling that the Hispanic population is increasing rapidly while universities educate Hispanics at a slightly lower rate than blacks. Blacks account for 12 percent of the population, Hispanics 16 percent. In 40 years, 13 percent of the population is projected to be black (a one-percent increase), but the percentage of Hispanics is predicted to nearly double to 30 percent.
At Cornell, the 2011 entering class is 5.6 percent African-American; there are under half as many African-American students in the class as there should be. But there are about a third as many Hispanics. By and large, Hispanics are the most under-represented major minority group.
By saying that Hispanics have gotten the short shrift, I in no way mean to downplay the importance of focusing on the representation of blacks in higher education. For a poor black child, access to education is as important as it is for a Hispanic child. But universities should take into account and prepare for the monumental demographic shift that is expected in the U.S. population. Namely, universities should be preparing Hispanic students for positions of leadership in government and society in anticipation of the boom. At Cornell, 5.2 percent of the class of 2011 is Hispanic, which is approximately the national rate of Hispanic enrollment. [To read the entire editorial, go to: http://cornellsun.com/node/31546 ]
Not Just a Glass Ceiling
The New York Times
September 10, 2008
Editorial
Women and minorities are not the novelty they once were in Congress, statehouses and legislatures, or even, starting with this election, on the presidential campaign trail. But elective office is still overwhelmingly a white male occupation. A new study suggests that may have less to do with the glass ceiling than with the pipeline: too few women and minorities are being appointed to top state jobs where they can get the experience and the public attention to establish a political career.
The report, from the Center for Women in Government and Civil Society at the State University of New York at Albany, tallied how many women and minorities were appointed by governors in the 50 states to leadership jobs between 1997 and 2007. The answer is: not enough. Of 1,834 top state jobs — including advisers to governors, department and commission heads — 643 were held by female appointees, or about 35 percent of the total. Minorities held less than 16 percent.
Gains varied significantly from state to state. In 15 states, including New York, Massachusetts and Connecticut, the number of female department heads doubled from 1997 to 2007. In another 11 states, the number fell, and in Iowa, Alabama and North Carolina, the number of women appointees dropped by more than half. [To read the entire editorial, go to: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/10/opinion/10wed4.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin ]
September 10, 2008
Editorial
Women and minorities are not the novelty they once were in Congress, statehouses and legislatures, or even, starting with this election, on the presidential campaign trail. But elective office is still overwhelmingly a white male occupation. A new study suggests that may have less to do with the glass ceiling than with the pipeline: too few women and minorities are being appointed to top state jobs where they can get the experience and the public attention to establish a political career.
The report, from the Center for Women in Government and Civil Society at the State University of New York at Albany, tallied how many women and minorities were appointed by governors in the 50 states to leadership jobs between 1997 and 2007. The answer is: not enough. Of 1,834 top state jobs — including advisers to governors, department and commission heads — 643 were held by female appointees, or about 35 percent of the total. Minorities held less than 16 percent.
Gains varied significantly from state to state. In 15 states, including New York, Massachusetts and Connecticut, the number of female department heads doubled from 1997 to 2007. In another 11 states, the number fell, and in Iowa, Alabama and North Carolina, the number of women appointees dropped by more than half. [To read the entire editorial, go to: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/10/opinion/10wed4.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin ]
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Affirmative-action safeguard fails to make ballot
By John Ingold The Denver Post
Colorado voters will have only one affirmative action-related ballot measure to decide upon this November.
The Secretary of State's office announced Wednesday that Initiative 82, a measure that would have safeguarded affirmative action policies in Colorado, doesn't have enough signatures to make the ballot. That leaves only Amendment 46, which would eliminate certain affirmative action programs in the state, on the ballot.
"Obviously we're very disappointed," said Melissa Hart, the president of Coloradans for Equal Opportunity, the campaign behind Initiative 82.
"I think we're still going to defeat Amendment 46. That's the most important thing."
Jessica Peck Corry, a spokeswoman for Amendment 46 backers Colorado Civil Rights Initiative, understandably felt differently about the news.
"We're very pleased," she said. "Now voters will have the chance to vote on the real initiative."
Initiative 82 grew out of the effort to defeat Amendment 46. The two sides waged back-and-forth legal battles that Hart said ultimately left her group too little time to collect signatures.
After going line-by-line through Initiative 82's petitions, the Secretary of State's office found it had only 68,195 valid signatures. It needed 76,047 to make the ballot. http://www.denverpost.com/fitness/ci_10373326
Colorado voters will have only one affirmative action-related ballot measure to decide upon this November.
The Secretary of State's office announced Wednesday that Initiative 82, a measure that would have safeguarded affirmative action policies in Colorado, doesn't have enough signatures to make the ballot. That leaves only Amendment 46, which would eliminate certain affirmative action programs in the state, on the ballot.
"Obviously we're very disappointed," said Melissa Hart, the president of Coloradans for Equal Opportunity, the campaign behind Initiative 82.
"I think we're still going to defeat Amendment 46. That's the most important thing."
Jessica Peck Corry, a spokeswoman for Amendment 46 backers Colorado Civil Rights Initiative, understandably felt differently about the news.
"We're very pleased," she said. "Now voters will have the chance to vote on the real initiative."
Initiative 82 grew out of the effort to defeat Amendment 46. The two sides waged back-and-forth legal battles that Hart said ultimately left her group too little time to collect signatures.
After going line-by-line through Initiative 82's petitions, the Secretary of State's office found it had only 68,195 valid signatures. It needed 76,047 to make the ballot. http://www.denverpost.com/fitness/ci_10373326
After Proposal 2, Grand Valley State University minority freshmen enrollment falls 30 percent
MLive.com
by Nardy Baeza Bickel The Grand Rapids Press
Tuesday September 09, 2008, 7:32 AM
ALLENDALE TOWNSHIP -- While Grand Valley State University's incoming class is the largest in the college's history, those figures show a steep drop in the number of incoming minority students.
This fall, 380 minority freshmen enrolled at GVSU, compared to 540 last year -- a 30 percent decline. Total freshman enrollment is 3,856.
The number of Asian freshmen enrolling dropped from 157 last year to 77 this year, blacks from 230 last year to 179, and Hispanics from 129 last year to 104.
"It's unacceptable, disappointing, but not unexpected," GVSU President Thomas Haas said. "Proposal 2 really has created this new reality for us."
While GVSU never used racial preferences in its admissions, Proposal 2 -- which banned such preferences statewide -- forced administrators to eliminate their favorite recruitment tool for highly qualified minority students: the Bert Price Awards scholarships.
The awards offered four-year, full-tuition scholarships for minority students who met strict academic requirements. In 2006, $5.7 million was awarded to about 825 minority students.
That's pretty generous compared to the financial aid recruiters were able to offer this year's freshmen: $3,000 a year for those coming from certain urban schools.
"That's significantly different than having full tuition. It's a different price tag," Vice Provost Lynn Blue said.
"Families are wanting to make an effective decision and one of them is, 'How can I afford to pay for this?'"
GVSU senior Ebony Cross, 21, of Detroit, agreed. [To read the entire story, go to: http://www.mlive.com/grpress/news/index.ssf/2008/09/after_proposal_2_grand_valley.html ]
by Nardy Baeza Bickel The Grand Rapids Press
Tuesday September 09, 2008, 7:32 AM
ALLENDALE TOWNSHIP -- While Grand Valley State University's incoming class is the largest in the college's history, those figures show a steep drop in the number of incoming minority students.
This fall, 380 minority freshmen enrolled at GVSU, compared to 540 last year -- a 30 percent decline. Total freshman enrollment is 3,856.
The number of Asian freshmen enrolling dropped from 157 last year to 77 this year, blacks from 230 last year to 179, and Hispanics from 129 last year to 104.
"It's unacceptable, disappointing, but not unexpected," GVSU President Thomas Haas said. "Proposal 2 really has created this new reality for us."
While GVSU never used racial preferences in its admissions, Proposal 2 -- which banned such preferences statewide -- forced administrators to eliminate their favorite recruitment tool for highly qualified minority students: the Bert Price Awards scholarships.
The awards offered four-year, full-tuition scholarships for minority students who met strict academic requirements. In 2006, $5.7 million was awarded to about 825 minority students.
That's pretty generous compared to the financial aid recruiters were able to offer this year's freshmen: $3,000 a year for those coming from certain urban schools.
"That's significantly different than having full tuition. It's a different price tag," Vice Provost Lynn Blue said.
"Families are wanting to make an effective decision and one of them is, 'How can I afford to pay for this?'"
GVSU senior Ebony Cross, 21, of Detroit, agreed. [To read the entire story, go to: http://www.mlive.com/grpress/news/index.ssf/2008/09/after_proposal_2_grand_valley.html ]
The worst kind of affirmative action
The Guardian
Lola Adesioye
guardian.co.uk,
Monday September 08 2008 19:00 BST
The choice of Sarah Palin as John McCain's running mate exposes Republican hypocrisy regarding affirmative action
Republicans have always been hugely critical of affirmative action policies, believing that giving preferential treatment to women and minorities leads to the promotion of underqualified people over more qualified or experienced individuals. To them, affirmative action goes against the meritocratic nature of America. This explains why, in July, John McCain voted in support of a ban led by Republican Ward Connerly that would end race- and gender-based affirmative action policies in his home state of Arizona.
Outspoken conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh, along with other critics of Barack Obama, has repeatedly denounced Obama as an "affirmative action candidate", suggesting that his success is not a result of his merits but because he is African-American. In fact, only a couple of weeks ago on his radio show, Limbaugh declared: "I think this is a classic illustration here where affirmative action has reared its ugly head. ... [The Democrats] ended up nominating and placing at the top of their ticket somebody who's not qualified, who has not earned it."
It's interesting - and somewhat hypocritical - then, that the same could be said about Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin. If an affirmative action policy existed for presidential and vice-presidential candidates and Obama and Palin were the beneficiaries, their respective cases would be living examples of the best and worst aspects of affirmative action.
Sarah Palin appears to be an example of the worst kind of affirmative action, the type that Republicans typically argue against and attribute to liberal political correctness. Their promotion of this particular female candidate is more of a cynical, tokenistic gesture than evidence of any real desire to promote merit in cases where it may have gone unnoticed, or to advance the cause of underrepresented women in politics. If that was the case, there are a number of other female Republican politicians – including Olympia Snowe and Kay Bailey Hutchinson - who could have been selected, and may have been better equipped for the role. It would be interesting to hear how those women feel - incorrectly used affirmative action policies often cause resentment among those feel that that they have been overlooked in favour of someone else who is clearly less able but seems to have benefited from special treatment. [To read the entire story, go to: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/08/uselections2008.sarahpalin2?gusrc=rss&feed=worldnews ]
Lola Adesioye
guardian.co.uk,
Monday September 08 2008 19:00 BST
The choice of Sarah Palin as John McCain's running mate exposes Republican hypocrisy regarding affirmative action
Republicans have always been hugely critical of affirmative action policies, believing that giving preferential treatment to women and minorities leads to the promotion of underqualified people over more qualified or experienced individuals. To them, affirmative action goes against the meritocratic nature of America. This explains why, in July, John McCain voted in support of a ban led by Republican Ward Connerly that would end race- and gender-based affirmative action policies in his home state of Arizona.
Outspoken conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh, along with other critics of Barack Obama, has repeatedly denounced Obama as an "affirmative action candidate", suggesting that his success is not a result of his merits but because he is African-American. In fact, only a couple of weeks ago on his radio show, Limbaugh declared: "I think this is a classic illustration here where affirmative action has reared its ugly head. ... [The Democrats] ended up nominating and placing at the top of their ticket somebody who's not qualified, who has not earned it."
It's interesting - and somewhat hypocritical - then, that the same could be said about Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin. If an affirmative action policy existed for presidential and vice-presidential candidates and Obama and Palin were the beneficiaries, their respective cases would be living examples of the best and worst aspects of affirmative action.
Sarah Palin appears to be an example of the worst kind of affirmative action, the type that Republicans typically argue against and attribute to liberal political correctness. Their promotion of this particular female candidate is more of a cynical, tokenistic gesture than evidence of any real desire to promote merit in cases where it may have gone unnoticed, or to advance the cause of underrepresented women in politics. If that was the case, there are a number of other female Republican politicians – including Olympia Snowe and Kay Bailey Hutchinson - who could have been selected, and may have been better equipped for the role. It would be interesting to hear how those women feel - incorrectly used affirmative action policies often cause resentment among those feel that that they have been overlooked in favour of someone else who is clearly less able but seems to have benefited from special treatment. [To read the entire story, go to: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/08/uselections2008.sarahpalin2?gusrc=rss&feed=worldnews ]
Sunday, September 7, 2008
NEW OFCCP WEBINAR SEPT. 10TH: The Homestretch
OFCCP: The Homestretch
David Frank, OFCCP’s Deputy Director, and Sandra Dillon, OFCCP’s Acting Division Director for Policy, Planning and Program Development will highlight some of OFCCP ‘s recent accomplishments and discuss what federal contractors can expect from OFCCP during the homestretch.
When:
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
3:00 PM - 4:00 PM EDT
To sign up for the webinar, go to: https://www1.gotomeeting.com/register/362779160
David Frank, OFCCP’s Deputy Director, and Sandra Dillon, OFCCP’s Acting Division Director for Policy, Planning and Program Development will highlight some of OFCCP ‘s recent accomplishments and discuss what federal contractors can expect from OFCCP during the homestretch.
When:
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
3:00 PM - 4:00 PM EDT
To sign up for the webinar, go to: https://www1.gotomeeting.com/register/362779160
EEOC ADDRESSES PERFORMANCE AND CONDUCT ISSUES UNDER THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
New Publication Focuses on Frequently Asked Questions from Employers and Employees
WASHINGTON – The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) today issued a comprehensive question-and-answer guide addressing how the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) applies to a wide variety of performance and conduct issues. The document is available on the agency’s web site at www.eeoc.gov/facts/performance-conduct.html.
“The EEOC continues to receive numerous questions on these topics from employers and from individuals with disabilities,” said Commission Chair Naomi C. Earp, “indicating that there is still a high level of uncertainty about how the ADA affects these fundamental personnel issues. This document will serve a critical need and enhance compliance with the ADA.”
The new guide makes clear that employers can apply the same performance standards to all employees, including those with disabilities, and emphasizes that the ADA does not affect an employer’s right to hold all employees to basic conduct standards. At the same time, however, employers must make reasonable accommodations that enable individuals with disabilities to meet performance and conduct standards.
The guide reviews relevant ADA requirements and explains how they govern performance and conduct standards as applied to employees with disabilities. Through examples based on actual cases and specific scenarios that the EEOC has learned about from employers and individuals with disabilities, this guide explains when and how performance and conduct standards should be applied and the appropriate role of reasonable accommodation. The guide explains how and when employees should request accommodations to help them meet performance requirements and comply with conduct rules, and how an employer should handle such requests.
Other topics addressed include issues related to attendance, dress codes, and drug and alcohol use, and the circumstances in which employers can ask questions about an employee’s disability when performance or conduct problems occur.
The EEOC is responsible for enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.
WASHINGTON – The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) today issued a comprehensive question-and-answer guide addressing how the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) applies to a wide variety of performance and conduct issues. The document is available on the agency’s web site at www.eeoc.gov/facts/performance-conduct.html.
“The EEOC continues to receive numerous questions on these topics from employers and from individuals with disabilities,” said Commission Chair Naomi C. Earp, “indicating that there is still a high level of uncertainty about how the ADA affects these fundamental personnel issues. This document will serve a critical need and enhance compliance with the ADA.”
The new guide makes clear that employers can apply the same performance standards to all employees, including those with disabilities, and emphasizes that the ADA does not affect an employer’s right to hold all employees to basic conduct standards. At the same time, however, employers must make reasonable accommodations that enable individuals with disabilities to meet performance and conduct standards.
The guide reviews relevant ADA requirements and explains how they govern performance and conduct standards as applied to employees with disabilities. Through examples based on actual cases and specific scenarios that the EEOC has learned about from employers and individuals with disabilities, this guide explains when and how performance and conduct standards should be applied and the appropriate role of reasonable accommodation. The guide explains how and when employees should request accommodations to help them meet performance requirements and comply with conduct rules, and how an employer should handle such requests.
Other topics addressed include issues related to attendance, dress codes, and drug and alcohol use, and the circumstances in which employers can ask questions about an employee’s disability when performance or conduct problems occur.
The EEOC is responsible for enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.
Gender Wage Gap One Cent Closer; Household Income Rises, Poverty Rate Unchanged
US Census Bureau News
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
TUESDAY, AUG. 26, 2008, 10:10 A.M. EDT
Household Income Rises, Poverty Rate Unchanged, Number of Uninsured Down
Real median household income in the United States climbed 1.3 percent between 2006 and 2007, reaching $50,233, according to a report released today by the U.S. Census Bureau. This is the third annual increase in real median household income.
Meanwhile, the nation’s official poverty rate in 2007 was 12.5 percent, not statistically different from 2006. There were 37.3 million people in poverty in 2007, up from 36.5 million in 2006. The number of people without health insurance coverage declined from 47 million (15.8 percent) in 2006 to 45.7 million (15.3 percent) in 2007.
These findings are contained in the report Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2007 [PDF]. The data were compiled from information collected in the 2008 Current Population Survey (CPS) Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC). Also released today were income, poverty and earnings data from the 2007 American Community Survey (ACS) for all states and congressional districts, as well as for metropolitan areas, counties, cities and American Indian/Alaska Native areas of 65,000 population or more.
Current Population Survey (Primarily the source of national-level statistics)
The 2008 Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement (CPS ASEC) reveals the following results for the nation:
Income
Race and Hispanic Origin (Race data refer to people reporting a single race only. Hispanics can be of any race.)
Real median income (adjusted for inflation) for black and non-Hispanic white households rose between 2006 and 2007, representing the first measured real increase in annual household income for each group since 1999.
Real median household income remained statistically unchanged for Asians and Hispanics.
Among the race groups and Hispanics, black households had the lowest median income in 2007 ($33,916). This compares to the median of $54,920 for non-Hispanic white households. Asian households had the highest median income ($66,103). The median income for Hispanic households was $38,679.
Regions
Between 2006 and 2007, real median household income rose in the Midwest ($50,277) and the South ($46,186), declined in the Northeast ($52,274) and remained statistically unchanged in the West ($54,138).
Nativity
Real median income rose for native-born households for the second year, up 1.0 percent from 2006, to $50,946. For foreign-born households whose householder was not a U.S. citizen, income dropped by 7.3 percent to $37,637. For households maintained by a naturalized U.S. citizen, median income remained statistically unchanged at $52,092.
Earnings
In 2007, the ratio of earnings of women who worked full time, year-round was 78 percent of that for corresponding men. The real median earnings of men who worked full time, year-round climbed between 2006 and 2007, from $43,460 to $45,113. For women, the corresponding increase was from $33,437 to $35,102. These increases in earnings follow three years of annual decline in real earnings for both men and women.
Income Inequality
Income inequality decreased between 2006 and 2007, as measured by shares of aggregate household income by quintiles and the Gini index. The share of aggregate income received by households in the top fifth of the income distribution declined, while the shares for the third and fourth quintiles increased. Meanwhile, the Gini index declined from 0.470 to 0.463, moving closer to 0, which represents perfect income equality (1 represents perfect inequality). [To view the entire Census Bureau release, go to: http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/income_wealth/012528.html ]
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
TUESDAY, AUG. 26, 2008, 10:10 A.M. EDT
Household Income Rises, Poverty Rate Unchanged, Number of Uninsured Down
Real median household income in the United States climbed 1.3 percent between 2006 and 2007, reaching $50,233, according to a report released today by the U.S. Census Bureau. This is the third annual increase in real median household income.
Meanwhile, the nation’s official poverty rate in 2007 was 12.5 percent, not statistically different from 2006. There were 37.3 million people in poverty in 2007, up from 36.5 million in 2006. The number of people without health insurance coverage declined from 47 million (15.8 percent) in 2006 to 45.7 million (15.3 percent) in 2007.
These findings are contained in the report Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2007 [PDF]. The data were compiled from information collected in the 2008 Current Population Survey (CPS) Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC). Also released today were income, poverty and earnings data from the 2007 American Community Survey (ACS) for all states and congressional districts, as well as for metropolitan areas, counties, cities and American Indian/Alaska Native areas of 65,000 population or more.
Current Population Survey (Primarily the source of national-level statistics)
The 2008 Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement (CPS ASEC) reveals the following results for the nation:
Income
Race and Hispanic Origin (Race data refer to people reporting a single race only. Hispanics can be of any race.)
Real median income (adjusted for inflation) for black and non-Hispanic white households rose between 2006 and 2007, representing the first measured real increase in annual household income for each group since 1999.
Real median household income remained statistically unchanged for Asians and Hispanics.
Among the race groups and Hispanics, black households had the lowest median income in 2007 ($33,916). This compares to the median of $54,920 for non-Hispanic white households. Asian households had the highest median income ($66,103). The median income for Hispanic households was $38,679.
Regions
Between 2006 and 2007, real median household income rose in the Midwest ($50,277) and the South ($46,186), declined in the Northeast ($52,274) and remained statistically unchanged in the West ($54,138).
Nativity
Real median income rose for native-born households for the second year, up 1.0 percent from 2006, to $50,946. For foreign-born households whose householder was not a U.S. citizen, income dropped by 7.3 percent to $37,637. For households maintained by a naturalized U.S. citizen, median income remained statistically unchanged at $52,092.
Earnings
In 2007, the ratio of earnings of women who worked full time, year-round was 78 percent of that for corresponding men. The real median earnings of men who worked full time, year-round climbed between 2006 and 2007, from $43,460 to $45,113. For women, the corresponding increase was from $33,437 to $35,102. These increases in earnings follow three years of annual decline in real earnings for both men and women.
Income Inequality
Income inequality decreased between 2006 and 2007, as measured by shares of aggregate household income by quintiles and the Gini index. The share of aggregate income received by households in the top fifth of the income distribution declined, while the shares for the third and fourth quintiles increased. Meanwhile, the Gini index declined from 0.470 to 0.463, moving closer to 0, which represents perfect income equality (1 represents perfect inequality). [To view the entire Census Bureau release, go to: http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/income_wealth/012528.html ]
Friday, September 5, 2008
Sarah Palin and the Republicans' Favorite Sport: Extreme Affirmative Action!
Huffington Post
September 3, 2008
By Michael Melcher
Usually, Republicans hate affirmative action. A core Republican message is that they are the sole protectors of embattled white men against the forces of entitled minorities and aggressive women unfairly going after their turf. This message is picked up and amplified by Rush Limbaugh, Lou Dobbs, and the like.
Republicans hate affirmative action. Until they think it will work for them. Then they just love it, in a big way. Look at Sarah Palin.
Affirmative action means making special efforts to increase the representation of targeted groups in schools, workplaces and government. It usually involves two practices: (1) engaging in outreach, to find potential applicants for opportunities that might not otherwise come over the transom; and (2) using a more subjective idea of merit when considering who would best fill a position.
Most people think of affirmative action as something that relates solely to ethnic minorities. In fact, decades of research has shown that the primary beneficiaries of affirmative action have been white women. When Hillary Clinton attended Yale Law School, it was 10% female. Now Yale Law is fifty percent female. That didn't happen by accident. Women and to a lesser extent minorities have made advances into the work world over the past four decades because nearly all academic institutions, all large companies in America and the entire military have made it a priority to increase their their inclusion of people who were previously underrepresented.
Which brings us to Sarah Palin. John McCain's choice is a big-time affirmative-action choice! Palin has done some interesting things but she is certainly not the most qualified Republican to be vice-president.
Sarah Palin is not the most conventionally qualified. But she offers other attributes that are important to McCain: she's a right-winger who will appeal to the base; she presents the "gal/guy you want to have beers with" mystique that is so weirdly important to Republicans; she's a big gun nut; and she has a reputation as a reformer (of sorts), which matches McCain's desire to repurpose the Republican Party away from the crony capitalism of the Bush years and back into the good governance folks we knew sixty years ago. (You may recall that it was Eisenhower, a Republican who warned of the dangers of the growing military-industrial complex. Those were the good old days.)
Oh, did I mention that Sarah Palin is also a woman? The value of this is not that she's going to pick off any of Hillary Clinton's 18 million voters -- that seems very unlikely to me -- but rather than she makes John McCain seem -- to his party -- cool. And mavericky. And young. And dare I say it? - interested in diversity. Keep in mind that these messages are primarily for the Republican base, not for the average Huffington Post reader. The primary value that Sarah Palin brings to the Republican effort is that she makes them interesting. She has a good narrative. And in that respect, she's far more qualified to meet McCain's needs than Mitt Romney and crew.
One reason affirmative action works is that once people see black, or Latino, or Asian, or female, or handicapped people in positions of authority, they start noticing the ways they are succeeding. So as Sarah Palin takes on a more national presence, more of America will start seeing her as vice-presidential material simply because that's how she will be introduced. Because the Republicans want to win, they will start attributing positive qualities to her, which in turn will increase her confidence and capabilities.
[To read the entire article, go to: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-melcher/sarah-palin-and-the-repub_b_123747.html ]
September 3, 2008
By Michael Melcher
Usually, Republicans hate affirmative action. A core Republican message is that they are the sole protectors of embattled white men against the forces of entitled minorities and aggressive women unfairly going after their turf. This message is picked up and amplified by Rush Limbaugh, Lou Dobbs, and the like.
Republicans hate affirmative action. Until they think it will work for them. Then they just love it, in a big way. Look at Sarah Palin.
Affirmative action means making special efforts to increase the representation of targeted groups in schools, workplaces and government. It usually involves two practices: (1) engaging in outreach, to find potential applicants for opportunities that might not otherwise come over the transom; and (2) using a more subjective idea of merit when considering who would best fill a position.
Most people think of affirmative action as something that relates solely to ethnic minorities. In fact, decades of research has shown that the primary beneficiaries of affirmative action have been white women. When Hillary Clinton attended Yale Law School, it was 10% female. Now Yale Law is fifty percent female. That didn't happen by accident. Women and to a lesser extent minorities have made advances into the work world over the past four decades because nearly all academic institutions, all large companies in America and the entire military have made it a priority to increase their their inclusion of people who were previously underrepresented.
Which brings us to Sarah Palin. John McCain's choice is a big-time affirmative-action choice! Palin has done some interesting things but she is certainly not the most qualified Republican to be vice-president.
Sarah Palin is not the most conventionally qualified. But she offers other attributes that are important to McCain: she's a right-winger who will appeal to the base; she presents the "gal/guy you want to have beers with" mystique that is so weirdly important to Republicans; she's a big gun nut; and she has a reputation as a reformer (of sorts), which matches McCain's desire to repurpose the Republican Party away from the crony capitalism of the Bush years and back into the good governance folks we knew sixty years ago. (You may recall that it was Eisenhower, a Republican who warned of the dangers of the growing military-industrial complex. Those were the good old days.)
Oh, did I mention that Sarah Palin is also a woman? The value of this is not that she's going to pick off any of Hillary Clinton's 18 million voters -- that seems very unlikely to me -- but rather than she makes John McCain seem -- to his party -- cool. And mavericky. And young. And dare I say it? - interested in diversity. Keep in mind that these messages are primarily for the Republican base, not for the average Huffington Post reader. The primary value that Sarah Palin brings to the Republican effort is that she makes them interesting. She has a good narrative. And in that respect, she's far more qualified to meet McCain's needs than Mitt Romney and crew.
One reason affirmative action works is that once people see black, or Latino, or Asian, or female, or handicapped people in positions of authority, they start noticing the ways they are succeeding. So as Sarah Palin takes on a more national presence, more of America will start seeing her as vice-presidential material simply because that's how she will be introduced. Because the Republicans want to win, they will start attributing positive qualities to her, which in turn will increase her confidence and capabilities.
[To read the entire article, go to: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-melcher/sarah-palin-and-the-repub_b_123747.html ]
RNC Panel Addresses Diversity on Final Day of Convention
Diverse Issues in Higher Education
by Gregory A. Patterson
Sep 5, 2008, 22:48
The dismantling of racial quotas or even goals in higher education, begun by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Bakke decision 27 years ago, may be completed by the winner of this year’s presidential contest.
John McCain and Sen. Barack Obama largely agree that whatever preferences colleges and universities give to prospective students should be based more on socioeconomic factors, such as income and family situation.
Those were just two conclusions from a seminar on diversity held Thursday in conjunction with the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minn. The diversity panel of political operatives and pundits included former White House advisor Karl Rove, political commentator Armstrong Williams and journalist Tara Wall.
“Obama is against racial quotas, and he is pretty much on the same page with John McCain,” said Wall. The buzzword nowadays on that score is “affirmative access,” she said.
But don’t expect to see minority enrollment levels falling further because panelists said they expect states to continue to press for nonracial measures that promote diversity, along the lines of laws in Texas and Florida that give compulsory admission to students based on class rank.
“We’re a merit-based party in terms of opportunity,” said Al Cardenas, former chairman of the Republican Party and now a Florida political operative. But the most important obstacles to higher education degrees for Hispanic and African-American youths are high school and college drop-out rates, Cardenas said. “We really need to address that.”
Nonetheless, two other related but seemingly conflicting points met broad agreement among panelists: Affirmative action and race are taking a back seat in this year’s campaign, but Republicans must find ways to garner more votes of women and people of color or they face losing many more elections than they have in recent years.
The Republican Party simply cannot concede one quarter of the population to the Democrats, panelists said. [To read the entire story, go to: http://diverseeducation.com/artman/publish/article_11649.shtml ]
by Gregory A. Patterson
Sep 5, 2008, 22:48
The dismantling of racial quotas or even goals in higher education, begun by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Bakke decision 27 years ago, may be completed by the winner of this year’s presidential contest.
John McCain and Sen. Barack Obama largely agree that whatever preferences colleges and universities give to prospective students should be based more on socioeconomic factors, such as income and family situation.
Those were just two conclusions from a seminar on diversity held Thursday in conjunction with the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minn. The diversity panel of political operatives and pundits included former White House advisor Karl Rove, political commentator Armstrong Williams and journalist Tara Wall.
“Obama is against racial quotas, and he is pretty much on the same page with John McCain,” said Wall. The buzzword nowadays on that score is “affirmative access,” she said.
But don’t expect to see minority enrollment levels falling further because panelists said they expect states to continue to press for nonracial measures that promote diversity, along the lines of laws in Texas and Florida that give compulsory admission to students based on class rank.
“We’re a merit-based party in terms of opportunity,” said Al Cardenas, former chairman of the Republican Party and now a Florida political operative. But the most important obstacles to higher education degrees for Hispanic and African-American youths are high school and college drop-out rates, Cardenas said. “We really need to address that.”
Nonetheless, two other related but seemingly conflicting points met broad agreement among panelists: Affirmative action and race are taking a back seat in this year’s campaign, but Republicans must find ways to garner more votes of women and people of color or they face losing many more elections than they have in recent years.
The Republican Party simply cannot concede one quarter of the population to the Democrats, panelists said. [To read the entire story, go to: http://diverseeducation.com/artman/publish/article_11649.shtml ]
Affirmative-Action Researchers Sue California Bar for Data on Law-School Graduates
Chronicle of Higher Education
News Blog
September 4, 2008
Two researchers who question the benefits of affirmative action are asking the California Supreme Court to force that state’s bar to release years of data showing how law-school graduates of different races and ethnicities perform on their bar exams.
The lead plaintiff in the suit, filed last month, is Richard H. Sander, a professor of law at the University of California at Los Angeles and the author of a controversial 2004 study arguing that race-conscious admissions policies hurt many black law students, by setting them up to perform so poorly in law school that they have less chance of entering their chosen field.
He is joined as a plaintiff by Joe Hicks — a community activist and former governor of the California state bar who is involved in a consortium of affirmative-action researchers organized by Mr. Sander — and by the California First Amendment Coalition.
Mr. Sander has sought since 2006 to get the state bar to voluntarily produce data on students’ exam performances, but, at the urging of various interest groups and some law-school deans, the state bar has refused. Mr. Sander’s lawsuit argues that the bar-exam results are public records that can be released with redactions to protect the privacy of individual law-school graduates.
The state bar, however, argues that students taking the test were assured that their personal information and results would not be released to third parties. [To read the entire blog, go to: http://chronicle.com/news/article/5087/affirmative-action-researchers-sue-california-bar-for-data-on-law-school-graduates?utm_source=at&utm_medium=en ]
News Blog
September 4, 2008
Two researchers who question the benefits of affirmative action are asking the California Supreme Court to force that state’s bar to release years of data showing how law-school graduates of different races and ethnicities perform on their bar exams.
The lead plaintiff in the suit, filed last month, is Richard H. Sander, a professor of law at the University of California at Los Angeles and the author of a controversial 2004 study arguing that race-conscious admissions policies hurt many black law students, by setting them up to perform so poorly in law school that they have less chance of entering their chosen field.
He is joined as a plaintiff by Joe Hicks — a community activist and former governor of the California state bar who is involved in a consortium of affirmative-action researchers organized by Mr. Sander — and by the California First Amendment Coalition.
Mr. Sander has sought since 2006 to get the state bar to voluntarily produce data on students’ exam performances, but, at the urging of various interest groups and some law-school deans, the state bar has refused. Mr. Sander’s lawsuit argues that the bar-exam results are public records that can be released with redactions to protect the privacy of individual law-school graduates.
The state bar, however, argues that students taking the test were assured that their personal information and results would not be released to third parties. [To read the entire blog, go to: http://chronicle.com/news/article/5087/affirmative-action-researchers-sue-california-bar-for-data-on-law-school-graduates?utm_source=at&utm_medium=en ]
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Neb. ballot wording on preferential treatment OK'd
Sioux City Journal.com
September 3, 2008
LINCOLN (AP) -- Supporters of a proposed ban on preferential treatment to minorities and women will essentially get the message they wanted on ballots expected to be read in voting booths across the state.But opponents of the ban can claim at least one small victory that they hope will sway voters in November: A language change approved by a judge could increase awareness among voters that the ban could create more lawsuits."Voters might say 'I don't want to do all of this,"' said J.L. Spray, attorney for the plaintiffs that challenged the ballot language.On Friday, Lancaster County District Court Judge Steven Burns mostly upheld ballot language for the controversial proposal that has ignited a bitter fight between supporters and opponents of the ban.A lawsuit from a University of Nebraska-Lincoln student who is a member of Nebraskans United, a group opposing the proposal, alleged the current wording is misleading and could confuse voters.The language says government entities in the state "shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, individuals or groups based upon race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin" in public hiring, education and contracting.Nebraskans United had wanted voters to be asked if the state constitution should "ban state and local programs designed to improve opportunities for and eliminate discrimination against women and minorities in public education, employment and contracting."Burns essentially kept the original wording proposed by supporters of the ban and approved by Attorney General Jon Bruning. Bruning decides how ballot measures are worded and was the target of the lawsuit.Opponents have said voters wouldn't know by reading the ballot language that they could be voting to get rid of affirmative action. [To read the entire article, go to: http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/articles/2008/08/30/news/nebraska/bf6d530cfed4d909862574b50014cf01.txt ]
September 3, 2008
LINCOLN (AP) -- Supporters of a proposed ban on preferential treatment to minorities and women will essentially get the message they wanted on ballots expected to be read in voting booths across the state.But opponents of the ban can claim at least one small victory that they hope will sway voters in November: A language change approved by a judge could increase awareness among voters that the ban could create more lawsuits."Voters might say 'I don't want to do all of this,"' said J.L. Spray, attorney for the plaintiffs that challenged the ballot language.On Friday, Lancaster County District Court Judge Steven Burns mostly upheld ballot language for the controversial proposal that has ignited a bitter fight between supporters and opponents of the ban.A lawsuit from a University of Nebraska-Lincoln student who is a member of Nebraskans United, a group opposing the proposal, alleged the current wording is misleading and could confuse voters.The language says government entities in the state "shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, individuals or groups based upon race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin" in public hiring, education and contracting.Nebraskans United had wanted voters to be asked if the state constitution should "ban state and local programs designed to improve opportunities for and eliminate discrimination against women and minorities in public education, employment and contracting."Burns essentially kept the original wording proposed by supporters of the ban and approved by Attorney General Jon Bruning. Bruning decides how ballot measures are worded and was the target of the lawsuit.Opponents have said voters wouldn't know by reading the ballot language that they could be voting to get rid of affirmative action. [To read the entire article, go to: http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/articles/2008/08/30/news/nebraska/bf6d530cfed4d909862574b50014cf01.txt ]
Attacking the ‘Mismatch’ Critique of Affirmative Action
Inside Higher Ed
September 3, 2008
One of the more influential and controversial studies of affirmative action in recent years came from Richard H. Sander in 2004. The law professor at the University of California at Los Angeles analyzed statistics about black law students and argued that they show that affirmative action hurts them by helping many gain admission to institutions where they are unlikely to be top students. This “mismatch,” he argued, led to academic performance at lower levels than the same students would have achieved at the less prestigious law schools to which they could have earned admission without the consideration of race.
Sander’s theory set off political and academic fireworks. They may be reignited with the release of a new study by the National Bureau of Economic Research that examines much of the same data Sander used. The new analysis — with the sort of detail normally used by critics of affirmative action — backs Sander’s claims on the substantially different qualifications, on average, between black and white law school applicants. And it also finds gaps in performance in law school.
But the new research — using simulations of admissions without affirmative action — finds that race-neutral policies wouldn’t send black students to law schools where they would do better. Rather there would be a huge falloff in black law enrollments — far more than might be counteracted by some black students doing better on bar exams. The elimination of race-based admissions policies, the authors write, would lead to a 63 percent decline in black matriculants at all law schools and a 90 percent decline at elite law schools, the paper says. Even if some positive impact took place in the experience of black students who did enroll, there would be at least a 50 percent reduction in the production of black lawyers, they write.
The study — by Jesse Rothstein of Princeton University and Albert H. Yoon of the University of Toronto — starts off by reviewing the Sander data and its significance. Rothstein and Yoon note that a key part of Sander’s thesis is that “affirmative action influences which schools African American students attend, but has only small effects on whether these students attend law school at all.”
Rothstein and Yoon then turn to data about students who applied to law school in 1991 — similar to the data Sander used. (They authors of the new paper note that changes in the performance of black students have been very modest since then, suggesting that similar findings would be possible with today’s data, although more recent data sets are less complete.) The authors also note that the Sander argument — left unchallenged — has the potential to undercut the political and legal arguments for affirmative action. From President Lyndon Johnson through recent Supreme Court arguments, defenders of affirmative action have assumed that its practice promoted black advancement rather than hindering it.
Notably, Rothstein and Yoon accept that the “mismatch” theory is “plausible,” given that admitting a student to a law school about his or her abilities could frustrate and “demoralize” him or her. Further, they note that the requirement to pass the bar means that students who get through law school but can’t practice are sure to feel particularly poorly served by the process.
Where Rothstein and Yoon depart from Sander is in their analysis of the differing admissions qualifications and academic performance of black and white law students. Sander uses the data to suggest “mismatch.” For example, 92 percent of white students who enter law school graduate, while only 81 percent of black students do. And of those who graduate from law school, 87 percent of white students pass the bar within a year, compared to 64 percent of black students.
But Rothstein and Yoon focus more on admissions data to suggest that — without affirmative action — many black applicants to law schools would simply never get in.
For example, in the data studied, only 1.5 percent of black students taking the LSAT achieved a score of at least 38. Of all of those admitted to Yale University’s law school, 89 percent had scores of at least 41. While Yale law is among the most competitive law schools in the country, the study notes that there isn’t such a thing as a truly non-competitive law school and that admissions credentials gaps are present at all types of law schools. For example, at American University’s law school for the years studied, 91 percent of admitted applicants had LSAT scores above 32 and college grade-point averages above 2.5. Only 2.2 of law school applicants nationally with those credentials are black.
The authors conduct a simulation — based on admissions patterns of various types of institutions — to show what would happen to black representation at law schools, and the results are dramatic. Students don’t shift down a prestige level — but disappear. Only at “third tier” law schools would there be any gains for the black enrollment share, and those are small. [To read the entire story, go to: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/09/03/affirm ]
September 3, 2008
One of the more influential and controversial studies of affirmative action in recent years came from Richard H. Sander in 2004. The law professor at the University of California at Los Angeles analyzed statistics about black law students and argued that they show that affirmative action hurts them by helping many gain admission to institutions where they are unlikely to be top students. This “mismatch,” he argued, led to academic performance at lower levels than the same students would have achieved at the less prestigious law schools to which they could have earned admission without the consideration of race.
Sander’s theory set off political and academic fireworks. They may be reignited with the release of a new study by the National Bureau of Economic Research that examines much of the same data Sander used. The new analysis — with the sort of detail normally used by critics of affirmative action — backs Sander’s claims on the substantially different qualifications, on average, between black and white law school applicants. And it also finds gaps in performance in law school.
But the new research — using simulations of admissions without affirmative action — finds that race-neutral policies wouldn’t send black students to law schools where they would do better. Rather there would be a huge falloff in black law enrollments — far more than might be counteracted by some black students doing better on bar exams. The elimination of race-based admissions policies, the authors write, would lead to a 63 percent decline in black matriculants at all law schools and a 90 percent decline at elite law schools, the paper says. Even if some positive impact took place in the experience of black students who did enroll, there would be at least a 50 percent reduction in the production of black lawyers, they write.
The study — by Jesse Rothstein of Princeton University and Albert H. Yoon of the University of Toronto — starts off by reviewing the Sander data and its significance. Rothstein and Yoon note that a key part of Sander’s thesis is that “affirmative action influences which schools African American students attend, but has only small effects on whether these students attend law school at all.”
Rothstein and Yoon then turn to data about students who applied to law school in 1991 — similar to the data Sander used. (They authors of the new paper note that changes in the performance of black students have been very modest since then, suggesting that similar findings would be possible with today’s data, although more recent data sets are less complete.) The authors also note that the Sander argument — left unchallenged — has the potential to undercut the political and legal arguments for affirmative action. From President Lyndon Johnson through recent Supreme Court arguments, defenders of affirmative action have assumed that its practice promoted black advancement rather than hindering it.
Notably, Rothstein and Yoon accept that the “mismatch” theory is “plausible,” given that admitting a student to a law school about his or her abilities could frustrate and “demoralize” him or her. Further, they note that the requirement to pass the bar means that students who get through law school but can’t practice are sure to feel particularly poorly served by the process.
Where Rothstein and Yoon depart from Sander is in their analysis of the differing admissions qualifications and academic performance of black and white law students. Sander uses the data to suggest “mismatch.” For example, 92 percent of white students who enter law school graduate, while only 81 percent of black students do. And of those who graduate from law school, 87 percent of white students pass the bar within a year, compared to 64 percent of black students.
But Rothstein and Yoon focus more on admissions data to suggest that — without affirmative action — many black applicants to law schools would simply never get in.
For example, in the data studied, only 1.5 percent of black students taking the LSAT achieved a score of at least 38. Of all of those admitted to Yale University’s law school, 89 percent had scores of at least 41. While Yale law is among the most competitive law schools in the country, the study notes that there isn’t such a thing as a truly non-competitive law school and that admissions credentials gaps are present at all types of law schools. For example, at American University’s law school for the years studied, 91 percent of admitted applicants had LSAT scores above 32 and college grade-point averages above 2.5. Only 2.2 of law school applicants nationally with those credentials are black.
The authors conduct a simulation — based on admissions patterns of various types of institutions — to show what would happen to black representation at law schools, and the results are dramatic. Students don’t shift down a prestige level — but disappear. Only at “third tier” law schools would there be any gains for the black enrollment share, and those are small. [To read the entire story, go to: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/09/03/affirm ]
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Palin, Obama & Affirmative Action
America, The National Catholic Weekly
Posted at: 2008-09-02 00:29:00.0
Author: Michael Sean Winters
The first CNN poll taken after both the conclusion of the Democratic National Convention and the surprise selection of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to be John McCain’s running mate showed surprisingly little movement. The race remains essentially tied despite record viewership for Obama’s speech and the countless commentaries about how choosing Palin was a "game changer." This election is not a game and little has changed.
But, there is a deep irony in Obama’s and Palin’s inability to move their numbers and it has to do with affirmative action. The real reason Obama is lagging behind the rest of the Democratic Party in national polls is because he is black. And a large number of people, especially white, ethnic Catholics, argue that their forefathers, and foremothers, came to these shores with nothing and made a life for themselves and a future for their families. They did not need government hand-outs or affirmative action. The resentment at affirmative action was encapsulated in the famous "white hand" ad run by North Carolina Senator Jesse Helms in which a white hand held a rejection letter while the voice-over intones, "You needed that job… but the company had to hire a minority." Helms won the election.
This "noble immigrants v. ignoble recipients of affirmative action" storyline is not entirely accurate for a variety of reasons. The GI Bill may not have been a hand-out but it was definitely a government hand-up. And, white, ethnic immigrants did not come with the burden of slavery weighing down their history, a history of families torn apart, a history of being robbed of all personal power and autonomy. And, once they acclimated, they also blended in. Affirmative action may have been unfair to some. It may not even have worked. But, there is a reason it corresponded to a felt societal need to repair the damage done to black Americans by slavery that was different in kind, and not just in degree, from the damage done to white ethnics by the various traumas of immigration. Most importantly for this election, the narrative fails because Barack Obama did not get into Harvard Law as a result of affirmative action: He got into Harvard Law because he is smarter than the rest of us.
So, along comes Ms. Palin. What precisely qualified her for her job? Writing in The New Republic, Marty Peretz commented, "To have dug so hard and to have come up with such circumstantial assets as being a woman and an evangelical Christian is really not much. There are millions of them, even pretty ones, which speaks to another political asset." It is this last asset, prettiness, that jumped to my mind when the CNN poll reported that 38% of those polled viewed her favorably. Not one of those questioned, I suspect, was well informed about how the Alaska Governor had handled budget negotiations with the legislature in Juneau, nor whether she hailed from the isolationist, Pat Buchanan wing of the conservative movement or the neo-conservative imperialist, Bill Kristol wing of the GOP. But, she sure is pretty.
Pretty. Born-again. Most of all, a woman. If the selection of Palin doesn’t count as affirmative action, I don’t know what does. You can picture the ad. A man’s hand putting down a cell phone. Voice-over: "You wanted that job…but they had to give it to a woman." The camera pulls back and shows a disgruntled Mitt Romney, still looking at the phone. He turns to the television which shows Palin arm and arm with McCain. "Here’s looking at you sweetheart," Mitt says bitterly, crying in his Arnold Palmer.
The polling numbers will not change much unless events intervene because the polls tell us less about Palin and Obama than they do about ourselves and our prejudices.
Michael Sean Winters
http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?blog_id=2&id=215611EB-5056-8928-108B9F6A78037DEC
Posted at: 2008-09-02 00:29:00.0
Author: Michael Sean Winters
The first CNN poll taken after both the conclusion of the Democratic National Convention and the surprise selection of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to be John McCain’s running mate showed surprisingly little movement. The race remains essentially tied despite record viewership for Obama’s speech and the countless commentaries about how choosing Palin was a "game changer." This election is not a game and little has changed.
But, there is a deep irony in Obama’s and Palin’s inability to move their numbers and it has to do with affirmative action. The real reason Obama is lagging behind the rest of the Democratic Party in national polls is because he is black. And a large number of people, especially white, ethnic Catholics, argue that their forefathers, and foremothers, came to these shores with nothing and made a life for themselves and a future for their families. They did not need government hand-outs or affirmative action. The resentment at affirmative action was encapsulated in the famous "white hand" ad run by North Carolina Senator Jesse Helms in which a white hand held a rejection letter while the voice-over intones, "You needed that job… but the company had to hire a minority." Helms won the election.
This "noble immigrants v. ignoble recipients of affirmative action" storyline is not entirely accurate for a variety of reasons. The GI Bill may not have been a hand-out but it was definitely a government hand-up. And, white, ethnic immigrants did not come with the burden of slavery weighing down their history, a history of families torn apart, a history of being robbed of all personal power and autonomy. And, once they acclimated, they also blended in. Affirmative action may have been unfair to some. It may not even have worked. But, there is a reason it corresponded to a felt societal need to repair the damage done to black Americans by slavery that was different in kind, and not just in degree, from the damage done to white ethnics by the various traumas of immigration. Most importantly for this election, the narrative fails because Barack Obama did not get into Harvard Law as a result of affirmative action: He got into Harvard Law because he is smarter than the rest of us.
So, along comes Ms. Palin. What precisely qualified her for her job? Writing in The New Republic, Marty Peretz commented, "To have dug so hard and to have come up with such circumstantial assets as being a woman and an evangelical Christian is really not much. There are millions of them, even pretty ones, which speaks to another political asset." It is this last asset, prettiness, that jumped to my mind when the CNN poll reported that 38% of those polled viewed her favorably. Not one of those questioned, I suspect, was well informed about how the Alaska Governor had handled budget negotiations with the legislature in Juneau, nor whether she hailed from the isolationist, Pat Buchanan wing of the conservative movement or the neo-conservative imperialist, Bill Kristol wing of the GOP. But, she sure is pretty.
Pretty. Born-again. Most of all, a woman. If the selection of Palin doesn’t count as affirmative action, I don’t know what does. You can picture the ad. A man’s hand putting down a cell phone. Voice-over: "You wanted that job…but they had to give it to a woman." The camera pulls back and shows a disgruntled Mitt Romney, still looking at the phone. He turns to the television which shows Palin arm and arm with McCain. "Here’s looking at you sweetheart," Mitt says bitterly, crying in his Arnold Palmer.
The polling numbers will not change much unless events intervene because the polls tell us less about Palin and Obama than they do about ourselves and our prejudices.
Michael Sean Winters
http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?blog_id=2&id=215611EB-5056-8928-108B9F6A78037DEC
NEW EEOC PUBLICATION AIMED AT INCREASING OPPORTUNITIES FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES IN FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT
WASHINGTON – The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) today issued a new question-and-answer guide aimed at promoting the hiring and advancement of individuals with disabilities in federal government employment. The new publication is available on the EEOC’s web site at www.eeoc.gov/federal/qanda-employment-with-disabilities.html.
Announcing the resource publication for federal agencies, Commission Chair Naomi C. Earp said, “The EEOC is doing everything it can to provide agencies with useful guidance on how to be the nation’s model employer, providing equal opportunity to all Americans, including those with disabilities.”
The percentage of federal employees with targeted disabilities, which are severe physical or mental disabilities that historically have resulted in barriers to employment, has declined each year since reaching a peak of 1.24% in Fiscal Years 1993 and 1994. In FY 2007, the participation rate of people with targeted disabilities declined to 0.92% of the federal government’s total work force, the lowest participation rate in more than 20 years.
EEOC Commissioner Christine Griffin said: “Even though the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 has long required federal agencies to engage in affirmative action to hire and advance individuals with disabilities, the federal government has failed to meet this challenge. We must and can do better. This question-and-answer guide will help agencies make concrete progress.”
Commissioner Griffin has overseen the EEOC’s LEAD Initiative (Leadership for the Employment of Americans with Disabilities), which aims to boost the ranks of individuals with disabilities in federal employment to 2% by 2010.
The question-and-answer guide issued today responds to frequently asked questions about what the law allows and requires federal agencies to do with respect to affirmative hiring and employment of individuals with disabilities. Among other topics, the publication discusses:
Special regulations that allow federal agencies to hire individuals with severe disabilities who are qualified for jobs without going through the usual competitive hiring process;
Procedures that agencies are required to have for providing reasonable accommodations for applicants and employees with disabilities;
Specific types of accommodations that enable people with disabilities to work in federal sector jobs;
How an agency’s obligations under the Rehabilitation Act interact with obligations under other federal laws and how agencies should handle reasonable accommodation issues when they enter into relationships with other entities (such as other federal agencies or private companies that provide training for agency employees); and
The kinds of questions that agencies may (and may not) ask about an applicant’s or employee’s disability.
In January 2008, the EEOC issued a report entitled “Improving the Participation Rate of People with Targeted Disabilities in the Federal Work Force,” which provides practical guidance on steps agencies can take to increase hiring and advancement. The report is available on the EEOC’s web site at www.eeoc.gov/federal/report/pwtd.html. Further information about the LEAD Initiative is available online at http://www.eeoc.gov/initiatives/lead/index.html.
The EEOC monitors federal agency compliance with equal employment opportunity laws and procedures. Additional information about the EEOC and its role in the federal sector is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.
Announcing the resource publication for federal agencies, Commission Chair Naomi C. Earp said, “The EEOC is doing everything it can to provide agencies with useful guidance on how to be the nation’s model employer, providing equal opportunity to all Americans, including those with disabilities.”
The percentage of federal employees with targeted disabilities, which are severe physical or mental disabilities that historically have resulted in barriers to employment, has declined each year since reaching a peak of 1.24% in Fiscal Years 1993 and 1994. In FY 2007, the participation rate of people with targeted disabilities declined to 0.92% of the federal government’s total work force, the lowest participation rate in more than 20 years.
EEOC Commissioner Christine Griffin said: “Even though the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 has long required federal agencies to engage in affirmative action to hire and advance individuals with disabilities, the federal government has failed to meet this challenge. We must and can do better. This question-and-answer guide will help agencies make concrete progress.”
Commissioner Griffin has overseen the EEOC’s LEAD Initiative (Leadership for the Employment of Americans with Disabilities), which aims to boost the ranks of individuals with disabilities in federal employment to 2% by 2010.
The question-and-answer guide issued today responds to frequently asked questions about what the law allows and requires federal agencies to do with respect to affirmative hiring and employment of individuals with disabilities. Among other topics, the publication discusses:
Special regulations that allow federal agencies to hire individuals with severe disabilities who are qualified for jobs without going through the usual competitive hiring process;
Procedures that agencies are required to have for providing reasonable accommodations for applicants and employees with disabilities;
Specific types of accommodations that enable people with disabilities to work in federal sector jobs;
How an agency’s obligations under the Rehabilitation Act interact with obligations under other federal laws and how agencies should handle reasonable accommodation issues when they enter into relationships with other entities (such as other federal agencies or private companies that provide training for agency employees); and
The kinds of questions that agencies may (and may not) ask about an applicant’s or employee’s disability.
In January 2008, the EEOC issued a report entitled “Improving the Participation Rate of People with Targeted Disabilities in the Federal Work Force,” which provides practical guidance on steps agencies can take to increase hiring and advancement. The report is available on the EEOC’s web site at www.eeoc.gov/federal/report/pwtd.html. Further information about the LEAD Initiative is available online at http://www.eeoc.gov/initiatives/lead/index.html.
The EEOC monitors federal agency compliance with equal employment opportunity laws and procedures. Additional information about the EEOC and its role in the federal sector is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.
NSF: Role of HBCUs as Baccalaureate-Origin Institutions of Black S&E Doctorate Recipients
by Joan Burrelli and Alan Rapoport[1]
NSF 08-319 August 2008
In a February 2008 article in the Washington Post, the presidents of four Maryland historically black institutions raised the issue of the role and relevance of historically black institutions in enhancing educational opportunities for African Americans (Avery et al 2008). This InfoBrief partially addresses this issue by examining the role of historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs) as baccalaureate-origin institutions of black science and engineering (S&E)[2] doctorate recipients. It examines trends primarily during the past two decades and compares HBCUs to non-HBCU institutions, to different Carnegie types of institutions,[3] and to a select group of baccalaureate colleges—the Oberlin 50 (minus Hampton University which is an HBCU).[4] The InfoBrief also examines differences between public and private institutions. The analysis focuses on two types of output variables: the absolute number of doctorates and the institutional yield—the number of S&E doctorates in a given year per thousand bachelor's degrees awarded in all fields 9 years (the median time from bachelor's-to-doctorate receipt for S&E doctorates) prior to that year.
In the late 1970s over 40% of black S&E doctorate recipients received their baccalaureate degrees from HBCUs.[5] This percentage fell to 25% in the first part of the 1990s before increasing to about 33% in 2006. During the same period (1977–2006), the share of blacks receiving bachelor's degrees from HBCUs fell from 36% to 21% (figure 1).
Baccalaureate-Origin Institutions of Black S&E Doctorate Recipients
Black S&E doctorate recipients from U.S. universities complete their undergraduate education at a wide variety of types of institutions in the United States. A small proportion of blacks earning S&E doctorates from U.S. universities had undergraduate degrees from foreign institutions, 8% in 2006 (table 1). An additional 2% did not provide information about their baccalaureate institutions in 2006. Of those with known U.S. baccalaureate institutions, in 2006 a third earned their bachelor's degrees from an HBCU institution and the remainder earned their bachelor's degrees from non-HBCU institutions. The percentage of S&E doctorate recipients earning their bachelor's degrees from HBCUs ranged between 24% and 33% from 1986 to 2006. Among those earning their baccalaureate degrees at known U.S. institutions in 2006 slightly less than one-third (31%) earned their bachelor's degrees from a non-HBCU research university. The remainder earned their bachelor's degrees from non-HBCU other doctorate-granting institutions (15%), master's-granting institutions (12%), or baccalaureate colleges (8%). The baccalaureate origin of 4% was an Oberlin 49 institution.
Baccalaureate-Origin Institutions of Black S&E Doctorate Recipients Normalized for Bachelor's Degrees Awarded
Although only one-quarter to one-third of black S&E doctorate recipients received their bachelor's degrees from HBCUs from 1986 to 2006, when normalized by the number of bachelor's degrees awarded, HBCUs as a group yielded about as many future S&E doctorates per thousand bachelor's awarded as non-HBCU institutions during this period. The trends for both groups were similar (figure 2).
[To read the entire brief, go to: http://nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf08319/#avery2008 ]
NSF 08-319 August 2008
In a February 2008 article in the Washington Post, the presidents of four Maryland historically black institutions raised the issue of the role and relevance of historically black institutions in enhancing educational opportunities for African Americans (Avery et al 2008). This InfoBrief partially addresses this issue by examining the role of historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs) as baccalaureate-origin institutions of black science and engineering (S&E)[2] doctorate recipients. It examines trends primarily during the past two decades and compares HBCUs to non-HBCU institutions, to different Carnegie types of institutions,[3] and to a select group of baccalaureate colleges—the Oberlin 50 (minus Hampton University which is an HBCU).[4] The InfoBrief also examines differences between public and private institutions. The analysis focuses on two types of output variables: the absolute number of doctorates and the institutional yield—the number of S&E doctorates in a given year per thousand bachelor's degrees awarded in all fields 9 years (the median time from bachelor's-to-doctorate receipt for S&E doctorates) prior to that year.
In the late 1970s over 40% of black S&E doctorate recipients received their baccalaureate degrees from HBCUs.[5] This percentage fell to 25% in the first part of the 1990s before increasing to about 33% in 2006. During the same period (1977–2006), the share of blacks receiving bachelor's degrees from HBCUs fell from 36% to 21% (figure 1).
Baccalaureate-Origin Institutions of Black S&E Doctorate Recipients
Black S&E doctorate recipients from U.S. universities complete their undergraduate education at a wide variety of types of institutions in the United States. A small proportion of blacks earning S&E doctorates from U.S. universities had undergraduate degrees from foreign institutions, 8% in 2006 (table 1). An additional 2% did not provide information about their baccalaureate institutions in 2006. Of those with known U.S. baccalaureate institutions, in 2006 a third earned their bachelor's degrees from an HBCU institution and the remainder earned their bachelor's degrees from non-HBCU institutions. The percentage of S&E doctorate recipients earning their bachelor's degrees from HBCUs ranged between 24% and 33% from 1986 to 2006. Among those earning their baccalaureate degrees at known U.S. institutions in 2006 slightly less than one-third (31%) earned their bachelor's degrees from a non-HBCU research university. The remainder earned their bachelor's degrees from non-HBCU other doctorate-granting institutions (15%), master's-granting institutions (12%), or baccalaureate colleges (8%). The baccalaureate origin of 4% was an Oberlin 49 institution.
Baccalaureate-Origin Institutions of Black S&E Doctorate Recipients Normalized for Bachelor's Degrees Awarded
Although only one-quarter to one-third of black S&E doctorate recipients received their bachelor's degrees from HBCUs from 1986 to 2006, when normalized by the number of bachelor's degrees awarded, HBCUs as a group yielded about as many future S&E doctorates per thousand bachelor's awarded as non-HBCU institutions during this period. The trends for both groups were similar (figure 2).
[To read the entire brief, go to: http://nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf08319/#avery2008 ]
BAMN Declares Total Victory in Arizona
BAMN Declares Total Victory in Arizona
Ward Connerly's "Ground Zero" Campaign Against
Affirmative Action Turns to Quicksand
"Super Tuesday" Becomes "Super Lose Day" for the enemies of civil rights
Late Friday afternoon, the campaign manager for the deceptively named "Arizona Civil Rights Initiative" (ACRI) – a state ban on affirmative action – announced that ACRI was dropping their challenge to the finding of the Arizona Secretary of State that ACRI did not have enough valid signatures to qualify for the ballot. "BAMN's fraud-blockers prevented Connerly from obtaining petition signatures by lying to qualified voters about the aim and effect of the initiative, so he was forced to resort to outright forgery and fraud" said Shanta Driver, National Chairperson of BAMN, and chief strategist of BAMN's campaign to stop ACRI. "BAMN's campaign in Arizona shows that any reactionary initiative, no matter how well funded, can be stopped by a small group of determined people who stand on principle, tell the truth and won't be moved," she added. "In Michigan, Ward Connerly and Jennifer Gratz's operation was found to be riddled with fraud by a U.S. Federal Judge. In Oklahoma, they withdrew their petitions in the face of accusations of fraud, because they knew they couldn't withstand a challenge. In Missouri, they dared not even risk a challenge by filing their petitions. Now in Arizona, home of John McCain, over 40% of their signatures were found to be invalid. These con artists should not be allowed to peddle their lies and deception in any state of the nation." said George Washington, the attorney representing BAMN in its lawsuit against ACRI.
For more information about how BAMN defeated Connerly in three states in 2008, contact:
Shanta Driver 313-407-4865
George Washington 313-963-1921
Donna Stern 313-468-3398
Ward Connerly's "Ground Zero" Campaign Against
Affirmative Action Turns to Quicksand
"Super Tuesday" Becomes "Super Lose Day" for the enemies of civil rights
Late Friday afternoon, the campaign manager for the deceptively named "Arizona Civil Rights Initiative" (ACRI) – a state ban on affirmative action – announced that ACRI was dropping their challenge to the finding of the Arizona Secretary of State that ACRI did not have enough valid signatures to qualify for the ballot. "BAMN's fraud-blockers prevented Connerly from obtaining petition signatures by lying to qualified voters about the aim and effect of the initiative, so he was forced to resort to outright forgery and fraud" said Shanta Driver, National Chairperson of BAMN, and chief strategist of BAMN's campaign to stop ACRI. "BAMN's campaign in Arizona shows that any reactionary initiative, no matter how well funded, can be stopped by a small group of determined people who stand on principle, tell the truth and won't be moved," she added. "In Michigan, Ward Connerly and Jennifer Gratz's operation was found to be riddled with fraud by a U.S. Federal Judge. In Oklahoma, they withdrew their petitions in the face of accusations of fraud, because they knew they couldn't withstand a challenge. In Missouri, they dared not even risk a challenge by filing their petitions. Now in Arizona, home of John McCain, over 40% of their signatures were found to be invalid. These con artists should not be allowed to peddle their lies and deception in any state of the nation." said George Washington, the attorney representing BAMN in its lawsuit against ACRI.
For more information about how BAMN defeated Connerly in three states in 2008, contact:
Shanta Driver 313-407-4865
George Washington 313-963-1921
Donna Stern 313-468-3398
Profiling and Harvard police
The Boston Globe
September 2, 2008
IF UNADDRESSED and unresolved, the intermittent charges of racial profiling on the part of Harvard University police officers could undermine confidence in the nation's top- ranked educational institution. University president Drew Gilpin Faust made a smart move last week by turning to an independent police review committee for answers.
There should be plenty of research opportunities for former Suffolk County district attorney Ralph Martin, who is heading the six-member committee. Black students and faculty at Harvard complain that they draw unwarranted police attention. Police queried students at a field day last year sponsored by two black student groups, though the participants had a permit. A prominent black professor has been mistaken for a robbery suspect. Last month, two Harvard officers were placed on administrative leave after a confrontation with a black high school student who was working on campus.
Harvard Police officers receive the same academy training given to recruits who join major municipal police departments. And minority officers comprise a respectable 22 percent of the 65-member force. But that is no guarantee of success when dealing with the concerns of minorities on or off campus. The Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association is now designing a curriculum to counter racial profiling with help from the State Police and police leaders from Boston, Woburn, Brookline and other municipalities. University police at Harvard and elsewhere should be integrated into this effort.
The age and experience of campus police officers could be a significant factor, according to Northeastern University criminologist Jack McDevitt, a national specialist on racial profiling. Campus officers who are marking time while awaiting appointments to city police departments, says McDevitt, may be inviting problems by looking for action where little exists. Universities often fare better with older or more experienced officers whose idea of a good day runs more along the line of helping a foreign dignitary than conducting a foot chase. [To read the entire editorial, go to: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2008/09/02/profiling_and_harvard_police/ ]
September 2, 2008
IF UNADDRESSED and unresolved, the intermittent charges of racial profiling on the part of Harvard University police officers could undermine confidence in the nation's top- ranked educational institution. University president Drew Gilpin Faust made a smart move last week by turning to an independent police review committee for answers.
There should be plenty of research opportunities for former Suffolk County district attorney Ralph Martin, who is heading the six-member committee. Black students and faculty at Harvard complain that they draw unwarranted police attention. Police queried students at a field day last year sponsored by two black student groups, though the participants had a permit. A prominent black professor has been mistaken for a robbery suspect. Last month, two Harvard officers were placed on administrative leave after a confrontation with a black high school student who was working on campus.
Harvard Police officers receive the same academy training given to recruits who join major municipal police departments. And minority officers comprise a respectable 22 percent of the 65-member force. But that is no guarantee of success when dealing with the concerns of minorities on or off campus. The Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association is now designing a curriculum to counter racial profiling with help from the State Police and police leaders from Boston, Woburn, Brookline and other municipalities. University police at Harvard and elsewhere should be integrated into this effort.
The age and experience of campus police officers could be a significant factor, according to Northeastern University criminologist Jack McDevitt, a national specialist on racial profiling. Campus officers who are marking time while awaiting appointments to city police departments, says McDevitt, may be inviting problems by looking for action where little exists. Universities often fare better with older or more experienced officers whose idea of a good day runs more along the line of helping a foreign dignitary than conducting a foot chase. [To read the entire editorial, go to: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2008/09/02/profiling_and_harvard_police/ ]
The 2008 Republican Party Platform
Inside Higher Ed
September 2, 2008
To date, John McCain’s higher education policy has been short on specifics. That’s not to say his rival, Barack Obama, delved heavily into the finer points of student aid or research funding before his party held its convention last week in Denver. Nevertheless, the Democratic nominee’s public statements on college affordability and other topics, combined with somewhat more detailed policy prescriptions already available on his Web site, made for few surprises last week when delegates ultimately adopted the party platform committee’s official report.
On Monday, during a subdued schedule altered at the last minute to accommodate Republican Party leaders’ concerns about the impact of Hurricane Gustav in the Gulf Coast, delegates convened to complete the Republican National Convention’s “specific official business” — including, as a matter of procedure, approving the party platform.
That document, which outlines the Republican Party’s official stances on policies ranging from immigration to the environment, also contains the most detailed look so far at how the presumptive nominee John McCain would approach higher education as president.
The candidate’s existing positions call for more innovation, more transparency and fewer regulatory barriers in higher education, casting colleges and universities as necessary to maintain America’s competitive advantage in the world. Many of McCain’s proposals are about simplification, although they don’t go into much detail: simplifying (and consolidating) financial aid programs, simplifying college tax benefits, simplifying student lending, reducing earmarks that could take away from peer-reviewed federal research funding.
The platform, like all party documents, doesn’t necessarily commit McCain to support individual policies, and its intended audience is more likely to be constituencies within the Republican Party than undecided voters or policy makers. It is essentially identical to a draft circulated late last month, which the chairmen of the platform committee, referring to a process that invited citizens to upload videos with suggestions for revising the document, called “the most grassroots-driven platform development effort in the history of American politics.”
It provides a glimpse into potential future Republican approaches to issues largely overlooked so far in the presidential campaign: the role of community colleges; whether institutions should use more of their endowments to boost financial aid; an acknowledgment that low graduation rates threaten American dominance in higher education; a call to revamp the financial aid system; opposition to how Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 is applied in college athletics; and a nod to supporters of distance education (details below).
On other issues — like affirmative action and quotas (against) and the Solomon Amendment and ROTC (for) — the platform maintains longstanding positions supported by both the party and McCain. [To read the entire story, go to: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/09/02/repubs ]
September 2, 2008
To date, John McCain’s higher education policy has been short on specifics. That’s not to say his rival, Barack Obama, delved heavily into the finer points of student aid or research funding before his party held its convention last week in Denver. Nevertheless, the Democratic nominee’s public statements on college affordability and other topics, combined with somewhat more detailed policy prescriptions already available on his Web site, made for few surprises last week when delegates ultimately adopted the party platform committee’s official report.
On Monday, during a subdued schedule altered at the last minute to accommodate Republican Party leaders’ concerns about the impact of Hurricane Gustav in the Gulf Coast, delegates convened to complete the Republican National Convention’s “specific official business” — including, as a matter of procedure, approving the party platform.
That document, which outlines the Republican Party’s official stances on policies ranging from immigration to the environment, also contains the most detailed look so far at how the presumptive nominee John McCain would approach higher education as president.
The candidate’s existing positions call for more innovation, more transparency and fewer regulatory barriers in higher education, casting colleges and universities as necessary to maintain America’s competitive advantage in the world. Many of McCain’s proposals are about simplification, although they don’t go into much detail: simplifying (and consolidating) financial aid programs, simplifying college tax benefits, simplifying student lending, reducing earmarks that could take away from peer-reviewed federal research funding.
The platform, like all party documents, doesn’t necessarily commit McCain to support individual policies, and its intended audience is more likely to be constituencies within the Republican Party than undecided voters or policy makers. It is essentially identical to a draft circulated late last month, which the chairmen of the platform committee, referring to a process that invited citizens to upload videos with suggestions for revising the document, called “the most grassroots-driven platform development effort in the history of American politics.”
It provides a glimpse into potential future Republican approaches to issues largely overlooked so far in the presidential campaign: the role of community colleges; whether institutions should use more of their endowments to boost financial aid; an acknowledgment that low graduation rates threaten American dominance in higher education; a call to revamp the financial aid system; opposition to how Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 is applied in college athletics; and a nod to supporters of distance education (details below).
On other issues — like affirmative action and quotas (against) and the Solomon Amendment and ROTC (for) — the platform maintains longstanding positions supported by both the party and McCain. [To read the entire story, go to: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/09/02/repubs ]
Professor Suspects UCLA Is Illegally Using Race in Admissions Decisions
Chronicle of Higher Education
News Blog
September 1, 2008
A political-science professor at the University of California at Los Angeles, who says he suspects that his institution is “cheating on admissions” by illegally taking into account the race of student applicants, has resigned from a university admissions committee in protest.
The professor, Tim Groseclose, who has made his suspicions public in a report he posted on his UCLA Web site, says high-ranking administrators at the university and members of the committee are “engaged in a cover up” by refusing to allow him access to data about applicants so he can investigate his concerns. He says that the university’s new “holistic” approach to evaluating students allows it to let the race of applicants carry more weight than is allowed under a constitutional amendment that California voters adopted in 1996. The percentage of black students admitted as freshmen rose sharply after the new admissions policy was adopted, in 2006.
According to the Los Angeles Times, the number of entering black students edged up this fall, to 230 out of of 4,889 freshmen. In 2006, 103 black students entered as freshmen. University officials said Mr. Groseclose’s conclusions that race-conscious admissions policies played a factor failed to take into account the higher level of recruiting that the university has undertaken since then.
The study is likely to add fuel to the continuing debate over affirmative action in college admissions. [To read the entire story, go to: http://chronicle.com/news/article/5075/professor-suspects-ucla-is-illegally-using-race-in-admissions-decisions?utm_source=at&utm_medium=en ]
News Blog
September 1, 2008
A political-science professor at the University of California at Los Angeles, who says he suspects that his institution is “cheating on admissions” by illegally taking into account the race of student applicants, has resigned from a university admissions committee in protest.
The professor, Tim Groseclose, who has made his suspicions public in a report he posted on his UCLA Web site, says high-ranking administrators at the university and members of the committee are “engaged in a cover up” by refusing to allow him access to data about applicants so he can investigate his concerns. He says that the university’s new “holistic” approach to evaluating students allows it to let the race of applicants carry more weight than is allowed under a constitutional amendment that California voters adopted in 1996. The percentage of black students admitted as freshmen rose sharply after the new admissions policy was adopted, in 2006.
According to the Los Angeles Times, the number of entering black students edged up this fall, to 230 out of of 4,889 freshmen. In 2006, 103 black students entered as freshmen. University officials said Mr. Groseclose’s conclusions that race-conscious admissions policies played a factor failed to take into account the higher level of recruiting that the university has undertaken since then.
The study is likely to add fuel to the continuing debate over affirmative action in college admissions. [To read the entire story, go to: http://chronicle.com/news/article/5075/professor-suspects-ucla-is-illegally-using-race-in-admissions-decisions?utm_source=at&utm_medium=en ]
Virginia Tech to Increase Investment in Diversity
From Diverse Online
Current News
Virginia Tech to Increase Investment in Diversity
By Associated Press
Sep 2, 2008, 00:16
BLACKSBURG, Va.
Virginia Tech plans to invest nearly $1 million over the next five years to increase ethnic diversity on campus.
A report said the school will spend $899,000 to implement task force recommendations that call for additional faculty, greater minority student recruitment efforts, outreach programs and curriculum changes.
Last fall, Virginia Tech's Black student enrollment was 4.6 percent, third-lowest among the state's 15 four-year public universities, according to the State Council of Higher Education. Hispanic enrollment ranked in the bottom half.
Tech Provost Mark McNamee formed the task force in the summer of 2006, in response to protests over the announced departure of Black political science professor Christopher Clement, who received a negative review in his tenure process.
The task force's action plan calls for ``cluster hires'' in the 2009-10 and 2010-11 academic years to bolster the complement of minority professors and provide mentors to faculty already at the schools.
Six would be hired next year, four of them senior positions in Africana studies and race and social policy.
Overall enrollment of Blacks at Virginia Tech has declined since 2003, when the board of visitors voted to end affirmative action in hiring and student enrollment. The board quickly reversed the decision, but Black freshmen enrollment plummeted and has been slow to recover. [To read the entire story, go to: http://diverseeducation.com/artman/publish/article_11626.shtml ]
Current News
Virginia Tech to Increase Investment in Diversity
By Associated Press
Sep 2, 2008, 00:16
BLACKSBURG, Va.
Virginia Tech plans to invest nearly $1 million over the next five years to increase ethnic diversity on campus.
A report said the school will spend $899,000 to implement task force recommendations that call for additional faculty, greater minority student recruitment efforts, outreach programs and curriculum changes.
Last fall, Virginia Tech's Black student enrollment was 4.6 percent, third-lowest among the state's 15 four-year public universities, according to the State Council of Higher Education. Hispanic enrollment ranked in the bottom half.
Tech Provost Mark McNamee formed the task force in the summer of 2006, in response to protests over the announced departure of Black political science professor Christopher Clement, who received a negative review in his tenure process.
The task force's action plan calls for ``cluster hires'' in the 2009-10 and 2010-11 academic years to bolster the complement of minority professors and provide mentors to faculty already at the schools.
Six would be hired next year, four of them senior positions in Africana studies and race and social policy.
Overall enrollment of Blacks at Virginia Tech has declined since 2003, when the board of visitors voted to end affirmative action in hiring and student enrollment. The board quickly reversed the decision, but Black freshmen enrollment plummeted and has been slow to recover. [To read the entire story, go to: http://diverseeducation.com/artman/publish/article_11626.shtml ]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
