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

June-27-03

State Universities Wrestle With Implications of Affirmative Action Decision

Following Monday's Supreme Court decisions on the University of Michigan's affirmative action policies, other states with large public university systems are wrestling with the implications of the rulings. The recent decisions overrule Hopwood v. Texas , a 1996 decision by a federal appeals court and former Texas attorney general Dan Morales that ended affirmative action at the University of Texas (UT). "The court's ruling sweeps away the Hopwood decision and places the State of Texas on the same basis as educational institutions elsewhere in the United States. We are very pleased," said UT President Dr. Larry Faulkner, according to the New York Times. Faulkner added that UT officials will begin work this fall on new methods to use for fall 2004 admissions. Texas has a "top 10 percent law," adopted when President Bush was governor, which guarantees to students who rank in the top 10 percent of their high school classes admission to the public university of their choice. Then-Governor Bush hailed the law as a way to boost minority enrollment without resorting to racial preferences, but studies released earlier this year by the Civil Rights Project of Harvard University suggest that this is ineffective at promoting racial diversity.

The University of California system - another of the country's largest - was compelled to abandon racial preferences in 1996 by Proposition 209. Because Prop. 209 was a voter initiative, the California legislature has no legal authority to overturn 209, pro-affirmative action legislators are advocating Assembly Bill 703, which would alter the meaning of 209 based on language from a 1965 UN Treaty that states that "special measures" taken on behalf of historically underrepresented groups are not automatically discriminatory, reported the Sacramento Bee. Affirmative action supporters say that the Michigan decisions give new momentum to their efforts to overturn 209. "When you have the Supreme Court backing you, that's pretty powerful... Timing is everything, and this definitely rekindles our efforts," said California NAACP President Alice Huffman in the Globe.

But because the court struck Michigan's point system for undergraduate admissions, large public university systems like Texas and California may have difficulty devising policies that will both increase minority enrollment and pass constitutional muster with the current court, the Times reported.

DONATE Contribute to the Feminist Majority Foundation

Media Resources: Office of the President, University of California System; University of Texas System Office of Public Affairs; New York Times 6/24/03; Austin American-Statesman 6/26/03; Sacramento Bee 5/22/03; Boston Globe 6/25/03, 6/25/03


© 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

8/28/2015 Alaska Court Protects Abortion Access for Low-Income Women - The Alaska Superior Court struck down a state law yesterday that would have severely limited abortion access for low-income women in Alaska. The state's Superior Court also struck down a Department of Health and Social Services regulation that placed narrow specifications on Medicaid coverage for abortions, requiring that Medicaid-funded abortions be determined by a physician to be "medically necessary." Last year, the Center for Reproductive Rights, the American Civil Liberties Union, and Planned Parenthood sued on behalf of the Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest, claiming that the narrow definition of "medically necessary" arbitrarily established conditions designed to restrict the ability of low-income women to access abortion services. The law was temporarily blocked last July by an Alaskan state court judge. Superior Court Judge John Suddock ordered yesterday that the state be blocked from implementing this regulation, ruling that it placed an undue burden on low-income women seeking abortion services in Alaska. "By providing health care to all poor Alaskans except women who need abortions, the challenged regulation violates the state constitutional guarantee of 'equal rights, opportunities, and protection under the law'," the ruling read. "We applaud the superior court for striing down these cruel restrictions on women's health and rights that violate the Alaska Constitution," said Chris Charbonneau, CEO of Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest and the Hawaiian Islands. . . .
 
8/27/2015 Los Angeles Mayor Announces Model Gender Equity Directive - On Women's Equality Day Eric Garcetti, the Mayor of Los Angeles, signed a progressive and inclusive executive directive to take a major step toward gender equity for the city and to be a model for other cities. . . .
 
8/26/2015 Saudi Women Prepare to Vote for the First Time - The fight for gender equality is making slow but notable progress in Saudi Arabia, where women will be allowed to vote for the first time in upcoming December elections. This shift in Saudi law came in 2011, when a royal decree announced that women would be allowed to vote and run in local elections beginning in December of 2015. . . .