Center for Economic Opportunity reports law school entry is easier for minorities
www.azstarnet.com
PHOENIX — A new study today by an organization opposed to affirmative action concludes minorities are more likely to be admitted to the state's two public law schools than similarly qualified Anglos.
The report by the Center for Economic Opportunity shows the number of Anglos, Asians, Hispanics and blacks admitted to the law colleges at Arizona State University and the University of Arizona is pretty much in proportion to the number that apply.
But it also finds both schools admit minorities with lower grade-point averages and scores on the Law School Aptitude Test than Anglos.
According to the report, at UA the median LSAT score for black students admitted in 2007 was 15 percent below whites; for Hispanics, the difference was 10 percent. At ASU, median scores for blacks were 8.3 percent below whites; there was a 6.7 percent difference between Hispanics and Anglos.
The report says incoming Anglo and Asian students had a 3.6 grade-point average in 2007, compared with 3.5 for Hispanics and 3.4 for blacks. At ASU the average white GPA was 3.7, compared with 3.4 for black and Hispanic students.
The result, according to Roger Clegg, the organization's president, is black and Hispanic applicants with equal GPA and LSAT scores are significantly more likely to be admitted to the UA law school than white students. He said the imbalance is far greater at ASU.
Neither school has denied using race or ethnicity as a factor in determining who gets the limited number of slots available each year. In fact, top officials of both schools acknowledged they consider such factors necessary to promote diversity.
And Clegg conceded that, while the U.S. Supreme Court has outlawed quotas in choosing students, the high court said achieving diversity goals by looking at factors like race and ethnicity is permitted.
That, however, could change — at least in Arizona.
Clegg's organization originally started the study in support of a ballot proposition being pushed by millionaire California entrepreneur Ward Connerly to outlaw affirmative-action programs not only in public education but also in employment and contracting. [To read the entire story, go to: http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/printDS/260220 ]
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Senators encourage opposition to affirmative action ban
By: Rachel Albin
Posted: 10/2/08
Student leaders at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln hope affirmative action is here to stay.
On Wednesday, the Association of Students of the University of Nebraska passed a resolution stating its opposition to the affirmative action ban on the November ballot. The resolution also urges students to research affirmative action and vote against banning it in Nebraska.
All but one senator voted in favor of Senate Resolution #5, and one senator abstained from voting.
"I'm kind of 'Heineman' on this issue," said Katie Madsen, a senior business administration major and external vice president of ASUN. "I'm not going to say yes. I'm not going to say no. I'm just going to smile."
Madsen refused to take a stance because her position doesn't allow her to vote with the senate. But she reminded senators to think of their constituents, some of which support the affirmative action ban.
Nate Skaggs, a senior marketing major and senator for the college of business administration, said he abstained from voting because he felt he didn't know his constituents' opinions well enough to make the decision.
"Gov. Heineman said that because this is not going to come to his desk, he's not going to take a stance," said Emily Zimmer, a senior political science major and president of ASUN. "This is coming to our campus."
Zimmer and several senators pressed others to approve the resolution and oppose the ban because they said it would cripple equal-access and certain university-enriching programs.
The ban would eliminate scholarships that consider race or gender, including private scholarships the university has ties to, said Sarah Fech, a senior political science and French major and chair of the ASUN Government Liaison Committee.
Programs such as a mentor-matching for minority students and facilities including the Women's Center and the Multicultural Center could also be at risk, she said.
Posted: 10/2/08
Student leaders at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln hope affirmative action is here to stay.
On Wednesday, the Association of Students of the University of Nebraska passed a resolution stating its opposition to the affirmative action ban on the November ballot. The resolution also urges students to research affirmative action and vote against banning it in Nebraska.
All but one senator voted in favor of Senate Resolution #5, and one senator abstained from voting.
"I'm kind of 'Heineman' on this issue," said Katie Madsen, a senior business administration major and external vice president of ASUN. "I'm not going to say yes. I'm not going to say no. I'm just going to smile."
Madsen refused to take a stance because her position doesn't allow her to vote with the senate. But she reminded senators to think of their constituents, some of which support the affirmative action ban.
Nate Skaggs, a senior marketing major and senator for the college of business administration, said he abstained from voting because he felt he didn't know his constituents' opinions well enough to make the decision.
"Gov. Heineman said that because this is not going to come to his desk, he's not going to take a stance," said Emily Zimmer, a senior political science major and president of ASUN. "This is coming to our campus."
Zimmer and several senators pressed others to approve the resolution and oppose the ban because they said it would cripple equal-access and certain university-enriching programs.
The ban would eliminate scholarships that consider race or gender, including private scholarships the university has ties to, said Sarah Fech, a senior political science and French major and chair of the ASUN Government Liaison Committee.
Programs such as a mentor-matching for minority students and facilities including the Women's Center and the Multicultural Center could also be at risk, she said.
DILLARD’S SUED FOR DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION
US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
September 30, 2008
EEOC Says Retail Giant Requires Employees to Reveal Confidential Medical Information
SAN DIEGO – Dillard Store Services, Inc. (Dillard’s), the nationwide chain of department stores, unlawfully discriminates against employees by requiring them to disclose personal and confidential medical information or face disciplinary action including termination, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charges in a class lawsuit filed under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
The EEOC states in the litigation that the Dillard’s store in El Centro, Calif., requires employees to reveal the specific nature of their medical illness in order to deem necessary sick leave as an excused absence. The EEOC contends this corporate policy, potentially affecting thousands of workers, is an unlawful disability-related inquiry under the ADA and not justified by business necessity. Dillard’s corporate headquarters is located in Little Rock, Ark.
In the lawsuit, the EEOC cites a sales associate who was unable to attend work for a few days due to her medical illness. Despite submitting a doctor’s note justifying the need for sick leave, Dillard’s required the sales associate to reveal the specific nature of her illness in order to have these absences deemed excused pursuant to company policy. The sales associate openly objected and refused to reveal the nature of her medical illness, informing Dillard’s that its specific medical inquiry unlawfully invaded her right to privacy. Nevertheless, Dillard’s deemed the sales associate’s absences as unexcused and fired her in retaliation for refusing to disclose the requested medical information.“This case has national implications and illustrates one of the reasons why the ADA prohibits employers from subjecting employees to disability-related inquiries not justified by business necessity,” said EEOC Regional Attorney Anna Park of the agency’s Los Angeles District. “The ADA’s prohibition of disability-related inquiries was enacted to protect employees from being subjected to harmful and unfounded stereotypes on the basis of a perceived or actual medical illness.”
The EEOC filed the suit in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement (U.S. EEOC v. Dillard’s, Inc., et al, Case No. 08-CV-1780). The EEOC seeks compensatory and punitive damages and injunctive relief.
San Diego Local Acting Director Raul Green said, “Employers need to be aware that the EEOC will vigorously enforce the ADA to ensure that employees are free to exercise their rights. Employees should not have to worry that this very sensitive, private and potentially harmful information will be used by the employer against them to unfairly exclude them from jobs that they could otherwise perform.”According to its web site, www.dillards.com, “Dillard's, Inc. ranks among the nation's largest fashion apparel and home furnishings retailers with annual revenues exceeding $7.7 billion. The Company operates approximately 330 Dillard's locations spanning 29 states, all with one nameplate - Dillard's.”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.
September 30, 2008
EEOC Says Retail Giant Requires Employees to Reveal Confidential Medical Information
SAN DIEGO – Dillard Store Services, Inc. (Dillard’s), the nationwide chain of department stores, unlawfully discriminates against employees by requiring them to disclose personal and confidential medical information or face disciplinary action including termination, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charges in a class lawsuit filed under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
The EEOC states in the litigation that the Dillard’s store in El Centro, Calif., requires employees to reveal the specific nature of their medical illness in order to deem necessary sick leave as an excused absence. The EEOC contends this corporate policy, potentially affecting thousands of workers, is an unlawful disability-related inquiry under the ADA and not justified by business necessity. Dillard’s corporate headquarters is located in Little Rock, Ark.
In the lawsuit, the EEOC cites a sales associate who was unable to attend work for a few days due to her medical illness. Despite submitting a doctor’s note justifying the need for sick leave, Dillard’s required the sales associate to reveal the specific nature of her illness in order to have these absences deemed excused pursuant to company policy. The sales associate openly objected and refused to reveal the nature of her medical illness, informing Dillard’s that its specific medical inquiry unlawfully invaded her right to privacy. Nevertheless, Dillard’s deemed the sales associate’s absences as unexcused and fired her in retaliation for refusing to disclose the requested medical information.“This case has national implications and illustrates one of the reasons why the ADA prohibits employers from subjecting employees to disability-related inquiries not justified by business necessity,” said EEOC Regional Attorney Anna Park of the agency’s Los Angeles District. “The ADA’s prohibition of disability-related inquiries was enacted to protect employees from being subjected to harmful and unfounded stereotypes on the basis of a perceived or actual medical illness.”
The EEOC filed the suit in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement (U.S. EEOC v. Dillard’s, Inc., et al, Case No. 08-CV-1780). The EEOC seeks compensatory and punitive damages and injunctive relief.
San Diego Local Acting Director Raul Green said, “Employers need to be aware that the EEOC will vigorously enforce the ADA to ensure that employees are free to exercise their rights. Employees should not have to worry that this very sensitive, private and potentially harmful information will be used by the employer against them to unfairly exclude them from jobs that they could otherwise perform.”According to its web site, www.dillards.com, “Dillard's, Inc. ranks among the nation's largest fashion apparel and home furnishings retailers with annual revenues exceeding $7.7 billion. The Company operates approximately 330 Dillard's locations spanning 29 states, all with one nameplate - Dillard's.”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.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
TV ads target supporter of affirmative action ban
bnd.com
Sunday, Sep. 28, 2008
Associated Press
A new television and online ad questions the motives of a California businessman who is pushing a ban on most types of affirmative action in Nebraska and Colorado.
Kristina Wilfore, executive director of the liberal Ballot Initiative Strategy Center, said the ads started running Wednesday in Omaha and Denver. They question Ward Connerly's salary and millions of dollars paid to him in speaking fees.
Wilfore said Connerly's compensation from his group, the American Civil Rights Coalition, is "out-of-whack with any nonprofit industry standards."
Her group bases its figures on IRS tax records between 1997 and 2006, concluding that Connerly "lined his own pockets with over $7.6 million."
Connerly points out that the money doesn't all go to him. The group's board sets compensation, and the $7.6 million referred to includes salaries for other staff including attorneys, Connerly said.
Before he started this job, Connerly said, he made more than $2 million a year with his consulting firm, so suggesting he's in it to make money is false.
And he questions what he calls a personal attack.
"You'd think that I was on the ballot," Connerly said.
Banner ads from the group were running on the Omaha World-Herald Web site. A representative of Omaha's NBC affiliate, WOWT, said the group had bought two spots this week.
[To read the entire story, go to: http://www.bnd.com/news/politics/story/485242.html ]
Sunday, Sep. 28, 2008
Associated Press
A new television and online ad questions the motives of a California businessman who is pushing a ban on most types of affirmative action in Nebraska and Colorado.
Kristina Wilfore, executive director of the liberal Ballot Initiative Strategy Center, said the ads started running Wednesday in Omaha and Denver. They question Ward Connerly's salary and millions of dollars paid to him in speaking fees.
Wilfore said Connerly's compensation from his group, the American Civil Rights Coalition, is "out-of-whack with any nonprofit industry standards."
Her group bases its figures on IRS tax records between 1997 and 2006, concluding that Connerly "lined his own pockets with over $7.6 million."
Connerly points out that the money doesn't all go to him. The group's board sets compensation, and the $7.6 million referred to includes salaries for other staff including attorneys, Connerly said.
Before he started this job, Connerly said, he made more than $2 million a year with his consulting firm, so suggesting he's in it to make money is false.
And he questions what he calls a personal attack.
"You'd think that I was on the ballot," Connerly said.
Banner ads from the group were running on the Omaha World-Herald Web site. A representative of Omaha's NBC affiliate, WOWT, said the group had bought two spots this week.
[To read the entire story, go to: http://www.bnd.com/news/politics/story/485242.html ]
Diversity's Bottom Line
AMLAWDaily
September 30, 2008 11:21 PM
Posted by Dimitra Kessenides
By Susan Hansen
Excerpted from the Fall 2008 issue of Minority Law Journal
Even in an era of $160,000 salaries for first-year associates--plus bonuses--not every young lawyer is feeling equally flush. Law school debt and the uncertainty of today's tumultuous markets have left many associates feeling squeezed--and a lot of them are minority lawyers.
This year our Minority Experience Study focused on the economic life of big-firm midlevels. Comparing responses from young attorneys of different racial groups, we found that African American associates, in particular, generally appeared to be in a less secure financial position. They, together with Hispanic lawyers, reported higher levels of debt and lower bonus compensation compared to their white and Asian American counterparts. More black attorneys said that their workloads were too light, and overall they reported lower billable hours, even though they took less of the vacation that they're entitled to than other groups.
As in previous years, the Minority Experience Study drew on data collected by our sibling publication The American Lawyer for its Midlevel Associates Survey. The survey, conducted in spring 2008, includes 7,259 third-, fourth-, and fifth-year associates at 180 large law firms who identified their racial background, including 5,390 whites, 539 Asian Americans, 241 Hispanics, and 212 African Americans. (The 877 survey respondents who did not specify their race were not included in the Minority Experience Study.)
The economic disparities among different groups of associates begin early. More than 90 percent of Hispanic and African American lawyers reported that they borrowed money for law school, while just over 80 percent of whites did. Only about three-quarters of Asian American attorneys took out law school loans. Black and Hispanic attorneys were also more likely to have taken out loans of more than $100,000.
To several diversity professionals, those numbers aren't surprising. Since minorities are more likely to have lower incomes, they note, fewer African American and Hispanic families can help their children foot the bill for law school. Furthermore, our survey found, lawyers of color were often more likely to have chosen to work at law firms because of that debt. More than half of African American and Hispanic lawyers said that law school loans were a major factor in their decision to join a firm, compared to just under 40 percent of white and Asian American midlevels.
One financial gap that shows up on our survey is in the area of compensation. Both African American and Hispanic respondents report an average base salary of about $178,000. White associates say they make $184,000, on average, and Asian American associates say they make $195,000. [To read the entire story, go to: http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/amlawdaily/2008/09/post-5.html ]
September 30, 2008 11:21 PM
Posted by Dimitra Kessenides
By Susan Hansen
Excerpted from the Fall 2008 issue of Minority Law Journal
Even in an era of $160,000 salaries for first-year associates--plus bonuses--not every young lawyer is feeling equally flush. Law school debt and the uncertainty of today's tumultuous markets have left many associates feeling squeezed--and a lot of them are minority lawyers.
This year our Minority Experience Study focused on the economic life of big-firm midlevels. Comparing responses from young attorneys of different racial groups, we found that African American associates, in particular, generally appeared to be in a less secure financial position. They, together with Hispanic lawyers, reported higher levels of debt and lower bonus compensation compared to their white and Asian American counterparts. More black attorneys said that their workloads were too light, and overall they reported lower billable hours, even though they took less of the vacation that they're entitled to than other groups.
As in previous years, the Minority Experience Study drew on data collected by our sibling publication The American Lawyer for its Midlevel Associates Survey. The survey, conducted in spring 2008, includes 7,259 third-, fourth-, and fifth-year associates at 180 large law firms who identified their racial background, including 5,390 whites, 539 Asian Americans, 241 Hispanics, and 212 African Americans. (The 877 survey respondents who did not specify their race were not included in the Minority Experience Study.)
The economic disparities among different groups of associates begin early. More than 90 percent of Hispanic and African American lawyers reported that they borrowed money for law school, while just over 80 percent of whites did. Only about three-quarters of Asian American attorneys took out law school loans. Black and Hispanic attorneys were also more likely to have taken out loans of more than $100,000.
To several diversity professionals, those numbers aren't surprising. Since minorities are more likely to have lower incomes, they note, fewer African American and Hispanic families can help their children foot the bill for law school. Furthermore, our survey found, lawyers of color were often more likely to have chosen to work at law firms because of that debt. More than half of African American and Hispanic lawyers said that law school loans were a major factor in their decision to join a firm, compared to just under 40 percent of white and Asian American midlevels.
One financial gap that shows up on our survey is in the area of compensation. Both African American and Hispanic respondents report an average base salary of about $178,000. White associates say they make $184,000, on average, and Asian American associates say they make $195,000. [To read the entire story, go to: http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/amlawdaily/2008/09/post-5.html ]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)