The Huffington Post
Rev. Al Sharpton
Posted: 05/28/2013 4:20 pm
Sometimes, we need to take a moment and pause. As a nation, where are we in 2013, and what exactly do we want our future to look like? When President Obama was elected in 2008, it was a notable, historic moment for all of us. Re-electing him in 2012 only strengthened our collective commitment towards progressing forward. But while we praise our achievements in moving past many of the previously established blockades in society, we cannot and should not engage in premature celebration before we have completed the journey. At this very moment, the lack of diversity in places like corporate America, in the medical and legal fields, in boardrooms and at entry-level positions in a multitude of industries are severely lacking, if not regressing backwards. Simultaneously, we see attempts at removing equalizers such as Affirmative Action, and attacks against the Voting Rights Act itself. If this tells us anything, it's that our work is just beginning.
Full Story: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-al-sharpton/dont-celebrate-just-yet_b_3348203.html
Wednesday, May 29, 2013
Waiting for Fisher: Affirmative action’s future and upcoming court decisions
Constitution Daily
May 28, 2013
It’s been months since the Supreme Court heard arguments in a potentially landmark affirmative action case. So what’s holding up a decision by the justices?
The case of Fisher v. University of Texas is one of the most prominent and controversial issues in front of eight (and not nine) justices this term. (Justice Elena Kagan is not involved in the Fisher decision, due to her prior position as solicitor general.)
The case was argued last October and is the last one from that session that hasn’t seen a public ruling by the court.
Full Story: http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2013/05/affirmative-actions-future-and-upcoming-court-decisions/
The case of Fisher v. University of Texas is one of the most prominent and controversial issues in front of eight (and not nine) justices this term. (Justice Elena Kagan is not involved in the Fisher decision, due to her prior position as solicitor general.)The case was argued last October and is the last one from that session that hasn’t seen a public ruling by the court.
Full Story: http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2013/05/affirmative-actions-future-and-upcoming-court-decisions/
Supreme Court affirmative action decision: Don't be fooled by flawed theories
Christian Science Monitor
One of the most specious arguments the Supreme Court has heard in the Fisher v. University of Texas affirmative action case deals with 'mismatch theory.' It says affirmative action harms minorities because it puts them in universities where they are outmatched by their peers.
One of the most specious arguments the Supreme Court has heard in the Fisher v. University of Texas affirmative action case deals with 'mismatch theory.' It says affirmative action harms minorities because it puts them in universities where they are outmatched by their peers.
The Supreme Court’s much-awaited decision on affirmative action in the Fisher v. University of Texas case could be handed down as soon as this Tuesday, May 28. The court – and the public – have heard a host of arguments both for and against the practice. One opposing argument in particular has been more specious than many of the others.
Full Story: http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2013/0528/Supreme-Court-affirmative-action-decision-Don-t-be-fooled-by-flawed-theories
Full Story: http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2013/0528/Supreme-Court-affirmative-action-decision-Don-t-be-fooled-by-flawed-theories
Friends of Affirmative Action
Inside Higher Ed
When the U.S. Supreme Court last issued a ruling on the consideration of race in admissions decisions, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's decision (which preserved the right to consider race and ethnicity) specifically cited briefs filed by various groups that were not themselves parties to the case. Describing the value of diversity in higher education, Justice O'Connor wrote: "These benefits are not theoretical but real, as major American businesses have made clear that the skills needed in today’s increasingly global marketplace can only be developed through exposure to widely diverse people, cultures, ideas, and viewpoints." And she quoted briefs from business groups and military leaders to back up her point.
Read more: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/08/14/college-groups-flood-supreme-court-briefs-defending-affirmative-action#ixzz2UhO0Namb
Inside Higher Ed
August 14, 2012 - 3:00am
When the U.S. Supreme Court last issued a ruling on the consideration of race in admissions decisions, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's decision (which preserved the right to consider race and ethnicity) specifically cited briefs filed by various groups that were not themselves parties to the case. Describing the value of diversity in higher education, Justice O'Connor wrote: "These benefits are not theoretical but real, as major American businesses have made clear that the skills needed in today’s increasingly global marketplace can only be developed through exposure to widely diverse people, cultures, ideas, and viewpoints." And she quoted briefs from business groups and military leaders to back up her point.
Read more: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/08/14/college-groups-flood-supreme-court-briefs-defending-affirmative-action#ixzz2UhO0Namb
Inside Higher Ed
THE INCREASED LIKELIHOOD OF FALSE POSITIVES UNDER DIRECTIVE 307
The OFCCP BlogSpot
Tuesday, May 21, 2013
by Kayo Sady, Ph.D., Consultant and Amanda Shapiro, M.S., Consultant, DCI Consulting Group
In an ongoing series of blog posts, we will be dissecting portions of Directive 307 to highlight the potential pitfalls with the Directive’s prescriptions for conducting pay equity analyses. At issue this week is OFCCP’s oversight regarding the increased likelihood of false positives resulting from “pay analysis groups”, the new unit of pay equity analysis, as opposed to the former similarly situated employee groupings (“SSEGs”) required by the 2006 Compensation Standards and Voluntary Guidelines.
Full Story: http://ofccp.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-increased-likelihood-of-false.html
Tuesday, May 21, 2013
by Kayo Sady, Ph.D., Consultant and Amanda Shapiro, M.S., Consultant, DCI Consulting Group
In an ongoing series of blog posts, we will be dissecting portions of Directive 307 to highlight the potential pitfalls with the Directive’s prescriptions for conducting pay equity analyses. At issue this week is OFCCP’s oversight regarding the increased likelihood of false positives resulting from “pay analysis groups”, the new unit of pay equity analysis, as opposed to the former similarly situated employee groupings (“SSEGs”) required by the 2006 Compensation Standards and Voluntary Guidelines.
Full Story: http://ofccp.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-increased-likelihood-of-false.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)