On Election Day last week, 58 percent of voters in Nebraska supported a measure to end the practice of affirmative action in public employment, public education and public contracting.
Colorado voters faced a similar choice on their ballot this year, and although votes are still being counted, the votes to keep the practice currently outweigh the alternative, 51 to 49 percent.
Bill Harvey, University vice president and chief officer for diversity and equity, noted that he was pleased that voters in Colorado looked at the proposition on their ballot carefully enough to understand that “there is a need and opportunity for us to provide a chance for people who are historically not represented to get a chance to be involved in higher education and employment.”
Roger Clegg, president and general counsel of the Center for Equal Opportunity based in Falls Church, Va., which supports banning some kinds of affirmative action, however, holds a different perspective. He noted that his organization recently conducted and released a study showing the “heavy weight” the University of Nebraska College of Law gives to race in its admissions policies.
“African-Americans and, to a lesser extent, Latinos were admitted with much lower qualifications than whites and Asian-Americans,” Clegg said. “We think that’s unfair and divisive and really serves no one’s interests, so we oppose that.”
Clegg noted, however, that the term “affirmative action” means different things to different groups of people, and his organization does not oppose all forms of affirmative action. He cited President John F. Kennedy’s reference to the term affirmative action in a 1961 executive order in which he urged employers to take “affirmative action” to avoid engaging in prejudicial policies as an example of a type of affirmative action that his organization approves.
On the other hand, he said, “we think that actually taking race or ethnicity into account in deciding who gets admitted into a school or who gets hired or who is awarded a government contract is discrimination, and it’s wrong no matter what racial or ethnic group is being discriminated against,” Clegg said. “In 2008, it is untenable to have a legal regime where people are sorted according to skin color and some people are treated better and others worse on that basis.”
In contrast with Clegg, Shirley J. Wilcher, executive director of the American Association for Affirmative Action, said affirmative action is still necessary.
“Until we have no evidence of discrimination, affirmative action will continue to be necessary,” she said. “Diversity is still a compelling interest with demographics indicating that by 2042, a majority of Americans will be minorities. It is important to ensure colleges and universities have qualified students of all backgrounds.”
Wilcher also said people supporting the bans on affirmative action have been engaging in “deceptive practices” in order to convince other people to also support the bans.
“People thought they were signing an initiative that was pro-civil rights,” she said, when they were actually signing a petition to ban affirmative action.
Wilcher said the future of the United States depends on qualified people of all races being able to graduate from college and to ascend to positions of leadership.
“Even Obama talked about being a beneficiary of affirmative action,” she said.
Harvey said the University follows the affirmative action statutes outlined by the commonwealth; the race of a student can be one of a number of factors that are considered by admissions officers.
Like Wilcher, Harvey also said those who seek to ban affirmative action are not being completely honest when portraying what the practice really is.
“The initiatives are distorted attempts by opponents of affirmative action to misrepresent what it stands for,” Harvey said. “In many instances they are not providing an accurate representation of what affirmative action is or what it attempts to accomplish.”
For the time being, the University will continue to follow the laws of the commonwealth of Virginia, Harvey said, and unless Virginia voters chose to change the laws, there would be no reason or rationale for the University to change its policies.
“The circumstances of this week have caused quite a lot of us to think about where we are and where we’re going as a country,” he said. “It’s probably because of the use of affirmative action [that] we have our first African-American president, and rather than curtail, I think we should expand [affirmative action].”
Nebraska is the fourth state to pass a ban on affirmative action, preceded by California, Washington and Michigan.
Read More
Student Council passes appointment bill, approves new CIOs at final meeting of semester
By Arshiya Pant | 21 hours agoMendoza Gonzalez also said she will be meeting with Kenyon R. Bonner, vice president and chief student affairs officer, to discuss further strategies for the Student Council Endowment Fund.
Professors speak about leading productive dialogue on Israel-Hamas war
By Lexie Stadler | YesterdayThe event was hosted by the University’s Task Force on Religious Diversity and Belonging, which is designed to ensure that the University is welcoming to community members from all religions and cultures.
Honor Committee considers formal ban of AI detectors as evidence in trials
By Lexie Stadler | 2 days agoThe Committee also addressed balancing student perspectives with those of Committee representatives during panel discussions.
