Law Commons^™

Going Forward: The Role Of Affirmative Action, Race, And Diversity In University Admissions And The Broader Construction Of Society, Steven W. Bender

Seattle University Law Review

The third annual EPOCH symposium, a partnership between the Seattle University Law Review and the Black Law Student Association took place in late summer 2023 at the Seattle University School of Law. It was intended to uplift and amplify Black voices and ideas, and those of allies in the legal community. Prompted by the swell of public outcry surrounding ongoing police violence against the Black community, the EPOCH partnership marked a commitment to antiracism imperatives and effectuating change for the Black community. The published symposium in this volume encompasses some, but not all, the ideas and vision detailed in the …

Defining Social And Economic Disadvantage: Are Government Preferential Business Certification Programs Narrowly Tailored?, George R. La Noue

University of Maryland Law Journal of Race, Religion, Gender and Class

No abstract provided.

Who’S In And Who’S Out? Can India’S Answer Help Us Determine Who Qualifies For Affirmative Action? , Sean A. Pager

ExpressO

Who should be the beneficiaries of racially targeted affirmative action? In its Croson decision, the Supreme Court answered part of the “Who Question” when it conditioned affirmative action eligibility on underrepresentation. What the Court did not tell us was underrepresentation of whom? The Court thus instructs us to select beneficiary groups by counting heads, but leaves open which heads get counted where and what categories to use.

By artificially separating what are necessarily related inquiries, the Court left a definitional lacuna that lower courts have struggled to fill. Such definitional issues matter because they often determine who benefits from affirmative …

Affirmative Action: Hypocritical Euphemism Or Noble Mandate?, Theodore J. St. Antoine

Articles

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was adopted in an atmosphere of monumental naivete. Congress apparently believed that equal employment opportunity could be achieved simply by forbidding employers or unions to "discriminate" on the basis of "race, color, religion, sex, or national origin," and expressly disavowed any intention to require "preferential treatment." Perhaps animated by the Supreme Court's stirring desegregation decisions of the 1950's, the proponents of civil rights legislation made "color-blindness" the rallying cry of the hour. Today we know better. The dreary statistics, so familiar to anyone who works in this field, tell the story. …