Archive

Archive for the ‘Affirmative Action’ Category

Affirmative Action and College Admissions

November 19th, 2012 No comments

Blog Category: Affirmative Action

by: Amy Hummler

When does a university’s use of race in determining admissions to its undergraduate program violate the Equal Protection Clause? This is an issue that the Supreme Court must once again decide. On October 10, 2012, the Supreme Court heard the case of Abigail Fisher, who claimed her constitutional rights were violated when she was unfairly denied admission to University of Texas at Austin’s (“UT”) undergraduate program because she is white. The Fifth Circuit upheld the constitutionality of UT’s admission process in January of 2011 affirming UT’s use of race elements in determining undergraduate admissions as constitutional. (631 F. 3d 213 (5th Cir. 2011)). Pursuant to Grutter v. Bolinger, UT’s admission program not only guarantees students who are in the top 10% of their high school graduating class admission to the school, but also considers the race, and other various attributes, of each applicant. The Supreme Court held in Grutter that a university “will not violate the equal protection clause if it narrowly tailors its use of race in admission decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body.” (539 U.S. 306, 343 (2003)). Thus, the Fifth Circuit interpreted this as UT is allowed to consider the attributes of individual applicants of all races.  631 F. 3d at 221.

When UT guaranteed admissions to its undergraduate programs to the top ten percent of students, this increased the number of African Americans and Hispanics enrolled in UT. However, UT claimed that this increase in minority admissions still did not offer the diversity UT desired in order to meet its compelling interests of “promoting cross-racial understanding, breaking down stereotypes, and preparing students for an increasingly diverse workplace.” As a result in 2004, UT began to consider race among many other factors in determining admissions into its undergraduate program. Within a few years, UT was one of the top public universities in the country for producing undergraduate degrees for minority groups. Abigail Fisher, an in-state applicant, sought enrollment at UT Austin in Fall of 2008 and was denied.

This October, UT’s lawyer explained to the Supreme Court (who reaffirmed college affirmative action by a 5-4 majority in Grutter) that the university uses “holistic’ review of each applicant’s characteristics in addition to an applicant’s race. It was reported that Supreme Court Justices were ‘skeptical’.” After all, UT’s use of its “color-blind admittance” for applicants who were in the top ten percent of their class did increase diverse enrollment, which works in Texas where there are high schools that are nearly all African-American and Hispanic. UT argued that its top ten percent program admitted students at disadvantaged schools that have lower standardized test scores into the university, leaving out the average minority kids at better suburban high schools. Thus the use of its affirmative action program will admit more minority students from middle class and professional families. This apparently did not sit well with the Justices, including Justice Alito, who stated “I thought that the whole purpose of affirmative action was to help students who come from underprivileged backgrounds.” The balance of the court on affirmative action has shifted with Justice Alito replacing Justice O’Connor.

But despite this majority shift, the real issue is whether public universities are using Grutter to overstep their use of affirmative action. UT’s top 10% program not only increased enrollment of minorities, but also helped underprivileged kids that attend schools that are less competitive in standardized testing to gain admission into a public university. This program is something I believe should be adopted by all public universities. However, I agree with Justice Alito that that the use of affirmative action should be used to help underprivileged children in poorer communities to gain admissions to higher education. These underprivileged children, often minorities, do not have access to the better educational programs that the more privileged communities have. Thus, the use of race to admit minority students from the more privileged communities seems to be counter-intuitive.

 

The opinions expressed herein are strictly those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Widener Journal of Law, Economics & Race.

_____________________________________________________

*Amy Hummler is currently a staff member on the Widener Journal of Law, Economics and Race. To learn more about Amy Hummler, click here to visit her page: Amy Hummler

To learn more about this topic, click the link below:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443982904578047192287305354.html

Should Affirmative Action be Socioeconomically Based?

November 12th, 2012 No comments

Blog Category: Affirmative Action

By: Patrick Gallo*

The landmark case of Grutter v. Bollinger solidified the constitutionality of race-conscious admissions.  In Grutter, the Supreme Court held that “… the Equal Protection Clause does not prohibit the [University of Michigan] Law School’s narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body.”[1]  The Supreme Court limited such a ruling to a finite period of twenty-five years, suggesting that one day race would no longer be a metaphorical hurdle to opportunity.[2] Specifically, in Grutter, the University of Michigan Law School employed an individualized “holistic review” of law school applicants, awarding a “plus” to minority students in order to achieve a “critical mass” of minority students and promote “…’cross-racial understanding’ … to break down racial stereotypes, and ‘enable… [students] to better understand persons of different races….’”[3]

The Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Grutter is being revisited in Fisher v. the University of Texas at Austin and consequently has placed affirmative action on the chopping block.  The premise underlying affirmative action is that “[y]ou do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race … and then say, ‘[y]ou are free to compete with all the others,’ and still justly believe that you have been completely fair.”[4]

Deborah Archer, a law professor at New York Law School, argues that race-conscious admissions programs need to be continued because “[r]ace-conscious admissions programs…are designed to overcome the systemic racism and serve as a vital pipeline to educational and professional opportunities for minority students.”[5]

David Sacks and Peter Thiel contend, however, that “[t]he basic problem is that a racist past cannot be undone through more racism. Race-conscious programs betray Martin Luther King’s dream of a color-blind community, and the heightened racial sensitivity they cause is a source of acrimony and tension instead of healing.”[6]    Sacks and Thiel further maintain that race-conscious programs do not help the disadvantaged, but rather, “primarily benefit minority applicants from [the] middle- and upper-class” while “hurt[ing] poor whites and even many Asians….”[7]  Thus, Sacks and Thiel conclude that “[i]f preferences were truly meant to remedy disadvantage, they would be given on the basis of disadvantage, not on the basis of race.”[8]

Via Fisher, the Supreme Court can preserve its milestone decision in Grutter, or vitiate it altogether and with it, affirmative action.  Alternatively, Fisher also provides the Supreme Court with an opportunity to carve out a new kind of affirmative action that is socioeconomically based.  Such would be appropriate considering that today’s greatest metaphorical hurdle and impediment to success is arguably one’s socioeconomic status rather than one’s race.[9]

 

The opinions expressed herein are strictly those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Widener Journal of Law, Economics & Race.

________________________________________________________________

*Patrick Gallo is one of the Articles Editor on the Widener Journal of Law, Economics and Race. To learn more about Patrick Gallo, click here to view his page: Patrick Gallo

[1] Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306, 343 (2003).

[2] See id. at 343.

[3] Id. at 330.

[4] David Leonhardt, Rethinking Affirmative Action, NY TIMES, Oct. 13, 2012 (quoting a 1965 speech of President Lyndon B. Johnson “that laid the groundwork for affirmative action”), available at http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/14/sunday-review/rethinking-affirmative-action.html?pagewanted=all.

[5] Deborah Archer, Why We Need Race-Conscious Admissions, THE NATIONAL JURIST, Oct. 2012, Vol. 22, No. 2, p. 13.

[6] David Sacks & Peter Theil, The Case Against Affirmative Action, STANFORD MAGAZINE, available at http://alumni.stanford.edu/get/page/magazine/article/?article_id=43448.

[7] Id. (citing Thomas Sowell of the Hoover Institution).

[8] Id.

[9] See Rachel Potucek, Affirmative action: Pros and Cons, K-STATE PERSPECTIVE, Fall 2003 (quoting Professors Krishna Tummala and John Fliter), available at http://www.k-state.edu/media/webzine/0203/aapros&cons.html; see also Leonhardt, supra, Rethinking Affirmative Action; Spencer Lindsay, Status, Not Race, Should Be Basis of Affirmative Action, THE BADGER HERALD, Apr. 25, 2012, available at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/the-badger-herald/status-not-race-should-be_b_1455359.html.

For more information concerning the foregoing topic you can visit the following:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57529223/supreme-court-takes-up-affirmative-action/?pageNum=2&tag=page

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/education/2010-06-17-diversity17_ST_N.htm

 

 

 

 

OFCCP abandons their position in attempting to implement widespread Affirmative Action policies in the health care industry

November 5th, 2012 No comments

Blog Category: Affirmative Action

Written by: *Dan Baum

The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (“OFFCP”) announced that they will rescind Directive 293. Directive 293 provides guidance in determining whether a health insurance provider falls under OFFCP’s jurisdiction. OFFCP jurisdiction is necessary to subject healthcare employers to Affirmative Action commands.

Prior to this, a ruling by OFFCP had announced for the first time that it has jurisdiction over healthcare providers enrolling in the Medicare advantage program and Medicare prescription drug programs (parts C and D).  Historically, the OFCCP has taken the position that participation in Medicare, TRICARE and Medicaid is a healthcare provider’s acceptance of financial assistance, not their acceptance of a government contract.  Healthcare organizations with 50 or more  employees that enter into employment contracts with the federal government are subject to affirmative action obligations under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the amended Veteran’s Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974. The two acts require employers to ensure non-discrimination in their employment practices, and create written affirmative action plans to ensure compliance.

Because healthcare providers’ acceptance of Medicaid has traditionally been viewed as financial assistance, they were usually  outside of OFCCP’s jurisdiction.  However, in Florida Hospital of Orlando, an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) stated that healthcare providers participating in TRICARE are government contractors, implicating that they would be subjected to Affirmative Action requirements.  However, the passage of the National Defense Authorization Act essentially reversed the findings of Florida Hospital and directive 293. In response, the OFCCP gave up their fight for obtaining jurisdiction by rescinding the directive.

For now healthcare providers will not be subjected to Affirmative Action requirements under the OFCCP, however, OFCCP stated in a webinar that they will be reviewing on a case-by-case basis  to determine whether Medicare (specifically parts C and D) providers will be subjected to OFCCP contract/subcontract jurisdiction.  Therefore providers must continue to monitor their sources of federal revenue to determine whether they are within OFCCP’s jurisdiction, and if so, ensure compliance with Affirmative Action regulations.

____________________________

*Dan Baum is currently a staff member on the Widener Journal of Law, Economics and Race. To learn more about Dan Baum, click here to view his page: Dan Baum
Sources:
Health Lawyers Weekly, Feb 18, 2011, Vol. IX Issue 7. OFCCP Clarifies When Healthcare Providers Must Comply with Affirmative Action, available at: http://www.hallrender.com/health_care_law/library/articles/753/Bumgarner_HLW_article1.pdf
Fulbright & Jaworski L.L.P., Publication, OFCCP Rescinds Directive Regarding Its Jurisdiction Over Health Care, available at: http://www.fulbright.com/index.cfm?DETAIL=yes&FUSEACTION=publications.detail&NEWPAGE=0&PUB_ID=5499&SITE_ID=494&pf=y
Smith, Gambrell & Russell, L.L.P., Publication, OFCCP Rescinds Medical Providers Directive 293, available at: http://www.sgrlaw.com/resources/client_alerts/1838/

Affirmative Action Programs in Colleges and Universities

November 5th, 2012 No comments

Blog Category: Affirmative Action

Written by: *Staci Pesin

As Law Students, we have all taken Constitutional law in law school, and if not you will shortly.  For those of you who have taken Constitutional law, we should all be familiar with these most recognized cases: Roe v. Wade, Brown v. Board of Education, and Marbury v. Madison. However, there is a case that you might not be familiar with, the case of Grutter v. Bollinger, which was an affirmative action case.  In 2003, the Supreme Court held in Grutter v. Bollinger  that the University of Michigan was allowed to use an affirmative action based admission policy in the interest of promoting diversity at their school.

Nine years later, the Supreme Court has decided to hear another affirmative action case.  This case took place in Texas. A Caucasian student alleged that the University of Texas denied her admission because of her race and that the school gives preferential treatment to African American and Latino applicants.  The University of Texas has a race-based admission plan where it admits the top ten percent of high school students. With many high schools in Texas heavily made up of minority students, racial diversity has increased at the university.  In addition, The University of Texas also has a class-based program for economically disadvantaged students, which has also increased racial diversity at the university.

Carolyn Warner, a student writer for The Journal of Gender, Race & Justice, suggests that it is time to end race-based affirmative action but notes that racial diversity in schools is a compelling government goal.  She suggests we focus on fixing the class gap which would help bridge the racial gap.  Studies have shown that affirmative action programs based on race help the economically advantaged and the author suggests that with class-based affirmative action we will be helping the economically disadvantaged as well as minorities.  Her ultimate goal is certainly noble, however fixing the class gap is not going to happen overnight.

 

The opinions expressed herein are strictly those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Widener Journal of Law, Economics & Race.

______________________________

*Staci Pesin is currently the Senior Managing Editor on the Delaware Campus. To learn more about Staci Pesin, click here to view her personal page: Staci Pesin
Article written by Carolyn Warner, Student Writer for The Journal of Gender, Race & Justice See:  http://blogs.law.uiowa.edu/jgrj/?p=797  to read the full article.

The Business Case for Diversity

April 3rd, 2009 No comments

Widener School of Law, Delaware, will host Dr. Jeff McKinney, president of the Chicago-based Angkor Group, for his talk, “The Business Case for Diversity: Why We Need It, How We Achieve It.” Dr. McKinney’s remarks will focus on the legal profession and why the legal profession should encourage diversity to enhance overall performance.

Specifically, Dr. McKinney will address the historically underrepresented groups within the legal profession: Hispanics, women, African-Americans, and diversity issues related to race, religion, ethnicity, sex, and sexual orientation. A floor discussion and Q&A will follow the presentation.

The program has been scheduled to start at 4:30 p.m., Thursday, April 16, 2009 at the Barrister’s Club.

This Diversity Week event is sponsored by: SBA, PALS, MLS

Dean’s Leadership Forum on Diversity and Sports: Daniel Frankl, “Sports, Minorities and the Media” panel

March 27th, 2009 No comments

Read the text of Dr. Frankl’s remarks: diversitysymposium-sport-media-3-31-091.doc

Daniel Frankl, Ph.D., School of Kinesiology & Nutritional Science, California State University Los Angeles, speaks to the audience about inequalities among minority groups within sports.

Diversity and Sports Home