Alternative to Affirmative Action Less Effective, Study Finds
Two reports released this month by the Civil Rights Project at Harvard University suggest that affirmative action alternatives—specifically the “race-neutral” percent plans advocated by the Bush Administration—are ineffective in promoting racial diversity.
The evaluated percent programs—implemented in Texas, California, and Florida—purport to enhance racial diversity at universities by admitting set percentages of students—10, 4, and 20 percent, respectively—from each high school. However, researcher and co-director of the Civil Rights Project Gary Orfield argued, “Affirmative action is a modest and effective tool that universities need… and it is simply wrong to suggest that we have found any kind of simple nonracial alternative,” reported the New York Times. Using data collected from various sources including state agencies, the federal National Center for Education Statistics, and the US Census, researchers found that in most cases, “institutions have not been successful in maintaining racially/ethnically diverse campuses through percent plans.” For example, at the University of California at Berkeley where affirmative action was last used in 1997, the percentage of blacks and Latinos in the freshman class declined from 6.7 and 16.9 percent in 1995, respectively to 3.9 and 10.8 percent in 2001, according to the Los Angeles Times. Racial breakdowns of university student populations continue to the lag behind those of general state populations.
The Supreme Court is expected to hear arguments in March for two related affirmative action cases involving the University of Michigan. Last month, the Bush Administration announced its decision to file an amicus brief supporting the white students against the University of Michigan’s admission policy, which considers race, along with geography, test scores, grades, and a host of other personal achievements. The Washington Post today reported that various groups and individuals including General Motors, the AFL-CIO, the American Bar Association, several Ivy League universities, and retired high-ranking military officers, plan to submit amicus briefs in support of Michigan’s position.
Media Resources: Civil Rights Project 2/7/03; NY Times 2/11/03; Washington Post 2/11/03; LA Times 2/11/03
10/30/2014 Medication Abortion Access Threatened by Oklahoma Court Ruling - An Oklahoma state district court judge has refused to block a state law restricting medication abortion, clearing the way for the law to go into affect on November 1.
The Oklahoma Coalition for Reproductive Justice, together with a local abortion clinic in Tulsa, challenged HB 2684 in September, arguing that the law was an unconstitutional restriction on non-surgical abortion in the earliest weeks of pregnancy. . . .
10/30/2014 UPS Switches Pregnant Worker Policy Ahead of Supreme Court Case - The United Parcel Service (UPS) is changing its policy on light duty assignments for pregnant workers, even though the company will stand by its refusal to extend accommodations to a former employee in an upcoming Supreme Court case.
UPS announced on Monday in a memo to employees, and in a brief filed with the US Supreme Court, that the company will begin offering temporary, light-duty positions to pregnant workers on January 1, 2015. . . .
10/30/2014 North Dakota Medical Students Speak Out Against Measure 1 - Medical students at the University of North Dakota School of Medicine and Health Sciences are asking North Dakotans to vote no on Measure 1, a personhood measure on the state ballot this fall.
The students issued published a letter in the Grand Forks Herald stating that they opposed Measure 1 in part because they are against "the government's taking control of the personal health care decisions of its citizens." Nearly 60 UND School of Medicine students signed the letter, citing concerns over the "very broad and ambiguous language" used in the proposed amendment, which has no regard for serious and life-threatening medical situations such as ectopic pregnancies.
Measure 1 would change the North Dakota state constitution to create an "inalienable right to life" for humans "at any stage of development" - including the moment of fertilization and conception. . . .