jump to navigation

Victory Against Racism: Delay of Affirmative Action Ban Rejected January 2, 2007

Posted by C.A.R.D in admissions, affirmative action, Card, Citizens Against Racism and Discrimination, Discriminate, Discrimination, First amendment, Racism, Racist, reverse racism.
comments closed

A federal appeals court on Friday ordered Michigan’s universities to stop using affirmative action in admissions immediately — rejecting an agreement approved by a lower court to let the institutions keep affirmative action for the current admissions cycle. The appeals court’s analysis also suggested that groups challenging Michigan’s new statewide ban on affirmative action face an uphill climb.

The ruling was a blow to the efforts of universities to mitigate the short-term effects of the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, adopted by a wide margin of voters in November, which bars public colleges from using affirmative action in admissions. Higher education leaders opposed the measure and some groups that favor affirmative action have sued in federal court to overturn the initiative, which is commonly known as Proposal 2.

Friday’s ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit threw out an agreement that had been pushed hard by Michigan and Wayne State Universities and the University of Michigan. Under an accord they reached with the state’s attorney general last month, the universities were allowed to push back the start date of Proposal 2 from December 23 to after the completion of this year’s admissions and financial aid cycle.



Is Howard University Racist? December 21, 2006

Posted by C.A.R.D in admissions, African Americans, African-American, American Indian, Black, Blacks, Card, Citizens Against Racism and Discrimination, Discriminate, Discrimination, Mexican-American, Racism, Racist, White, Whites.
comments closed

A college graduate that is applying to law school has sent us some interesting information from the law school applications that they are filling out. We are going to in the following days look more at the possibly racist nature of these law school applications, however, today we would like to share just a few of the facts about Howard University School of Law. To begin with Howard University’s student body is made up of according to U.S. News & World Report:

4 % White

3.8% Asian-American

6.9% International Students

0.7% American Indian

0.0% Mexican-American

2.7% Other Hisp-American

2.2% Unknown

79.8% African-American

Now the irony is that the District of Columbia, where the school is located is made up of according to quickfacts.census.gov:

37.4% White

3.0% Asian-American

0.3% American Indian

8.5% Hispanic / Latino

57.7% African-American

Also this is in contrast to the national averages of:

67.4% White (Non-Hispanic)

4.2% Asian-American

1 % American Indian

14.1% Hispanic / Latino

12.8% African-American

So it can be seen that based on this data on national averages all racial groups are underrepresented at Howard University except for the African-American group.

Which goes against what Howard University’s admission application states that they are committed to helping minorities. Now it could be argued that this discrepancy is based on academic merit and not racial bias, yet, Howard University is a Tier 3 law school according to U.S. News & World Report. This means that it is not in the top 100 law schools that make up the first and second tiers, but it is also not in the worst classified law schools in Tier 4. So the question remains, how is it that other law schools in Tier 3 do not follow these same unequal statistics. Perhaps the answer to this question can be answered from the following statements from Howard University’s application: [Click on picture of the application below for full-size view]


NO: Schools teach students wrong lesson on discrimination December 5, 2006

Posted by C.A.R.D in admissions, American Indians, Black, Card, Citizens Against Racism and Discrimination, Civil Rights, court, Discriminate, Discrimination, Diversity, Lawsuit, minority, racism and discrimination, White.
comments closed

In 2000, Seattle public school officials told nearly 100 minority students in the eighth grade they couldn’t attend the high school of their choice. There was only one reason for the decision: the students’ skin color. They weren’t white.

For 200 white students, the news was the same: they couldn’t go to the high school of their choice because of their skin color.

Despite decades of advancement in our country on civil rights, some government officials wrongly insist that people should be judged on the color of their skin. In Seattle, despite racially diverse neighborhoods and schools, officials took it upon themselves to decide that certain schools weren’t “white” enough or “minority” enough.

The school district and hundreds of other school districts around the country do so in the name of “diversity,” a nice word that attempts to gloss over the wrong lesson for our children. If we don’t want our children to judge people based on the color of their skin, why are educators doing just that?

On Dec. 4, the U.S. Supreme Court will have a chance to tell school officials around the country that it is morally wrong — and unconstitutional — for them to discriminate against students based on their race.

The court will hear two cases brought by concerned parents from Seattle and Louisville, Ky., who objected to their children being turned away at schoolhouse doors simply because their skin was the wrong color.


University of Michigan to alter admissions for Proposal 2 November 29, 2006

Posted by C.A.R.D in admissions, affirmative action, Card, Citizens Against Racism and Discrimination, Discriminate, Discrimination, Racism, Racist, reverse racism.
comments closed

The University of Michigan will remove consideration of race and gender from undergraduate admissions by the effective date of Proposal 2, the voter-approved ballot question banning some affirmative action programs.

U-M Provost Teresa Sullivan, speaking before the university’s faculty Senate Assembly on Monday, said the changes will be in place if Proposal 2 takes effect Dec. 22 as scheduled.

A pro-affirmative action group, By Any Means Necessary, has filed a federal lawsuit challenging Proposal 2 as unconstitutional. However, legal experts and Proposal 2 supporters have noted that similar challenges in other states have failed, meaning the amendment, approved by 58 percent of voters in the Nov. 7 election, will likely take effect as mandated, 45 days after the vote.

Sullivan told faculty Monday that a group of U-M officials reporting to undergraduate admissions and the provost’s office will help in making immediate “tactical” decisions regarding the admissions process.

Some of the questions, admissions officers say, include how to continue to keep track of applicants’ race and gender information, which is mandated by the federal government, while keeping it out of the hands of the readers who judge the applications.


A Victory Against Racism: Affirmative Action on Ballot July 27, 2006

Posted by C.A.R.D in A Victory Against Racism, admissions, affirmative action, Against, Amendment, anti-affirmative, anti-affirmative action, Ballet, ballot, Card, Citizens Against Racism and Discrimination, color, court, Discriminate, Discrimination, Diversity, ethnicity, gender, government, Michigan, national origin, November, programs, Race, Racism, Supreme, university, Victory.
comments closed

The Michigan Supreme Court will not remove an anti-affirmative action measure from Novembers’ statewide ballot. The court rejected a request that it reconsider an earlier decision which sent the measure to Michigan voters.

The proposed amendment would ban government and university admissions programs from basing preference on race, gender, color, ethnicity or national origin.