The Trump administration has officially abandoned affirmative action, having decided that African Americans and Latinos no longer need any additional breaks and can pull themselves up by their own shoelaces.
Trump forgot that his son-in-Law Jared Kushner was the beneficiary of affirmative action. As detailed by journalist Daniel Golden in a book about preferential treatment for rich boys, Kushner’s dad gave Harvard a couple of million dollars, although no one in the family ever went to Harvard. This cleared the way for Jared’s admission, who vaulted over better qualified applicants from the same high school. Golden’s Book is called “The Price of Admission: How America’s Ruling Class Buys Its Way into Elite Colleges—and Who Gets Left Outside the Gates.”
I’m not sure how Donald got into the Wharton School. It surely wasn’t grades or brains or even athletic skills (remember that the bone spur in his foot enabled him to avoid the Vietnam draft, his fifth deferment).
The story begins:
WASHINGTON — The Trump administration will encourage the nation’s school superintendents and college presidents to adopt race-blind admissions standards, abandoning an Obama administration policy that called on universities to consider race as a factor in diversifying their campuses, Trump administration officials said.
Last November, Attorney General Jeff Sessions asked the Justice Department to re-evaluate past policies that he believed pushed the department to act beyond what the law, the Constitution and the Supreme Court had required, Devin M. O’Malley, a Justice Department spokesman said. As part of that process, the Justice Department rescinded seven policy guidances from the Education Department’s civil rights division on Tuesday.
“The executive branch cannot circumvent Congress or the courts by creating guidance that goes beyond the law and — in some instances — stays on the books for decades,” Mr. O’Malley said.
The Supreme Court has steadily narrowed the ways that schools can consider race when trying to diversify their student bodies. But it has not banned the practice.
Now, affirmative action is at a crossroads. The Trump administration is moving against any use of race as a measurement of diversity in education. And the retirement of Justice Anthony M. Kennedy at the end of this month will leave the court without its swing vote on affirmative action and allow President Trump to nominate a justice opposed to a policy that for decades has tried to integrate elite educational institutions.
A highly anticipated case is pitting Harvard against Asian-American students who say one of the nation’s most prestigious institutions has systematically excluded some Asian-American applicants to maintain slots for students of other races. That case is clearly aimed at the Supreme Court.
“The whole issue of using race in education is being looked at with a new eye in light of the fact that it’s not just white students being discriminated against, but Asians and others as well,” said Roger Clegg, president and general counsel of the conservative Center for Equal Opportunity. “As the demographics of the country change, it becomes more and more problematic.”
The Obama administration believed that students benefit from being surrounded by diverse classmates, so in 2011, the administration offered schools a potential road map to establishing affirmative action policies that could withstand legal scrutiny. The guidance was controversial at the time that it was issued, for its far-reaching interpretation of the law. Justice officials said that pages of hypothetical scenarios offered in the guidance were particularly problematic, as they clearly bent the law to specific policy preferences.
In a pair of policy guidance documents, the Obama Education and Justice departments told elementary and secondary schools and college campuses to use “the compelling interests” established by the court to achieve diversity. They concluded that the Supreme Court “has made clear such steps can include taking account of the race of individual students in a narrowly tailored manner.”
The Trump administration’s decisions on Tuesday brought government policy back to the George W. Bush administration guidances. The Trump administration did not formally reissue Bush-era guidance on race-based admissions, but, in recent days, officials did repost a Bush administration affirmative action policy document online.
That document states, “The Department of Education strongly encourages the use of race-neutral methods for assigning students to elementary and secondary schools.”
For the past several years, that document had been replaced by a note declaring that the policy had been withdrawn. The Bush policy is now published in full, with no note attached. It reaffirmed its view in 2016 after a Supreme Court ruling that said that schools could consider race as one factor among many.
In that case, Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, a white woman claimed she was denied admission because of her race, in part because the university had a program that admitted significant numbers of minorities who ranked in the top 10 percent of their class.
“It remains an enduring challenge to our nation’s education system to reconcile the pursuit of diversity with the constitutional promise of equal treatment and dignity,” Justice Kennedy wrote for the 4-3 majority.
The Trump administration’s plan would scrap the existing policies and encourage schools not to consider race at all. The new policy would not have the force of law, but it amounts to the official view of the federal government. School officials who keep their admissions policies intact would do so knowing that they could face a Justice Department investigation or lawsuit, or lose federal funding from the Education Department.
A senior Justice Department official pushed back against the idea that these decisions are about rolling back protections for minorities. He said they are hewing the department closer to the letter of the law.
He noted that rolling back guidance is not the same thing as a change of law, so that the decision to rescind technically would not have a legal effect on how the government defends or challenges affirmative-action related issues.
The move comes at a moment when conservatives see an opportunity to dismantle affirmative action.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions has said his prosecutors will investigate and sue universities over discriminatory admissions policies. And the conservative-backed lawsuit against Harvard is being pushed by the same group, the Project on Fair Representation, that pressed Fisher.
Trump and his allies and funders will press every legal, financial, and rhetorical button available to strengthen his position–that vigorous assertions of white male privilege and evangelical fervor will put him office for eight years.
Middle class students (of all races) from public schools with perfect and near perfect standardized test scores are frequently turned down to admit privileged rich white students with lower scores. And if a university admissions committee can admit lower scoring rich white students over middle class students with higher standardized test scores, why can’t they admit lower scoring students of other races?
I never quite understood how that works except for white privilege.
I’t up at Oped News
Why should affirmative action be any different.
It’s clear in comments above – all that matters is white male supremacy and privilege.
It’s not the lies as much as it is the CHEATING families, kids, and yes even his base.
He says one thing to get the headline he needs for mainstream (DACA, uniting families, bump stocks and gun registration) and then he announces what his real plan is to his base and cabinet.
He denuclearized North Korea… but oops, they aren’t.
He promised dreamers he cares about them … but oops, he doesn’t.
He signed an order not to separate families… but oops, only if they go home after gut wrenching travel for asylum.
Trump admin gives separated parents choice: Leave US with kids, or without
https://www.aol.com/article/news/2018/07/03/trump-admin-gives-separated-parents-choice-leave-us-with-kids-or-without/23473955/
Good point. He uses Tweets to distract. Watch what he does.
Well, there is a silver lining. I was born in 1947 and now I can relive the racist, suffocating, segregation that was part of my childhood. There is that.
These people are disgraceful.
“I love the poorly educated.” Trump Feb 23, 2016
Ahh. I’ve discovered why he loves himself. “I’m not sure how Donald got into the Wharton School. It surely wasn’t grades or brains or even athletic skills..”
Because $$$$$ walks and bs talks.
Sick. 🤮
The Supreme Court has held that a racial quota system violates the Civil Rights act of 1964. see Bakke v. California (1978)
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1979/76-811
Wrong. The Supreme Court ruled that colleges could take race into account to promote diversity, without racial quotas. Diversity is a worthy goal.
Here is an analysis of the decision:
Q No and yes. There was no single majority opinion. Four of the justices contended that any racial quota system supported by government violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr., agreed, casting the deciding vote ordering the medical school to admit Bakke. However, in his opinion, Powell argued that the rigid use of racial quotas as employed at the school violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The remaining four justices held that the use of race as a criterion in admissions decisions in higher education was constitutionally permissible. Powell joined that opinion as well, contending that the use of race was permissible as one of several admission criteria. So, the Court managed to minimize white opposition to the goal of equality (by finding for Bakke) while extending gains for racial minorities through affirmative action. END Q
What they’re talking about. From the link above.
“There was no single majority opinion. Four of the justices contended that any racial quota system supported by government violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr., agreed, casting the deciding vote ordering the medical school to admit Bakke. However, in his opinion, Powell argued that the rigid use of racial quotas as employed at the school violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The remaining four justices held that the use of race as a criterion in admissions decisions in higher education was constitutionally permissible. Powell joined that opinion as well, contending that the use of race was permissible as one of several admission criteria. So, the Court managed to minimize white opposition to the goal of equality (by finding for Bakke) while extending gains for racial minorities through affirmative action.”
What is most distressing to me is how this is covered in the media. I have heard several news outlets characterize this as requiring “race neutral” admissions policies. I would say failing to account for the differing circumstances of students in a society where income and therefore educational opportunities are highly correlated with “race” is hardly “neutral.”
Here is the Obama policy document that has (among 23 others) been rescinded by the DOJ. Sessions and Trump did not change Affirmative Action case law. Erasing these guidelines will not change admission policies.
https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/guidance-pse-201111.html