Diverse Issues in Higher Education
by Angela P. Dodson
Mar 27, 2009, 08:46
A new book examines the strategies of faculty to serve as “change agents,” encouraging diversity on campus.
Teaching a sociology class at Bowdoin College as a graduate student taught Dr. Winnifred R. Brown-Glaude a thing or two about diversity.
There, she introduced her students to “multiple perspectives” on the subject through readings. The student body of Bowdoin, a historic, small, liberal arts college in Brunswick, Maine, is more than 70 percent White, according to the school’s Web site.
In the end, she says that 90 percent of the students “actually loved the class” and found the experience enriching. A small but vocal minority did not.
“I also had a small percentage of students who pushed back,” says Brown-Glaude, now an assistant professor in the African-American studies department at the College of New Jersey. “They thought, ‘Oh, we shouldn’t be learning about women of color in this class. This kind of teaching … doesn’t belong here.’”
Later, Brown-Glaude says, when she compared notes with colleagues at other schools, she found, “This kind of push back wasn’t unique to me, so when the opportunity came at Rutgers to direct a national study — to really dig into these issues much more deeply — I certainly … jumped on it.”
The professor had done extensive research on race and gender before becoming project director for the Rutgers Institute for Women’s Leadership’s Ford Foundation grant. In that position, she directed a four-year study, “Reaffirming Action: Designs for Diversity in Higher Education.”
The findings of the project are summarized in a new book, Doing Diversity in Higher Education: Faculty Leaders Share Challenges and Strategies, $26.95, by Winnifred R. Brown-Glaude (Editor), Rutgers University Press, (January 2009), ISBN: 978-0, 8135-4447-2, ISBN: 978-0-8135-4446-5.
Full Story: http://diverseeducation.com/artman/publish/article_12429.shtml
Friday, March 27, 2009
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Critics Challenge Diversity Language in Virginia Tech's Tenure Policy
The Chronicle of Higher Education
By ROBIN WILSON
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Virginia Tech has come under criticism from some outside groups for a set of new guidelines that, the critics say, appear to require faculty members to show a commitment to diversity as part of their bids for tenure and promotion.
The critics, including the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, say the guidelines establish a “loyalty oath” that violates professors’ academic freedom.
The guidelines at issue govern faculty members in the university’s College of Liberal Arts and Human Sciences. They say that a promotion and tenure committee “expects all dossiers to demonstrate the candidate’s active involvement in diversity.”
But the university’s provost, Mark G. McNamee, says not only is the language on diversity not really new, it is also merely intended to encourage faculty members to pursue activities related to diversity, not to require it.
Full Story: http://chronicle.com/daily/2009/03/14550n.htm?utm_source=at&utm_medium=en
By ROBIN WILSON
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Virginia Tech has come under criticism from some outside groups for a set of new guidelines that, the critics say, appear to require faculty members to show a commitment to diversity as part of their bids for tenure and promotion.
The critics, including the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, say the guidelines establish a “loyalty oath” that violates professors’ academic freedom.
The guidelines at issue govern faculty members in the university’s College of Liberal Arts and Human Sciences. They say that a promotion and tenure committee “expects all dossiers to demonstrate the candidate’s active involvement in diversity.”
But the university’s provost, Mark G. McNamee, says not only is the language on diversity not really new, it is also merely intended to encourage faculty members to pursue activities related to diversity, not to require it.
Full Story: http://chronicle.com/daily/2009/03/14550n.htm?utm_source=at&utm_medium=en
Media Advisory: American Association for Affirmative Action Hosts Town Hall Meeting
"AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IN A 'POST - RACIAL' ERA"
Lincolnshire Marriott Resort,
Lincolnshire, IL
Saturday, April 4, 2009, 9:15 a.m. - 11:15 a.m.
Washington, DC (PRWeb) March 24, 2009 -- To culminate its 35th Annual Conference, the American Association for Affirmative Action (AAAA) is hosting a Town Hall meeting on a topic that is current and timely: Affirmative Action in a so-called Post-Racial Era. This year, much has been said about the election of the nation's first African-American president. Some have even suggested that his election indicates that America is no longer challenged with issues of discrimination and inequality. Thus, they argue, affirmative action is no longer needed. The panelists participating in AAAA's Town Hall meeting on Affirmative Action will address the question, "Is Affirmative Action needed in a presumed "post-racial" (and post-gender) era?"
AAAA is proud to have outstanding panelists for the AAAA Town Hall on Affirmative Action: Laura S. Washington, moderator, is the Ida B. Wells-Barnett University Professor at DePaul University in Chicago and a columnist for the Chicago Sun-Times. Naomi Tutu, daughter of Bishop Desmond Tutu, is founder of the Tutu Foundation and Associate Director of the newly formed Office of International Programs at Tennessee State University in Nashville. N. Keith Chambers is Executive Director of the Illinois Human Rights Commission. Anjali Thakur is Deputy Director for Field Operations and Director of the Americans for a Fair Chance Project for the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights. Lauren Sugerman, an elevator mechanic, is co-founder of Chicago Women in Trades and Gregory Cendana is Vice-President of the United States Student Association. The general public is invited. For more information, go to http://www.affirmativeaction.org/.
What: Affirmative Action Town Hall Meeting with American Association for Affirmative Action and Leading Experts
Where: Lincolnshire Marriott Resort, Lincolnshire, IL, 10 Marriott Drive, Lincolnshire, Illinois 60069, Toll-Free #: 800-228-9290, Phone: 1-847-634-0100
When: Saturday, April 4, 2009 - 8:30 a.m. - 9:00 a.m. Press Availability with Panelists; 9:15 a.m. - 11:15 a.m. Town Hall Discussion
Founded in 1974, the American Association for Affirmative Action (AAAA) is a national not-for-profit association of professionals working in the areas of affirmative action, equal opportunity, and diversity. AAAA helps its members to be more successful and productive in their careers. It also promotes understanding and advocacy of affirmative action to enhance access and equality in employment, economic and educational opportunities.
###
-->
Trackback URL: http://www.prweb.com/pingpr.php/U3F1YS1Mb3ZlLUxvdmUtVGhpci1Db3VwLUNvdXAtWmVybw==
See the original story at: http://www.prweb.com/releases/2009/03/prweb2263444.htm
Lincolnshire Marriott Resort,
Lincolnshire, IL
Saturday, April 4, 2009, 9:15 a.m. - 11:15 a.m.
Washington, DC (PRWeb) March 24, 2009 -- To culminate its 35th Annual Conference, the American Association for Affirmative Action (AAAA) is hosting a Town Hall meeting on a topic that is current and timely: Affirmative Action in a so-called Post-Racial Era. This year, much has been said about the election of the nation's first African-American president. Some have even suggested that his election indicates that America is no longer challenged with issues of discrimination and inequality. Thus, they argue, affirmative action is no longer needed. The panelists participating in AAAA's Town Hall meeting on Affirmative Action will address the question, "Is Affirmative Action needed in a presumed "post-racial" (and post-gender) era?"
AAAA is proud to have outstanding panelists for the AAAA Town Hall on Affirmative Action: Laura S. Washington, moderator, is the Ida B. Wells-Barnett University Professor at DePaul University in Chicago and a columnist for the Chicago Sun-Times. Naomi Tutu, daughter of Bishop Desmond Tutu, is founder of the Tutu Foundation and Associate Director of the newly formed Office of International Programs at Tennessee State University in Nashville. N. Keith Chambers is Executive Director of the Illinois Human Rights Commission. Anjali Thakur is Deputy Director for Field Operations and Director of the Americans for a Fair Chance Project for the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights. Lauren Sugerman, an elevator mechanic, is co-founder of Chicago Women in Trades and Gregory Cendana is Vice-President of the United States Student Association. The general public is invited. For more information, go to http://www.affirmativeaction.org/.
What: Affirmative Action Town Hall Meeting with American Association for Affirmative Action and Leading Experts
Where: Lincolnshire Marriott Resort, Lincolnshire, IL, 10 Marriott Drive, Lincolnshire, Illinois 60069, Toll-Free #: 800-228-9290, Phone: 1-847-634-0100
When: Saturday, April 4, 2009 - 8:30 a.m. - 9:00 a.m. Press Availability with Panelists; 9:15 a.m. - 11:15 a.m. Town Hall Discussion
Founded in 1974, the American Association for Affirmative Action (AAAA) is a national not-for-profit association of professionals working in the areas of affirmative action, equal opportunity, and diversity. AAAA helps its members to be more successful and productive in their careers. It also promotes understanding and advocacy of affirmative action to enhance access and equality in employment, economic and educational opportunities.
888 16th Street, NW, Suite 800 * Washington, D.C. 20006 *202-349-9855 ex 1857 *800-252-8952 * Fax: 202-355-1399 * http://www.affirmativeaction.org/ *
###
-->
Trackback URL: http://www.prweb.com/pingpr.php/U3F1YS1Mb3ZlLUxvdmUtVGhpci1Db3VwLUNvdXAtWmVybw==
See the original story at: http://www.prweb.com/releases/2009/03/prweb2263444.htm
The Impact of Dropping the SAT
Inside Higher Ed
March 26, 2009
A new research study -- based on simulations using actual student applications at competitive colleges that require the SAT or ACT for admission -- has found that ending the requirement would lead to demonstrable gains in the percentages of black and Latino students, and working class or economically disadvantaged students, who are admitted.
The finding is consistent with what admissions officers have reported at many colleges that have gone SAT-optional. But the basis of this new research goes well beyond the anecdotal information reported by colleges pleased with their shifts. Scholars at Princeton University's Office of Population Research obtained actual admissions data from seven selective colleges that require the SAT or ACT. Using the actual admissions patterns for these colleges, the scholars then ran statistical models showing the impact of either going SAT-optional or adopting what they called the "don't ask, don't tell" approach in which a college says that it won't look at standardized test scores.
These models suggest that any move away from the SAT or ACT in competitive colleges results in significant gains in ethnic and economic diversity. But the gains are greater for colleges that drop testing entirely, as opposed to just making it optional. (To date, only one institution -- Sarah Lawrence College -- has taken that step.)
In terms of other measures of academic competitiveness, the study found that going SAT optional would result in classes of students with higher grade point averages. Dropping testing entirely, on the other hand, would result in higher levels of academic achievement in the entering classes at the public institutions studied, but not the privates. The research will be formally presented next month at a conference at Wake Forest University about college admissions, but the Princeton researchers released the findings Wednesday.
Parts of the findings may be controversial with both SAT critics and fans. The study found that, as the College Board has long argued, the SAT is a good way to predict the first-year academic success of students. But the study's findings on the impact of dropping the SAT as a requirement provide an independent analysis to show that dropping the SAT as a requirement does lead to increased diversity -- and that is something many colleges want to promote.
Full Story: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/03/26/sat
March 26, 2009
A new research study -- based on simulations using actual student applications at competitive colleges that require the SAT or ACT for admission -- has found that ending the requirement would lead to demonstrable gains in the percentages of black and Latino students, and working class or economically disadvantaged students, who are admitted.
The finding is consistent with what admissions officers have reported at many colleges that have gone SAT-optional. But the basis of this new research goes well beyond the anecdotal information reported by colleges pleased with their shifts. Scholars at Princeton University's Office of Population Research obtained actual admissions data from seven selective colleges that require the SAT or ACT. Using the actual admissions patterns for these colleges, the scholars then ran statistical models showing the impact of either going SAT-optional or adopting what they called the "don't ask, don't tell" approach in which a college says that it won't look at standardized test scores.
These models suggest that any move away from the SAT or ACT in competitive colleges results in significant gains in ethnic and economic diversity. But the gains are greater for colleges that drop testing entirely, as opposed to just making it optional. (To date, only one institution -- Sarah Lawrence College -- has taken that step.)
In terms of other measures of academic competitiveness, the study found that going SAT optional would result in classes of students with higher grade point averages. Dropping testing entirely, on the other hand, would result in higher levels of academic achievement in the entering classes at the public institutions studied, but not the privates. The research will be formally presented next month at a conference at Wake Forest University about college admissions, but the Princeton researchers released the findings Wednesday.
Parts of the findings may be controversial with both SAT critics and fans. The study found that, as the College Board has long argued, the SAT is a good way to predict the first-year academic success of students. But the study's findings on the impact of dropping the SAT as a requirement provide an independent analysis to show that dropping the SAT as a requirement does lead to increased diversity -- and that is something many colleges want to promote.
Full Story: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/03/26/sat
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Texas Senate tentatively approves limits on top 10 percent college admission law
The Dallas Morning News
06:31 AM CDT on Wednesday, March 25, 2009
By TERRENCE STUTZ / The Dallas Morning News
tstutz@dallasnews.com
AUSTIN – Texas’ top 10 percent law for automatic college admission would be limited to 60 percent of the incoming freshmen class at state universities under legislation tentatively approved Tuesday by the Senate.
The measure – pushed for by University of Texas officials – was approved despite warnings from some senators that it could depress minority enrollment at the University of Texas at Austin and other top schools.
But Sen. Florence Shapiro, R-Plano, author of the bill, rejected that argument, saying that UT and other universities will be watched closely to make sure that the percentage of minority students does not decline. If it does, she said, lawmakers could take corrective action.
The measure was tentatively approved on a 22-8 vote, with most of the no votes cast by Democrats.
In asking for support of the bill, Shapiro said UT-Austin is the only state institution now affected by the law, but in the next few years it is also expected to restrict student admissions at Texas A&M University and UT-Dallas.
The senator said 81 percent of incoming freshmen at UT-Austin last fall were admitted under the top 10 percent requirement, shutting out large numbers of other qualified students – many with higher SAT scores than those who were accepted.
Full Story: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/032509dntextop10percentlaw.69b1cd3c.html
06:31 AM CDT on Wednesday, March 25, 2009
By TERRENCE STUTZ / The Dallas Morning News
tstutz@dallasnews.com
AUSTIN – Texas’ top 10 percent law for automatic college admission would be limited to 60 percent of the incoming freshmen class at state universities under legislation tentatively approved Tuesday by the Senate.
The measure – pushed for by University of Texas officials – was approved despite warnings from some senators that it could depress minority enrollment at the University of Texas at Austin and other top schools.
But Sen. Florence Shapiro, R-Plano, author of the bill, rejected that argument, saying that UT and other universities will be watched closely to make sure that the percentage of minority students does not decline. If it does, she said, lawmakers could take corrective action.
The measure was tentatively approved on a 22-8 vote, with most of the no votes cast by Democrats.
In asking for support of the bill, Shapiro said UT-Austin is the only state institution now affected by the law, but in the next few years it is also expected to restrict student admissions at Texas A&M University and UT-Dallas.
The senator said 81 percent of incoming freshmen at UT-Austin last fall were admitted under the top 10 percent requirement, shutting out large numbers of other qualified students – many with higher SAT scores than those who were accepted.
Full Story: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/032509dntextop10percentlaw.69b1cd3c.html
The National Urban League Issues State of Black America 2009 "Message to the President"
The National Urban League
Executive Summary
State of Black America® 2009
Message to the President
With the 2009 Equality Index™Executive SummaryAt the dawn of Barack Obama’s historic presidency, the National Urban League’s The State of Black America 2009 examines the critical challenges —such as unemployment, home foreclosures, education and health care reform — his new administration must address. With a Foreword by Martin Luther King III, this volume – the 33rd edition - features essays and commentaries by leading scholars, analysts and practitioners, as well as ordinary citizens and offers its specific recommendations for effectively tackling these issues
The 2009 Equality Index™
As the Obama Administration ushers in a new era of hope, change, and to some extent, unity for this nation, many are asking whether racial barriers have now been erased in America. Are discrimination, division and inequality antiquated relics of the past? For a quick answer to that question, one has but to review some of the sobering statistics presented in the 2009 Equality Index. Ironically, even as an African-American man holds the highest office the country, African Americans remain twice as likely as whites to be unemployed, three times more likely to live in poverty and more than six times as likely to be incarcerated.The 2009 Equality Index stands at 71.1% compared to a revised 2008 index of 71.5%. Relative to 2008, the change in this year’s overall index was marginal, indicating a general continuation of the status quo. Economics remains the area with the greatest degree of inequality (from 57.6% in 2008 to 57.4% in 2009), followed by social justice (from 62.1% to 60.4%), health (from 73.3% to 74.4%), education (from 78.6% to 78.5%) and civic engagement (from 100.3% to 96.3%).
This year we also offer an analysis of some key economic statistics from the Equality Index – median household income, the poverty rate, the unemployment rate and the homeownership rate -- to compare the relative “success” of the two most recent economic expansions. The analysis shows that while important gains were made, both for blacks and whites, in each of these areas during the 1990s expansion, there was actually a loss of ground in median household income, poverty and homeownership during the 2001-2007 expansion, known as the jobless recovery.Finally, this year’s Equality Index provides an opportunity to examine observed trends in the indices of key indicators from four of the sub-sections of the index – economics, health, education and social justice – between the 2005 and 2009 Equality Index.Results were mixed in economics, with two indices showing a decline (poverty rate – from 42% to 33%; homeownership rate – from 64% to 63%) and two others showing improvement (median household income – from 61% to 65%; unemployment rate – from 43% to 51%).In education, attainment and enrollment data suggest that although achievement in these areas is similar for blacks and whites, over the observed period, there has been a growing, rather than a diminishing, gap.There were some improvements in the health insurance gap overall (2 percentage points) and for children (3 percentage points) with the most ground being made among uninsured African American children who went from almost 14 percent to 12 percent.Under the heading of social justice, the incarceration rate declined for both whites and African Americans, resulting in a 3 percentage point increase in the incarceration rate index. A decline in prisoners as a percentage of arrests for African Americans (-1.7 percentage points) also contributed to a 3 percentage point increase in the index for this variable.
Full Executive Summary: http://www.nul.org/thestateofblackamerica.html
Executive Summary
State of Black America® 2009
Message to the President
With the 2009 Equality Index™Executive SummaryAt the dawn of Barack Obama’s historic presidency, the National Urban League’s The State of Black America 2009 examines the critical challenges —such as unemployment, home foreclosures, education and health care reform — his new administration must address. With a Foreword by Martin Luther King III, this volume – the 33rd edition - features essays and commentaries by leading scholars, analysts and practitioners, as well as ordinary citizens and offers its specific recommendations for effectively tackling these issues
The 2009 Equality Index™
As the Obama Administration ushers in a new era of hope, change, and to some extent, unity for this nation, many are asking whether racial barriers have now been erased in America. Are discrimination, division and inequality antiquated relics of the past? For a quick answer to that question, one has but to review some of the sobering statistics presented in the 2009 Equality Index. Ironically, even as an African-American man holds the highest office the country, African Americans remain twice as likely as whites to be unemployed, three times more likely to live in poverty and more than six times as likely to be incarcerated.The 2009 Equality Index stands at 71.1% compared to a revised 2008 index of 71.5%. Relative to 2008, the change in this year’s overall index was marginal, indicating a general continuation of the status quo. Economics remains the area with the greatest degree of inequality (from 57.6% in 2008 to 57.4% in 2009), followed by social justice (from 62.1% to 60.4%), health (from 73.3% to 74.4%), education (from 78.6% to 78.5%) and civic engagement (from 100.3% to 96.3%).
This year we also offer an analysis of some key economic statistics from the Equality Index – median household income, the poverty rate, the unemployment rate and the homeownership rate -- to compare the relative “success” of the two most recent economic expansions. The analysis shows that while important gains were made, both for blacks and whites, in each of these areas during the 1990s expansion, there was actually a loss of ground in median household income, poverty and homeownership during the 2001-2007 expansion, known as the jobless recovery.Finally, this year’s Equality Index provides an opportunity to examine observed trends in the indices of key indicators from four of the sub-sections of the index – economics, health, education and social justice – between the 2005 and 2009 Equality Index.Results were mixed in economics, with two indices showing a decline (poverty rate – from 42% to 33%; homeownership rate – from 64% to 63%) and two others showing improvement (median household income – from 61% to 65%; unemployment rate – from 43% to 51%).In education, attainment and enrollment data suggest that although achievement in these areas is similar for blacks and whites, over the observed period, there has been a growing, rather than a diminishing, gap.There were some improvements in the health insurance gap overall (2 percentage points) and for children (3 percentage points) with the most ground being made among uninsured African American children who went from almost 14 percent to 12 percent.Under the heading of social justice, the incarceration rate declined for both whites and African Americans, resulting in a 3 percentage point increase in the incarceration rate index. A decline in prisoners as a percentage of arrests for African Americans (-1.7 percentage points) also contributed to a 3 percentage point increase in the index for this variable.
Full Executive Summary: http://www.nul.org/thestateofblackamerica.html
Report sees 'sobering statistics' on racial inequality
CNN.COM
updated 12:25 p.m. EDT, Wed March 25, 2009
Story Highlights
Urban League report: Racial inequality persists despite President Obama's election
Compared with whites, blacks remain twice as likely to be unemployed
Report says blacks are three times more likely to live in poverty
Economics creates the largest split between the races, the report says
(CNN) -- Social and economic gaps between whites and blacks persist in the United States despite an atmosphere that led to the election of President Obama, an Urban League report said.
Blacks remain twice as likely to be unemployed, three times more likely to live in poverty and more than six times as likely to be imprisoned compared with whites, according to the group's annual State of Black America report issued Wednesday.
The report urges Obama to tackle the critical challenges of the times, including unemployment, home foreclosures, education and an overhaul of health care.
"As the Obama administration ushers in a new era of hope, change, and to some extent, unity for this nation, many are asking whether racial barriers have now been erased in America," the report said. "Are discrimination, division and inequality antiquated relics of the past? For a quick answer to that question, one has but to review some of the sobering statistics."
The Urban League's equality index shows the status of blacks at 71 percent that of whites. It said that economics "remains the area with the greatest degree of inequality," with social justice, health and education following.
"The analysis shows that while important gains were made, both for blacks and whites, in each of these areas during the 1990s expansion, there was actually a loss of ground in median household income, poverty and home ownership during the 2001-2007 expansion, known as the jobless recovery," the report's executive summary said.
The report contains essays touching on a variety of themes and issues.
One, from Gwendolyn Grant of the Urban League of Greater Kansas City, warns that the "historic" election of Obama, the nation's first black president, "may cause us to fall prey to a false sense of accomplishment and self-satisfaction, and that apathy and complacency may set in."
"We must use this moment to reinvigorate the movement and re-engage the nation in a struggle to finish the job of equality, liberty and justice for all. So as we move past this historic moment, let us not repeat the history of our greatest popular movements and allow injustice to prevail, simply because a black family lives in the White House."
Full Story: http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/03/25/black.america.report/index.html
updated 12:25 p.m. EDT, Wed March 25, 2009
Story Highlights
Urban League report: Racial inequality persists despite President Obama's election
Compared with whites, blacks remain twice as likely to be unemployed
Report says blacks are three times more likely to live in poverty
Economics creates the largest split between the races, the report says
(CNN) -- Social and economic gaps between whites and blacks persist in the United States despite an atmosphere that led to the election of President Obama, an Urban League report said.
Blacks remain twice as likely to be unemployed, three times more likely to live in poverty and more than six times as likely to be imprisoned compared with whites, according to the group's annual State of Black America report issued Wednesday.
The report urges Obama to tackle the critical challenges of the times, including unemployment, home foreclosures, education and an overhaul of health care.
"As the Obama administration ushers in a new era of hope, change, and to some extent, unity for this nation, many are asking whether racial barriers have now been erased in America," the report said. "Are discrimination, division and inequality antiquated relics of the past? For a quick answer to that question, one has but to review some of the sobering statistics."
The Urban League's equality index shows the status of blacks at 71 percent that of whites. It said that economics "remains the area with the greatest degree of inequality," with social justice, health and education following.
"The analysis shows that while important gains were made, both for blacks and whites, in each of these areas during the 1990s expansion, there was actually a loss of ground in median household income, poverty and home ownership during the 2001-2007 expansion, known as the jobless recovery," the report's executive summary said.
The report contains essays touching on a variety of themes and issues.
One, from Gwendolyn Grant of the Urban League of Greater Kansas City, warns that the "historic" election of Obama, the nation's first black president, "may cause us to fall prey to a false sense of accomplishment and self-satisfaction, and that apathy and complacency may set in."
"We must use this moment to reinvigorate the movement and re-engage the nation in a struggle to finish the job of equality, liberty and justice for all. So as we move past this historic moment, let us not repeat the history of our greatest popular movements and allow injustice to prevail, simply because a black family lives in the White House."
Full Story: http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/03/25/black.america.report/index.html
Historian John Hope Franklin dies
Detroit News.com
Martha Waggoner / Associated Press
RALEIGH, N.C. -- John Hope Franklin, a revered Duke University historian and scholar of life in the South and the African-American experience in the United States, died Wednesday. He was 94.
Duke spokesman David Jarmul said Franklin died of congestive heart failure at the university's hospital in Durham.
Born and raised in an all-black community in Oklahoma where he was often subjected to humiliating incidents of racism, he was later instrumental in bringing down the legal and historical validations of such a world.
As an author, his book "From Slavery to Freedom" was a landmark integration of black history into American history. As a scholar, his research helped Thurgood Marshall win Brown v. Board of Education, the 1954 case that outlawed the doctrine of "separate but equal" in the nation's public schools.
"It was evident how much the lawyers appreciated what the historians could offer," Franklin later wrote. "For me, and I suspect the same was true for the others, it was exhilarating."
Franklin broke numerous color barriers. He was the first black department chair at a predominantly white institution, Brooklyn College; the first black professor to hold an endowed chair at Duke University; and the first black president of the American Historical Association.
Above all, he documented how blacks had lived and served alongside whites from the nation's birth. Black patriots fought at Lexington and Concord, Franklin pointed out in "From Slavery to Freedom," published in 1947. They crossed the Delaware with Washington and explored with Lewis and Clark. The text sold million of copies and remains required reading in college classrooms.
Late in life, Franklin chaired President Clinton's Initiative on Race and received more than 100 honorary degrees, the NAACP's Spingarn Award and the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation's highest civilian honor.
As he aged, Franklin spent more time in the greenhouse behind his home, where he nursed orchids, than in library stacks. He fell in love with the flowers because "they're full of challenges, mystery" -- the same reasons he fell in love with history.
In June, Franklin had a small role in the movie based on the book "Blood Done Signed My Name," about the public slaying of black man in Oxford in 1970. The book's author, Tim Tyson, said at the time he wanted Franklin in the movie "because of his dignity and his shining intelligence."
Franklin attended historically black Fisk University, where he met Aurelia Whittington, who would be his wife, editor and rock for 58 years until her death in 1999. He planned to follow his father into law, but the lively lectures of a white professor, Ted Currier, convinced him history was his field. Currier borrowed $500 to send Franklin to Harvard University for graduate studies.
Full Story: http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090325/NATION/903250468/1020/Historian+John+Hope+Franklin+dies
Martha Waggoner / Associated Press
RALEIGH, N.C. -- John Hope Franklin, a revered Duke University historian and scholar of life in the South and the African-American experience in the United States, died Wednesday. He was 94.
Duke spokesman David Jarmul said Franklin died of congestive heart failure at the university's hospital in Durham.
Born and raised in an all-black community in Oklahoma where he was often subjected to humiliating incidents of racism, he was later instrumental in bringing down the legal and historical validations of such a world.
As an author, his book "From Slavery to Freedom" was a landmark integration of black history into American history. As a scholar, his research helped Thurgood Marshall win Brown v. Board of Education, the 1954 case that outlawed the doctrine of "separate but equal" in the nation's public schools.
"It was evident how much the lawyers appreciated what the historians could offer," Franklin later wrote. "For me, and I suspect the same was true for the others, it was exhilarating."
Franklin broke numerous color barriers. He was the first black department chair at a predominantly white institution, Brooklyn College; the first black professor to hold an endowed chair at Duke University; and the first black president of the American Historical Association.
Above all, he documented how blacks had lived and served alongside whites from the nation's birth. Black patriots fought at Lexington and Concord, Franklin pointed out in "From Slavery to Freedom," published in 1947. They crossed the Delaware with Washington and explored with Lewis and Clark. The text sold million of copies and remains required reading in college classrooms.
Late in life, Franklin chaired President Clinton's Initiative on Race and received more than 100 honorary degrees, the NAACP's Spingarn Award and the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation's highest civilian honor.
As he aged, Franklin spent more time in the greenhouse behind his home, where he nursed orchids, than in library stacks. He fell in love with the flowers because "they're full of challenges, mystery" -- the same reasons he fell in love with history.
In June, Franklin had a small role in the movie based on the book "Blood Done Signed My Name," about the public slaying of black man in Oxford in 1970. The book's author, Tim Tyson, said at the time he wanted Franklin in the movie "because of his dignity and his shining intelligence."
Franklin attended historically black Fisk University, where he met Aurelia Whittington, who would be his wife, editor and rock for 58 years until her death in 1999. He planned to follow his father into law, but the lively lectures of a white professor, Ted Currier, convinced him history was his field. Currier borrowed $500 to send Franklin to Harvard University for graduate studies.
Full Story: http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090325/NATION/903250468/1020/Historian+John+Hope+Franklin+dies
Monday, March 23, 2009
The Wealth Gap Gets Wider
The Washington Post
By Meizhu Lui
Monday, March 23, 2009; A15
The chips are in.
Every three years, the Federal Reserve, in its Survey of Consumer Finances, takes a look at how U.S. households are doing and reports on our assets and liabilities. The euphoria of our gambling spree is over. In the harsh glare of morning, the hangover is tough. And the latest data are from 2007, so they don't even capture the worst of the decline.
The net worth of the average American family is less than it was in 2001. We borrowed more for that trip to Vegas than we brought home. Everyone knows this now.
But here's something being talked about much less: The gap between the wealth of white Americans and African Americans has grown. According to the Fed, for every dollar of wealth held by the typical white family, the African American family has only one dime. In 2004, it had 12 cents.
This is not just a gap. It's a deepening canyon.
The overhyped political term "post-racial society" becomes patently absurd when looking at these economic numbers. This week, experts on asset building in communities of color are meeting with members of Congress to talk about closing the wealth gap. While the government is rescuing failing financial institutions as a short-term measure, those at the two-day Color of Wealth Policy Summit will make the case that the nation's long-term economic future depends on the inclusion of all Americans in opportunities to build wealth.
Why such a big gap? The biggest predictor of the future economic status of a child is the net worth of the child's parents. Even modest inheritances or gifts within a parent's lifetime -- such as paying for college or providing the down payment on a home -- can give a child a lift up the economic ladder. And historically, white families have enjoyed more government support and tax-paid subsidies for their asset-building activities.
Let's look at the rules of the game in homeownership, for example.
During the Depression, the Home Owners' Loan Corp. was formed to rescue families whose homes were in foreclosure. Not a single loan went to a family of color. The black section of Detroit was simply excluded. After World War II, GIs received government-subsidized home mortgages, but there was no oversight to ensure that soldiers of color got their fair share. Of the 67,000 mortgages issued under the GI Bill in New York and northern New Jersey, 66,900 went to white veterans, as documented in Ira Katznelson's "When Affirmative Action Was White."
Full Story: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/22/AR2009032201506.html
By Meizhu Lui
Monday, March 23, 2009; A15
The chips are in.
Every three years, the Federal Reserve, in its Survey of Consumer Finances, takes a look at how U.S. households are doing and reports on our assets and liabilities. The euphoria of our gambling spree is over. In the harsh glare of morning, the hangover is tough. And the latest data are from 2007, so they don't even capture the worst of the decline.
The net worth of the average American family is less than it was in 2001. We borrowed more for that trip to Vegas than we brought home. Everyone knows this now.
But here's something being talked about much less: The gap between the wealth of white Americans and African Americans has grown. According to the Fed, for every dollar of wealth held by the typical white family, the African American family has only one dime. In 2004, it had 12 cents.
This is not just a gap. It's a deepening canyon.
The overhyped political term "post-racial society" becomes patently absurd when looking at these economic numbers. This week, experts on asset building in communities of color are meeting with members of Congress to talk about closing the wealth gap. While the government is rescuing failing financial institutions as a short-term measure, those at the two-day Color of Wealth Policy Summit will make the case that the nation's long-term economic future depends on the inclusion of all Americans in opportunities to build wealth.
Why such a big gap? The biggest predictor of the future economic status of a child is the net worth of the child's parents. Even modest inheritances or gifts within a parent's lifetime -- such as paying for college or providing the down payment on a home -- can give a child a lift up the economic ladder. And historically, white families have enjoyed more government support and tax-paid subsidies for their asset-building activities.
Let's look at the rules of the game in homeownership, for example.
During the Depression, the Home Owners' Loan Corp. was formed to rescue families whose homes were in foreclosure. Not a single loan went to a family of color. The black section of Detroit was simply excluded. After World War II, GIs received government-subsidized home mortgages, but there was no oversight to ensure that soldiers of color got their fair share. Of the 67,000 mortgages issued under the GI Bill in New York and northern New Jersey, 66,900 went to white veterans, as documented in Ira Katznelson's "When Affirmative Action Was White."
Full Story: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/22/AR2009032201506.html
Affirmative-Action Programs for Minority Students: Right in Theory, Wrong in Practice
By CAMILLE Z. CHARLES, MARY J. FISCHER, MARGARITA A. MOONEY and DOUGLAS S. MASSEY
The use of race-sensitive criteria in admissions continues to be controversial, and critics have leveled three basic charges against it.
For one, opponents say the practice constitutes reverse discrimination, lowering the chance of admission for better-qualified white students. They also contend that it creates a mismatch between the skills of minority students and the abilities required for success at selective institutions, setting those students up for academic problems. And they claim that it stigmatizes minority students as less than fully qualified, which results in demoralization and substandard performance, when in fact those students may be well qualified.
The first criticism has not stood up to empirical scrutiny. In fact, studies show that affirmative action generally has had only small and insignificant effects on the admission prospects of white students. The second criticism, or "mismatch hypothesis," also has not been supported by hard data. For example, in their research for The Shape of the River: Long-Term Consequences of Considering Race in College and University Admissions (1998), William G. Bowen and Derek Bok found that black students who attended selective institutions were more likely to graduate than their counterparts at less-selective institutions.
The third argument, however, merits further consideration. If white students believe that many of their black peers would not be at a college were it not for affirmative action and, more important, if black students perceive whites to believe that, then affirmative action may indeed undermine minority-group members' academic performance by heightening the social stigma they already experience because of race or ethnicity. In addition, we have uncovered a fourth possibility: the idea that affirmative action exacerbates the psychological burdens that minority students must carry on campuses. Those who feel threatened because they have internalized negative beliefs about their group will find that they feel even more so if they themselves fall below the institutional norm for SAT performance. Likewise, those who feel they are representing their race every time they are called on to perform academically will have a heightened sense of responsibility, or what we call a "subjective performance burden," when their group's average SAT score is known to be well below that of other students at the institution. Given the plethora of guides that publish institutional average SAT scores, a person from a minority group may well be aware that his or her score is below the usual level for the institution. In addition, students can observe a gap between groups either directly, because the data are often published online or by a college rating service, or indirectly, because group differences can sometimes be apparent in class.
We have based our views on extensive research that we've conducted to gauge the effects of affirmative action on academic performance. We have used SAT scores to measure the impact of affirmative action not because they are ideal, but because they offer a practical method that can be applied across groups and institutions. (One must devise some operational measure by which students from extremely diverse backgrounds can be compared, and despite vocal criticisms, the SAT remains a staple of the admissions process.) In essence, we take the critics at their word and reason that if admissions standards have indeed been "loosened" to facilitate the entry of underrepresented minorities, then we would expect a gap in SAT scores between minority-group members and other students.
To measure affirmative action at the individual level, we computed the difference between the SAT scores earned by specific black and Latino students and the institutional average at 28 colleges and universities. According to our calculations, 84 percent of black students had test scores below their institutions' averages, compared with around 66 percent of Hispanics. Such results assume that minority-group SAT scores fall below the institutional average because admissions officers trade off test scores against other criteria associated with their desire to recruit more minority students — the essence of affirmative action.
Full Story: http://chronicle.com/weekly/v55/i29/29a02901.htm?utm_source=at&utm_medium=en
The use of race-sensitive criteria in admissions continues to be controversial, and critics have leveled three basic charges against it.
For one, opponents say the practice constitutes reverse discrimination, lowering the chance of admission for better-qualified white students. They also contend that it creates a mismatch between the skills of minority students and the abilities required for success at selective institutions, setting those students up for academic problems. And they claim that it stigmatizes minority students as less than fully qualified, which results in demoralization and substandard performance, when in fact those students may be well qualified.
The first criticism has not stood up to empirical scrutiny. In fact, studies show that affirmative action generally has had only small and insignificant effects on the admission prospects of white students. The second criticism, or "mismatch hypothesis," also has not been supported by hard data. For example, in their research for The Shape of the River: Long-Term Consequences of Considering Race in College and University Admissions (1998), William G. Bowen and Derek Bok found that black students who attended selective institutions were more likely to graduate than their counterparts at less-selective institutions.
The third argument, however, merits further consideration. If white students believe that many of their black peers would not be at a college were it not for affirmative action and, more important, if black students perceive whites to believe that, then affirmative action may indeed undermine minority-group members' academic performance by heightening the social stigma they already experience because of race or ethnicity. In addition, we have uncovered a fourth possibility: the idea that affirmative action exacerbates the psychological burdens that minority students must carry on campuses. Those who feel threatened because they have internalized negative beliefs about their group will find that they feel even more so if they themselves fall below the institutional norm for SAT performance. Likewise, those who feel they are representing their race every time they are called on to perform academically will have a heightened sense of responsibility, or what we call a "subjective performance burden," when their group's average SAT score is known to be well below that of other students at the institution. Given the plethora of guides that publish institutional average SAT scores, a person from a minority group may well be aware that his or her score is below the usual level for the institution. In addition, students can observe a gap between groups either directly, because the data are often published online or by a college rating service, or indirectly, because group differences can sometimes be apparent in class.
We have based our views on extensive research that we've conducted to gauge the effects of affirmative action on academic performance. We have used SAT scores to measure the impact of affirmative action not because they are ideal, but because they offer a practical method that can be applied across groups and institutions. (One must devise some operational measure by which students from extremely diverse backgrounds can be compared, and despite vocal criticisms, the SAT remains a staple of the admissions process.) In essence, we take the critics at their word and reason that if admissions standards have indeed been "loosened" to facilitate the entry of underrepresented minorities, then we would expect a gap in SAT scores between minority-group members and other students.
To measure affirmative action at the individual level, we computed the difference between the SAT scores earned by specific black and Latino students and the institutional average at 28 colleges and universities. According to our calculations, 84 percent of black students had test scores below their institutions' averages, compared with around 66 percent of Hispanics. Such results assume that minority-group SAT scores fall below the institutional average because admissions officers trade off test scores against other criteria associated with their desire to recruit more minority students — the essence of affirmative action.
Full Story: http://chronicle.com/weekly/v55/i29/29a02901.htm?utm_source=at&utm_medium=en
Multiracial Pupils to Be Counted in A New Way
Washington Post
By Michael Alison Chandler and Maria Glod
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, March 23, 2009; A01
Public schools in the Washington region and elsewhere are abandoning their check-one-box approach to gathering information about race and ethnicity in an effort to develop a more accurate portrait of classrooms transformed by immigration and interracial marriage. Next year, they will begin a separate count of students who are of more than one race.
For many families in the District, Montgomery and other local counties that have felt forced to deny a part of their children's heritage, the new way of counting, mandated by the federal government, represents a long-awaited acknowledgment of their identity: Enrollment forms will allow students to identify as both white and American Indian, for example, or black and Asian. But changing labels will make it harder to monitor progress of groups that have trailed in school, including black and Hispanic students.
Racial and ethnic information, collected when children register for school, can inform school board decisions on reading programs, discipline procedures or admissions policies for gifted classes. The government looks at test scores of minority groups to help determine whether schools make the grade under the No Child Left Behind law. In an increasingly data-driven culture, educators also scrutinize such test scores and enrollment figures to pick programs meant to narrow achievement gaps and equalize academic opportunity.
Under the new policy, the count of Hispanic students is expected to grow as the non-Hispanic black and white counts diminish. Many will fall into a new group called "two or more races." In schools with diverse populations, especially in such immigrant destinations as the Washington region, there are likely to be notable demographic shifts, at least on paper. That could shake up how educational challenges are measured and reroute funding for reforms.
"This will make our whole education system look different, and nobody will know whether we are going forward or backward," said Gary Orfield, co-director of the Civil Rights Project at the University of California in Los Angeles. Along with the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and other groups, the Civil Rights Project has raised concerns about how the Education Department will handle the new data.
Full Story: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/22/AR2009032202211.html
By Michael Alison Chandler and Maria Glod
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, March 23, 2009; A01
Public schools in the Washington region and elsewhere are abandoning their check-one-box approach to gathering information about race and ethnicity in an effort to develop a more accurate portrait of classrooms transformed by immigration and interracial marriage. Next year, they will begin a separate count of students who are of more than one race.
For many families in the District, Montgomery and other local counties that have felt forced to deny a part of their children's heritage, the new way of counting, mandated by the federal government, represents a long-awaited acknowledgment of their identity: Enrollment forms will allow students to identify as both white and American Indian, for example, or black and Asian. But changing labels will make it harder to monitor progress of groups that have trailed in school, including black and Hispanic students.
Racial and ethnic information, collected when children register for school, can inform school board decisions on reading programs, discipline procedures or admissions policies for gifted classes. The government looks at test scores of minority groups to help determine whether schools make the grade under the No Child Left Behind law. In an increasingly data-driven culture, educators also scrutinize such test scores and enrollment figures to pick programs meant to narrow achievement gaps and equalize academic opportunity.
Under the new policy, the count of Hispanic students is expected to grow as the non-Hispanic black and white counts diminish. Many will fall into a new group called "two or more races." In schools with diverse populations, especially in such immigrant destinations as the Washington region, there are likely to be notable demographic shifts, at least on paper. That could shake up how educational challenges are measured and reroute funding for reforms.
"This will make our whole education system look different, and nobody will know whether we are going forward or backward," said Gary Orfield, co-director of the Civil Rights Project at the University of California in Los Angeles. Along with the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and other groups, the Civil Rights Project has raised concerns about how the Education Department will handle the new data.
Full Story: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/22/AR2009032202211.html
Sunday, March 22, 2009
UNITED AIRLINES TO PAY $850,000 FOR DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
United’s Policy Denied Employees With Disabilities Opportunity to Work Overtime, EEOC Charged
PRESS RELEASE
3-16-09
SAN FRANCISCO — United Airlines has agreed to settle a federal lawsuit alleging that the Chicago-based company’s overtime policy violated the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced today. According to the EEOC’s suit and settlement (CV 09 0784 EMC) filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Northern California, United will pay $850,000 to a class of employees with disabilities and has agreed not to enforce such a policy in the future.
The suit arose from a charge filed by Samuel Chetcuti, a storekeeper working for United at the San Francisco International Airport. The EEOC’s suit asserted that United’s policy of denying the opportunity to work overtime to anyone placed on light or limited duty had greater repercussions for employees with disabilities, since these workers were more likely to be assigned to light duty. For example, Chetcuti, who has epilepsy, was under medical restrictions that prevented him from operating heavy machinery and working at heights, but did not restrict the number of hours a week he could work. Chetcuti was given light duty for his regular work schedule, and as a result, United had barred him from an overtime schedule despite the fact that he was medically cleared to work overtime.
EEOC San Francisco Regional Attorney William R. Tamayo said, “This blanket policy barring employees working with restrictions from overtime work had a disproportionate impact on workers with disabilities. It runs counter to the ADA’s goal that each employee be evaluated individually on whether they can get the job done, with or without an accommodation. We appreciate that United Airlines has agreed to settle this case and rescind this policy.”
The settlement also requires United to notify all current and former employees at the San Francisco Airport who were subject to the rescinded policy and invite them to submit claims to share in the $850,000. Claims may also be submitted to EEOC attorney David Offen-Brown at 350 The Embarcadero, Suite 500, San Francisco, CA 94105 or david.offen-brown@eeoc.gov.
Chetcuti said, "This is good for all United workers. If your doctor has cleared you to work overtime, then you should be able to work those hours whether or not you’re on light duty. I appreciate the EEOC's efforts in making this happen."
EEOC San Francisco District Director Michael Baldonado added, “Disability does not mean inability. The ADA encourages us all to focus on opening doors to all a worker can do and discourages the closing of doors through restrictive stereotypes about disabilities, such as what you may think that person cannot do.”
According to www.united.com, United Airlines (NASDAQ: UAUA) is one of the largest international carriers based in the United States, with 52,000 employees worldwide and operating nearly 3,000 flights a day to more than 200 U.S. domestic and international destinations from its hubs in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Denver, Chicago and Washington, D.C.
The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.
United’s Policy Denied Employees With Disabilities Opportunity to Work Overtime, EEOC Charged
PRESS RELEASE
3-16-09
SAN FRANCISCO — United Airlines has agreed to settle a federal lawsuit alleging that the Chicago-based company’s overtime policy violated the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced today. According to the EEOC’s suit and settlement (CV 09 0784 EMC) filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Northern California, United will pay $850,000 to a class of employees with disabilities and has agreed not to enforce such a policy in the future.
The suit arose from a charge filed by Samuel Chetcuti, a storekeeper working for United at the San Francisco International Airport. The EEOC’s suit asserted that United’s policy of denying the opportunity to work overtime to anyone placed on light or limited duty had greater repercussions for employees with disabilities, since these workers were more likely to be assigned to light duty. For example, Chetcuti, who has epilepsy, was under medical restrictions that prevented him from operating heavy machinery and working at heights, but did not restrict the number of hours a week he could work. Chetcuti was given light duty for his regular work schedule, and as a result, United had barred him from an overtime schedule despite the fact that he was medically cleared to work overtime.
EEOC San Francisco Regional Attorney William R. Tamayo said, “This blanket policy barring employees working with restrictions from overtime work had a disproportionate impact on workers with disabilities. It runs counter to the ADA’s goal that each employee be evaluated individually on whether they can get the job done, with or without an accommodation. We appreciate that United Airlines has agreed to settle this case and rescind this policy.”
The settlement also requires United to notify all current and former employees at the San Francisco Airport who were subject to the rescinded policy and invite them to submit claims to share in the $850,000. Claims may also be submitted to EEOC attorney David Offen-Brown at 350 The Embarcadero, Suite 500, San Francisco, CA 94105 or david.offen-brown@eeoc.gov.
Chetcuti said, "This is good for all United workers. If your doctor has cleared you to work overtime, then you should be able to work those hours whether or not you’re on light duty. I appreciate the EEOC's efforts in making this happen."
EEOC San Francisco District Director Michael Baldonado added, “Disability does not mean inability. The ADA encourages us all to focus on opening doors to all a worker can do and discourages the closing of doors through restrictive stereotypes about disabilities, such as what you may think that person cannot do.”
According to www.united.com, United Airlines (NASDAQ: UAUA) is one of the largest international carriers based in the United States, with 52,000 employees worldwide and operating nearly 3,000 flights a day to more than 200 U.S. domestic and international destinations from its hubs in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Denver, Chicago and Washington, D.C.
The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
UPDATE: California Court of Appeals Upholds Berkeley School Plan
the Defenders Online
NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.
Posted By The Editors March 17th, 2009
The California Court of Appeals today upheld the Berkeley public schools student assignment plan that aims to create a diverse student population in each of the city’s schools by taking into account the demographic character of the neighborhoods where students live. The plan, which was supported by the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF), which filed a friend-of-the-court brief with the Court of Appeals, assigned students to elementary schools on the basis of their family’s residential location and parental educational level, family income and race and/or ethnicity.
John Payton, LDF President and Director-Counsel called the ruling “an important victory for those who understand the importance of a diverse learning environment and believe that opportunity should be equally afforded to all.”
The Court’s opinion got to the point right away, stating: “We conclude that the particular policy challenged here — which aims to achieve social diversity by using neighborhood demographics when assigning students to schools — is not discriminatory. The challenged policy does not use racial classifications; in fact, it does not consider an individual student’s race at all when assigning the student to a school. Instead, the assignment policy looks at the student’s residential neighborhood, and considers the average household income in the neighborhood, the average education level of adults residing in the neighborhood, and the racial composition of the neighborhood as a whole. Every student within a given neighborhood receives the same treatment, regardless of his or her individual race. We find that educators who include a general recognition of the demographics of neighborhoods in student assignments, without classifying a student by his or her race, do not ‘discriminate against, nor grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race.’”
Full Post:
http://thedefendersonline.com/2009/03/17/update-california-court-of-appeals-upholds-berkeley-school-plan/
NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.
Posted By The Editors March 17th, 2009
The California Court of Appeals today upheld the Berkeley public schools student assignment plan that aims to create a diverse student population in each of the city’s schools by taking into account the demographic character of the neighborhoods where students live. The plan, which was supported by the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF), which filed a friend-of-the-court brief with the Court of Appeals, assigned students to elementary schools on the basis of their family’s residential location and parental educational level, family income and race and/or ethnicity.
John Payton, LDF President and Director-Counsel called the ruling “an important victory for those who understand the importance of a diverse learning environment and believe that opportunity should be equally afforded to all.”
The Court’s opinion got to the point right away, stating: “We conclude that the particular policy challenged here — which aims to achieve social diversity by using neighborhood demographics when assigning students to schools — is not discriminatory. The challenged policy does not use racial classifications; in fact, it does not consider an individual student’s race at all when assigning the student to a school. Instead, the assignment policy looks at the student’s residential neighborhood, and considers the average household income in the neighborhood, the average education level of adults residing in the neighborhood, and the racial composition of the neighborhood as a whole. Every student within a given neighborhood receives the same treatment, regardless of his or her individual race. We find that educators who include a general recognition of the demographics of neighborhoods in student assignments, without classifying a student by his or her race, do not ‘discriminate against, nor grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race.’”
Full Post:
http://thedefendersonline.com/2009/03/17/update-california-court-of-appeals-upholds-berkeley-school-plan/
Panel advises Brown to join with Providence and Rhode Island in memoralizing the slave trade
Projo.com
07:36 AM EDT on Wednesday, March 18, 2009
By Paul Davis
Journal Staff Writer
PROVIDENCE — More than 240 years ago, John and Moses Brown financed a slave ship bound for Africa. They also poured money into Brown University in Providence. Slaves worked on the first building, now University Hall.
Yesterday, Brown University said it will recognize its slave trade past through a new memorial modeled on monuments and sites in New York City, Montgomery, Ala., and Liverpool, England.
But the memorial may not be built on the Ivy League school’s Providence campus.
Both Newport and Bristol played major roles in the slave trade, which continued into the early 1800s, long after the state outlawed it. Many reminders of the trade –– former auction sites, Colonial homes and Newport’s slave cemetery –– remain, Brown’s Commission on Memorials said.
“It may be appropriate, in memorializing Rhode Island’s role in the trade, to look beyond Brown’s immediate neighborhood,” the commission said.
For more than 75 years, Rhode Island ruled the American slave trade. Its merchants financed at least 1,000 voyages to Africa and helped enslave more than 100,000 men, women and children.
Slave ownership was also prevalent in the state. Before the Revolution, a third of all Newporters owned at least one slave. Slaves also worked on the large farms in Washington County.
Full Story: http://www.projo.com/news/content/BROWN_SLAVERY_REPORT_03-18-09_PODNBMK_v31.3a18e91.html#
For a copy of the Commission on Slavery and Justice Report, click here: http://brown.edu/Research/Slavery_Justice/report/index.html
07:36 AM EDT on Wednesday, March 18, 2009
By Paul Davis
Journal Staff Writer
PROVIDENCE — More than 240 years ago, John and Moses Brown financed a slave ship bound for Africa. They also poured money into Brown University in Providence. Slaves worked on the first building, now University Hall.
Yesterday, Brown University said it will recognize its slave trade past through a new memorial modeled on monuments and sites in New York City, Montgomery, Ala., and Liverpool, England.
But the memorial may not be built on the Ivy League school’s Providence campus.
Both Newport and Bristol played major roles in the slave trade, which continued into the early 1800s, long after the state outlawed it. Many reminders of the trade –– former auction sites, Colonial homes and Newport’s slave cemetery –– remain, Brown’s Commission on Memorials said.
“It may be appropriate, in memorializing Rhode Island’s role in the trade, to look beyond Brown’s immediate neighborhood,” the commission said.
For more than 75 years, Rhode Island ruled the American slave trade. Its merchants financed at least 1,000 voyages to Africa and helped enslave more than 100,000 men, women and children.
Slave ownership was also prevalent in the state. Before the Revolution, a third of all Newporters owned at least one slave. Slaves also worked on the large farms in Washington County.
Full Story: http://www.projo.com/news/content/BROWN_SLAVERY_REPORT_03-18-09_PODNBMK_v31.3a18e91.html#
For a copy of the Commission on Slavery and Justice Report, click here: http://brown.edu/Research/Slavery_Justice/report/index.html
U.S. to Sign United Nations ‘Gay Rights’ Declaration
CNS News.com
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
By Matthew Lee, Associated Press
Washington (AP) - The Obama administration will endorse a U.N. declaration calling for the worldwide decriminalization of homosexuality that then-President George W. Bush had refused to sign, The Associated Press has learned. U.S. officials said Tuesday they had notified the declaration's French sponsors that the administration wants to be added as a supporter. The Bush administration was criticized in December when it was the only western government that refused to sign on. The move was made after an interagency review of the Bush administration's position on the nonbinding document, which was signed by all 27 European Union members as well as Japan, Australia, Mexico and three dozen other countries, the officials said. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because Congress was still being notified of the decision. They said the administration had decided to sign the declaration to demonstrate that the United States supports human rights for all. "The United States is an outspoken defender of human rights and critic of human rights abuses around the world," said one official. "As such, we join with the other supporters of this statement and we will continue to remind countries of the importance of respecting the human rights of all people in all appropriate international fora," the official said.
Full Story: http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=45246
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
By Matthew Lee, Associated Press
Washington (AP) - The Obama administration will endorse a U.N. declaration calling for the worldwide decriminalization of homosexuality that then-President George W. Bush had refused to sign, The Associated Press has learned. U.S. officials said Tuesday they had notified the declaration's French sponsors that the administration wants to be added as a supporter. The Bush administration was criticized in December when it was the only western government that refused to sign on. The move was made after an interagency review of the Bush administration's position on the nonbinding document, which was signed by all 27 European Union members as well as Japan, Australia, Mexico and three dozen other countries, the officials said. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because Congress was still being notified of the decision. They said the administration had decided to sign the declaration to demonstrate that the United States supports human rights for all. "The United States is an outspoken defender of human rights and critic of human rights abuses around the world," said one official. "As such, we join with the other supporters of this statement and we will continue to remind countries of the importance of respecting the human rights of all people in all appropriate international fora," the official said.
Full Story: http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=45246
The Ties That Align
The Washington Post
Administration's Black Women Form A Strong Sisterhood
By Krissah Thompson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, March 18, 2009; C01
Like two old girlfriends catching up, they ignored onlookers, hugged and laughed.
Donna Brazile, the political strategist and Washington veteran, peppered Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson with questions.
"How are the kids?" "Have you contacted the church? I don't go every Sunday but they know me."
Before she left, Jackson had an open invitation to Brazile's place for home-cooked red beans and rice, served up every Monday night.
"The sisterhood in this town, there's deep history here," Jackson said.
The "Obama women" -- as African American women who've taken big jobs in his administration have been nicknamed -- mark another step in the long journey of black women from outsiders to gatekeepers in political Washington. They have quietly entered their jobs with little attention paid to the fact that they are the largest contingent of high-ranking black women to work for a president.
Many are firsts -- as in the first black woman to run the Domestic Policy Council, the first black EPA chief and the first black woman to be deputy chief of staff. Last week, Obama tapped Margaret (Peggy) Hamburg to lead the Food and Drug Administration. If confirmed, Hamburg -- who is biracial (her mother is African American, her father Jewish) -- will also be a first.
Seven of about three dozen senior positions on President Obama's team are filled by African American women. Veterans in town see them as part of the steady evolution of power for black women, not only in the White House but also across the country -- in the business world, in academia, in policy circles.
Full Story: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/17/AR2009031703744.html
Administration's Black Women Form A Strong Sisterhood
By Krissah Thompson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, March 18, 2009; C01
Like two old girlfriends catching up, they ignored onlookers, hugged and laughed.
Donna Brazile, the political strategist and Washington veteran, peppered Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson with questions.
"How are the kids?" "Have you contacted the church? I don't go every Sunday but they know me."
Before she left, Jackson had an open invitation to Brazile's place for home-cooked red beans and rice, served up every Monday night.
"The sisterhood in this town, there's deep history here," Jackson said.
The "Obama women" -- as African American women who've taken big jobs in his administration have been nicknamed -- mark another step in the long journey of black women from outsiders to gatekeepers in political Washington. They have quietly entered their jobs with little attention paid to the fact that they are the largest contingent of high-ranking black women to work for a president.
Many are firsts -- as in the first black woman to run the Domestic Policy Council, the first black EPA chief and the first black woman to be deputy chief of staff. Last week, Obama tapped Margaret (Peggy) Hamburg to lead the Food and Drug Administration. If confirmed, Hamburg -- who is biracial (her mother is African American, her father Jewish) -- will also be a first.
Seven of about three dozen senior positions on President Obama's team are filled by African American women. Veterans in town see them as part of the steady evolution of power for black women, not only in the White House but also across the country -- in the business world, in academia, in policy circles.
Full Story: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/17/AR2009031703744.html
Win for Anti-Bias Rules
Inside Higher Ed
March 18, 2009
A federal appeals court on Tuesday gave a major win to public universities and advocates for gay rights who have wanted to preserve in full the institutional anti-bias policies that bar discrimination based on sexual orientation.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled -- in a two-sentence decision -- that the Hastings College of Law of the University of California was within its rights to deny recognition to a branch of the Christian Legal Society. Hastings said that the student group's ban on members who engage in "unrepentant homosexual conduct" violated the law school's anti-bias policies. In turn, the Christian Legal Society argued that its First Amendment rights were being violated by the law school in that it was forcing the law students in the society to abandon their religious beliefs in return for recognition.
The appeals court's decision said simply this: "The parties stipulate that Hastings imposes an open membership rule on all student groups — all groups must accept all comers as voting members even if those individuals disagree with the mission of the group. The conditions on recognition are therefore viewpoint neutral and reasonable."
The court cited a ruling it issued last year upholding the right of a public school district in Washington State to deny recognition to a Bible study group whose members were required to hold certain beliefs. The student group sued, charging a denial of its religious rights. But the appeals court found that because the school district had blanket rules about discrimination -- and was not applying them in any different way to the Bible group -- the regulations were legitimate.
The Ninth Circuit's rulings -- in the Hastings case and the public school case -- may set the stage for the U.S. Supreme Court to consider the issues of public universities' right to bar discrimination and religious students' right to practice their beliefs. Advocates for gay rights have had high hopes for the Hastings case -- especially since they won the first round with a federal judge's ruling in 2006 in favor of the law school. Other courts have ruled in favor of the Christian groups on other campuses. In a case that is cited by supporters of the Christian Legal Society, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in 2005 ordered Southern Illinois University to recognize a chapter of the Christian Legal Society.
Full Story: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/03/18/hastings
March 18, 2009
A federal appeals court on Tuesday gave a major win to public universities and advocates for gay rights who have wanted to preserve in full the institutional anti-bias policies that bar discrimination based on sexual orientation.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled -- in a two-sentence decision -- that the Hastings College of Law of the University of California was within its rights to deny recognition to a branch of the Christian Legal Society. Hastings said that the student group's ban on members who engage in "unrepentant homosexual conduct" violated the law school's anti-bias policies. In turn, the Christian Legal Society argued that its First Amendment rights were being violated by the law school in that it was forcing the law students in the society to abandon their religious beliefs in return for recognition.
The appeals court's decision said simply this: "The parties stipulate that Hastings imposes an open membership rule on all student groups — all groups must accept all comers as voting members even if those individuals disagree with the mission of the group. The conditions on recognition are therefore viewpoint neutral and reasonable."
The court cited a ruling it issued last year upholding the right of a public school district in Washington State to deny recognition to a Bible study group whose members were required to hold certain beliefs. The student group sued, charging a denial of its religious rights. But the appeals court found that because the school district had blanket rules about discrimination -- and was not applying them in any different way to the Bible group -- the regulations were legitimate.
The Ninth Circuit's rulings -- in the Hastings case and the public school case -- may set the stage for the U.S. Supreme Court to consider the issues of public universities' right to bar discrimination and religious students' right to practice their beliefs. Advocates for gay rights have had high hopes for the Hastings case -- especially since they won the first round with a federal judge's ruling in 2006 in favor of the law school. Other courts have ruled in favor of the Christian groups on other campuses. In a case that is cited by supporters of the Christian Legal Society, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in 2005 ordered Southern Illinois University to recognize a chapter of the Christian Legal Society.
Full Story: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/03/18/hastings
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Budget Extends E-Verify Program Through September
Workforce Management
March 12, 2009
The federal budget signed by President Barack Obama on Wednesday, March 11, reauthorized the E-Verify immigration database through September 30.
An amendment to extend it five years didn’t make it into the final budget bill. E-Verify is a Web-based service for employers that checks information from I-9 forms against Homeland Security and Social Security Administration databases to verify whether a worker is legally eligible to work in the U.S.
Federal contractors will have to use E-Verify beginning May 21, under an executive order signed by then-President George W. Bush in June, according to the Department of Homeland Security.
The Society for Human Resource Management and other organizations have filed a lawsuit to stop the rule, arguing that such a mandate must come from Congress and that it could expose employers to more lawsuits from workers who feel they were discriminated against on the basis of race or national origin.
Full Story: http://www.workforce.com/section/00/article/26/24/52.php
March 12, 2009
The federal budget signed by President Barack Obama on Wednesday, March 11, reauthorized the E-Verify immigration database through September 30.
An amendment to extend it five years didn’t make it into the final budget bill. E-Verify is a Web-based service for employers that checks information from I-9 forms against Homeland Security and Social Security Administration databases to verify whether a worker is legally eligible to work in the U.S.
Federal contractors will have to use E-Verify beginning May 21, under an executive order signed by then-President George W. Bush in June, according to the Department of Homeland Security.
The Society for Human Resource Management and other organizations have filed a lawsuit to stop the rule, arguing that such a mandate must come from Congress and that it could expose employers to more lawsuits from workers who feel they were discriminated against on the basis of race or national origin.
Full Story: http://www.workforce.com/section/00/article/26/24/52.php
Black (Immigrant) Admissions Edge
Inside Higher Ed
March 17, 2009
The election of Barack Obama -- African American because of his African father, distinguishing him from how the phrase is commonly used -- has brought unprecedented attention to the diversity of backgrounds of those covered by the term. Within higher education, one of the more sensitive issues in discussion of admissions and affirmative action in recent years has been the relative success of immigrant black Americans compared to black people who have been in the United States for generations.
A new study has found that among high school graduates, “immigrant blacks” -- defined as those who immigrated to the United States or their children -- are significantly more likely than other black Americans to attend selective colleges. In fact, immigrant black Americans are more likely than white students to attend such colleges.
The research -- published in the journal Sociology of Education (abstract available here) -- is the second major study in two years to try to define the “advantage” of some black applicants to top college. In 2007, a team of researchers published a study in The American Journal of Education finding that while only about 13 percent of black people aged 18 or 19 in the United States are first- or second-generation immigrants, they made up 27 percent of black students at the selective colleges studied.
The new study focuses on the entire population of high school graduates to see where they go to college, comparing immigrant black people, “native-born blacks” (the authors’ terms for others), and white students. The authors are two assistant professors of sociology -- Pamela R. Bennett of Johns Hopkins University and Amy Lutz of Syracuse University. ...
While their study found success for non-immigrant black students in enrolling in some kinds of colleges, the authors note that the sector -- selective colleges -- in which this is less likely is also the sector most likely to lead to many kinds of high wage careers. More examination of the issue is needed, the authors write, to combat “continued socioeconomic inequality.”
That scholarly phrasing may not do justice to the tensions raised by such issues. In 2003, at a reunion of black alumni of Harvard University, Lani Guinier, a law professor, was quoted by The Boston Globe as raising the question of whether black students who are “voluntary immigrants” should be the beneficiaries of affirmative action.
"If you look around Harvard College today, how many young people will you find who grew up in urban environments and went to public high schools and public junior high schools?" she said. "I don't think, in the name of affirmative action, we should be admitting people because they look like us, but then they don't identify with us."
Full Story: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/03/17/immigrant
March 17, 2009
The election of Barack Obama -- African American because of his African father, distinguishing him from how the phrase is commonly used -- has brought unprecedented attention to the diversity of backgrounds of those covered by the term. Within higher education, one of the more sensitive issues in discussion of admissions and affirmative action in recent years has been the relative success of immigrant black Americans compared to black people who have been in the United States for generations.
A new study has found that among high school graduates, “immigrant blacks” -- defined as those who immigrated to the United States or their children -- are significantly more likely than other black Americans to attend selective colleges. In fact, immigrant black Americans are more likely than white students to attend such colleges.
The research -- published in the journal Sociology of Education (abstract available here) -- is the second major study in two years to try to define the “advantage” of some black applicants to top college. In 2007, a team of researchers published a study in The American Journal of Education finding that while only about 13 percent of black people aged 18 or 19 in the United States are first- or second-generation immigrants, they made up 27 percent of black students at the selective colleges studied.
The new study focuses on the entire population of high school graduates to see where they go to college, comparing immigrant black people, “native-born blacks” (the authors’ terms for others), and white students. The authors are two assistant professors of sociology -- Pamela R. Bennett of Johns Hopkins University and Amy Lutz of Syracuse University. ...
While their study found success for non-immigrant black students in enrolling in some kinds of colleges, the authors note that the sector -- selective colleges -- in which this is less likely is also the sector most likely to lead to many kinds of high wage careers. More examination of the issue is needed, the authors write, to combat “continued socioeconomic inequality.”
That scholarly phrasing may not do justice to the tensions raised by such issues. In 2003, at a reunion of black alumni of Harvard University, Lani Guinier, a law professor, was quoted by The Boston Globe as raising the question of whether black students who are “voluntary immigrants” should be the beneficiaries of affirmative action.
"If you look around Harvard College today, how many young people will you find who grew up in urban environments and went to public high schools and public junior high schools?" she said. "I don't think, in the name of affirmative action, we should be admitting people because they look like us, but then they don't identify with us."
Full Story: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/03/17/immigrant
Monday, March 16, 2009
Tom Perez to be nominated as Assistant AG for Civil Rights
The Washington Post
(Reported in: First 100 Days from Smart Brief)
Posted at 6:53 PM ET on Mar 13, 2009
By Scott Wilson
President Obama announced Friday that he would nominate Tom Perez, a former member of the Montgomery County Council, for the position of assistant attorney general for civil rights at the U.S. Department of Justice.A prominent civil-rights lawyer, Perez now serves as secretary of Maryland's Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation, which enforces workplace safety laws, among other regulations.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/03/13/obama_rounds_out_staffs_at_age.html
(Reported in: First 100 Days from Smart Brief)
Posted at 6:53 PM ET on Mar 13, 2009
By Scott Wilson
President Obama announced Friday that he would nominate Tom Perez, a former member of the Montgomery County Council, for the position of assistant attorney general for civil rights at the U.S. Department of Justice.A prominent civil-rights lawyer, Perez now serves as secretary of Maryland's Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation, which enforces workplace safety laws, among other regulations.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/03/13/obama_rounds_out_staffs_at_age.html
City unveils post-affirmative action contracting program
Omaha.com
BY MATTHEW HANSEN
WORLD-HERALD STAFF WRITER
Published Friday
March 13, 2009
A change sparked by Nebraska's affirmative action ban will transform the way Omaha companies receive slices of the city contracting pie.The Small Emerging Business Program, unveiled Friday by Mayor Mike Fahey, will greatly expand the number of businesses that qualify for special government subcontracts to do things like build libraries, repair fire stations and clean community centers.But it's unclear how the new program will affect minority- and female-owned businesses as well as extremely small companies.Those groups benefited from two now-defunct contracting programs — one that shuttled work to companies owned by minorities and women and another that sent work to tiny subcontractors.The previous programs became unconstitutional when Nebraska voters passed the affirmative action ban in November.Fahey called the affirmative action ban "unfortunate" but said the new Small Emerging Business Program was one that could help small businessmen and businesswomen of any color."We're opening the door for many more small businesses," Fahey said.
Full Story: http://omaha.com/index.php?u_page=1208&u_sid=10585766
BY MATTHEW HANSEN
WORLD-HERALD STAFF WRITER
Published Friday
March 13, 2009
A change sparked by Nebraska's affirmative action ban will transform the way Omaha companies receive slices of the city contracting pie.The Small Emerging Business Program, unveiled Friday by Mayor Mike Fahey, will greatly expand the number of businesses that qualify for special government subcontracts to do things like build libraries, repair fire stations and clean community centers.But it's unclear how the new program will affect minority- and female-owned businesses as well as extremely small companies.Those groups benefited from two now-defunct contracting programs — one that shuttled work to companies owned by minorities and women and another that sent work to tiny subcontractors.The previous programs became unconstitutional when Nebraska voters passed the affirmative action ban in November.Fahey called the affirmative action ban "unfortunate" but said the new Small Emerging Business Program was one that could help small businessmen and businesswomen of any color."We're opening the door for many more small businesses," Fahey said.
Full Story: http://omaha.com/index.php?u_page=1208&u_sid=10585766
Spending Bill Halts Women's Contracting Plan
The Washington Post
Small Business on Washingtonpost.com
Posted at 11:00 AM ET, 03/13/2009
The spending bill signed into law this week by President Obama stops a controversial regulation that critics said would have limited opportunities for women to compete in the federal marketplace.
"President Obama has made clear that women's opportunities to compete for their fair share of federal contracts will be a priority from now on," said Rep. Nydia Velázquez, chairwoman of the House Small Business Committee and a Democrat from New York.
Law mandates that government agencies must award at least 5 percent of federal contracts to women-owned businesses, however that goal has never been met. The proposed rule -- which was reversed this week -- said women were under represented in contracting agreements in just four out of 140 recognized industries. That proposal was met with staunch criticism because it meant that only women-owned businesses in those four arenas would be eligible for contracting assistance.
Lobbying group Women Impacting Public Policy, which had strongly opposed the proposed rule, applauded the decision.
Full Story: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/small-business/2009/03/spending_bill_halts_womens_con.html
Small Business on Washingtonpost.com
Posted at 11:00 AM ET, 03/13/2009
The spending bill signed into law this week by President Obama stops a controversial regulation that critics said would have limited opportunities for women to compete in the federal marketplace.
"President Obama has made clear that women's opportunities to compete for their fair share of federal contracts will be a priority from now on," said Rep. Nydia Velázquez, chairwoman of the House Small Business Committee and a Democrat from New York.
Law mandates that government agencies must award at least 5 percent of federal contracts to women-owned businesses, however that goal has never been met. The proposed rule -- which was reversed this week -- said women were under represented in contracting agreements in just four out of 140 recognized industries. That proposal was met with staunch criticism because it meant that only women-owned businesses in those four arenas would be eligible for contracting assistance.
Lobbying group Women Impacting Public Policy, which had strongly opposed the proposed rule, applauded the decision.
Full Story: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/small-business/2009/03/spending_bill_halts_womens_con.html
THE CENTER FOR CORPORATE EQUALITY CALLS FOR TRANSPARENCY IN OFCCP REPORTING
DCI Consulting Group
March 11, 2009
WASHINGTON D.C. – The Center for Corporate Equality (CCE) released a comprehensive report analyzing enforcement results compiled by the U.S. Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) on their equal employment and affirmative action requirements.The report, A REVIEW OF OFCCP ENFORCEMENT STATISTICS: A CALL FOR TRANSPARENCY IN OFCCP REPORTING, offers a detailed analysis of the agency’s fiscal year 2007 enforcement results that resulted in $51,680,950 in back pay and annualized salary and benefits for 22,251 American workers who had been subjected to unlawful employment discrimination.Detailed findings outlined in CCE’s report include the types of systemic discrimination OFCCP resolved in FY 2007, the kinds of industries involved and the levels of employees and applicants impacted; how the financial remedies in settlement agreements were calculated; how long it took OFCCP to open compliance evaluations and resolve them through settlement; and any differences in enforcement strategy between the OFCCP’s six regional offices that audit federal contractor establishments.“This comprehensive report provides a rare glimpse inside OFCCP’s enforcement operations,” said Patricia Schaeffer, executive director for the nonprofit employer association based in Washington DC. “It provides much needed transparency into how OFCCP enforces its equal employment and affirmative action mission,” she said. “We’re hopeful OFCCP will provide comparable in-depth data in their future enforcement reports,” she said.
Among the findings of the report:
Specific findings include:
1. Nearly all of the settlements (95 percent) involved allegations of systemic discrimination in hiring. Only five percent of the settlements involved allegations of systemic compensation discrimination. None of the OFCCP settlements in fiscal year 2007 involved allegations related to systemic discrimination in promotions or terminations.
2. No “Glass Ceiling” compliance evaluation, which is an audit of a corporate headquarters that focuses on identifying barriers to women and minorities advancing to senior executive positions, resulted in financial remedies.
3. More than half of the settlements involved alleged systemic discrimination against applicants for lower level jobs in food service and manufacturing industries.
4. Certain lower level jobs, such as laborers and operative positions, were found in about three-quarters of settlements.
5. Only settlements involving allegations of systemic discrimination resulted in financial remedies for workers.
6. The average length of time between start of the compliance evaluation and the conciliation or consent decree was 2.5 years.
Full Story: http://ofccp.blogspot.com/
For a copy of the report: http://www.cceq.org/
March 11, 2009
WASHINGTON D.C. – The Center for Corporate Equality (CCE) released a comprehensive report analyzing enforcement results compiled by the U.S. Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) on their equal employment and affirmative action requirements.The report, A REVIEW OF OFCCP ENFORCEMENT STATISTICS: A CALL FOR TRANSPARENCY IN OFCCP REPORTING, offers a detailed analysis of the agency’s fiscal year 2007 enforcement results that resulted in $51,680,950 in back pay and annualized salary and benefits for 22,251 American workers who had been subjected to unlawful employment discrimination.Detailed findings outlined in CCE’s report include the types of systemic discrimination OFCCP resolved in FY 2007, the kinds of industries involved and the levels of employees and applicants impacted; how the financial remedies in settlement agreements were calculated; how long it took OFCCP to open compliance evaluations and resolve them through settlement; and any differences in enforcement strategy between the OFCCP’s six regional offices that audit federal contractor establishments.“This comprehensive report provides a rare glimpse inside OFCCP’s enforcement operations,” said Patricia Schaeffer, executive director for the nonprofit employer association based in Washington DC. “It provides much needed transparency into how OFCCP enforces its equal employment and affirmative action mission,” she said. “We’re hopeful OFCCP will provide comparable in-depth data in their future enforcement reports,” she said.
Among the findings of the report:
Specific findings include:
1. Nearly all of the settlements (95 percent) involved allegations of systemic discrimination in hiring. Only five percent of the settlements involved allegations of systemic compensation discrimination. None of the OFCCP settlements in fiscal year 2007 involved allegations related to systemic discrimination in promotions or terminations.
2. No “Glass Ceiling” compliance evaluation, which is an audit of a corporate headquarters that focuses on identifying barriers to women and minorities advancing to senior executive positions, resulted in financial remedies.
3. More than half of the settlements involved alleged systemic discrimination against applicants for lower level jobs in food service and manufacturing industries.
4. Certain lower level jobs, such as laborers and operative positions, were found in about three-quarters of settlements.
5. Only settlements involving allegations of systemic discrimination resulted in financial remedies for workers.
6. The average length of time between start of the compliance evaluation and the conciliation or consent decree was 2.5 years.
Full Story: http://ofccp.blogspot.com/
For a copy of the report: http://www.cceq.org/
Second FY 2009 Scheduling List Released
U.S. Department of Labor
Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs
Announcement of 2009 CSAL
The first list of supply and service contractor establishments will be available to OFCCP regional offices beginning the week of March 9, 2009 for scheduling of compliance evaluations during this scheduling cycle (currently, October 1, 2008 through September 30, 2009).
This release includes approximately 5000 facilities that have either self-identified as being an establishment of a Federal contractor, or have been identified as such by OFCCP. OFCCP generated this list through its Federal Contractor Selection System (FCSS) using multiple information sources and analytical procedures to select contractors for evaluation, including a mathematical model that ranks Federal contractor establishments based on an indicator of potential workplace discrimination. The list also includes a number of establishments identified through external Federal contract databases as part of OFCCP's Contracts First Initiative.
The list excludes establishments based on a variety of factors, including, for example, establishments that are currently undergoing a compliance evaluation, were evaluated within the last 24 months, or have received the Secretary of Labor's Opportunity Award or an Exemplary Voluntary Efforts Award within the last three years. Additionally, Federal contractor establishments covered by Functional Affirmative Action Program (FAAP) agreements with OFCCP and those subject to a Corporate Management Compliance Evaluation (CMCE) are selected for evaluation through a separate process.
Full Announcement: http://www.dol.gov/esa/ofccp/
Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs
Announcement of 2009 CSAL
The first list of supply and service contractor establishments will be available to OFCCP regional offices beginning the week of March 9, 2009 for scheduling of compliance evaluations during this scheduling cycle (currently, October 1, 2008 through September 30, 2009).
This release includes approximately 5000 facilities that have either self-identified as being an establishment of a Federal contractor, or have been identified as such by OFCCP. OFCCP generated this list through its Federal Contractor Selection System (FCSS) using multiple information sources and analytical procedures to select contractors for evaluation, including a mathematical model that ranks Federal contractor establishments based on an indicator of potential workplace discrimination. The list also includes a number of establishments identified through external Federal contract databases as part of OFCCP's Contracts First Initiative.
The list excludes establishments based on a variety of factors, including, for example, establishments that are currently undergoing a compliance evaluation, were evaluated within the last 24 months, or have received the Secretary of Labor's Opportunity Award or an Exemplary Voluntary Efforts Award within the last three years. Additionally, Federal contractor establishments covered by Functional Affirmative Action Program (FAAP) agreements with OFCCP and those subject to a Corporate Management Compliance Evaluation (CMCE) are selected for evaluation through a separate process.
Full Announcement: http://www.dol.gov/esa/ofccp/
Friday, March 13, 2009
Notice Concerning The Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) Amendments Act of 2008
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
March 10, 2009
On September 25, 2008, the President signed the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act of 2008 ("ADA Amendments Act" or "Act"). The Act emphasizes that the definition of disability should be construed in favor of broad coverage of individuals to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of the ADA and generally shall not require extensive analysis.
The Act makes important changes to the definition of the term "disability" by rejecting the holdings in several Supreme Court decisions and portions of EEOC's ADA regulations. The effect of these changes is to make it easier for an individual seeking protection under the ADA to establish that he or she has a disability within the meaning of the ADA.
The Act retains the ADA's basic definition of "disability" as an impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, a record of such an impairment, or being regarded as having such an impairment. However, it changes the way that these statutory terms should be interpreted in several ways. Most significantly, the Act:
directs EEOC to revise that portion of its regulations defining the term "substantially limits";
expands the definition of "major life activities" by including two non-exhaustive lists:
the first list includes many activities that the EEOC has recognized (e.g., walking) as well as activities that EEOC has not specifically recognized (e.g., reading, bending, and communicating);
the second list includes major bodily functions (e.g., "functions of the immune system, normal cell growth, digestive, bowel, bladder, neurological, brain, respiratory, circulatory, endocrine, and reproductive functions");
states that mitigating measures other than "ordinary eyeglasses or contact lenses" shall not be considered in assessing whether an individual has a disability;
clarifies that an impairment that is episodic or in remission is a disability if it would substantially limit a major life activity when active;
changes the definition of "regarded as" so that it no longer requires a showing that the employer perceived the individual to be substantially limited in a major life activity, and instead says that an applicant or employee is "regarded as" disabled if he or she is subject to an action prohibited by the ADA (e.g., failure to hire or termination) based on an impairment that is not transitory and minor;
provides that individuals covered only under the "regarded as" prong are not entitled to reasonable accommodation.
EEOC will be evaluating the impact of these changes on its enforcement guidances and other publications addressing the ADA.
Effective Date:
The ADA Amendments Act is effective as of January 1, 2009.
March 10, 2009
On September 25, 2008, the President signed the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act of 2008 ("ADA Amendments Act" or "Act"). The Act emphasizes that the definition of disability should be construed in favor of broad coverage of individuals to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of the ADA and generally shall not require extensive analysis.
The Act makes important changes to the definition of the term "disability" by rejecting the holdings in several Supreme Court decisions and portions of EEOC's ADA regulations. The effect of these changes is to make it easier for an individual seeking protection under the ADA to establish that he or she has a disability within the meaning of the ADA.
The Act retains the ADA's basic definition of "disability" as an impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, a record of such an impairment, or being regarded as having such an impairment. However, it changes the way that these statutory terms should be interpreted in several ways. Most significantly, the Act:
directs EEOC to revise that portion of its regulations defining the term "substantially limits";
expands the definition of "major life activities" by including two non-exhaustive lists:
the first list includes many activities that the EEOC has recognized (e.g., walking) as well as activities that EEOC has not specifically recognized (e.g., reading, bending, and communicating);
the second list includes major bodily functions (e.g., "functions of the immune system, normal cell growth, digestive, bowel, bladder, neurological, brain, respiratory, circulatory, endocrine, and reproductive functions");
states that mitigating measures other than "ordinary eyeglasses or contact lenses" shall not be considered in assessing whether an individual has a disability;
clarifies that an impairment that is episodic or in remission is a disability if it would substantially limit a major life activity when active;
changes the definition of "regarded as" so that it no longer requires a showing that the employer perceived the individual to be substantially limited in a major life activity, and instead says that an applicant or employee is "regarded as" disabled if he or she is subject to an action prohibited by the ADA (e.g., failure to hire or termination) based on an impairment that is not transitory and minor;
provides that individuals covered only under the "regarded as" prong are not entitled to reasonable accommodation.
EEOC will be evaluating the impact of these changes on its enforcement guidances and other publications addressing the ADA.
Effective Date:
The ADA Amendments Act is effective as of January 1, 2009.
WHEELER CONSTRUCTION TO PAY $325,000 TO SETTLE EEOC SUIT FOR NATIONAL ORIGIN HARASSMENT, RETALIATION
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
PRESS RELEASE
3-10-09
PHOENIX -- The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) today announced that Wheeler Construction, Inc., a Phoenix-based construction company, has agreed to settle a national origin harassment lawsuit for $325,000 and other relief on behalf of Mexican workers.
The EEOC’s complaint in U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona charged that employees Leonard Lopez and Juan Campos were subjected to harassment based on their national origin (Mexican) and retaliation for complaining about it. The harassment included comments by a supervisor referring to employees as “wetbacks” and “s--cs” and telling Latino employees to “go back to Mexico.” Lopez was born and raised in Glendale, Ariz., and had 20 years of service with Wheeler Construction at the time of the harassment. When Lopez complained to management about the harassment he was fired.
Campos also attempted to complain about the harassment and Wheeler failed to take any action to address it. After an EEOC investigation, the agency found that two additional employees alerted management of the discrimination and no action was taken.
Wheeler Construction agreed to settle the case for $325,000 and substantial remedial relief, including an injunction, posting an anti-discrimination notice, and training its employees on anti-discrimination laws.
“These victims attempted to speak out and address their unlawful treatment, and their complaints were ignored,” said Chester V. Bailey, director for the EEOC’s Phoenix District Office. “Employers need to take action when alerted to illegal discrimination in the workplace. No employee should be subjected to such intolerable work conditions.”
Mary Jo O’Neill, regional attorney for the Phoenix District Office, said, “The fact that these employees work at a construction site is no excuse for the ethnic slurs that were used against Mr. Lopez and Mr. Campos. We are especially concerned that the outrageous comments were made by a supervisor. Instead of stopping this behavior, the company failed to act appropriately and compounded its culpability by retaliating against its employees.”
The EEOC is responsible for enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination based on race, color, gender (including sexual harassment and pregnancy), religion, national origin, age, disability and retaliation. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.
PRESS RELEASE
3-10-09
PHOENIX -- The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) today announced that Wheeler Construction, Inc., a Phoenix-based construction company, has agreed to settle a national origin harassment lawsuit for $325,000 and other relief on behalf of Mexican workers.
The EEOC’s complaint in U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona charged that employees Leonard Lopez and Juan Campos were subjected to harassment based on their national origin (Mexican) and retaliation for complaining about it. The harassment included comments by a supervisor referring to employees as “wetbacks” and “s--cs” and telling Latino employees to “go back to Mexico.” Lopez was born and raised in Glendale, Ariz., and had 20 years of service with Wheeler Construction at the time of the harassment. When Lopez complained to management about the harassment he was fired.
Campos also attempted to complain about the harassment and Wheeler failed to take any action to address it. After an EEOC investigation, the agency found that two additional employees alerted management of the discrimination and no action was taken.
Wheeler Construction agreed to settle the case for $325,000 and substantial remedial relief, including an injunction, posting an anti-discrimination notice, and training its employees on anti-discrimination laws.
“These victims attempted to speak out and address their unlawful treatment, and their complaints were ignored,” said Chester V. Bailey, director for the EEOC’s Phoenix District Office. “Employers need to take action when alerted to illegal discrimination in the workplace. No employee should be subjected to such intolerable work conditions.”
Mary Jo O’Neill, regional attorney for the Phoenix District Office, said, “The fact that these employees work at a construction site is no excuse for the ethnic slurs that were used against Mr. Lopez and Mr. Campos. We are especially concerned that the outrageous comments were made by a supervisor. Instead of stopping this behavior, the company failed to act appropriately and compounded its culpability by retaliating against its employees.”
The EEOC is responsible for enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination based on race, color, gender (including sexual harassment and pregnancy), religion, national origin, age, disability and retaliation. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.
Group: Omaha rules violate affirmative-action ban
Nebraska TV
Associated Press - March 12, 2009 2:35 PM ET
OMAHA, Neb. (AP) - A legal group is calling for Omaha to repeal rules that give preference to minority and female contractors, saying the rules violate Nebraska's affirmative-action ban.
The California-based Pacific Legal Foundation sent a letter to city officials on Wednesday.
It says Omaha's contracting ordinance lets female- and minority-owned businesses submit bids 30 days before other businesses. It also requires 10% of the city's contracting dollars to be awarded to female- and minority-owned businesses.
Full Story: http://www.nebraska.tv/Global/story.asp?S=9995559&nav=menu605_2
Associated Press - March 12, 2009 2:35 PM ET
OMAHA, Neb. (AP) - A legal group is calling for Omaha to repeal rules that give preference to minority and female contractors, saying the rules violate Nebraska's affirmative-action ban.
The California-based Pacific Legal Foundation sent a letter to city officials on Wednesday.
It says Omaha's contracting ordinance lets female- and minority-owned businesses submit bids 30 days before other businesses. It also requires 10% of the city's contracting dollars to be awarded to female- and minority-owned businesses.
Full Story: http://www.nebraska.tv/Global/story.asp?S=9995559&nav=menu605_2
N-M VENTURES TO PAY $457,500 TO SETTLE EEOC RACE DISCRIMINATION / RETALIATION SUIT
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
PRESS RELEASE
3-11-09
LAS VEGAS – The corporate owner of several restaurants in three states will pay $457,500 to settle a race discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today. The EEOC had charged that N-W Ventures, LLC in Las Vegas subjected a class of African American employees to discrimination, including racial harassment and retaliation. N-W Ventures owns several bars, steakhouses and lounges in Las Vegas, Chicago and Dallas.
According to the EEOC’s suit, eight black employees and other similarly situated individuals were forced to endure racist epithets and insults on many occasions. When some employees complained, managers retaliated against them by instructing supervisors to “get something on them, whether true or not,” and then firing them because of their race and as retaliation for the complaints.
Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit (No. CV-07-1197-PMP-GWF in U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada) after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement.
Besides paying $457,500 to the discrimination victims, N-M Ventures LLC is prohibited from discriminating based on race, and from retaliating against any employee because he or she opposed discrimination. Further, the company must establish an appropriate and effective mechanism for handling complaints of discrimination, and provide training for its managers and employees with respect to the law against racial discrimination and harassment and retaliation at its Las Vegas facility.
"Racial harassment and retaliation continue to be major problems in the American workplace and the EEOC intends to make clear that such misconduct is unacceptable and will not be tolerated," said Anna Park, regional attorney for the EEOC's Los Angeles District Office, which has jurisdiction over Nevada.
Lucy V. Orta, the EEOC’s local director in Las Vegas, said, "Race-based charges accounted for 36 percent of all charges received at the EEOC in fiscal 2007, and the agency has seen an increase of 17 percent in harassment charges over the last decade. To counter these trends, employers must be more proactive in preventing and eliminating racist behavior in the workplace."
The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.
PRESS RELEASE
3-11-09
LAS VEGAS – The corporate owner of several restaurants in three states will pay $457,500 to settle a race discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today. The EEOC had charged that N-W Ventures, LLC in Las Vegas subjected a class of African American employees to discrimination, including racial harassment and retaliation. N-W Ventures owns several bars, steakhouses and lounges in Las Vegas, Chicago and Dallas.
According to the EEOC’s suit, eight black employees and other similarly situated individuals were forced to endure racist epithets and insults on many occasions. When some employees complained, managers retaliated against them by instructing supervisors to “get something on them, whether true or not,” and then firing them because of their race and as retaliation for the complaints.
Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit (No. CV-07-1197-PMP-GWF in U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada) after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement.
Besides paying $457,500 to the discrimination victims, N-M Ventures LLC is prohibited from discriminating based on race, and from retaliating against any employee because he or she opposed discrimination. Further, the company must establish an appropriate and effective mechanism for handling complaints of discrimination, and provide training for its managers and employees with respect to the law against racial discrimination and harassment and retaliation at its Las Vegas facility.
"Racial harassment and retaliation continue to be major problems in the American workplace and the EEOC intends to make clear that such misconduct is unacceptable and will not be tolerated," said Anna Park, regional attorney for the EEOC's Los Angeles District Office, which has jurisdiction over Nevada.
Lucy V. Orta, the EEOC’s local director in Las Vegas, said, "Race-based charges accounted for 36 percent of all charges received at the EEOC in fiscal 2007, and the agency has seen an increase of 17 percent in harassment charges over the last decade. To counter these trends, employers must be more proactive in preventing and eliminating racist behavior in the workplace."
The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.
EEOC REPORTS JOB BIAS CHARGES HIT RECORD HIGH OF OVER 95,000 IN FISCAL YEAR 2008
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
PRESS RELEASE
3-11-09
Commission Obtains $376 Million for Victims of Discrimination
WASHINGTON – The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) today announced that workplace discrimination charge filings with the federal agency nationwide soared to an unprecedented level of 95,402 during Fiscal Year (FY) 2008, which ended Sept. 30. This level is a 15 percent increase from the previous fiscal year. The FY 2008 enforcement and litigation statistics, which include trend data, are available online at http://www.eeoc.gov/stats/enforcement.html.
“The EEOC has not seen an increase of this magnitude in charges filed for many years. While we do not know if it signifies a trend, it is clear that employment discrimination remains a persistent problem,” said the Commission’s Acting Chairman, Stuart J. Ishimaru. “The EEOC is committed to vigorously enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination and will continue to invest in programs such as its systemic litigation program to maximize its effectiveness.”
According to the FY 2008 data, all major categories of charge filings in the private sector (which includes charges filed against state and local governments) increased. Charges based on age and retaliation saw the largest annual increases, while allegations based on race, sex and retaliation continued as the most frequently filed charges. The surge in charge filings may be due to multiple factors, including economic conditions, increased diversity and demographic shifts in the labor force, employees’ greater awareness of the law, EEOC’s focus on systemic litigation, and changes to EEOC’s intake practices.
The FY 2008 data also show that the EEOC filed 290 lawsuits, resolved 339 lawsuits, and resolved 81,081 private sector charges. Through its combined enforcement, mediation and litigation programs, the EEOC recovered approximately $376 million in monetary relief for thousands of discrimination victims and obtained significant remedial relief from employers to promote inclusive and discrimination-free workplaces.
The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the Commission is available on its web site (www.eeoc.gov).
PRESS RELEASE
3-11-09
Commission Obtains $376 Million for Victims of Discrimination
WASHINGTON – The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) today announced that workplace discrimination charge filings with the federal agency nationwide soared to an unprecedented level of 95,402 during Fiscal Year (FY) 2008, which ended Sept. 30. This level is a 15 percent increase from the previous fiscal year. The FY 2008 enforcement and litigation statistics, which include trend data, are available online at http://www.eeoc.gov/stats/enforcement.html.
“The EEOC has not seen an increase of this magnitude in charges filed for many years. While we do not know if it signifies a trend, it is clear that employment discrimination remains a persistent problem,” said the Commission’s Acting Chairman, Stuart J. Ishimaru. “The EEOC is committed to vigorously enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination and will continue to invest in programs such as its systemic litigation program to maximize its effectiveness.”
According to the FY 2008 data, all major categories of charge filings in the private sector (which includes charges filed against state and local governments) increased. Charges based on age and retaliation saw the largest annual increases, while allegations based on race, sex and retaliation continued as the most frequently filed charges. The surge in charge filings may be due to multiple factors, including economic conditions, increased diversity and demographic shifts in the labor force, employees’ greater awareness of the law, EEOC’s focus on systemic litigation, and changes to EEOC’s intake practices.
The FY 2008 data also show that the EEOC filed 290 lawsuits, resolved 339 lawsuits, and resolved 81,081 private sector charges. Through its combined enforcement, mediation and litigation programs, the EEOC recovered approximately $376 million in monetary relief for thousands of discrimination victims and obtained significant remedial relief from employers to promote inclusive and discrimination-free workplaces.
The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the Commission is available on its web site (www.eeoc.gov).
Monday, March 9, 2009
American Association for Affirmative Action Announces 35th Annual Conference "Winning the Fight for Equity, Opportunity and Inclusion!"
PRWeb.com
AAAA News Release
Outstanding equal opportunity, diversity and civil rights professionals meet in Chicago area to discuss affirmative action challenges
Washington (PRWEB) March 9, 2009 -- The American Association for Affirmative Action (AAAA), an organization of equal opportunity, diversity and affirmative action professionals, announced its 35th Annual Conference, "Winning the Fight for Equity, Opportunity and Inclusion," being held at the Lincolnshire Marriott, Lincolnshire, IL, April 1 - 4, 2009. Conferees will address the progress being made to win the fight for equity, opportunity and inclusion since the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other civil rights laws.
Featured speakers include Naomi Tutu of the Tutu Foundation and daughter of Bishop Desmond Tutu; Shanta Driver, Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration & Immigrant Rights and Fight for Equality By Any Means Necessary (BAMN); John Trasvina, Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.; Jim Ward, ADA Watch; Randolph Lowe, California Governors' Committee on the Employment of Individuals with Disabilities; Juan Andrade, United States Hispanic Leadership Institute; Michael Yaki, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights; Native American Activist William A. Means; Chicago civil rights lawyer Thomas "TNT" Todd, Esq., Julieanna Richardson, "Founder of the HistoryMakers"; Megan O'Malley, National Employment Lawyers Association; Gregory Cendana, U.S. Student Association; Lauren Sugerman, Chicago Women in Trades; Anjali Thakur, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights; and corporate leaders Joyce Tucker of the Boeing Company, Yvette C. Burton of IBM and Chris Marin of Cisco. Representatives from state and Federal agencies including the Department of Labor and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission will also attend.
"We are excited about the myriad training and educational sessions available this year," said AAAA President ReNee Dunman. "Presenters have been selected carefully to ensure diverse, cutting edge workshops for attendees who include equal opportunity, affirmative action and diversity professionals representing every imaginable entity in employment, government, education and the private sector." The conferees will also discuss strategies to promote affirmative action and diversity in the face of economic headwinds and legal challenges to end it. "This conference is filled with opportunities to galvanize and design a proactive plan to advance an agenda of more inclusion and opportunity," said the AAAA president.
For more information, go to www.affirmativeaction.org.
Founded in 1974, the American Association for Affirmative Action (AAAA) is a national not-for-profit association of professionals working in the areas of affirmative action, equal opportunity, and diversity. AAAA helps its members to be more successful and productive in their careers. It also promotes understanding and advocacy of affirmative action to enhance access and equality in employment, economic and educational opportunities.
###
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2009/03/prweb2206954.htm
AAAA News Release
Outstanding equal opportunity, diversity and civil rights professionals meet in Chicago area to discuss affirmative action challenges
Washington (PRWEB) March 9, 2009 -- The American Association for Affirmative Action (AAAA), an organization of equal opportunity, diversity and affirmative action professionals, announced its 35th Annual Conference, "Winning the Fight for Equity, Opportunity and Inclusion," being held at the Lincolnshire Marriott, Lincolnshire, IL, April 1 - 4, 2009. Conferees will address the progress being made to win the fight for equity, opportunity and inclusion since the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other civil rights laws.
Featured speakers include Naomi Tutu of the Tutu Foundation and daughter of Bishop Desmond Tutu; Shanta Driver, Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration & Immigrant Rights and Fight for Equality By Any Means Necessary (BAMN); John Trasvina, Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.; Jim Ward, ADA Watch; Randolph Lowe, California Governors' Committee on the Employment of Individuals with Disabilities; Juan Andrade, United States Hispanic Leadership Institute; Michael Yaki, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights; Native American Activist William A. Means; Chicago civil rights lawyer Thomas "TNT" Todd, Esq., Julieanna Richardson, "Founder of the HistoryMakers"; Megan O'Malley, National Employment Lawyers Association; Gregory Cendana, U.S. Student Association; Lauren Sugerman, Chicago Women in Trades; Anjali Thakur, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights; and corporate leaders Joyce Tucker of the Boeing Company, Yvette C. Burton of IBM and Chris Marin of Cisco. Representatives from state and Federal agencies including the Department of Labor and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission will also attend.
"We are excited about the myriad training and educational sessions available this year," said AAAA President ReNee Dunman. "Presenters have been selected carefully to ensure diverse, cutting edge workshops for attendees who include equal opportunity, affirmative action and diversity professionals representing every imaginable entity in employment, government, education and the private sector." The conferees will also discuss strategies to promote affirmative action and diversity in the face of economic headwinds and legal challenges to end it. "This conference is filled with opportunities to galvanize and design a proactive plan to advance an agenda of more inclusion and opportunity," said the AAAA president.
For more information, go to www.affirmativeaction.org.
Founded in 1974, the American Association for Affirmative Action (AAAA) is a national not-for-profit association of professionals working in the areas of affirmative action, equal opportunity, and diversity. AAAA helps its members to be more successful and productive in their careers. It also promotes understanding and advocacy of affirmative action to enhance access and equality in employment, economic and educational opportunities.
###
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2009/03/prweb2206954.htm
ADVANCE AUTO PARTS SETTLES DISABILITY BIAS SUIT WITH EEOC FOR $50,000 AND REMEDIAL RELIEF
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
PRESS RELEASE
3-9-09
Company Refused to Hire Man with Cerebral Palsy for Sales Job, Federal Agency Charged
BIG STONE GAP, Va. —Advance Stores Company, Inc., doing business as Advance Auto Parts, will pay $50,000 and provide other affirmative relief to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today.
According to the EEOC’s suit, Advance Auto Parts refused to hire Jeffrey Scott Sanders in September 2004 because he has cerebral palsy. Sanders had applied for a part-time sales position at an Advance Auto Parts retail store in Norton, Va. The EEOC said that Sanders had successfully completed an internship as a salesperson at Advance Auto’s Staunton, Va., store through a training program in which he participated. The EEOC further charged that despite Sanders’ qualifications and experience obtained through the internship, Advance Auto did not hire him but did hire at least one other person who was less qualified than Sanders.
Failing or refusing to hire an individual because he or she has a disability violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement (EEOC v. Advance Stores Company, Inc. d/b/a Advance Auto Parts, Civil Action 02-08CV00011).
In addition to the monetary relief to be paid to Sanders, as part of the settlement, Advance Auto agreed to provide training on an annual basis to all of its managers, supervisors, and employees in its Norton, Va., store; post an employee notice regarding this settlement; and report any allegations of disability discrimination by job applicants at the company’s Norton location to the EEOC.
“Federal law prohibits employers from taking discriminatory employment actions based on myths, stereotypes or assumptions about an individual’s disability, rather than the person’s actual ability to perform the job,” said Lynette A. Barnes, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Charlotte District Office, whose jurisdiction includes most of Virginia.
The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the Commission is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.
PRESS RELEASE
3-9-09
Company Refused to Hire Man with Cerebral Palsy for Sales Job, Federal Agency Charged
BIG STONE GAP, Va. —Advance Stores Company, Inc., doing business as Advance Auto Parts, will pay $50,000 and provide other affirmative relief to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today.
According to the EEOC’s suit, Advance Auto Parts refused to hire Jeffrey Scott Sanders in September 2004 because he has cerebral palsy. Sanders had applied for a part-time sales position at an Advance Auto Parts retail store in Norton, Va. The EEOC said that Sanders had successfully completed an internship as a salesperson at Advance Auto’s Staunton, Va., store through a training program in which he participated. The EEOC further charged that despite Sanders’ qualifications and experience obtained through the internship, Advance Auto did not hire him but did hire at least one other person who was less qualified than Sanders.
Failing or refusing to hire an individual because he or she has a disability violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement (EEOC v. Advance Stores Company, Inc. d/b/a Advance Auto Parts, Civil Action 02-08CV00011).
In addition to the monetary relief to be paid to Sanders, as part of the settlement, Advance Auto agreed to provide training on an annual basis to all of its managers, supervisors, and employees in its Norton, Va., store; post an employee notice regarding this settlement; and report any allegations of disability discrimination by job applicants at the company’s Norton location to the EEOC.
“Federal law prohibits employers from taking discriminatory employment actions based on myths, stereotypes or assumptions about an individual’s disability, rather than the person’s actual ability to perform the job,” said Lynette A. Barnes, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Charlotte District Office, whose jurisdiction includes most of Virginia.
The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the Commission is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.
Change to Top 10 Percent Rule Clears Committee
Diverse Issues in Higher Education
by Associated Press
Mar 6, 2009, 09:11
AUSTIN, Texas
Texas students who graduate in the top 10 percent of their high school class would no longer be guaranteed automatic admission to a public university under a bill that passed a Senate panel Wednesday.
The legislation, passed 4-1 out of the Senate Higher Education Committee, would cap top 10 percent admissions to 50 percent of a school’s entering freshman class.
The bill has strong backing from the University of Texas, where more than 80 percent of current freshmen gained admission through the automatic-entry guarantee.
Sen. Florence Shapiro, R-Plano, sponsor of the cap legislation, said talented musicians and would-be scientists are going elsewhere because they can’t get into UT.
Full Story: http://www.diverseeducation.com/artman/publish/article_12369.shtml
by Associated Press
Mar 6, 2009, 09:11
AUSTIN, Texas
Texas students who graduate in the top 10 percent of their high school class would no longer be guaranteed automatic admission to a public university under a bill that passed a Senate panel Wednesday.
The legislation, passed 4-1 out of the Senate Higher Education Committee, would cap top 10 percent admissions to 50 percent of a school’s entering freshman class.
The bill has strong backing from the University of Texas, where more than 80 percent of current freshmen gained admission through the automatic-entry guarantee.
Sen. Florence Shapiro, R-Plano, sponsor of the cap legislation, said talented musicians and would-be scientists are going elsewhere because they can’t get into UT.
Full Story: http://www.diverseeducation.com/artman/publish/article_12369.shtml
Thursday, March 5, 2009
UNION PACIFIC TO PAY $75,000 FOR SEX BIAS AND IMPLEMENT POLICY CHANGES TO SETTLE SUIT
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
PRESS RELEASE
2-3-09
Federal Agency Claimed Railroad Refused to Hire Female Foreman
LOS ANGELES – Union Pacific Railroad will pay $75,000 and furnish significant relief measures to settle a sex discrimination suit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today.
The EEOC’s suit charged that Union Pacific refused to hire a female applicant to a system material foreman position at its Glamis, Calif., facility, even though she had more seniority than the other applicants. For years, the woman had worked on the rails alongside men, said the EEOC, and she had already been an assistant foreman in the division. The agency believes that, had she been hired, she would have been the first female system material foreman in the nation.
Sex discrimination violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement.
“Many women are qualified and ready to get to work in traditionally male-dominated industries; all they need is an equal opportunity,” said Anna Park, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Los Angeles District Office, which has jurisdiction over the Southern California region. “We commend Union Pacific for making the kinds of institutional reforms that will help remove barriers for women in the railroad industry.”
The three-year, court-enforced consent decree settling the suit will require Union Pacific to revise its policies regarding discrimination against women. The decree will also require Union Pacific to train supervisors and managers regarding sex discrimination, as well as report on its efforts to prevent discrimination to the EEOC. Once given final approval by the court, the decree will settle the case of EEOC v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., Civil Case No. 07-1707, filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.
Olophius Perry, director of the federal agency’s Los Angeles District Office, said, “This case should remind employers that just because discrimination may have been tolerated in a particular industry in the past does not make it right. Federal law requires employers to base hiring on one’s qualifications and ability to do the job -- not on whether the person is a man or a woman.”
According to its web site, www.unionpacific.com, Omaha-based Union Pacific Railroad is the largest railroad in North America, covering 23 states across two-thirds of the United States.
The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.
PRESS RELEASE
2-3-09
Federal Agency Claimed Railroad Refused to Hire Female Foreman
LOS ANGELES – Union Pacific Railroad will pay $75,000 and furnish significant relief measures to settle a sex discrimination suit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today.
The EEOC’s suit charged that Union Pacific refused to hire a female applicant to a system material foreman position at its Glamis, Calif., facility, even though she had more seniority than the other applicants. For years, the woman had worked on the rails alongside men, said the EEOC, and she had already been an assistant foreman in the division. The agency believes that, had she been hired, she would have been the first female system material foreman in the nation.
Sex discrimination violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement.
“Many women are qualified and ready to get to work in traditionally male-dominated industries; all they need is an equal opportunity,” said Anna Park, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Los Angeles District Office, which has jurisdiction over the Southern California region. “We commend Union Pacific for making the kinds of institutional reforms that will help remove barriers for women in the railroad industry.”
The three-year, court-enforced consent decree settling the suit will require Union Pacific to revise its policies regarding discrimination against women. The decree will also require Union Pacific to train supervisors and managers regarding sex discrimination, as well as report on its efforts to prevent discrimination to the EEOC. Once given final approval by the court, the decree will settle the case of EEOC v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., Civil Case No. 07-1707, filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.
Olophius Perry, director of the federal agency’s Los Angeles District Office, said, “This case should remind employers that just because discrimination may have been tolerated in a particular industry in the past does not make it right. Federal law requires employers to base hiring on one’s qualifications and ability to do the job -- not on whether the person is a man or a woman.”
According to its web site, www.unionpacific.com, Omaha-based Union Pacific Railroad is the largest railroad in North America, covering 23 states across two-thirds of the United States.
The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.
Model Minority? No, Thanks [Op-ed]
RaceWire
The ColorLines Blog
Guest Columnist
A Response to February 24th Forbes.com Commentary on Indian Americans: The New Model Minority
by Deepa Iyer
In his February 24th commentary, Jason Richwine presents the “revelation” that Indian American immigrants are the “new model minority” (see “Indian Americans: The New Model Minority”) Using this flawed frame, he then proposes unworkable and divisive immigration policy changes. As a national non-profit organization that works to foster the full civic and political participation of the South Asian community, we find these characterizations to be quite troubling.
Richwine points to the educational and income levels of many Indian Americans (as well as their flair for winning spelling bees) as signs that this ethnic group has reached the highest echelons of success. Such benchmarks belie the truth about the challenges that many Indian Americans face, and create a wedge between Indian Americans and people of color communities.
In reality, Indian Americans, much like other immigrants, have diverse experiences and backgrounds. Indian Americans are doctors, engineers and lawyers, as well as small business owners, domestic workers, taxi drivers and convenience store employees. Community members hold a range of immigration statuses and include naturalized citizens and H-1B visa holders, guest workers and students, undocumented workers and green card holders. Some have access to higher education while others struggle to learn English in a new country. As with all communities, Indian Americans do not come in the same shape and form, and cannot be treated as a monolith.
Another danger with the model minority label is that it creates divisions between Indian Americans and other immigrant communities. Beneath the seemingly positive use of the “model minority” label is a pernicious racist undertone: the purpose, after all, is to compare one set of people with another, and the result is to pit people of color against one another.
Full Editorial: http://www.racewire.org/archives/2009/02/model_minority_no_thanks_oped.html#comments
The ColorLines Blog
Guest Columnist
A Response to February 24th Forbes.com Commentary on Indian Americans: The New Model Minority
by Deepa Iyer
In his February 24th commentary, Jason Richwine presents the “revelation” that Indian American immigrants are the “new model minority” (see “Indian Americans: The New Model Minority”) Using this flawed frame, he then proposes unworkable and divisive immigration policy changes. As a national non-profit organization that works to foster the full civic and political participation of the South Asian community, we find these characterizations to be quite troubling.
Richwine points to the educational and income levels of many Indian Americans (as well as their flair for winning spelling bees) as signs that this ethnic group has reached the highest echelons of success. Such benchmarks belie the truth about the challenges that many Indian Americans face, and create a wedge between Indian Americans and people of color communities.
In reality, Indian Americans, much like other immigrants, have diverse experiences and backgrounds. Indian Americans are doctors, engineers and lawyers, as well as small business owners, domestic workers, taxi drivers and convenience store employees. Community members hold a range of immigration statuses and include naturalized citizens and H-1B visa holders, guest workers and students, undocumented workers and green card holders. Some have access to higher education while others struggle to learn English in a new country. As with all communities, Indian Americans do not come in the same shape and form, and cannot be treated as a monolith.
Another danger with the model minority label is that it creates divisions between Indian Americans and other immigrant communities. Beneath the seemingly positive use of the “model minority” label is a pernicious racist undertone: the purpose, after all, is to compare one set of people with another, and the result is to pit people of color against one another.
Full Editorial: http://www.racewire.org/archives/2009/02/model_minority_no_thanks_oped.html#comments
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Holder's Much Touted Speech on Race Lets White People Off the Hook
AlterNet
By Tim Wise, CounterPunch. Posted March 2, 2009.
Obama's Attorney General Eric Holder blamed personal cowardice for our racial divide, rather than institutionalized inequities.
It was all too predictable that Attorney General Eric Holder would be attacked for his recent remarks about race in America. To suggest that the nation is still haunted by the specter of racism is unacceptable it seems, especially since, with the election of President Barack Obama, we have ostensibly entered the "post-racial" era.
But in truth, the nation's chief law enforcement officer deserves criticism more for what he didn't say than for what he did.
Specifically, Holder blamed personal cowardice for our racial divide, rather than institutionalized inequities, thereby minimizing his own department's role in solving the problem; and he blamed everyone (and thus no one in particular) for being cowards, thereby letting white Americans -- who have always been the ones least willing to engage the subject -- off our uniquely large hook.
This combination of power-obliviousness (ignoring discrimination and unequal access to resources, while focusing merely on attitudes) and color-blindness (suggesting that everyone is equally at fault and equivalently unwilling to discuss racism) is a popular lens through which to view these matters. Indeed, the Oscar-winning film Crash was based almost entirely on these two tropes.
But such a lens distorts our vision, and obscures true understanding of the phenomenon being observed.
The racial divide about which Holder spoke, particularly in terms of the neighborhoods where people live, is not the result of some abstract cowardice to engage one another.
Full Story: http://www.alternet.org/rights/129505/
By Tim Wise, CounterPunch. Posted March 2, 2009.
Obama's Attorney General Eric Holder blamed personal cowardice for our racial divide, rather than institutionalized inequities.
It was all too predictable that Attorney General Eric Holder would be attacked for his recent remarks about race in America. To suggest that the nation is still haunted by the specter of racism is unacceptable it seems, especially since, with the election of President Barack Obama, we have ostensibly entered the "post-racial" era.
But in truth, the nation's chief law enforcement officer deserves criticism more for what he didn't say than for what he did.
Specifically, Holder blamed personal cowardice for our racial divide, rather than institutionalized inequities, thereby minimizing his own department's role in solving the problem; and he blamed everyone (and thus no one in particular) for being cowards, thereby letting white Americans -- who have always been the ones least willing to engage the subject -- off our uniquely large hook.
This combination of power-obliviousness (ignoring discrimination and unequal access to resources, while focusing merely on attitudes) and color-blindness (suggesting that everyone is equally at fault and equivalently unwilling to discuss racism) is a popular lens through which to view these matters. Indeed, the Oscar-winning film Crash was based almost entirely on these two tropes.
But such a lens distorts our vision, and obscures true understanding of the phenomenon being observed.
The racial divide about which Holder spoke, particularly in terms of the neighborhoods where people live, is not the result of some abstract cowardice to engage one another.
Full Story: http://www.alternet.org/rights/129505/
American Association for Affirmative Action Announces 35th Annual Conference “Winning the Fight for Equity, Opportunity and Inclusion!”
AAAA NEWS RELEASE
American Association for Affirmative Action Announces
35th Annual Conference -“Winning the Fight for Equity, Opportunity and Inclusion!”
Outstanding equal opportunity, diversity and civil rights professionals meet in Chicago area to discuss affirmative action challenges
For Immediate Release: March 4, 2009
Contact: Shirley J. Wilcher 202-349-9855
Washington, March 4, 2009– The American Association for Affirmative Action (AAAA), an organization of equal opportunity, diversity and affirmative action professionals, announced its 35th Annual Conference, “Winning the Fight for Equity, Opportunity and Inclusion,” being held at the Lincolnshire Marriott, Lincolnshire, IL, April 1 – 4, 2009. Conferees will address the progress being made to win the fight for equity, opportunity and inclusion since the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other civil rights laws.
Featured speakers include Naomi Tutu of the Tutu Foundation and daughter of Bishop Desmond Tutu; Shanta Driver, Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration & Immigrant Rights and Fight for Equality By Any Means Necessary (BAMN); John Trasvina, Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.; Jim Ward, ADA Watch; Randolph Lowe, California Governors’ Committee on the Employment of Individuals with Disabilities; Juan Andrade, United States Hispanic Leadership Institute; Michael Yaki, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights; Native American Activist William A. Means; Chicago civil rights lawyer Thomas “TNT” Todd, Esq., Julieanna Richardson, “Founder of the HistoryMakers”; Megan O’Malley, National Employment Lawyers Association; Gregory Cendana, U.S. Student Association; Lauren Sugerman, Chicago Women in Trades; Anjali Thakur, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights; and corporate leaders Joyce Tucker of the Boeing Company, Yvette C. Burton of IBM and Chris Marin of Cisco. Representatives from Federal agencies including the Department of Labor and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission will also attend.
“We are excited about the myriad training and educational sessions available this year,” said AAAA President ReNee Dunman. “Presenters have been selected carefully to ensure diverse, cutting edge workshops for attendees who include equal opportunity, affirmative action and diversity professionals representing every imaginable entity in employment, government, education and the private sector.” The conferees will also discuss strategies to promote affirmative action and diversity in the face of economic headwinds and legal challenges to end it. “This conference is filled with opportunities to galvanize and design a proactive plan to advance an agenda of more inclusion and opportunity,” said the AAAA president.
For more information, go to http://www.affirmativeaction.org/.
American Association for Affirmative Action Announces
35th Annual Conference -“Winning the Fight for Equity, Opportunity and Inclusion!”
Outstanding equal opportunity, diversity and civil rights professionals meet in Chicago area to discuss affirmative action challenges
For Immediate Release: March 4, 2009
Contact: Shirley J. Wilcher 202-349-9855
Washington, March 4, 2009– The American Association for Affirmative Action (AAAA), an organization of equal opportunity, diversity and affirmative action professionals, announced its 35th Annual Conference, “Winning the Fight for Equity, Opportunity and Inclusion,” being held at the Lincolnshire Marriott, Lincolnshire, IL, April 1 – 4, 2009. Conferees will address the progress being made to win the fight for equity, opportunity and inclusion since the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other civil rights laws.
Featured speakers include Naomi Tutu of the Tutu Foundation and daughter of Bishop Desmond Tutu; Shanta Driver, Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration & Immigrant Rights and Fight for Equality By Any Means Necessary (BAMN); John Trasvina, Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.; Jim Ward, ADA Watch; Randolph Lowe, California Governors’ Committee on the Employment of Individuals with Disabilities; Juan Andrade, United States Hispanic Leadership Institute; Michael Yaki, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights; Native American Activist William A. Means; Chicago civil rights lawyer Thomas “TNT” Todd, Esq., Julieanna Richardson, “Founder of the HistoryMakers”; Megan O’Malley, National Employment Lawyers Association; Gregory Cendana, U.S. Student Association; Lauren Sugerman, Chicago Women in Trades; Anjali Thakur, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights; and corporate leaders Joyce Tucker of the Boeing Company, Yvette C. Burton of IBM and Chris Marin of Cisco. Representatives from Federal agencies including the Department of Labor and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission will also attend.
“We are excited about the myriad training and educational sessions available this year,” said AAAA President ReNee Dunman. “Presenters have been selected carefully to ensure diverse, cutting edge workshops for attendees who include equal opportunity, affirmative action and diversity professionals representing every imaginable entity in employment, government, education and the private sector.” The conferees will also discuss strategies to promote affirmative action and diversity in the face of economic headwinds and legal challenges to end it. “This conference is filled with opportunities to galvanize and design a proactive plan to advance an agenda of more inclusion and opportunity,” said the AAAA president.
For more information, go to http://www.affirmativeaction.org/.
Founded in 1974, the American Association for Affirmative Action (AAAA) is a national not-for-profit association of professionals working in the areas of affirmative action, equal opportunity, and diversity. AAAA helps its members to be more successful and productive in their careers. It also promotes understanding and advocacy of affirmative action to enhance access and equality in employment, economic and educational opportunities.
###
888 16th Street, NW, Suite 800 * Washington, D.C. 20006 *202-349-9855 ex 1857 *
800-252-8952 * Fax: 202-355-1399 * www.affirmativeaction.org
888 16th Street, NW, Suite 800 * Washington, D.C. 20006 *202-349-9855 ex 1857 *
800-252-8952 * Fax: 202-355-1399 * www.affirmativeaction.org
Administration Issues Civil Rights Guidance on American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
The Director of the Office of Management and Budget, Peter Orszag, issued preliminary guidance on the federal agencies' use of funds appropriated under the recently-passed stimulus bill. The guidance, issued on February 18, 2009, includes language that emphasizes the importance of federal agency compliance with existing equal opportunity statutes, regulations and executive orders:
1.6 What additional responsibilities exist for Executive Branch agencies?
The Executive Branch shall distribute Recovery Act funds in accordance with:
"All anti-discrimination and equal opportunity statutes, regulations, and Executive Orders that apply to the expenditure of funds under Federal contracts, grants, cooperative agreements, loans, and other forms of Federal assistance. Grant-making agencies shall ensure that their recipients comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, and any program-specific statutes with anti-discrimination requirements. Generally applicable civil rights laws also continue to apply, including (but not limited to) the Fair Housing Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Americans With Disabilities Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Equal Educational Opportunities Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and the Uniform Relocation Act.
To review the entire OMB guidance, go to: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/memoranda_fy2009/m09-10.pdf
1.6 What additional responsibilities exist for Executive Branch agencies?
The Executive Branch shall distribute Recovery Act funds in accordance with:
"All anti-discrimination and equal opportunity statutes, regulations, and Executive Orders that apply to the expenditure of funds under Federal contracts, grants, cooperative agreements, loans, and other forms of Federal assistance. Grant-making agencies shall ensure that their recipients comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, and any program-specific statutes with anti-discrimination requirements. Generally applicable civil rights laws also continue to apply, including (but not limited to) the Fair Housing Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Americans With Disabilities Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Equal Educational Opportunities Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and the Uniform Relocation Act.
To review the entire OMB guidance, go to: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/memoranda_fy2009/m09-10.pdf
Dartmouth Names Global Health Leader as Its Next President
The Chronicle of Higher Education
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
By KARIN FISCHER
Dartmouth College on Monday tapped Jim Yong Kim, a physician known for his work in the global fight against AIDS and tuberculosis, as its next president.
Dr. Kim, who is 49, will assume the presidency at a time when the Ivy League institution has been undertaking a series of painful budget cuts and layoffs following a steep drop in the value of its endowment (The Chronicle, November 13, 2008). He will succeed James Wright, who had previously announced he would resign after 11 years as president, on July 1.
Dr. Kim, who is chairman of the department of global health and social medicine at Harvard Medical School, said he recognized that Dartmouth, like other institutions, has had to make "difficult choices" in recent months, but he praised Mr. Wright and college leaders for doing so in a manner that preserved key institutional priorities, like need-blind admissions for both American and foreign students.
Dartmouth has lost more than $200-million of its once $3.8-billion endowment, which provides more than a third of the college’s $700-million operating budget. In response, the college has announced plans to lay off staff, freeze salaries, reduce work hours, and postpone construction projects.
Despite the tough economic climate, Dr. Kim suggested, it might also be a time to exercise bold leadership. "This is a time for a great institution like Dartmouth to think about how to leap ahead when others are afraid and cutting back," he said. "It's a matter of being strategic."
Dr. Kim brings a wealth of international experience to an institution that has sought, in recent years, to become more deeply engaged globally. He is a former senior official at the World Health Organization, where he started an effort to greatly expand HIV/AIDS treatment in low- and middle-income countries. He is a co-founder and former executive director of Partners in Health, a nonprofit organization that supports health programs in poor communities worldwide...
Raised in Iowa, he is a native of South Korea who came to the United States with his parents when he was 5 years old. He is one of the few people of Asian heritage to lead a major American university and the first to lead an Ivy League institution.
Full Story: http://chronicle.com/daily/2009/03/12730n.htm?utm_source=at&utm_medium=en
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
By KARIN FISCHER
Dartmouth College on Monday tapped Jim Yong Kim, a physician known for his work in the global fight against AIDS and tuberculosis, as its next president.
Dr. Kim, who is 49, will assume the presidency at a time when the Ivy League institution has been undertaking a series of painful budget cuts and layoffs following a steep drop in the value of its endowment (The Chronicle, November 13, 2008). He will succeed James Wright, who had previously announced he would resign after 11 years as president, on July 1.
Dr. Kim, who is chairman of the department of global health and social medicine at Harvard Medical School, said he recognized that Dartmouth, like other institutions, has had to make "difficult choices" in recent months, but he praised Mr. Wright and college leaders for doing so in a manner that preserved key institutional priorities, like need-blind admissions for both American and foreign students.
Dartmouth has lost more than $200-million of its once $3.8-billion endowment, which provides more than a third of the college’s $700-million operating budget. In response, the college has announced plans to lay off staff, freeze salaries, reduce work hours, and postpone construction projects.
Despite the tough economic climate, Dr. Kim suggested, it might also be a time to exercise bold leadership. "This is a time for a great institution like Dartmouth to think about how to leap ahead when others are afraid and cutting back," he said. "It's a matter of being strategic."
Dr. Kim brings a wealth of international experience to an institution that has sought, in recent years, to become more deeply engaged globally. He is a former senior official at the World Health Organization, where he started an effort to greatly expand HIV/AIDS treatment in low- and middle-income countries. He is a co-founder and former executive director of Partners in Health, a nonprofit organization that supports health programs in poor communities worldwide...
Raised in Iowa, he is a native of South Korea who came to the United States with his parents when he was 5 years old. He is one of the few people of Asian heritage to lead a major American university and the first to lead an Ivy League institution.
Full Story: http://chronicle.com/daily/2009/03/12730n.htm?utm_source=at&utm_medium=en
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Anti-affirmative action group opposes bill
Omaha World-Herald
Published Tuesday
March 3, 2009
BY MARTHA STODDARDWORLD-HERALD BUREAU
LINCOLN — Backers of the ban on affirmative action in Nebraska objected Monday to a bill meant to bring the state's student diversity scholarship program in line with the ban.Marc Schniederjans, a local leader of the Nebraska Civil Rights Initiative, argued that complying with the intent of the constitutional amendment that voters approved last year should mean that the scholarships are ended rather than altered.The amendment bars public agencies such as universities and city governments from considering race, gender or ethnicity when handing out contracts, hiring employees or awarding scholarships.Legislative Bill 440 would eliminate all reference to "racial, ethnic and cultural diversity" in the law creating the scholarships and would require that the scholarships simply promote "diversity" in the state's public colleges and universities.
Full Story: http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_page=2798&u_sid=10577435
Published Tuesday
March 3, 2009
BY MARTHA STODDARDWORLD-HERALD BUREAU
LINCOLN — Backers of the ban on affirmative action in Nebraska objected Monday to a bill meant to bring the state's student diversity scholarship program in line with the ban.Marc Schniederjans, a local leader of the Nebraska Civil Rights Initiative, argued that complying with the intent of the constitutional amendment that voters approved last year should mean that the scholarships are ended rather than altered.The amendment bars public agencies such as universities and city governments from considering race, gender or ethnicity when handing out contracts, hiring employees or awarding scholarships.Legislative Bill 440 would eliminate all reference to "racial, ethnic and cultural diversity" in the law creating the scholarships and would require that the scholarships simply promote "diversity" in the state's public colleges and universities.
Full Story: http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_page=2798&u_sid=10577435
Background Information for EEOC Notice of Proposed Rulemaking On Title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
February 25, 2009
On May 21, 2008, the President signed the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA). GINA includes two titles. Title I, which amends portions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), the Public Health Service Act, and the Internal Revenue Code, addresses the use of genetic information in health insurance. Title II prohibits the use of genetic information in employment, prohibits the intentional acquisition of genetic information about applicants and employees, and imposes strict confidentiality requirements.
GINA requires the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to issue regulations implementing Title II of the Act by May 21, 2009 (one year after the law’s enactment). EEOC will publish a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on or about February 26, 2009, under that authority and is currently accepting comments about its proposal. This Q&A document summarizes the requirements of Title II of GINA, as interpreted by the Commission in the proposed regulations.
Who must comply with Title II of GINA?
Title II applies to private and state and local government employers with 15 or more employees, employment agencies, labor unions, and joint labor-management training programs. It also covers Congress and federal executive branch agencies. The NPRM and this document use the term “covered entity” to refer collectively to all entities subject to Title II of GINA.
Are entities subject to Title II of GINA required to comply with the law now?
No. There will be some time between issuance of final regulations and the date on which the law becomes effective and entities need to begin complying with it. Title II of GINA is effective on November 21, 2009.
Why is GINA needed?
GINA was enacted, in large part, in recognition of developments in the field of genetics, the decoding of the human genome, and advances in the field of genomic medicine. Genetic tests now exist that can inform individuals whether they may be at risk for developing a specific disease or disorder. But just as the number of genetic tests increase, so do the concerns of the general public about whether they may be at risk of losing access to health coverage or employment if insurers or employers have their genetic information.
Congress enacted GINA to address these concerns, by prohibiting discrimination based on genetic information and restricting acquisition and disclosure of such information, so that the general public would not fear adverse employment- or health coverage-related consequences for having a genetic test or participating in research studies that examine genetic information.
What is “genetic information?”
The statute and the NPRM include a detailed description of what constitutes “genetic information.” Genetic information includes, for example, information about an individual’s genetic tests, genetic tests of a family member, and family medical history. Genetic information does not include information about the sex or age of an individual or the individual’s family members, or information that an individual currently has a disease or disorder. Genetic information also does not include tests for alcohol or drug use. The Commission specifically invites public comment on other kinds of tests that covered entities may conduct and whether they should be considered genetic tests.
What practices are prohibited by GINA Title II?
Title II of GINA prohibits use of genetic information in making decisions related to any terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, prohibits covered entities from intentionally acquiring genetic information, requires confidentiality with respect to genetic information (with limited exceptions), and prohibits retaliation.
Full Q & A: http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/qanda_geneticinfo.html
February 25, 2009
On May 21, 2008, the President signed the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA). GINA includes two titles. Title I, which amends portions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), the Public Health Service Act, and the Internal Revenue Code, addresses the use of genetic information in health insurance. Title II prohibits the use of genetic information in employment, prohibits the intentional acquisition of genetic information about applicants and employees, and imposes strict confidentiality requirements.
GINA requires the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to issue regulations implementing Title II of the Act by May 21, 2009 (one year after the law’s enactment). EEOC will publish a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on or about February 26, 2009, under that authority and is currently accepting comments about its proposal. This Q&A document summarizes the requirements of Title II of GINA, as interpreted by the Commission in the proposed regulations.
Who must comply with Title II of GINA?
Title II applies to private and state and local government employers with 15 or more employees, employment agencies, labor unions, and joint labor-management training programs. It also covers Congress and federal executive branch agencies. The NPRM and this document use the term “covered entity” to refer collectively to all entities subject to Title II of GINA.
Are entities subject to Title II of GINA required to comply with the law now?
No. There will be some time between issuance of final regulations and the date on which the law becomes effective and entities need to begin complying with it. Title II of GINA is effective on November 21, 2009.
Why is GINA needed?
GINA was enacted, in large part, in recognition of developments in the field of genetics, the decoding of the human genome, and advances in the field of genomic medicine. Genetic tests now exist that can inform individuals whether they may be at risk for developing a specific disease or disorder. But just as the number of genetic tests increase, so do the concerns of the general public about whether they may be at risk of losing access to health coverage or employment if insurers or employers have their genetic information.
Congress enacted GINA to address these concerns, by prohibiting discrimination based on genetic information and restricting acquisition and disclosure of such information, so that the general public would not fear adverse employment- or health coverage-related consequences for having a genetic test or participating in research studies that examine genetic information.
What is “genetic information?”
The statute and the NPRM include a detailed description of what constitutes “genetic information.” Genetic information includes, for example, information about an individual’s genetic tests, genetic tests of a family member, and family medical history. Genetic information does not include information about the sex or age of an individual or the individual’s family members, or information that an individual currently has a disease or disorder. Genetic information also does not include tests for alcohol or drug use. The Commission specifically invites public comment on other kinds of tests that covered entities may conduct and whether they should be considered genetic tests.
What practices are prohibited by GINA Title II?
Title II of GINA prohibits use of genetic information in making decisions related to any terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, prohibits covered entities from intentionally acquiring genetic information, requires confidentiality with respect to genetic information (with limited exceptions), and prohibits retaliation.
Full Q & A: http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/qanda_geneticinfo.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)