Michigan Affirmative Action Case -- One Big Point Never Discussed by Talking Heads

self | 1-17-03 | WL-law

[WL-law]

I've yet to hear this mentioned in the numerous analyses of the affirmative action case regarding U. of Michigan, and if I'm wrong someone please refute me -- but the pending ruling in the case will only affect STATE institutions.

That's why, for example, the U. of Michigan, U. of Texas, etc, have been the named defendants in these actions.

And yet the talking heads continually refer to, e.g., how this will affect African-American attendance at universities in general, and often-mentioned are "Ivy-League schools" etc. -- and yet they are private institutions (except for UPenn).

The answer is, as I understand it -- those schools can continue to maintain their own versions of affirmative action if they so elect, and although the alumni may object, the Federal govt has no say.

That's why, for example, VMI was forced to admit women, while Wellesley College and others can continue on their merry way as single-sex schools.

I'm sure I saw, for example, the president of Columbia University opining on the impact on his school. But Columbia is private, as I understand it.

Now, when the issue is narrowed to state schools, the argument for eliminating affirmative action is stronger morally -- because white students denied admission on the basis of race are PAYING for those schools with their tax dollars. Additionally, limiting the reach to state schools means that the entire "university system" need not, as I've said earlier, go through a total transformation (although I think it should). The effect of the change, if any, on state schools would be moderated by private universities, in my opinion.

So -- why is the mainstream media, in a sense, 'exaggerating' the impact of the decision, by ignoring this important fact? Bias?

[Support Free Republic]

PLEASE SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794
or you can use
PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com

Become A Monthly Donor
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD

[Alberta's Child]

Based on the legal reasoning used in the VMI case, there are very few truly "private" colleges and universities in the U.S. Any school that receives public funding in one form or another will have to conform with whatever the public policy is at any given time. I'm sure even Ivy League schools receive government grants for research efforts.

[WL-law]

Based on the legal reasoning used in the VMI case, there are very few truly "private" colleges and universities in the U.S. Any school that receives public funding in one form or another will have to conform with whatever the public policy is at any given time. I'm sure even Ivy League schools receive government grants for research efforts.

Actually I don;t think that's true, and that was one of the unsuccessful arguments made on behalf of VMI, that it would "destroy single sex education".

That was rejected, and students at, i.e., Wellesley still can use govt loans and the school can still receive govt funds.

In other words, "state school" has a limited meaning, in this area, to schools that are primarily state-funded in the traditional sense.

[Oldeconomybuyer]

Ann Coulter appeared on one of the talking-head shows last night opposite a pin-head who kept saying the Michigan admissions case "has nothing to do with the Constitution".

If it has nothing to do with the Constitution why is the case before the US Supreme Court?

[jamaksin]

Cornell is an odd duck in the Ivy League - part is public, part is private.

[TBP]

The Ivy League schools and others can be brought under the umbrella of this decision because they are "recipient institutions" -- that is, although officially private, they receive government funds, and are therefore subject to government regulations on admissions and other things.

In fact, there are very few colleges in the country that don't fall under the rubric of "recipient institution." My alma mater, Hillsdale College, is perhaps the most prominent. Grove City and a few others also fall into the category of completely private colleges.

[Alberta's Child]

We'll see.

If what you said is true, then it would be legally permissible for a private school to refuse admission to all minority applicants. I'm not sure that is legally permissible today.

[APBaer]

"If it has nothing to do with the Constitution why is the case before the US Supreme Court?"

*This* case is about the constitution, specifically the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.

However, most other cases before the court are not about the constitution, but rather about the interpretation of federal laws and the validity of administrative actions.

[Eva]

If this would not effect private institutions, Title IX would have had no effect either. The punishment is withdrawal of federal funds.

[blues-train]

Correcto....as you well know coming from Hillsdale. Recipient institutions can receive money directly (research grants), indirectly (scholarships), or circuitously (loan guarantees) and still fall under the "guidelines". As Hillsdale and Grove City know, No money comes without strings.
God bless both of these colleges and others who have set a much higher standard, and not because of outside "pressure", but because they have (for MANY years) felt it was the right thing to do.

[WL-law]

It appears to work this way:

Title VII deals with employment:

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin;
the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA), which protects men and women who perform substantially equal work in the same establishment from sex-based wage discrimination;
the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), which protects individuals who are 40 years of age or older;
Title I and Title V of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), which prohibit employment discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities in the private sector, and in state and local governments;
Sections 501 and 505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which prohibit discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities who work in the federal government; and the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which, among other things, provides monetary damages in cases of intentional employment discrimination.

Here's a more inclusive list of Titles under the Federal Law:

Titles VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibiting discrimination in the provision of services and employment on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin or gender.
Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prohibiting discrimination against students and employees on the basis of gender.
Age Discrimination Act of 1975 prohibiting discrimination on the basis of age in programs or activities receiving federal financial assistance.
Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 prohibiting discrimination in employment on the basis of age.
Equal Pay Act of 1963 prohibiting discrimination in salaries on the basis of gender.
Title VIII of the Public Health Service Act prohibiting discrimination in the admission of students in health personnel training programs on the basis of gender.
Sections 503 and 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibiting discrimination on the basis of disability in any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance and requiring the facilitation of the employment of individuals with disabilities.
Section 402 of the Vietnam Era Veterans Readjustment Act of 1974 requiring affirmative action in the employment of disabled and Vietnam-era veterans.
Retirement Equity Act of 1984 requiring pension equity. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 prohibiting discrimination against individuals with disabilities.

Now, unless "the provision of services and employment" mentioned under Titles VI and VIII reach college admission, than none of the above extend Constitutional Law principles regulating state action to non-state actors.

And I also understand -- but don't have a cite -- that state aid to private schools does not deem them "public" in the manner suggested by other posters here.

[WL-law]

Correction -- meant to say above

"Now, unless "the provision of services and employment" mentioned under Titles VI and VIII reach college admission, than none of the above extend Constitutional Law principles regulating state action to non-state actors with regard to race and college admission, except as regards students in health personnel college programs".

As to the last point, I seem to recall a Mississippi case involving a nursing school that was likely the precedent for that law.

[TLBSHOW]

Rush is now talking about on his show, and said the Brief is not like the speech!

[WL-law]

From Title IV of the Civil Rights Act, which specifically addresses desegregation of public education:

"(c) "Public school" means any elementary or secondary educational institution, and "public college" means any institution of higher education or any technical or vocational school above the secondary school level, provided that such public school or public college is operated by a State, subdivision of a State, or governmental agency within a State, or operated wholly or predominantly from or through the use of governmental funds or property, or funds or property derived from a governmental source. "

Note the requirement of "predominately" re funding.

[Digger]

The brief accepts the quota system. It reads different than what Bush inferred. This just argues the point that Micigan went too far. So again we get a half-a$$ed answer from an half-a$$ed so-called conservative president that, as I have stated for years & will continue, this government will NOT make this country anywhere truly conservative because these eleites that run the country do NOT want it & they own the politicians. (Once in a while GW has to throw a bone to the conservatives. This is it w/o any meat on it. And you all fall for it. then this allows a liberal view to be made on substantial issues- the man for all people- Wake up & smell the coffee)

[Electron Wizard]

Control of the universities is consistant with the liberals strategy of manipulationg society by somehow pulling all of it under federal control. Remember how during the Clinton administration, the Feds were trying to make the case that if you had natural gas service to your house, you were engaging in "interstate commerce", and were subject to regulation by the Federal Government? This would allow them to apply apply all of the federal titles and acts to your personal residence. Luckily (since you never know what the judiciary will do these days) the courts decided that this was stretching the constituitional "regulation of interstate commerce" clause too far.

[Dan Day]

This "Mallard Fillmore" cartoon was draw *years* ago:

[TLBSHOW]

No meat at all just smoke and mirrors! Once again! Rush slammed it for the first hafe hour today!

Read this story.

In other words, more color-coded government aid.

But Bush's announcement is only a teeny-tiny step in the right direction. In 2001, this administration, not Clinton-Gore, backed the federal government's payment of cash bonuses to highway construction firms that accept bids from companies owned by members of certain minority groups. (See "Randy Pech" and "Adarand.")

And in his remarks Wednesday on the University of Michigan case now before the Supreme Court, Bush voiced continuing support for the Clinton-Gore-Reno fantasy that government-engineered racial diversity can and should be achieved "without using quotas" or other unconstitutional means. As examples of model programs, Bush cited public university admissions plans in his home state of Texas and his brother Jeb's state of Florida.

Michelle Malkin
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/824167/posts?page=12#12

[WL-law]

Control of the universities is consistant with the liberals strategy of manipulationg society by somehow pulling all of it under federal control.

In all truth it started in the FDR administration, and it has only been with the Clarence Thomas/Scalia USSC that there has been any sense that some balance may be returning.