Affirmative action rules and regulations

The red General permit allows vehicles to park in general lots.

Affirmative action rules and regulations

The Times story was enough to reignite the ever-smoldering debate over whether our universities should weigh, in a politically correct manner, of course, skin color and national origin in deciding who gets in. The arguments have changed a little, but only a little.

If you consider race, it must be because sometimes it will tip the scale. Otherwise, why consider it at all? And the legal, moral and historical ramifications of treating people differently based on race are different from doing so on the basis of three-point jump shots.

Questionable Justifications Well, if you are going to engage in racial discrimination, you had better have a good reason -- the U. Supreme Court and civil morality are agreed on this -- so what do its proponents adduce?

There are three candidates. Occasionally a prophylactic justification is claimed for racial preferences: One can imagine circumstances where this might be true -- the Supreme Court imposed hiring quotas on recalcitrant employers on this basis back in the day -- but university admissions in is not one of them.

Those offices have been cheerfully and openly discriminating in favor of blacks and Latinos for some time now by weighing race and ethnicity to achieve diversity.

The problem with the remedial one is that the Supreme Court has rejected it, so that legally it is a nonstarter -- and thus no college or university relies on it. Affirmative action rules and regulations problem with the educational benefits argument is that nobody really believes it.

We are talking, after all, about students born not into slavery or Jim Crow, but in We are talking about giving preferences to Latinos over Asian-Americans, which is supposed to remedy … what, exactly? Sure, there are African-Americans who can claim disadvantage and may be able to trace it to historical discrimination of some sort, but the trouble is that the overwhelming majority of such students receiving preferences are really not socially and economically disadvantaged.

Bowen, acknowledged that only 14 percent of black students admitted to the selective schools that the authors studied came from backgrounds of lower socioeconomic status, and the rest came from upper- or middle-SES backgrounds. If colleges and universities want to help those who are disadvantaged, they can do so on the basis of, well, disadvantage rather than using skin color as a proxy.

Not all blacks and Latinos are disadvantaged, plus I have it on good authority that there exist in this country some whites and Asian-Americans who have parents who are not Ivy League alumni, and that some of them are not even rich.

Legal Origins

I will add, parenthetically, that sometimes you hear colleges and universities claim that they want a student body that reflects the population of their state. There is no legal pedigree for setting such quotas, which sound like what Justice Lewis F. Does that mean that we should continue to use them?

The answer is no, and the reason is the obvious one that, when one does a cost-benefit analysis, one has to consider not only possible benefits but also possible costs.

It creates resentment and is otherwise and inevitably divisive.

Policies, Rules and Regulations | East Carolina University

It stigmatizes the so-called beneficiaries in the eyes of their classmates, teachers and themselves, as well as future employers, clients and patients. It mismatches African-Americans and Latinos with institutions, setting them up for failure, so that not only are those discriminated against hurt but also those supposedly benefited.

It fosters a victim mind-set, removes the incentive for academic excellence and encourages separatism. It compromises the academic mission of the university and lowers the overall academic quality of the student body.

It creates pressure to discriminate in grading and graduation. It breeds hypocrisy within the college and encourages a scofflaw attitude among administrators. It papers over the real social problem of why so many African-Americans and Latinos are academically uncompetitive. It gets states and colleges involved in unsavory activities like deciding which racial and ethnic minorities will be favored and which ones not, and how much blood is needed to establish group membership -- an untenable legal regime as America becomes an increasingly multiracial and multiethnic society, and as individual Americans are themselves more and more likely to be multiracial and multiethnic.

To elaborate on just one point, because of its current salience: Telling African-Americans, in particular, that less is expected of them and, indeed, then requiring less of them is a sure way to reinforce racial stereotypes and to encourage identity politics and the self-segregation of a group that the selection process has guaranteed will be mismatched and marginalized.

The unhappy consequences of this approach on a campus are, alas, all too visible.

Affirmative action rules and regulations

It is increasingly clear that racial preferences help no one -- and hurt everyone. And I will add that, not only is the list of costs longer than the list of benefits, but also the costs are heavy and undeniable, while the benefits are marginal and dubious. And since renowned public higher education systems in, for example, California and Michigan are no longer allowed to use preferences and yet seem to be able to continue educating their students very well, it is increasingly difficult to assert that the use of preferences is essential at a top-notch institution.

One hopes that, while the administration was at pains to point out that the current initiative involves only anti-Asian-American discrimination at one university, it will be willing as well to investigate other institutions where there is evidence of illegal racial and ethnic discrimination against Asian-Americans and whites, just as it would if there were evidence of illegal discrimination against African-Americans and Latinos, or Native Americans or Arab-Americans.

The Trump administration should make sure that those constraints are followed. There is no reason to think that colleges and universities are being very conscientious about following those rules; for example, the amicus brief we filed with Pacific Legal Foundation and others in Fisher II documents our FOIA efforts that showed the opposite.

Affirmative Action

Indeed, the Trump administration ought to take a proactive approach, and its Department of Education could and should require colleges and universities that receive federal money to report a whether they consider race and ethnicity in admissions and, if so, b the steps each has taken to ensure that the resulting discrimination is in fact narrowly tailored to a compelling interest, in the way the Supreme Court has demanded.

This is a simple transparency requirement, and it imposes no burden on colleges and universities to do anything except report what they should be doing anyway, by law. The resulting data would be available to both sides of the aisle as we continue to debate this important issue.MLS Rules & Regulations – June Table of Contents.

Click on the title to jump to that section. Use Control + F to search for individual terms within this document. Affirmative Action Regulations Abstract: Affirmative Action Regulations Sections 46a through 74 inclusive ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS Regulations provided below are for informational purposes ONLY.

For official citations please refer to the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies. The Trump administration is doing away with a series of affirmative-action policy documents put in place under former President Barack Obama that encourage colleges and universities to use race in. For the Regulation on Conflicts of Interest, Commitment, and External Professional Activities for Pay, please see REG Degree Requirements, Graduate School.

The submission of an application or the request for ABGA services is an agreement by the individual to pay all related fees in preparation and/ or processing the request. Affirmative action laws are federal legislation enacted by Congress, on behalf of citizens and the institutions and organizations they engage with.7 min read Affirmative action laws are federal legislation enacted by Congress, on behalf of citizens and the institutions and organizations they engage.

Affirmative Action | Wex Legal Dictionary / Encyclopedia | LII / Legal Information Institute