21 - Blogs - TheBlackList Pub2024-03-29T07:01:01Zhttps://www.theblacklist.net/profiles/blogs/feed/tag/21Affirmative Action: Black Conservatives Join Supreme Court Legal Brief Demanding End to Race-Based University Admissionshttps://www.theblacklist.net/profiles/blogs/affirmative-action-black-conservatives-join-supreme-court-legal-b2015-09-15T13:30:54.000Z2015-09-15T13:30:54.000ZSendMeYourNewshttps://www.theblacklist.net/members/SendMeYourNews<div><p><strong><a href="http://www.nationalcenter.org/images/cooper_sm.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.nationalcenter.org/images/cooper_sm.jpg?width=238" width="238" class="align-full" alt="cooper_sm.jpg?width=238" /></a></strong></p>
<ul><li><em><span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>Affirmative Action Returns to the U.S. Supreme Court</strong></span></em></li>
<li><em><strong>Black Conservatives Join Supreme Court Legal Brief Demanding End to Race-Based University Admissions</strong></em></li>
<li><em><span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>Schools Accused of Trampling Constitution for Politically-Correct Diversity Goals</strong></span></em></li>
<li><em><strong>U.S. Supreme Court to Hear Same Racial Preferences Case Twice in Almost Two Years</strong></em></li>
</ul><div><span><strong> <br /></strong></span></div>
<p><span><font color="#404040"> <a href="http://trk.cp20.com/Tracking/t.c?8ri3u-txm4z-sbsv987&_v=2" name="Project" target="_blank">Project 21</a>, a leader in the promotion of black conservative public policy opinion and activism, has joined a new legal brief to the U.S. Supreme Court opposing racial preferences in school admissions.<br /><br />Project 21 joined an <a href="http://trk.cp20.com/Tracking/t.c?8ri3u-txm50-sbsv984&_v=2" target="_blank">amicus curiae</a> ("friend of the court") legal brief written by the <a href="http://trk.cp20.com/Tracking/t.c?8ri3u-txm51-sbsv985&_v=2" target="_blank">Pacific Legal Foundation</a> and also joined by the Center for Equal Opportunity, American Civil Rights Institute and National Association of Scholars in the case of Abigail Noel Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, et al.<br /><br />This is the second time the Fisher case will come before the U.S. Supreme Court. In the case, Abigail Fisher, who is white, claimed that race preferences prevented her acceptance at the University of Texas at Austin in favor of a lesser-qualified minority applicant.<br /><br />In 2013 the Court ruled 7-1 that race-conscious admissions policies must be narrowly tailored in order to be constitutional, and sent the case back to the federal 5th Circuit Court of Appeals to be reheard. The Supreme Court justices told the 5th Circuit to retry the case under standards of "strict scrutiny." The lower court sided with the University of Texas at Austin again. In July 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court accepted the case for a rehearing to determine if the 5th Circuit properly followed the Supreme Court's instructions.<br /><br />A date for oral arguments at the Supreme Court has not been announced. A decision is expected by June 2016.<br /><br />"The Supreme Court's earlier rulings make it clear that quotas and other kinds of broad-based racial preferences are impermissible," said Project 21 Co-Chairman <a href="http://trk.cp20.com/Tracking/t.c?8ri3u-txm52-sbsv986&_v=2" target="_blank">Horace Cooper</a>, a legal commentator who taught constitutional law at George Mason University and was a leadership staff member for the U.S. House of Representatives. "One would think that, in 2015, no school would think it necessary to rely on a racial test to balance out its student body. In this case alone, however, the Court has given every opportunity for the lower court and the University of Texas itself to reassess its race-based admissions policy. Yet it appears only direct intervention by the Court will now be sufficient. The days for race-based social engineering are numbered."<br /><br /> Project 21's Cooper is a University of Texas at Austin graduate.<br /><br />Fisher and her supporters, including Project 21, asked the Court to determine if the lower court followed the orders of the justices to thoroughly and thoughtfully re-examine if the University of Texas at Austin's race-conscious admissions policy is narrowly tailored and consistent with the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.<br /><br />When the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2003 that race preferences for the sake of campus diversity were permissible, the University of Texas at Austin immediately instituted the race-conscious admissions policy challenged in the Fisher case. It was instituted despite other schools' use of additional considerations to achieve their own diversity goals, factoring in things such as parental income, parental educational histories, general family history and even a Texas policy that guaranteed state-run university enrollment for students in the top percentages of their high school graduating classes. The Project 21 brief notes:</font><em><span>Washington, DC -</span></em></span></p>
<p><span><font color="#404040">There is no evidence that the University considered many of these race-neutral options, nor has it documented why these options would fail to produce a critical mass of underrepresented students and the educational benefits a diverse student body provides.<br /></font></span></p>
<p><span><font color="#404040">The brief also argues that "the University has failed to prove that its race-conscious program is narrowly tailored" to benefit alleged diversity goals because the assertion is not proven, the university has not seemed to weigh the costs and benefits of a race-conscious admissions policy nor has it proved it pursued all available alternatives to a race-conscious policy.<br /><br />Furthermore, the brief explained this problem is not limited to the University of Texas at Austin:</font></span></p>
<p><span><font color="#404040">There is no evidence that universities have weighed the undeniable costs of racial preferences against the benefits that purportedly result from classifying individuals on the basis of race. And there is no evidence that universities have given serious thought to whether these benefits can be achieved through race-neutral means. This demonstrates that universities nationwide continue to flout the Court's limits on the use of race in admissions decisions.<br /></font></span></p>
<p><span><font color="#404040">Because the situation is not unique, Project 21 and the other organizations on the PLF-written brief noted the Court must definitively address the issue of the constitutionality of race-conscious admissions policies:</font></span></p>
<p><span><font color="#404040">This Court's most recent decision in Fisher - emphasizing the need to exhaust race-neutral measures before turning to race-based classifications - has not changed the behavior at our nation's public universities...<br /><br />[P]ublic institutions are not considering the costs attendant to racial preferences, and whether those costs outweigh the purported benefits.<br /><br />"Over a century ago, Justice John Marshall Harlan said 'Our Constitution is colorblind and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.' The justices who underwhelmed almost everyone by sending the Fisher case back to the 5th Circuit in 2013 now have another chance to reaffirm Constitutional principle," said Project 21's <a href="http://trk.cp20.com/Tracking/t.c?8ri3u-txm53-sbsv987&_v=2" target="_blank">Joe R. Hicks</a> , the former executive director of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference's Greater Los Angeles chapter. "Justice Clarence Thomas got it right on Fisher when he wrote 'I would... hold that a state's use of race in higher education admissions is categorically prohibited by the Equal Protection Clause.' And, as my friend Richard Sander -- a UCLA law professor and expert on social and economic equality -- has patiently explained, race preferences hurt the supposed beneficiaries. These students, he wrote in The Atlantic, 'fall behind from the start and become increasingly lost as the professor and her classmates race ahead... the experience may well induce panic and self-doubt, making learning even harder.'"<br /></font></span></p>
<p><span><font color="#404040">The brief additionally cites "academic mismatch" as a perilous byproduct of poorly-crafted race-conscious admissions policies, noting that "racial preferences... cause acute harm to those who receive them." By placing minority students in schools above their academic aptitude so that the institution can achieve its diversity goals, the brief noted "[t]he result is a significant gap in academic credentials between minority and nonminority students at all levels." This may lead to changed majors, dashed hopes and - worst of all - disparate dropout rates among minority students.<br /><br />Project 21's Hicks added: "The broader debate surrounding 'affirmative action' has changed since the Court last ruled on this case. This time, they are thankfully afforded a second chance to end the divisive practice of race preferences."<br /><br />In sum, the Project 21 brief points out to the justices that:</font></span></p>
<p><span><font color="#404040">When an educational institution discriminates on the basis of race, narrow tailoring requires that it prove independently how racial preferences are the least harmful means to secure the educational benefits of diversity... The Court can ensure that students are treated equally under the law by holding that the University's decision fails to satisfy the narrow tailoring requirements of the Equal Protection Clause.</font></span></p>
<p><span><font color="#404040">Additional information about this case and the amicus brief just filed can be found in a blog post by the author of the brief, attorney Joshua Thompson, at the Pacific Legal Foundation website<a href="http://trk.cp20.com/Tracking/t.c?8ri3u-txm54-sbsv988&_v=2" name="here" target="_blank">here</a>.<br /><br />Project 21 members have been interviewed or cited by the media on current events and politics in tens of thousands of instances since its founding in 1992. Most recently, this has included Fox News Channel programs such as "Special Report with Bret Baier," the "O'Reilly Factor," "Fox and Friends" and "The Kelly File" as well as CNN's "The Situation Room," HLN's "Dr. Drew," Blaze TV, America One News Network, TVOne, RT and Newsmax TV. On radio and in print, Project 21 members have appeared on or been cited by the Salem Radio Network, Sean Hannity, Jim Bohannon, Bill Martinez, Radio America, American Urban Radio Network, Bill Cunningham, Roger Hedgecock, Mike Siegal, Dana Loesch, Thom Hartmann, the Progressive Radio Network, EurWeb, Orlando Sentinel, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, SiriusXM satellite radio and 50,000-watt talk radio stations that include WGN-Chicago, WBZ-Boston, WJR-Detroit, KDKA-Pittsburgh and WLW-Cincinnati.<br /><br />Project 21 has participated in many cases before the U.S. Supreme Court regarding race preferences and voting rights and defended voter ID laws at the United Nations. Its volunteer members come from all walks of life and are not salaried political professionals.<br /><br />Members of the Project 21 black leadership network are available for media comment on this case as well as the overall issue of race preferences in what some call a "post-racial" contemporary America.<br /><br />A leading voice of black conservatives for over two decades, Project 21 is sponsored by the National Center for Public Policy Research, a conservative, free-market, non-profit think-tank established in 1982.<br /><br />Contributions to the National Center are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated.<br /></font></span></p>
<p></p>
<p><span>-30-</span></p>
<div><div><font face="Verdana" size="2"><span> <br /></span></font></div>
<div><span>Note: The views of individual Project 21 members are not necessarily the views of the National Center for Public Policy Research or of all other Project 21 members. </span></div>
</div>
<p>~</p>
<p><span>Press Release: September 15, 2015</span><br /><span>Contact: Judy Kent at (703) 759-7476 or </span><a href="http://secure.campaigner.com/CSB/Campaigns/jkent%40nationalcenter.org" name="LinkIsNotTracked" id="ecxauto_lnk_id" target="_blank">jkent@nationalcenter.org</a></p>
<p></p></div>Activists Call 50th Anniversary of Civil Rights Act Enactment "Bittersweet" Occasionhttps://www.theblacklist.net/profiles/blogs/activists-call-50th-anniversary-of-civil-rights-act-enactment-22014-07-01T13:30:00.000Z2014-07-01T13:30:00.000ZTheBlackList-Publisherhttps://www.theblacklist.net/members/TheBlackListPublisher<div><div><p class="ecxMsoNormal"><font face="Verdana"><span style="color:#ff0000;" class="font-size-5"><em><strong>Black Activists Call 50th Anniversary of Civil Rights Act Enactment "Bittersweet" Occasion, Since Many Fail to Recognize the Progress That Has Been Made.</strong></em></span><br /></font> <em style="font-family:Verdana;"><strong><a href="http://www.nationalcenter.org/PROJ21.gif" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.nationalcenter.org/PROJ21.gif?width=250" width="250" class="align-full" alt="PROJ21.gif?width=250" /></a><span class="font-size-5">"The Civil Rights Act changed American culture... racist sentiment became largely outdated and unacceptable ...black people... are now the masters of their own destiny."</span></strong></em></p>
<p class="ecxMsoNormal"><span style="color:#ff0000;" class="font-size-5"><font face="Verdana"><em><strong>"Today, black Americans and other minorities no longer face the daunting obstacles that existed prior to 50 years ago. The public square and corridors of commerce are overwhelmingly accessible by blacks and whites, men and women alike."</strong></em></font></span></p>
<p class="ecxMsoNormal"><em style="font-size:medium;font-family:Verdana;">Washington, DC -</em><span style="font-size:medium;font-family:Verdana;"> Five decades after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was signed into law, activists the </span><a href="http://trk.cp20.com/Tracking/t.c?6u9oc-e31bg-sbsv985&_v=2" target="_blank" style="font-size:medium;font-family:Verdana;">Project 21</a><span style="font-size:medium;font-family:Verdana;"> black leadership network are commenting on its impact and legacy. Many believe the overwhelmingly positive efforts of the Act are being downplayed by "race-obsessed" critics.</span></p>
</div>
<p><font face="Verdana"><font color="#000000" size="3">"The 50th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act is a bittersweet occasion. As we assess what its passage means for American society and why it came about, we also must lament those who treat 21st Century USA like the Jim Crow America of yesteryear," said Project 21 Co-Chairman <a href="http://trk.cp20.com/Tracking/t.c?6u9oc-e31bh-sbsv986&_v=2" target="_blank">Horace Cooper</a> , a legal commentator who formerly taught law at George Mason University and was a leadership staff member for the U.S. House of Representatives. "Today, black Americans and other minorities no longer face the daunting obstacles that existed prior to 50 years ago. The public square and corridors of commerce are overwhelmingly accessible by blacks and whites, men and women alike. Sadly though, for too many of us, broken families and undue faith in government programs serve as a modern hindrance to black achievement and success."<br /><br /> President Lyndon Johnson signed the <a href="http://trk.cp20.com/Tracking/t.c?6u9oc-e31bi-sbsv987&_v=2" target="_blank">Civil Rights Act</a> into law on July 2, 1964. The new law created sweeping protections against discrimination based on race, gender, religion and national origin. It covers issues such as access to government facilities, public accommodations, voter registration and workplace discrimination, among other things.<br /><br /> While the Civil Rights Act brought about fundamental change in the way American law handles the topic of race and helped usher in a new era of equality, Project 21 members note there are members of the civil rights lobby and self-appointed black leadership who still insist the United States is inherently racist.<br /><br /> "On the 50th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act, we are sure to hear that little has changed for black Americans. The usual batch of self-proclaimed black leaders will jockey for the opportunity to do so. They are wrong," said Project 21's <a href="http://trk.cp20.com/Tracking/t.c?6u9oc-e31bj-sbsv988&_v=2" target="_blank">Joe R. Hicks</a> , a community activist in Los Angeles who was formerly the executive director of the Los Angeles City Human Relations Commission and the Greater Los Angeles chapter of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference -- a civil rights group formed by Martin Luther King, Jr. "Simply put, the Civil Rights Act changed American culture. Within a matter of years, racist sentiment became largely outdated and unacceptable. Race-obsessed black leaders unrealistically demand a racial utopia, but they miss the fact that black people have achieved something far more important. They are now the masters of their own destiny."<br /><br /> "The passage of the Civil Rights Act was a signpost that America demonstrated she is more committed to the idea of equality under the law than any point since the Declaration of Independence. But, unfortunately, black leaders often fail to give our nation the credit it's due," added Project 21's Cooper. "It was quite a galvanizing act when the nation came together to ensure the commitment that all Americans would be equal under the law was secured. Unfortunately, instead of stepping out and embracing the reality of Dr. Martin Luther King's dream of a colorblind society open to all Americans of good will, too many continue to focus on injustices of the past."<br /><br /> "It's been five decades since the Civil Rights Act was signed. It's a time for us to reflect upon the sacrifices made so that equality and freedom can be shared with all men," said Project 21's<a href="http://trk.cp20.com/Tracking/t.c?6u9oc-e31bk-sbsv989&_v=2" target="_blank">Demetrius Minor</a>, a youth minister and former White House intern. "It's a mix of the heroism of individuals such as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Rosa Parks, who gave us the boldness and courage to fulfill our dreams, and a bipartisan coalition in Congress who codified their crusade into law. While there is obviously more work necessary to further the cause of civil rights, it remains largely at the personal level and not with society as a whole. It is with a grateful heart that I salute the heritage of the past that made my successes in life possible today."<br /><br /> In 2014, Project 21 members have already been interviewed or cited by the media over 800 times -- including TVOne, the Philadelphia Inquirer, Fox News Channel, Westwood One, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, SiriusXM satellite radio and 50,000-watt talk radio stations such as WBZ-Boston and KDKA-Pittsburgh -- on issues that include civil rights, entitlement programs, the economy, race preferences, education and corporate social responsibility. Project 21 has participated in cases before the U.S. Supreme Court regarding race preferences and voting rights and defended voter ID laws at the United Nations. Its volunteer members come from all walks of life and are not salaried political professionals. <br /><br /></font></font> <em><strong><font face="Verdana"><font color="#000000" size="3">Project 21, a leading voice of black conservatives for over two decades, is sponsored by the <a href="http://trk.cp20.com/Tracking/t.c?6u9oc-e31bl-sbsv980&_v=2" target="_blank">National Center for Public Policy Research</a>, a conservative, free-market, non-profit think-tank established in 1982. <a href="http://trk.cp20.com/Tracking/t.c?6u9oc-e31bm-sbsv981&_v=2" name="Contributions" target="_blank" id="Contributions">Contributions</a></font></font><font face="Verdana"><font color="#000000" size="3"> to the National Center are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated</font></font> <font face="Verdana"><font color="#000000" size="3">.</font></font></strong></em></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p></div>