Statement by LDF President and Director-Counsel John Payton on the Vital Importance of Higher Education Diversity in Response to the Supreme Court’s Decision Today to Review the University of Texas at Austin’s Race-Conscious Admissions Policy.
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
By:
LDF
Source:
NAACP Legal Defense Fund
Related Case or Issue:
Fisher v. Texas
Today, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, the first federal appellate challenge to the use of race in university admissions since the Court's landmark 2003 decision in Grutter v. Bollinger. Last year, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit unanimously affirmed that UT Austin’s admissions plan is consistent with Grutter, which provided a workable standard for colleges and universities to select student bodies throughout the nation. The NAACP Legal Defense Fund (LDF) has participated in the case as a friend-of-the-court and presented oral argument in the Fifth Circuit on behalf of the Black Student Alliance at UT Austin in support of the positions taken by the University.
"The benefits of diversity are unquestionable and as the Fifth Circuit recognized, UT Austin's policy falls squarely within the four corners of the Supreme Court's landmark 2003 decision in Grutter v. Bollinger. We trust that the Court will reaffirm that the educational benefits of diversity are a compelling interest that colleges and universities can and should pursue for the good of our students, our communities, and our nation."
http://www.naacpldf.org/news/statement-ldf-president-and-director-counsel-john-payton-vital-importance-higher-education-dive
Showing posts with label NAACP Legal Defense Fund. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NAACP Legal Defense Fund. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Monday, May 24, 2010
NAACP Legal Defense Fund Succeeds in Defending Rights of 6,000 African-American Applicants for Chicago Firefighter Jobs
NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.
News Release
May 24th, 2010
News Release
May 24th, 2010
NAACP Legal Defense Fund Succeeds in Defending Rights of 6,000 African-American Applicants for Chicago Firefighter Jobs
The Supreme Court unanimously rejects Chicago's attempt to avoid accountability for hiring discrimination
(New York, NY) - After years fighting for justice, qualified African-American job applicants will finally have a fair opportunity to land a job with the Chicago fire department. Today the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the City of Chicago can be held accountable for each and every time it used a hiring practice that arbitrarily blocked qualified minority applicants from employment.
"Today, the Supreme Court affirmed that job-seekers should not be denied justice based on a technicality," said John Payton, President and Director-Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., (LDF) who argued the case before the Court this past February. "This victory goes well beyond the immediate results in Chicago. It should ensure that no other fire department or employer uses a discriminatory test, and LDF will go the extra mile to make sure that they do not."
The only issue in the case, Lewis v. the City of Chicago,was whether or not the plaintiffs filed their claims of discrimination within the time frame required by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 - the nation's core equal employment law. Between 1996 and 2002, the City of Chicago hired more than 1,000 firefighters using the results of a test in a manner that unjustifiably excluded qualified African-American applicants. Although the City knew this from the outset, it used the test results for the next six years to hire eleven disproportionately white firefighter classes. After a federal district court found that the City's hiring practice was discriminatory and violated Title VII, the City did not appeal. Instead, the City tried to escape liability for its illegal hiring practice by arguing that the plaintiffs' claims were barred because they did not file their claims within 300 days after the City first announced its hiring plan. Vindicating LDF's arguments, the Court held that the City discriminated each and every time it hired firefighters and, therefore, the plaintiffs' claims were timely.
"I am happy to know that the thousands of qualified firefighters who were denied a fair shot at a job with our department will finally have an opportunity to join our ranks in service to the people of Chicago," said Greg Boggs, President of the African American Firefighters & Paramedics League of Chicago.
LDF represents the Lewis plaintiffs with co-counsel from the Chicago Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law; Miner, Barnhill & Galland, P.C.; Hughes, Socol, Piers, Resnick & Dym Ltd.; the Law Office of Patrick O. Patterson, S.C.; Robinson, Curley & Clayton, P.C.; and solo practitioner Bridget Arimond.
###
ABOUT LDF
The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund (LDF) is America's legal counsel on issues of race. Through advocacy and litigation, LDF focuses on issues of education, voter protection, economic justice and criminal justice. We encourage students to embark on careers in the public interest through scholarships and internship programs. LDF pursues racial justice to move our nation toward a society that fulfills the promise of equality for all.
The Supreme Court unanimously rejects Chicago's attempt to avoid accountability for hiring discrimination
(New York, NY) - After years fighting for justice, qualified African-American job applicants will finally have a fair opportunity to land a job with the Chicago fire department. Today the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the City of Chicago can be held accountable for each and every time it used a hiring practice that arbitrarily blocked qualified minority applicants from employment.
"Today, the Supreme Court affirmed that job-seekers should not be denied justice based on a technicality," said John Payton, President and Director-Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., (LDF) who argued the case before the Court this past February. "This victory goes well beyond the immediate results in Chicago. It should ensure that no other fire department or employer uses a discriminatory test, and LDF will go the extra mile to make sure that they do not."
The only issue in the case, Lewis v. the City of Chicago,was whether or not the plaintiffs filed their claims of discrimination within the time frame required by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 - the nation's core equal employment law. Between 1996 and 2002, the City of Chicago hired more than 1,000 firefighters using the results of a test in a manner that unjustifiably excluded qualified African-American applicants. Although the City knew this from the outset, it used the test results for the next six years to hire eleven disproportionately white firefighter classes. After a federal district court found that the City's hiring practice was discriminatory and violated Title VII, the City did not appeal. Instead, the City tried to escape liability for its illegal hiring practice by arguing that the plaintiffs' claims were barred because they did not file their claims within 300 days after the City first announced its hiring plan. Vindicating LDF's arguments, the Court held that the City discriminated each and every time it hired firefighters and, therefore, the plaintiffs' claims were timely.
"I am happy to know that the thousands of qualified firefighters who were denied a fair shot at a job with our department will finally have an opportunity to join our ranks in service to the people of Chicago," said Greg Boggs, President of the African American Firefighters & Paramedics League of Chicago.
LDF represents the Lewis plaintiffs with co-counsel from the Chicago Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law; Miner, Barnhill & Galland, P.C.; Hughes, Socol, Piers, Resnick & Dym Ltd.; the Law Office of Patrick O. Patterson, S.C.; Robinson, Curley & Clayton, P.C.; and solo practitioner Bridget Arimond.
###
ABOUT LDF
The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund (LDF) is America's legal counsel on issues of race. Through advocacy and litigation, LDF focuses on issues of education, voter protection, economic justice and criminal justice. We encourage students to embark on careers in the public interest through scholarships and internship programs. LDF pursues racial justice to move our nation toward a society that fulfills the promise of equality for all.
Friday, August 14, 2009
Margaret Bush Wilson, former Chair of the NAACP, Dies at 90
The Defenders Online
NAACP Legal Defense Fund
Posted By The Editors On August 13, 2009
Margaret Bush Wilson, the former Chair of the Board of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, died August 11 in St. Louis. Missouri. She was 90 years old.
[1]Mrs. Bush Wilson led the NAACP Board from 1975 to 1984. Julian Bond, the organization’s current Chairman, said in a statement that “The NAACP has lost a champion and the world has lost a pioneer.” Benjamin Todd Jealous, NAACP president and chief executive officer, described her as “the consummate NAACP leader (whose) steadfast commitment to the Association was unparalleled.”
In many ways, Margaret Bush Wilson, who was born and lived all her life in St. Louis, embodied the indomitable will and determination that characterized the black freedom struggle of the twentieth century.
She was born in 1919 to parents who were both deeply involved in local civil rights activism. Her mother, Margaret Berenicy Casey Bush, was a leader of the St. Louis NAACP. Her father, James T. Bush, a real estate agent, financially supported many civil rights causes throughout his life. He was also instrumental in organizing the St. Louis law suit that became part of the landmark Shelley v Kraemer Supreme Court case. That 1947 decision declared the use of restrictive covenants to bar blacks from buying homes in previously all-white neighborhoods unconstitutional.
Full Obituary: http://www.thedefendersonline.com/2009/08/13/margaret-bush-wilson-former-chair-of-the-naacp-dies-at-90/print/
NAACP Legal Defense Fund
Posted By The Editors On August 13, 2009
Margaret Bush Wilson, the former Chair of the Board of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, died August 11 in St. Louis. Missouri. She was 90 years old.
[1]Mrs. Bush Wilson led the NAACP Board from 1975 to 1984. Julian Bond, the organization’s current Chairman, said in a statement that “The NAACP has lost a champion and the world has lost a pioneer.” Benjamin Todd Jealous, NAACP president and chief executive officer, described her as “the consummate NAACP leader (whose) steadfast commitment to the Association was unparalleled.”
In many ways, Margaret Bush Wilson, who was born and lived all her life in St. Louis, embodied the indomitable will and determination that characterized the black freedom struggle of the twentieth century.
She was born in 1919 to parents who were both deeply involved in local civil rights activism. Her mother, Margaret Berenicy Casey Bush, was a leader of the St. Louis NAACP. Her father, James T. Bush, a real estate agent, financially supported many civil rights causes throughout his life. He was also instrumental in organizing the St. Louis law suit that became part of the landmark Shelley v Kraemer Supreme Court case. That 1947 decision declared the use of restrictive covenants to bar blacks from buying homes in previously all-white neighborhoods unconstitutional.
Full Obituary: http://www.thedefendersonline.com/2009/08/13/margaret-bush-wilson-former-chair-of-the-naacp-dies-at-90/print/
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Supreme Court Ruling Creates New Legal Standard That Restricts Equal Employment Opportunity
NAACP Legal Defense Fund
Press Release
June 29, 2009
(New York, NY) - Today's decision in Ricci v. DeStefano is a step backward fromthe goal of equal employment opportunity. A narrow majority of the Court created a new legal standard that places additional hurdles in front of employers seeking to fulfill their obligations under this nation's core antidiscrimination law. The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF) is disappointed that five Justices departed from well-established precedents that were properly applied by the courts below. "The Supreme Court's interpretation imposes new burdens on employers and makes it more difficult to maintain a discrimination-free workplace," said John Payton, LDF President and Director-Counsel. The four dissenting Justices, who joined an opinion authored by Justice Ginsburg, accurately explained the critical need for robust compliance with federal civil rights laws, especially in fire departments, which have historically and notoriously denied employment to African Americans, other people of color, and women. Justice Ginsburg criticized the majority for telling only half the story and ignoring that "[f]irefighting is a profession in which the legacy of racial discrimination casts an especially long shadow." Although we have made some progress as a nation, discrimination in firefighting jobs remains a significant problem. Just this year, the U.S. Department of Justice entered into settlement agreements requiring Portsmouth, Virginia and Dayton, Ohio to cease using discriminatory procedures to hire firefighters. "Faced with the reality of continuing racial exclusion, an employer has a responsibility to abandon unfair employment practices and adopt those that are fair and effective," said John Payton, LDF President and Director-Counsel. While the Court's ruling unnecessarily invalidates New Haven's actions, the majority opinion does not forbid employers from careful and deliberate efforts to develop employment selection procedures that fairly predict workplace success without fencing out entire groups. The Court's majority recognized that "employers' voluntary compliance efforts . . . are essential to [our civil rights laws] and to Congress's efforts to eradicate workplace discrimination." LDF believes that ultimately, employers will be able to comply with this decision and continue to take vigorous steps to ensure equal opportunity for all workers.
Press Release
June 29, 2009
(New York, NY) - Today's decision in Ricci v. DeStefano is a step backward fromthe goal of equal employment opportunity. A narrow majority of the Court created a new legal standard that places additional hurdles in front of employers seeking to fulfill their obligations under this nation's core antidiscrimination law. The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF) is disappointed that five Justices departed from well-established precedents that were properly applied by the courts below. "The Supreme Court's interpretation imposes new burdens on employers and makes it more difficult to maintain a discrimination-free workplace," said John Payton, LDF President and Director-Counsel. The four dissenting Justices, who joined an opinion authored by Justice Ginsburg, accurately explained the critical need for robust compliance with federal civil rights laws, especially in fire departments, which have historically and notoriously denied employment to African Americans, other people of color, and women. Justice Ginsburg criticized the majority for telling only half the story and ignoring that "[f]irefighting is a profession in which the legacy of racial discrimination casts an especially long shadow." Although we have made some progress as a nation, discrimination in firefighting jobs remains a significant problem. Just this year, the U.S. Department of Justice entered into settlement agreements requiring Portsmouth, Virginia and Dayton, Ohio to cease using discriminatory procedures to hire firefighters. "Faced with the reality of continuing racial exclusion, an employer has a responsibility to abandon unfair employment practices and adopt those that are fair and effective," said John Payton, LDF President and Director-Counsel. While the Court's ruling unnecessarily invalidates New Haven's actions, the majority opinion does not forbid employers from careful and deliberate efforts to develop employment selection procedures that fairly predict workplace success without fencing out entire groups. The Court's majority recognized that "employers' voluntary compliance efforts . . . are essential to [our civil rights laws] and to Congress's efforts to eradicate workplace discrimination." LDF believes that ultimately, employers will be able to comply with this decision and continue to take vigorous steps to ensure equal opportunity for all workers.
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/
Friday, September 19, 2008
Statement of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund on Promoting Diversity in Schools
September 16, 2008
Statement of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund on Promoting Diversity in Schools
A Response to OCR's August 28, 2008 "Dear Colleague" Letter
On August 28, 2008, the Office for Civil Rights in the U.S. Department of Education (OCR) issued a "Dear Colleague" letter providing informal guidance regarding how OCR plans to assess the use of race in assigning students to schools. OCR adopted a narrow and limited reading of the United States Supreme Court's decision in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School Dist. No. 1, 127 S.Ct. 2738 (2007) as support for this guidance. Because LDF believes that OCR's interpretation of the decision is inaccurate in a number of respects, we now write to clarify the legal standards applicable to elementary and secondary schools. In Parents Involved, a majority of the Supreme Court justices (the four Justices who would have upheld the student assignment plans from Seattle and Louisville at issue in the case, and Justice Kennedy, who found some aspects of those plans unacceptable but approved of their purpose) recognized that school districts have compelling interests in promoting student diversity and avoiding racial isolation in elementary and secondary school settings. The majority agreed that, in Justice Kennedy's words, a school district can, in its "discretion and expertise", take affirmative steps to avoid racial isolation and to achieve a diverse student population, Parents Involved, 127 S.Ct. at 2797, and that school officials may "consider the racial makeup of schools and adopt general policies to encourage a diverse student body, one aspect of which is its racial composition." Parents Involved, 127 S.Ct. at 2792. Specifically, schools and communities may take account of race in using the following student assignment methods to promote diversity: "strategic site selection of new schools; drawing attendance zones in general recognition of the demographics of neighborhoods; allocating resources for special programs; recruiting students and faculty in a targeted fashion; and tracking enrollments, performance, and other statistics by race." Parents Involved, 127 S.Ct. at 2792. The Court also clarified what school districts cannot do: individual students cannot be assigned to school solely on the basis of their race. Instead, school districts should consider race along with other demographic factors when implementing specific student assignment methods. Parents Involved, 127 S.Ct. at 2797. Furthermore, while the Court held that the Seattle and Louisville school districts had not presented sufficient evidence that they had seriously considered "race-neutral" alternatives, there is no requirement in Parents Involved that school districts only use race-neutral means to promote the compelling interests in diversity and avoiding racial isolation in their schools. School districts should be able to demonstrate that they seriously considered workable race-neutral alternatives, but need not exhaust every possibility. As Justice Kennedy recognized, "[t]his Nation has a moral and ethical obligation to fulfill its historic commitment to creating an integrated society that ensures equal opportunity for all of its children." Parents Involved, 127 S.Ct. at 2797. Schools and communities nationwide therefore can and should continue to take steps to promote a high quality, inclusive education for all children and to address the pervasive harms of continued racial isolation in schools. The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund is America's legal counsel on issues of race. LDF pursues racial justice to move our nation toward a society that fulfills the promise of equality for all Americans. Following the Supreme Court's Parents Involved ruling, LDF issued Still Looking to the Future: Voluntary K-12 School Integration, a Manual for educators, parents and advocates that provides comprehensive information about what we can and should do to promote high quality, inclusive schools in our communities. Click on the link under Publications in the right hand column to access the Manual. Other related resources are also located on this website. http://www.naacpldf.org/content.aspx?article=1317
Statement of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund on Promoting Diversity in Schools
A Response to OCR's August 28, 2008 "Dear Colleague" Letter
On August 28, 2008, the Office for Civil Rights in the U.S. Department of Education (OCR) issued a "Dear Colleague" letter providing informal guidance regarding how OCR plans to assess the use of race in assigning students to schools. OCR adopted a narrow and limited reading of the United States Supreme Court's decision in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School Dist. No. 1, 127 S.Ct. 2738 (2007) as support for this guidance. Because LDF believes that OCR's interpretation of the decision is inaccurate in a number of respects, we now write to clarify the legal standards applicable to elementary and secondary schools. In Parents Involved, a majority of the Supreme Court justices (the four Justices who would have upheld the student assignment plans from Seattle and Louisville at issue in the case, and Justice Kennedy, who found some aspects of those plans unacceptable but approved of their purpose) recognized that school districts have compelling interests in promoting student diversity and avoiding racial isolation in elementary and secondary school settings. The majority agreed that, in Justice Kennedy's words, a school district can, in its "discretion and expertise", take affirmative steps to avoid racial isolation and to achieve a diverse student population, Parents Involved, 127 S.Ct. at 2797, and that school officials may "consider the racial makeup of schools and adopt general policies to encourage a diverse student body, one aspect of which is its racial composition." Parents Involved, 127 S.Ct. at 2792. Specifically, schools and communities may take account of race in using the following student assignment methods to promote diversity: "strategic site selection of new schools; drawing attendance zones in general recognition of the demographics of neighborhoods; allocating resources for special programs; recruiting students and faculty in a targeted fashion; and tracking enrollments, performance, and other statistics by race." Parents Involved, 127 S.Ct. at 2792. The Court also clarified what school districts cannot do: individual students cannot be assigned to school solely on the basis of their race. Instead, school districts should consider race along with other demographic factors when implementing specific student assignment methods. Parents Involved, 127 S.Ct. at 2797. Furthermore, while the Court held that the Seattle and Louisville school districts had not presented sufficient evidence that they had seriously considered "race-neutral" alternatives, there is no requirement in Parents Involved that school districts only use race-neutral means to promote the compelling interests in diversity and avoiding racial isolation in their schools. School districts should be able to demonstrate that they seriously considered workable race-neutral alternatives, but need not exhaust every possibility. As Justice Kennedy recognized, "[t]his Nation has a moral and ethical obligation to fulfill its historic commitment to creating an integrated society that ensures equal opportunity for all of its children." Parents Involved, 127 S.Ct. at 2797. Schools and communities nationwide therefore can and should continue to take steps to promote a high quality, inclusive education for all children and to address the pervasive harms of continued racial isolation in schools. The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund is America's legal counsel on issues of race. LDF pursues racial justice to move our nation toward a society that fulfills the promise of equality for all Americans. Following the Supreme Court's Parents Involved ruling, LDF issued Still Looking to the Future: Voluntary K-12 School Integration, a Manual for educators, parents and advocates that provides comprehensive information about what we can and should do to promote high quality, inclusive schools in our communities. Click on the link under Publications in the right hand column to access the Manual. Other related resources are also located on this website. http://www.naacpldf.org/content.aspx?article=1317
Guidance or Spin on Affirmative Action Rulings?
Inside Higher Ed
September 19, 2008
More than five years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down two landmark decisions about the consideration of race in college admissions decisions — permitting race to be considered, but only in some circumstances.
Citing “numerous inquiries,” the U.S. Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights recently issued a “Dear Colleague” letter to colleges, outlining its interpretations of the rulings. Calling systems that rely on race “highly suspect,” the department draws attention to the limits on the consideration of race. While everyone agrees that that the Supreme Court did set limits, the letter is being criticized in some quarters as designed to discourage colleges from legal and educationally necessary use of affirmative action.
OCR interpretations of the state of the law are important because the agency investigates complaints from people who believed they have suffered illegal discrimination in education. Many times colleges will settle complaints with OCR, even saying that they disagree with the agency, to avoid a protracted fight with the agency. On the other hand, the Bush administration is in a lame duck stage that gives colleges more leeway.
The OCR’s new letter and the controversy over it concerns what everyone agrees was a “yes, but…” answer from the Supreme Court on the legality of affirmative action. While the Supreme Court absolutely barred quotas (as it had previously) and affirmed that race and ethnicity could be considered, it is in the limitations that the Supreme Court set that the legal fights continue. Generally, the Supreme Court said that colleges needed to consider applicants — minority and white alike — as individuals, going through the same admissions system, and that there are broad reasons to pursue diversity.
After the Supreme Court decisions came down, many colleges adjusted their admissions policies, with systems that gave points for minority status replaced with programs that involved more individual consideration of applicants. Other colleges added essays or eliminated the use of standardized test scores.
In its letter to colleges, OCR reminded them that they “bear the burden of providing sufficient detail” about programs so the agency can judge their legality. The agency then described the “parameters” it would use in evaluating the consideration of race in admissions:
“Use of race must be essential to an institution’s mission and stated goals.”
“The diversity sought by the postsecondary institution must be broader than mere racial diversity.”
“Providing individualized consideration is paramount and there must be no undue burden on other-race applicants.”
“Before using race, there must be serious good faith consideration of workable race-neutral alternatives.”
“Periodic reviews are necessary and the use of race must have a logical end point.”
Taking issue with the letter on Thursday was the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, which noted that the legal standards were set by the Supreme Court five years ago, and raised questions about why this guidance would be arriving now. “There is no reason for such clarification at this time,” the Legal Defense Fund said in a statement. “Rather, it seems that more than five years after those decisions, OCR is issuing this letter to further its efforts to subvert and give unnecessary pause to higher education institutions that are pursuing a racially diverse student population in a constitutional manner.” [To read the entire story, go to: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/09/19/ocr ]
AAAA NOTE: The OCR Guidance Letter is printed in its entirety on this blog. See below.
September 19, 2008
More than five years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down two landmark decisions about the consideration of race in college admissions decisions — permitting race to be considered, but only in some circumstances.
Citing “numerous inquiries,” the U.S. Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights recently issued a “Dear Colleague” letter to colleges, outlining its interpretations of the rulings. Calling systems that rely on race “highly suspect,” the department draws attention to the limits on the consideration of race. While everyone agrees that that the Supreme Court did set limits, the letter is being criticized in some quarters as designed to discourage colleges from legal and educationally necessary use of affirmative action.
OCR interpretations of the state of the law are important because the agency investigates complaints from people who believed they have suffered illegal discrimination in education. Many times colleges will settle complaints with OCR, even saying that they disagree with the agency, to avoid a protracted fight with the agency. On the other hand, the Bush administration is in a lame duck stage that gives colleges more leeway.
The OCR’s new letter and the controversy over it concerns what everyone agrees was a “yes, but…” answer from the Supreme Court on the legality of affirmative action. While the Supreme Court absolutely barred quotas (as it had previously) and affirmed that race and ethnicity could be considered, it is in the limitations that the Supreme Court set that the legal fights continue. Generally, the Supreme Court said that colleges needed to consider applicants — minority and white alike — as individuals, going through the same admissions system, and that there are broad reasons to pursue diversity.
After the Supreme Court decisions came down, many colleges adjusted their admissions policies, with systems that gave points for minority status replaced with programs that involved more individual consideration of applicants. Other colleges added essays or eliminated the use of standardized test scores.
In its letter to colleges, OCR reminded them that they “bear the burden of providing sufficient detail” about programs so the agency can judge their legality. The agency then described the “parameters” it would use in evaluating the consideration of race in admissions:
“Use of race must be essential to an institution’s mission and stated goals.”
“The diversity sought by the postsecondary institution must be broader than mere racial diversity.”
“Providing individualized consideration is paramount and there must be no undue burden on other-race applicants.”
“Before using race, there must be serious good faith consideration of workable race-neutral alternatives.”
“Periodic reviews are necessary and the use of race must have a logical end point.”
Taking issue with the letter on Thursday was the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, which noted that the legal standards were set by the Supreme Court five years ago, and raised questions about why this guidance would be arriving now. “There is no reason for such clarification at this time,” the Legal Defense Fund said in a statement. “Rather, it seems that more than five years after those decisions, OCR is issuing this letter to further its efforts to subvert and give unnecessary pause to higher education institutions that are pursuing a racially diverse student population in a constitutional manner.” [To read the entire story, go to: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/09/19/ocr ]
AAAA NOTE: The OCR Guidance Letter is printed in its entirety on this blog. See below.
Friday, August 22, 2008
Quick Takes: Another Win for Affirmative Action
Inside Higher Ed
August 22, 2008
Arizona’s secretary of state, Jan Brewer, on Thursday disqualified from the state’s November ballot a measure that would have barred public colleges and universities and other state agencies from considering race and ethnicity in admissions, scholarship and hiring decisions, The Arizona Republic reported. Brewer ruled that too many of the signatures on petitions to place the measure on the ballot were invalid, and that the remainder did not reach the minimum level. Supporters will now try to show that some of the rejected signatures should be permitted. But defenders of affirmative action say that may be difficult. The NAACP Legal Defense Fund released a statement Thursday night saying that signatures submitted on behalf of the measure were full of errors — included one signature alleged to be from the late President Ford and one from the Libyan leader Mu’ammar al-Qadhafi, with Saudi Arabia listed as his street address and Tibet as his city of residence. If the measure stays off the ballot, only two states — Colorado and Nebraska — will vote on abolishing affirmative action in November, down from five in which organizers originally planned to make their case. http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/08/22/qt
August 22, 2008
Arizona’s secretary of state, Jan Brewer, on Thursday disqualified from the state’s November ballot a measure that would have barred public colleges and universities and other state agencies from considering race and ethnicity in admissions, scholarship and hiring decisions, The Arizona Republic reported. Brewer ruled that too many of the signatures on petitions to place the measure on the ballot were invalid, and that the remainder did not reach the minimum level. Supporters will now try to show that some of the rejected signatures should be permitted. But defenders of affirmative action say that may be difficult. The NAACP Legal Defense Fund released a statement Thursday night saying that signatures submitted on behalf of the measure were full of errors — included one signature alleged to be from the late President Ford and one from the Libyan leader Mu’ammar al-Qadhafi, with Saudi Arabia listed as his street address and Tibet as his city of residence. If the measure stays off the ballot, only two states — Colorado and Nebraska — will vote on abolishing affirmative action in November, down from five in which organizers originally planned to make their case. http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/08/22/qt
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Statement from LDF Director-Counsel and President Ted Shaw regarding Cantrell v. Granholm.
February 6, 2008
Statement from LDF Director-Counsel and President Ted Shaw regarding Cantrell v. Granholm.
On Wednesday, February 6, oral arguments were heard in Cantrell v. Granholm, a lawsuit filed by the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund (LDF), the ACLU, and the Detroit State Conference of the NAACP challenging Proposal 2 in Michigan. Proposal 2 effectively denies access to higher education for people of color who are applying to the state's public universities. Unfortunately this is part of a national assault on efforts to provide access to higher education for students of color. "Proposal 2 is a wolf in sheep's clothing, cutting off the pathways towards a higher education for many students of color. As the Supreme Court held in Grutter, which upheld efforts to ensure equal opportunity at the University of Michigan: 'effective participation by members of all racial and ethnic groups in the civic life of our nation is essential if the dream of one nation, indivisible, is to be realized.' If left in place, Proposal 2 would curtail the participation of students in Michigan's institutions of higher education." "Some claim that we've moved beyond race in our nation, but this case is a stark reminder that issues of race still matter, especially when equal opportunity is not being afforded to all. Here, Proposal 2 fundamentally alters the structure of Michigan's political process so that the only way to achieve the 'dream of one nation, indivisible' in higher education is to amend the State's Constitution." "The Supreme Court has long held that such barriers violate the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection of the laws. The Court should uphold these core constitutional principles and strike down Proposal 2." http://www.naacpldf.org/content.aspx?article=1243
Statement from LDF Director-Counsel and President Ted Shaw regarding Cantrell v. Granholm.
On Wednesday, February 6, oral arguments were heard in Cantrell v. Granholm, a lawsuit filed by the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund (LDF), the ACLU, and the Detroit State Conference of the NAACP challenging Proposal 2 in Michigan. Proposal 2 effectively denies access to higher education for people of color who are applying to the state's public universities. Unfortunately this is part of a national assault on efforts to provide access to higher education for students of color. "Proposal 2 is a wolf in sheep's clothing, cutting off the pathways towards a higher education for many students of color. As the Supreme Court held in Grutter, which upheld efforts to ensure equal opportunity at the University of Michigan: 'effective participation by members of all racial and ethnic groups in the civic life of our nation is essential if the dream of one nation, indivisible, is to be realized.' If left in place, Proposal 2 would curtail the participation of students in Michigan's institutions of higher education." "Some claim that we've moved beyond race in our nation, but this case is a stark reminder that issues of race still matter, especially when equal opportunity is not being afforded to all. Here, Proposal 2 fundamentally alters the structure of Michigan's political process so that the only way to achieve the 'dream of one nation, indivisible' in higher education is to amend the State's Constitution." "The Supreme Court has long held that such barriers violate the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection of the laws. The Court should uphold these core constitutional principles and strike down Proposal 2." http://www.naacpldf.org/content.aspx?article=1243
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)