Group contemplating challenge to UNC Affirmative Action
- Thread starter jhmd2000
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
PH, your question is good - seems to ask whether AA in higher education should be more like EO 11246 AA, which applies to certain government contractors. Basically EO 11246 AA requires outreach to candidates and requires good faith efforts to correct statistical discrepancies in the workforce, but STRICTLY prohibits consideration of race in the actual selection process.
The OFCCP describes a government contractor’s affirmative action procedures as follows:
Based on the utilization analyses under Executive Order 11246 and the availability of qualified individuals, the contractors establish goals to reduce or overcome the under-utilization. Good faith efforts may include expanded efforts in outreach, recruitment, training and other activities to increase the pool of qualified minorities and females. The actual selection decision is to be made on a non-discriminatory basis.
. . .
The regulations at 41 CFR 60-2.12(e), 60-2.30 and 60-2.15, specifically prohibit quota and preferential hiring and promotions under the guise of affirmative action numerical goals. In other words, discrimination in the selection decision is prohibited.
http://www.dol.gov/ofccp/regs/compliance/aa.htm
A recent federal case further clarifies that race cannot be a "tie breaker" among two equally-qualified candidates.
While I am familiar with the arguments suggesting that EO 11,246 AA is unconstitutional, I believe this type of AA will withstand a court challenge.
The OFCCP describes a government contractor’s affirmative action procedures as follows:
Based on the utilization analyses under Executive Order 11246 and the availability of qualified individuals, the contractors establish goals to reduce or overcome the under-utilization. Good faith efforts may include expanded efforts in outreach, recruitment, training and other activities to increase the pool of qualified minorities and females. The actual selection decision is to be made on a non-discriminatory basis.
. . .
The regulations at 41 CFR 60-2.12(e), 60-2.30 and 60-2.15, specifically prohibit quota and preferential hiring and promotions under the guise of affirmative action numerical goals. In other words, discrimination in the selection decision is prohibited.
http://www.dol.gov/ofccp/regs/compliance/aa.htm
A recent federal case further clarifies that race cannot be a "tie breaker" among two equally-qualified candidates.
While I am familiar with the arguments suggesting that EO 11,246 AA is unconstitutional, I believe this type of AA will withstand a court challenge.
Last edited:
AA isn't just about race. It's also about gender. AA is one factor in getting into a college, or a job or winning a contract. Unless and until all preferences are ended it is grossly unfair to end AA.
Besides being unfair, ending it is a really stupid idea for our economy and our society. The larger the market the better everyone does. The greater opportunity is the less we have to worry about crime and poverty.
Besides being unfair, ending it is a really stupid idea for our economy and our society. The larger the market the better everyone does. The greater opportunity is the less we have to worry about crime and poverty.
Wakelaw2006
Well-known member
Did anyone else get the "Wake Forest and the Michigan Affirmative Action Case" this afternoon?
Text:
For those who have paid more attention to this than I have - the Michigan ban on using AA was only with respect to public schools, right? So even if NC did have a similar ban, it would not impact Wake? Would a state (even by constitutional amendment) even have the authority to ban private schools from using AA in their admission processes? My gut would say no, but I'd be curious to hear what others think.
Text:
For those who have paid more attention to this than I have - the Michigan ban on using AA was only with respect to public schools, right? So even if NC did have a similar ban, it would not impact Wake? Would a state (even by constitutional amendment) even have the authority to ban private schools from using AA in their admission processes? My gut would say no, but I'd be curious to hear what others think.
Wakeforest22890
Snowpom
I have no idea how it would have anything to do with Wake. I wouldn't think that a state can ban private schools from using it, what is the state action? They get grants and whatnot I suppose. I always thought the AA discussion was public schools only.
It's not just about being parochial and caring about Wake. It's about how this myopic, totally unfair and stupid ruling impacts our nation as a whole. It's the next logical step in creating Jim Crow 21st Century. ..
FuckmouthedRube
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2011
- Messages
- 4,216
- Reaction score
- 233
There are a lot of case studies about the positive effects of diversity in group dynamics. The most widely cited one is JFK and the Bay of Pigs. His cabinet was almost entirely white males, roughly the same age, and all products of elite New England prep schools and the Ivies. The "best and the brightest" had such a group think that they never even contemplated the disaster that ensued. Even though the Obama White House has women and minorities in powerful positions, there's still a sameness about much of their backgrounds and experience. Harvard and Yale have a near monopoly on the Supreme Court. Google's an extremely powerful company, but it's a boy's club and it's no accident that the two highest profile women in Silicon Valley left for better gigs elsewhere.
I'm certainly not advocating for Harriet Miers precisely because she didn't attend elite schools (W's rationale), but an effective team has a mix of skills and perspectives. Part's gender, part's race, part's age, part's educational experience (public vs private), and part's professional experience. Excellence and competence definitely have to be there, but the best group results don't always come from people with the same perspectives packaged in different races or genders.
I'm certainly not advocating for Harriet Miers precisely because she didn't attend elite schools (W's rationale), but an effective team has a mix of skills and perspectives. Part's gender, part's race, part's age, part's educational experience (public vs private), and part's professional experience. Excellence and competence definitely have to be there, but the best group results don't always come from people with the same perspectives packaged in different races or genders.
Wakeforest22890
Snowpom
States voting to not allow affirmative action in public universities is not remotely close to creating any Jim Crow laws.
UNC should recruit the best students at every high school in the state. It would bother me if unc skipped any school because those kids deserve a look at unc no matter what color they are.
Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk
Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk
AA doesn't just impact universities. It has to do with hiring in the state and local government. It will also impact set asides in government contracts. Writing laws that kill AA can effectively turn back forty plus years of progress and kill any hopes of further progress.
Their intention is the same as Jim Crow laws. The purpose of killing AA laws is to relegate women and minorities to being second class citizens once again.
FuckmouthedRube
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2011
- Messages
- 4,216
- Reaction score
- 233
There was a pretty thoughtful discussion on the Michigan case last night on the PBS News Hour. Both David Brooks and Mark Shields agreed that the path forward on AA is reform with a move toward economic/education disadvantaged applicants and away from race-based applicants. Both argued that universities should recruit more aggressively in low income schools and regions.
Mark Shields is liberal and he said, "the clock has run out on race based admissions". He cited 2 to 1 polling advantages favoring economic disadvantages over race. Brooks pointed out that the best public universities can recruit economically disadvantaged students in-state and balance budget cuts by charging out of state and international students at higher tuition rates.
Kagan abstained, so there are at most 3 votes on the current Supreme Court for maintaining AA as is. A bill to revisit AA in CA was killed in committee recently because Asians figured their slots at UCs would be cut. If the votes aren't there in CA or the Supreme Court and public opinion now significantly favors economic disadvantage rather than race, aggressive recruiting by colleges is the only card left to play.
I'm not so certain Breyer would vote to kill all AA. It would be another 5-4 vote to turn back the hands of time.
The CA law has decimated opportunity for many in the state. As stated earlier on the thread, only about 25 non-athlete blacks got into UCLA's freshman class of 5000. Latino enrollment is also down in spite of Latino population increasing. Women have to get better grades and test scores to get into professional schools than white males.
The problem is the Dems have no balls. Mark Shields has been ball-less for decades. They could several governorships and State Houses by running on a platform of - "The GOP is taking away opportunity and suppressing your right vote." They won't do it, because they are bunch of pussies who don't have the cajones they were born with.
A very concise and easily understandable campaign could be put together in states like PA, MI, OH, IL, WI, FL, CO, NV and probably a few others that would put women, Latinos. blacks, Asians and others into a coalition that would be bigger than old white males.
The problem is Dems are pussies. They are afraid of their own shadows and getting yelled at by the Koch brothers and other RWers even when the people are on their side of an issue.
The CA law has decimated opportunity for many in the state. As stated earlier on the thread, only about 25 non-athlete blacks got into UCLA's freshman class of 5000. Latino enrollment is also down in spite of Latino population increasing. Women have to get better grades and test scores to get into professional schools than white males.
The problem is the Dems have no balls. Mark Shields has been ball-less for decades. They could several governorships and State Houses by running on a platform of - "The GOP is taking away opportunity and suppressing your right vote." They won't do it, because they are bunch of pussies who don't have the cajones they were born with.
A very concise and easily understandable campaign could be put together in states like PA, MI, OH, IL, WI, FL, CO, NV and probably a few others that would put women, Latinos. blacks, Asians and others into a coalition that would be bigger than old white males.
The problem is Dems are pussies. They are afraid of their own shadows and getting yelled at by the Koch brothers and other RWers even when the people are on their side of an issue.
Wakeforest22890
Snowpom
If you can prove the intention is the same as the Jim Crow laws, you can get it struck down in court.
It's like I said earlier on the thread, it would make far more sense for the test JUST to be disparate impact, but in America you need invidious intent as well and you have to be able to show it. I don't even know how you can prove there's invidious intent behind a constitutional amendment that's voted on by the state. I mean there's not even a legislative record to check for the most part.
Wakeforest22890
Snowpom
Yeah it seems to me that if you can't use race, you can use SES as a pretty good proxy for it. This also simultaneously bumps up economically disadvantaged white people.
PhDeac
PM a mod to cement your internet status forever
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Messages
- 155,433
- Reaction score
- 22,448
Leaving now but SES doesn't cover a lot with respect to social and cultural capital gaps by race.
A middle class white person is more likely to know people with resources and important knowledge than a middle class black person.
A middle class white person is more likely to know people with resources and important knowledge than a middle class black person.
Last edited:
A first year law student could argue about the express intent not being to harm, but the reality is that is its purpose. It's unlikely anyone will give a smoking gun like the one shown by the Speaker of the PA House did RE:voter suppression laws.
The RW is too savvy to leave the smoking gun. If you can't see the invidious intent, it's because you don't want to rather than it's not there.
FuckmouthedRube
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2011
- Messages
- 4,216
- Reaction score
- 233
We both know that Dems have the governorship and super majorities in both houses in Sacramento, so the latest bill that got killed in committee wasn't because of the Koch brothers. The GOP can't do jack in CA. Brown vetoed a different AA effort in 2011.
40% of American adults have four year degrees, so it's a privilege not a right. UCLA turned ownd nearly 100,000 applicants last year. Being turned down at UCLA doesn't mean that you have no other college options. UC-Riverside and UC-Merced aren't operating at capacity and there are 20+ Cal State campuses statewide.
California's situation isn't perfect, but it's better than pretty much every other state. There are open enrollment junior colleges in every county, three dozen public four year colleges, world class private research universities (Stanford, Cal Tech), and exceptional private liberal arts schools (Pomona, Claremont, Occidental). Non-racial preferences makes admission for some minorities difficult at UCLA, Berkeley, a few other UCs, and perhaps Cal Poly, but that still leaves three dozen public schools with minimal admissions standards.
Last edited:
It's not just about minorities in undergrad. It's about women in grad schools needing higher grades and scores than white males.
There is one good thing that CA UC-system (the UC schools are the top schools. The Cal State are the lower end) has is that if you get a certain GPA at a state run community college, you have a guaranteed acceptance.
When putting this into perspective, the two community colleges that are within a few miles of my house have over 35,000 total enrollment.
There is one good thing that CA UC-system (the UC schools are the top schools. The Cal State are the lower end) has is that if you get a certain GPA at a state run community college, you have a guaranteed acceptance.
When putting this into perspective, the two community colleges that are within a few miles of my house have over 35,000 total enrollment.
Wakeforest22890
Snowpom
The whole point is that you can't just say that it's obviously invidious intent without proof.