States Rights and the U.S. Department of Justice

Senator  Sessions,  Massive  Resistance  and States' Rights

Senator Jeff Sessions' nomination to become the next U.S. Attorney General has been broadly criticized by civil and human rights advocates. Criticism has focused on Sessions' attitudes toward blacks, and to a lesser degree, toward the LGBTQ community. Mr. Brooks and NAACP officials voluntarily went to jail in protest. Vida Johnson who teaches at Georgetown has organized a letter from 1400 law professors in opposition to Sessions. As despicable as racism is, there is another reason - perhaps just as compelling - to carefully scrutinize  Senator  Sessions' public record.

In the wake of Brown v. Board of Education, the landmark 1954  decision outlawing government-sanctioned racial segregation,  parts of the South  mounted  a campaign of massive resistance to federal law. "If we can organize the Southern States for massive resistance to this order I think that in time the  rest  of  the  country will realize that racial integration is not going to  be  accepted  in  the  South." With these words, Virginia U.S. Senator Harry Flood Byrd  launched  Massive Resistance, a deliberate campaign to  delay  and obfuscate  compliance with federal  law.

Opponents of the Brown ruling and integration used the doctrine of interposition, which argued that the state could "interpose" between an unconstitutional federal mandate and local authorities based on State Sovereignty. The General Assembly adopted a resolution of interposition in 1956 that clearly defied the authority of the federal courts.

Fortunately, after more than a decade of massive resistance, the south slowly but surely accommodated itself to open public accommodations. The schools desegregated, the parks integrated, city and county councils adopted single member district plans permitting the first wave of black  elected  officials, segregation academies  lost their luster.

Some Southerners never were reconstructed after the legal and social civil war that changed America in the middle of the 20th century.

As Attorney General Mr. Sessions will become the nation's prosecutor in chief. The massive resistance took the form of closed public schools, erection of memorials to confederate heroes, hoisting of Confederate battle flags, and in my hometown turning a public swimming pool over to seals, rather than permit black children access.

Over the past decade, Mr. Sessions offered legislation that would require states and cities to accept surplus military equipment. He offered to permit states to impose criminal penalties for violation of immigration law. He would  permit states to defy and delay federal enforcement of the Clean Air Act. He authored legislation excluding drinking water quality from fracking rules. Mr. Sessions' ideas are so extreme that most of these measures never made it out of committee and never became law. His states' rights positions are so extreme that his fellow conservatives could not support them in the Senate.

One of the main tenets of massive resistance and interposition was the notion that federal government had no role to play in state and local policy. The most visible symbol of massive resistance was Wallace statement in support of segregation now, tomorrow and forever. Massive resistance was fought out on the battlefield of race relations, but its philosophical underpinning was always broader.

It is useful to consider that we struggle today, more than 150 years later, with whether the civil war was fought over slavery, or states' rights to fashion their own economies. The great achievement of Dr. Martin Luther King and his followers was to make it inappropriate to discriminate based on race. But that momentous struggle for civil rights did not settle the question of states' rights.

The States Rights philosophy lives on. There is a theme that runs through Senator Sessions' public life that is more profound and more disqualifying than his racial attitudes, which  he has learned,with the  rest of the South to   euphemize.

Mr. Sessions' extreme strain of massive resistance to federal  law is compounded by the harm done to his own constituents. Alabama consistently ranks  in the  bottom quintile on every quality of life scale ...income, jobs, education, wealth, health. After decades of establishing a record in opposition to  all  federal  "intrusion", Senator Sessions' constituents are some of the nation's most disadvantaged.    A  review of his legislative record seems to support the view   that

Senator Sessions bears a grudge against the federal government, despite the fact that Alabama is perennially a net recipient of federal aid.

The Attorney General is the nation's chief prosecutor . Every prosecutor has immense power...to choose which cases to bring, which defendants to negotiate with, which laws to prioritize for enforcement. Just as in the states, where the Attorney General represents the State, the U.S. Attorney General represents the United States. The United States is his client. Every lawyer knows that you cannot represent a client if personal, philosophical, professional or economic interests conflict with the client's to the extent that you cannot present the  merits of the client's case. It is worth examining the extent to which Mr. Sessions' long defiance of the role of federal government, and his apparent allegiance to State Sovereignty, disqualify him from representing the United States.

Protect the Constitution - Give President's SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) Nominee a Fair Hearing and Vote

NCNW is concerned about all issues that affect women and their families. There is an issue of great importance facing every American today.

The President of the United States has a    Constitutional

obligation to nominate a qualified individual to fill the vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court left by Justice Antonin Scalia's untimely death. The U.S. Senate has the obligation to debate and vote whether to confirm the President's nomination.

But members of the Senate Judiciary Committee have announced their plan to block Senate confirmation and deny "Advice and Consent." Some have pledged to block confirmation of ANY nominee put forward by President Obama.

Please contact members of the Senate Judiciary Committee TODAY to urge them to give President Obama's Supreme Court nominee a fair hearing in the U.S. Senate, as required  by  the  U.S.  Constitution. You can find contact information for the Senate Judiciary Committee by visiting Senate Judiciary Website.  To find your own Senator, visit the U.S. Senate Website.

Our message is simple! Respect the Constitution and the separation of powers among the branches of government. Give thoughtful consideration to President Obama's nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Americans should not have a year-long vacancy on the Court at a time when Citizens United (the case that effectively ended regulation of political campaign contributions), the Voting Rights Act, affirmative action and other important issues are on the Court's agenda. The most long-lasting action a President makes is the appointment of a justice to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Today, there is a vacancy on the Supreme Court that could change the direction of the country. You can make a good argument that the most lasting work of a president is in the federal judges he/she nominates. The GOP understands this. That is why Mitch McConnell is pledging to block ANY person President Obama nominates. We must be similarly diligent to assure that the President’s obligation to nominate justices to the court is not thwarted. It matters. It matters whether the Affordable Care Act continues to be attacked. It matters whether race can be taken into account in government contracting and college admissions. It matters whether money is speech and can be spent in unlimited amounts in political campaigns. It matters whether the right to vote may be infringed merely to provide political advantage.

Take Action: Contact your U.S. Senator to Urge Hearings for President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee.

Janice L. Mathis, Esq.

National Executive Director, NCNW

Overview of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Title VI, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq., was enacted as part of the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964. It prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance. As President John F. Kennedy said in 1963:     Simple justice requires that public funds, to which all taxpayers of all races [colors, and national origins] contribute, not be spent in any fashion which encourages, entrenches, subsidizes or results in racial [color or national origin] discrimination. If a recipient of federal assistance is found to have discriminated and voluntary compliance cannot be achieved, the federal agency providing the assistance should either initiate fund termination proceedings or refer the matter to the Department of Justice for appropriate legal action. Aggrieved individuals may file administrative complaints with the federal agency that provides funds to a recipient, or the individuals may file suit for appropriate relief in federal court. Title VI itself prohibits intentional discrimination. However, most funding agencies have regulations implementing Title VI that prohibit recipient practices that have the effect of discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin. To assist federal agencies that provide financial assistance, the wide variety of recipients that receive such assistance, and the actual and potential beneficiaries of programs receiving federal assistance, the U.S. Department of Justice has published a Title VI Legal Manual. The Title VI Legal Manual sets out Title VI legal principles and standards. Additionally, the Department has published an Investigation Procedures Manual to give practical advice on how to investigate Title VI complaints. Also available on the Federal Coordination and Compliance Website are a host of other materials that may be helpful to those interested in ensuring effective enforcement of Title VI. http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/cor/coord/titlevi.php

United Nations Reviews U.S. Efforts to Eliminate Racism

COMMENTS OF THE RAINBOWPUSH COALITION ON THE

PERIODIC REPORT OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
 TO THE UNITED NATIONS COMMITTEE ON THE ELIMINATION OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION (CERD)

On June 12, 2013, the State Department reported on efforts to eliminate racial discrimination in the U.S.  According to the Periodic Report to the United Nations, although the U.S. has “made great strides over the years in overcoming the legacies of slavery, racism, ethnic intolerance, and destructive laws, policies, and practices relating to members of racial and ethnic minorities…the path toward racial equality has been uneven, racial and ethnic discrimination still persists, and much work remains to meet our goal of ensuring equality for all.”

Attorney General Eric Holder indicated on August 12, 2013 that the United States Department of Justice will seek to ameliorate the harsh effects of mandatory minimum sentencing in federal courts and seek alternatives to incarceration.  We hail this announcement as a positive step in the right direction toward lowering one of the highest incarceration rates in the world.  Some states, most notably California, due to persistent advocacy, regulatory pressures, as well as the spiraling costs of caring for an aging prison population, are also experimenting with ways to reduce the number of incarcerated persons in the United States.

2013 marks the fiftieth anniversary of the March on Washington and one hundred and fifty years since the Emancipation Proclamation freed enslaved persons held in rebellious Confederate states.  Glaring racial disparities in health, education, incarceration rates and accumulated wealth are only a few of the indicators that race discrimination is a sad fact of American life.  We take issue with the assertion that “existing U.S. constitutional and statutory law and practice provide strong and effective protections against discrimination…in all fields of public endeavor, and provide remedies for those who, despite these protections, become victims of discrimination.”  Racial profiling and mass incarceration are two examples of the failure of U.S. law and policy to address the effects of discrimination. 

Historically, the Civil Rights Movement was bolstered by considerations of national security, national pride and concern for world opinion.  In that spirit, we offer these comments regarding the recent U.S. report to the CERD and U.S. response to previous CERD recommendations.

Compounding the problem is the expanding trend to require civil rights plaintiffs to prove that racial discrimination is “intentional”.  Civil rights groups and the government have relied heavily on disparate impact because intent is so difficult to prove.  Disparate impact is not concerned with intent, but instead focuses on results.  The CERD

In the U.S. remedies for discrimination are routinely “strictly scrutinized” to assure that blacks who have been historically excluded from virtually every area of American life don’t receive too much relief.  For example, in the recent Fisher v. Texas case, the Department of Justice sought to defend a race-conscious admission policy designed to increase the number of black and Latino students at the university.  A 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court sent the case back to the 5^th Circuit Court of Appeals to determine whether the implementation of the program was sufficiently narrowly tailored to meet a compelling state interest.  Ten years ago, the Court deferred to the judgment of university officials regarding “complex educational judgments.” Now, the Court is unwilling to accord the University of Texas the same deference.  The history of civil rights enforcement by the U.S. Supreme Court over the past forty years has largely been the tale of barely holding on to past gains, while persons seeking redress for discrimination must climb a narrower, rockier path.

In the area of government contracting, local governments must undertake expensive time-consuming “disparity studies” to prove that discrimination continues to exist.  Minority-owned contracting firms must undergo rigorous examinations of their official papers and records to qualify for diversity programs aimed at bolstering inclusion.  These and similar mechanisms discourage would-be bidders.  With regard to federal government incentives for inclusion of black contractors in work of private firms, sometimes, as in the case of the $16 billion dollar Southern Nuclear plant construction in Georgia, federal subsidies such as loan guarantees are extended without any goal or consideration of inclusion of minority-owned firms. 

It should be noted that many of the examples of progress cited by the United States emanate from districts outside the former Confederate southern states.  Examples from federal appeals courts in New York[i][1], South Dakota[2] and Pennsylvania[3] hardly tell the story of the United States when it comes to race.  Half of all blacks still live in the South and federal courts in the 4^th, 5^th and 11^th Circuits are the most hostile to race discrimination claims of all kinds.   It is also true that these circuits sentence federal defendants at much as 30% more harshly than the federal sentencing guidelines require, and much more harshly that federal courts in other circuits.

The United States and the states have done very little to address the following 2008 CERD recommendations, and as a result race discrimination in these areas is still rampant. 

1.       The Committee recommends that the State party review the definition of racial discrimination used in the federal and state legislation and in court practice, so as to ensure…that it prohibits racial discrimination in all its forms, including practices and legislation that may not be discriminatory in purpose, but in effect.

 

2.      The Committee recommends that the State party broaden the protection afforded by the law against discriminatory acts perpetrated by private individuals, groups or organizations

 

3.      The Committee recommends that the State party consider the establishment of an independent national human rights institution in accordance with the Paris Principles.

 

4.      The Committee recommends that the State party establish appropriate mechanisms to ensure a coordinated approach towards the implementation of the Convention at the federal, state and local levels.

 

5.      The Committee recommends that the State party strengthen its efforts to combat racial profiling at the federal and state levels, inter alia, by moving expeditiously towards the adoption of the End Racial Profiling Act, or similar federal legislation.

 

6.      The Committee therefore calls once again upon the State party to adopt and strengthen the use of such measures (affirmative action) when circumstances warrant their use as a tool to eliminate the persistent disparities in the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms and ensure the adequate development and protection of members of racial, ethnic and national minorities.

 

7.      The Committee recommends that the State party undertake further studies to identify the underlying causes of de facto segregation and racial inequalities in education, with a view to elaborating effective strategies aimed at promoting school desegregation and providing equal educational opportunity in integrated settings for all students.

 

8.     Bearing in mind [that] stark racial disparities in the administration and functioning of the criminal justice system, including the disproportionate number of persons belonging to racial, ethnic and national minorities in the prison population, may be regarded as factual indicators of racial discrimination, the Committee recommends that the State party take all necessary steps to guarantee the right of everyone to equal treatment before tribunals and all other organs administering justice, including further studies to determine the nature and scope of the problem, and the implementation of national strategies or plans of action aimed at the elimination of structural racial discrimination.

 

9.      The Committee wishes to reiterate its previous recommendation contained in paragraph 396 of its previous concluding observations of 2001, that the State party adopt all necessary measures, including a moratorium, to ensure that death penalty is not imposed as a result of racial bias on the part of prosecutors, judges, juries and lawyers.

The United States seems impervious to its own pre-judgments about race.  There is widespread belief that the racial and ethnic disparities are caused by lack of personal responsibility instead of institutional racism.  There are none so blind as those who will not see.  African Americans in particular who complain about the policies and practices described above are admonished to “get over it”, or “stop playing the race card.” 

We applaud the work of the CERD and urge US policy makers to take its observations and recommendations seriously.

 

---

[1] “…New York City’s use of examinations for firefighters had an unlawful disparate impact on Blacks/African Americans and Hispanics/Latinos. U.S. v. City of New York, NY, 683 F. Supp. 2d 77 (E.D.N.Y. 2009).”

 

[2] “…a recent enforcement action led to an agreement with Shannon County, South Dakota to ensure the voting rights of Lakota-speaking Native American voters with limited English proficiency.”

 

[3] “For example, in 2010, the Department of Health and Human Services Office for Civil Rights (HHS/OCR) secured a settlement requiring the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center to ensure that closure of a hospital in a predominately Black/African American community did not have a disparate impact on the residents of that area.”

---

 

Rainbow PUSH Coalition Statement on Voting Rights Act and Affirmative Action By Janice L. Mathis, Esq. This year – fifty years after King implored justice to roll down like a mighty stream - President Obama must speak out to preserve two of the bulwarks that have held back the America’s persistent tide of racism. The Supreme Court will take up the continued vitality of both Section V of the Voting Rights Act (which requires some states to get prior approval for voting changes) and affirmative action in higher education and contracting. Blacks continue to experience persistent discrimination in housing education, financial services and employment. It is a mistake to assume that the fight for equality for blacks squarely lies in the past – at Selma. The President is right to refer to the Stonewall gay bar riots that opened the door to gay activism in 1969. 10% of Americans are gay. Add in their families and there are 60 million powerful political reasons to address discrimination against the LGBT community. Beyond the merely political, most gays have no more choice over their orientation than I have over my color. And you should not be punished for what you cannot help or change. It is also appropriate that the President should offer policy solutions to help promote tolerance and equality for LGBT. Ben Jealous is also right to call on the President to nominate an African American woman to the U.S. Supreme Court. I would only add that it should be a liberal African American woman. Being black is not enough. I would rather see a white liberal female appointment than a conservative black one. After all, Clarence Thomas is black. Not only is racism still part of our culture – it appears to be getting worse. A recent poll by AP and Stanford University revealed that 79% of Republicans have explicit negative attitudes toward blacks. In all, 51 percent of Americans now express explicit anti-black attitudes, compared with 48 percent in a similar 2008 survey. Another recent study revealed that in New York it is easier for a white male high school dropout to find employment than it is for a college-educated African American man. Not surprisingly, the economic collapse and the election of a person of color as President have resulted in racial backlash. The President is urged to open a national conversation on race. He should use the power of his office to mend or defend affirmative action. The President says that he received a great education, in part, because of affirmative action. Looking at what he accomplished, it would seem that we need more affirmative action – not less. And we must act now to end the failed war on drugs. Selma proved that racial discrimination is susceptible to improved public policy. The President is right to go on radio and encourage black fathers to be more attentive, but no amount of great parenting will erase the antagonism that some whites have toward all blacks. The specter of red-state electoral systems unsupervised by the Justice Department is frightening, especially given the lengths to which extremists have proven they will go to intimidate and suppress the vote. The President is implored to speak on behalf of blacks who invested time, talent, treasure and hope in his re-election. As Ruth Bader Ginsberg wrote a decade ago in her brilliant dissent to the Gratz opinion striking down the University of Michigan law school’s affirmative action program, to pretend that we have achieved equality for blacks is to “pretend that history never happened and that the present doesn't exist."

Augusta National Finally Admits Women

Augusta National Protest Nets Results

For more information, call 404 525 5663 Statement of Janice L. Mathis for The Rainbow PUSH Coalition We are gratified that Augusta National has agreed to finally invite women to join the club. Darla Moore and Condoleeza Rice are both stellar examples of the character, talent, drive and accomplishment that will only enhance the club’s membership. Having come out of UGA athletics and the Olympics, we believed that Billy Payne is the type of leader who understands the role of women in sport. It is only right that during the 40th year since the enactment of Title IX that a significant barrier to women’s equality would fall. The Masters may be owned and produced by Augusta National, but it is a quintessentially American sports landmark. That fact, together with the public support provided by the citizens of Augusta-Richmond County made the tournament and its sponsor the business of all Americans. It is also important to note that part of the great American tradition is the right to protest injustice. This year, and many years before, the Rainbow PUSH Coalition, Martha Burke, NOW and others engaged in peaceful direct action and protest to bring this matter to light. The Rainbow PUSH Coalition celebrates this important victory with Augusta National and our movement allies. In photo below, we are picketing Augusta National once again in April, 2012. Finally, the time for change had come. Pictured are Janice L. Mathis and Sintonio Hobbs.

Augusta National Statement

For Immediate Release: Contact Sherry Mallory gme880@yahoo.com Rob Woods Spin1woods@yahoo.com (773) 256-2714 pressdepartment@rainbowpush.org Rainbow PUSH Challenges Augusta National to Include Women, Again Get Informed, Get Inspired, Get Involved ATLANTA (April 5, 2012) Nearly a decade after RPC VP Janice L. Mathis, Martha Burk and other activists protested the exclusion of women from Augusta National, some things have changed, and some have not. There are a few more female heads of Fortune 500 Companies now than there were in 2003, but Augusta National (home of the Masters) has still not opened its doors to women. Mathis and others will picket the tournament on Saturday from noon, until 2:00 p.m. “It surprises me a little that Billy Payne (given his Olympics background) has not nudged the traditionalists into accepting female members, especially in time for IBM’s CEO to receive her green sponsor’s jacket. Why bring this misery onto itself?” Georgia Power and other Atlanta-based firms ended their sponsorship of the tournament, but with tickets priced at Super Bowl levels and platinum-plated members like Bill Gates, Augusta National doesn’t need the money. “Why bother making an issue of it?” some may ask. It matters because the Masters is more than a private game of golf. It takes over the City of Augusta every Spring. School closes, the Chronicle is saturated with tournament coverage, police officers and city garbage collectors earn extra pay for overtime work, the azaleas bloom and the world comes to Augusta. It matters because after Tiger’s first win, the course was Tigerized in an effort to make it harder for him to win again. Gender and race discrimination are each made of equal parts fear and loathing. They are indistinguishable. I think of America’s image abroad. We lag the world in women leaders. Places like India and Pakistan accept female leadership easier than we do. A woman’s worth is still too often calculated based on what she looks like than what she does. If you think I exaggerate, ask Baylor’s superstar hoopster, Brittney Griner. Wouldn’t it be nice to tell our enemies everywhere that all Americans count and that we are pursuing a more perfect union and playing by one set of rules? Pretty soon the U.S. Supreme Court will take up the issue of affirmative action, again. Before she left the Supreme Court, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote persuasively about the “paths to leadership” that wind through America’s most elite institutions. I encourage Augusta National to enter a new era and permit highly qualified women to join the ranks of the club’s elite membership. The Rainbow PUSH Coalition is a progressive organization protecting, defending and expanding civil rights to improve economic and educational opportunity. The organization is headquartered at 930 E. 50th St. in Chicago. To learn more about the RainbowPUSH Coalition, please visit www.rainbowpush.org, or telephone (773) 373-3366. For more information, please call (404) 525-5663 or 404 394 1500.

Duke Study to Aid Fisher v. University of Texas Attack on Affirmative Action

STATEMENT OF JANICE L. MATHIS ON TEXAS CHALLENGE TO AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IN THE SUPREME COURT

I am disturbed, but not surprised, that the Supreme Court will hear yet another challenge to affirmative action in higher education admissions. The Supreme Court has granted certiorari in Fisher v. University of Texas, a case that may allow the Court to revisit the constitutionality of affirmative action in higher education. Justice Elena Kagan has recused herself from the case. Fisher will give the Roberts-led Court a chance to prove whether it has a new center of gravity in the post-O’Connor era. Already hanging by a thread, affirmative action will again be tested to see whether it meets constitutional muster. Preferences for football players, opera stars, women, children of alumni and the socio-economically disadvantaged are okay. Preferences for blacks may no longer be.
Gratz and Grutter, the pair of University of Michigan cases (ironically decided on the date that Maynard Jackson died) left affirmative action in limbo. The particularized review of student achievement undertaken by the law school was okay – the more systematic admission of high-achieving blacks to the undergraduate school was struck down. Race-conscious admission policies must be justified by a compelling state interest. Justice Blackmun’s dissent in the Bakke case called “diversity” compelling and spawned not only a legal rationale, but an industry. But the compelling interest in diversity is to some degree a legal fiction. College opens doors. Grades and SAT scores only imprecisely measure the qualities needed for leadership or accomplishment. If we are to maximize our potential as an increasingly colorful society, we must practice valuing and respecting each other in a way that only integration can achieve.

Unfortunately, a study by scholars at Duke University will be used to bolster the appellant’s anti-affirmative action argument. The study concludes that the reason black students and white students at Duke graduate with similar GPA’s is due to blacks choosing easier majors instead of science, math or economics. Lisa Cooper, Trudie Bolles and I met privately with Duke President Brodhead when he visited the Carter Center in Atlanta last week. It was important to me for him to hear directly from Duke alumni. I think I hoped that my alma mater might, in the words of Elizabeth Anderson, professor of philosophy and women's studies at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, “…rise to the challenge of forcefully articulating a clear case for their policies.” He assured us that Duke’s commitment to a diverse student body was firm and would not be diminished. I am more concerned about the legal environment in which admissions decisions will be made, not only at Duke, but at hundreds of universities across the nation. He also gently, but firmly refused to issue his own statement in response to the study out of respect for the academic freedom of his faculty, reminding me that today’s weapon could turn into tomorrow’s shield. He also suggested that the only way to expose any flaws in the study would be countervailing research.

I started out an English major and switched to Economics when the Carter-era recession made me think seriously about a career. To me, at that time, English and Economics were equally challenging. I made my worst grades on science drive during my first year at Duke. The longer I was there, the better my grades got. After scoring an A on the first test in a chemistry class, I refused to return because the class was large, impersonal and uninteresting. I made a C in a computer science class after being refused help from a professor, who looked at me coldly and asked, “what do you want me to do?” I struggled with statistics, but eventually did okay with some encouragement from the head of the economics department. Were the social sciences easier for me? Undoubtedly. The question the Duke study misses is why. Were the sciences intrinsically more demanding? Based on my experience, not necessarily. Why do 30% of women at Duke leave the STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) majors for other disciplines? Is there something wrong with us, or something cold and unwelcoming or uninteresting about the way the material is presented? We should not jump to conclusions. We must search for high quality data.

The Duke study has not been published and may not have been peer-reviewed. The Supreme Court should require that professors Peter Arcidiacono and Kenneth Spenner, and graduate student Esteban Aucejo release their data for examination by their peers before it makes “What Happens After Admission” the basis of a momentous decision that may affect paths to leadership for decades to come.

Duke Study Wrong About Affirmative Action

Dear President Brodhead:

I am excited that you will be in Atlanta on February 15 with Senator and President Carter and I plan to attend the event at the Carter Center. It would be extremely helpful (if your schedule permits) if you took a few minutes to visit privately with a group of African American alumni who are alarmed at the recent anti-affirmative action study conducted by Duke faculty. I freely admit that I benefitted from affirmative action and received a superior education at Duke. I jokingly tell people that I may have gotten in on affirmative action, but there was only one way out. I do not consider my Public Policy and Economics majors to be any less demanding or worthwhile than the courses offered on Science Drive. And I certainly don’t think you want the public to believe that there are two tiers of study offered at Duke – the rigorous sciences and the less worthwhile humanities. In Atlanta, there are judges, physicians, elected officials, scientists, nurses among a host of black Duke alums who have worked hard to build this city and this nation. We want to be reassured that Duke is not pulling away from its commitment to affirmative action. With all the problems that plague urban communities, it is not surprising that African American graduates choose majors that will prepare them to address the lingering economic, social and political disparities that plague our nation. A physician who majors in social science as a undergraduate may actually be better prepared to practice medicine than one who focuses on science alone. My schoolmates and I regret that Duke’s name will appear among the opponents of affirmative action at the Supreme Court – a posture at odds with Duke’s history and our national interests.
Best regards
Janice L. Mathis