Ms. magazine  -- more than a magazine a movement

SIGN UP FOR MS. DIGEST, JOBS, NEWS AND ALERTS

FEMINIST WIRE NEWSBRIEFS

ABOUT
SEE CURRENT ISSUE
SHOP MS. STORE
MS. IN THE CLASSROOM
FEMINIST DAILY WIRE
FEMINIST RESOURCES
PRESS
JOBS AT MS.
READ BACK ISSUES
CONTACT
RSS (XML)
 
feminist wire | daily newsbriefs

May-29-96

Academics, Clinton Criticize Anti-Affirmative Action Moves on Campuses

The American Association of University Professors has released a report calling for the University of California to reverse its July decision to dismantle affirmative action programs for women and minorities throughout the UC system. The report from the 44,000-member organization called the decision ill-advised, and indicated that the political motivation leading toward the decision was inappropriate. Meanwhile, the July decision itself is being charged as unlawful by the UC-Santa Barbara student newspaper, the Daily Nexus. The Nexus and one of its reporters have filed a lawsuit charging that Gov. Wilson and the UC Regents decided the issue in private before it was submitted for public debate and a public vote. An open meetings law forbids a quorum, or nine members of the board, from discussing in private their votes on a future action. According to the suit, which seeks an injunction barring implementation of the anti-affirmative action decision, regents were lobbied to support the resolution and were contacted by phone before the measure came for a public vote.

In response to affirmative action policies on another campus, President Clinton is urging the Supreme Court to allow the University of Texas to continue using race as a factor in admissions to achieve the goal of a diverse campus. In an amicus brief, lawyers for the administration wrote that the UT law school has "a compelling educational interest in maintaining a racially diverse student body." In March, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the school's affirmative action policy was unconstitutional, and the state has since filed an appeal to the Supreme Court. Solicitor General Drew S. Days III warned that, if allowed to stand, the ruling would eliminate affirmative action programs throughout the circuit, affecting Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, and the ruling could return many prestigious institutions to being predominantly white, prolonging the effects of past segregation.

Media Resources: The Nando Net and Scripps-McClatchy Western - May 28, 1996; The San Francisco Examiner - May 27, 1996; Associated Press - May 24, 1996


© Feminist Majority Foundation, publisher of Ms. magazine

If you liked this story, consider making a tax-deductible donation to support Ms. magazine.

 

 

Send to a Friend
Their
Your
Comments
(optional)


More Feminist News

9/12/2014 Violence Against Women Act Turns 20 - Saturday will be the 20th Anniversary of the groundbreaking federal Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). Passed in 1994, VAWA was the first piece of federal legislation to specifically address domestic violence and sexual assault as crimes and to provide federal funding to improve local response to violence against women, including training and resources for law enforcement and judges. President Barack Obama on Tuesday issued a proclamation commemorating the VAWA anniversary. . . .
 
9/12/2014 Indiana Woman Charged With Feticide For Premature Delivery - An Indiana woman has been charged with feticide after she delivered prematurely and sought hospital treatment. Purvi Patel, 33, sought help at an emergency room for vaginal bleeding where it was discovered that she had delivered prematurely at home. . . .
 
9/11/2014 Missouri Legislators Pass 72-Hour Abortion Waiting Period Law - Missouri legislators voted late last night to triple the state's current 24-hour waiting period to 72 hours, with no exceptions for rape or incest. Governor Jay Nixon previously vetoed the bill in July, calling it "extreme and disrespectful." Missouri's House voted 117-44 to override the veto, and then the Senate used a procedural move to stop a Democratic filibuster of the bill and vote 23-7 to complete the veto override Wednesday. "The only purpose of a 72-hour waiting period is to attempt to punish, shame, and demean women who have arrived at a personal decision that politicians happen to disagree with," said the president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights in a statement. . . .