The underlying premise of the U.S. Supreme Court’s precedent in Grutter v. Bollinger is that students benefit from being in a racially diverse educational environment.  As the justices prepare to reconsider the issue of affirmative action in higher education, new research has emerged which examines Grutter’s premise.  The study, “Does Race Matter in Educational Diversity? A Legal and Empirical Analysis,” concludes that law students actually do benefit from racial diversity on campus and that law schools should work to maintain diverse classes.  University of North Carolina School of Law professor Charles Daye conducted the research along with University of North Carolina psychology professor A.T. Panter; University of California, Los Angeles sociology professor Walter Allen; and University of North Carolina at Greensboro professor emeritus Linda Wightman.  Their findings are based on data collected from law schools over a decade. The team surveyed approximately 6,500 incoming students at 50 law schools about their own backgrounds, expectations and experiences. They also conducted periodic focus groups consisting of approximately 200 students throughout their three years in law school.  

This fall, the United States Supreme Court will reconsider the issue of affirmative action in higher education for the first time since its 2003 decision in Grutter v. Bollinger.  In Grutter the Court held that, “The Equal Protection Clause does not prohibit the [University of Michigan] Law School’s narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body.”  The Court will consider the appeal of Abigail Fisher, a white student, who alleges she was denied admission to the University of Texas because of the color of her skin.  At issue in the Fisher case is whether the Court’s decisions interpreting the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, including Grutter, permit the University of Texas at Austin’s use of race in undergraduate admissions decisions. 

The Supreme Court’s decision stands to have great impact nationally.  Numerous amicus briefs have been filed in support of both litigants.  Of note, the University of California (UC) president and chancellors, the state of California, the California Institute of Technology and a group of student organization at UC campuses are among at least 69 organizations that have filed amicus briefs in support of the University of Texas at Austin.  California is one of a few states that have already prohibited affirmative action in college admissions following the passage of Proposition 209 in 1996.  In its amicus brief, UC attorneys argued that the university system’s experience after Prop. 209 “sheds important light on the practical, real-world obstacles faced by universities seeking to obtain the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body.”  Similarly, the brief filed on behalf of the state of California by Attorney General Kamala Harris observed that if California, a large and diverse state, could not achieve an acceptable level of diversity in its public universities in the absence of race-conscious admissions policies, other states with more homogeneous populations would struggle to an even greater extent.

Despite several initiatives enacted after the passage of the proposition, UC has not been able to reverse the decline in minority admission and enrollment since 1998, when the law went into effect.  Between 1995 and 2009, African Americans consistently represented between 7 and 8 percent of new high school graduates in California.  In 1995, African Americans made up 7.3 percent of admitted freshmen at UC Berkeley, but by 1998, that figure had dropped to 3.2 percent. In 2010 and 2011, it was 3.9 percent. UCLA saw similar results.

Is diversity a sufficiently compelling reason to use race in admissions decisions?  Is there a compelling interest in obtaining educational benefits from a diverse student body?  Could a reversal of the Court’s decision in Grutter result in less diverse student bodies at public colleges and universities as has been experienced in California?

Alison Y. Ashe-Card

Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, LLC

On Monday, our United States Supreme Court promised plenty of work for our brothers and sisters on the nation’s border states practicing governmental liability law.  In Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. ___ (2012), among other rulings, the 5-3 (9-0 on Section 2(B)) Court upheld Arizona’s controversial Show Me Your Papers provision, which requires local law enforcement to check the immigration status of people they stop for another reason.

Rejecting the United States’ position that federal law pre-empts the Arizona statute in this effect, the Majority broadly reasoned that this particular law complimented, rather than stood as an encroachment, into the federal immigration power.  The Court also reasoned that as a facial challenge to a pre-effect law, it had before it neither a factual record, nor the “benefit of a definitive interpretation from the state courts” upon which to address any Fourth Amendment or other preemption concerns.

The law requires state officers to make a “reasonable attempt…to determine the immigration status” of any person they stop, detain, or arrest on some other legitimate basis if “reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien and is unlawfully present in the United States.”  Pretermitting the obvious – that every stop will take longer once reasonable suspicion kicks in, the Court also chose not to deal with 2(B)’s vagueness, nor its obvious invitation to practice racial profiling.  This comes as no surprise, given the Court’s getting the Solicitor General at Oral Argument to concede that, at least at this stage, the case does not involve a racial profiling element.

The Court has turned loose to the lawyers and the courts the responsibility to create this definitive interpretation of how this law impacts the Fourth Amendment and other rights of United States citizens.  Arizona will see plenty of litigation over the certain-to-be future interplay at the in section of 2(B) and the Fourth Amendment.

Somewhat lost in the shuffle, is the Obama Administration’s having cancelled some agreements allowing Arizona Police Departments to enforce federal immigration laws. The Administration has set up a hot-line and email address for the public to report civil rights concerns.  It is unclear what impact this will have on the overall landscape.  It seems unlikely the Feds would pull such agreements nation-wide.

On this day in 1967, President Lyndon B. Johnson nominated Thurgood Marshall to fill the seat of retiring U.S Supreme Court Associate Justice Tom Clark, saying that this was "the right thing to do, the right time to do it, the right man and the right place."  The Senate confirmed his nomination on August 30th by a vote of 69-11.  Upon his swearing in, Marshall became the 96th justice and the first African-American to sit on the nation’s highest court.  Only one other African-American, Clarence Thomas who succeeded Marshall, has served as one of the Court’s 112 justices.

The area of a person’s brain responsible for feelings of empathy responds differently to persons of a different race at the neuron level as demonstrated by a MIT study.  Thus, if I perceive you as similar to me simply based on race, then my brain will react with more empathy or compassion than if you were of a different race, and this occurs without our even realizing it.  Similarly, a study conducted in March at UCLA demonstrated that the brain processes empathy towards friends who are experiencing social pain differently compared to strangers enduring the same social pain.  David Rock and Dan Radecki of the Neuroleadership Institute note, “These findings have implications beyond the courtroom. This is something that leaders and managers in any diverse organization need to understand. If you want people from different cultures to collaborate at their best, creating a common ‘in group’ is critical.”  The bad news is that race does matter, no matter how civilized we want to think we are. The good news is that the effect of race can be mitigated with increased awareness.

Come learn about ways to continue to break down the barriers of difference which divide us at the seventh annual Diversity for Success Seminar on June 7-8, 2012 at the Swissôtel Chicago.  Discover how diversity can be used to expand your firm’s base and increase your firm’s value to its clients. 

http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2012/06/why_race_still_matters_in_the.html

A growing trend among employers is requesting applicants’ usernames and passwords to gain access to restricted social media in order to investigate applicants during the hiring process.  In response to this trend, Illinois and Maryland have each recently proposed laws that would essentially ban employers from requesting this type of information.  The main arguments for and against the proposed laws are centered around constitutional privacy concerns, however,  employers should consider that restricting their hiring personnel’s access to this type of information is not as harmful as some opponents have argued.

Recently, Montana’s chief federal judge admitted to forwarding an email from his court email account that included a racist “joke” involving bestiality and President Barack Obama's mother.  Judge Richard Cebull has since issued a formal apology to President Obama and has asked for a formal judicial review of his actions.  Earlier this week, two members of the House Judiciary called for a hearing to examine the judge’s conduct.  Representatives John Conyers of Michigan and Steve Cohen of Tennessee told Committee Chairman Lamar Smith in their letter that the committee has a duty to investigate the potential consequences of Judge Richard Cebull’s email.   “At a minimum, forwarding this email illustrates poor judgment and of conduct that was unbecoming of a federal judge,” they wrote.  “More troubling, however, is the possibility that public disclosure of the judge’s conduct may not only undermine the public’s view of his personal credibility and impartiality as a judge, but also the integrity of the ... federal judiciary.”

More than 70 percent of President Obama's confirmed judicial nominees during his first two years were "non-traditional," or nominees who were not white males.  That far exceeds the percentages in the two-term administrations of Bill Clinton (48.1 %) and George W. Bush (32.9 %), according to Sheldon Goldman, author of the authoritative book Picking Federal Judges.  "It is an absolutely remarkable diversity achievement," said Goldman, a political science professor at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst.  Are Judge Cebull’s actions an isolated incident or an indication that we still have a long way to go with regard to diversity efforts in the legal profession?

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") recently announced the adoption of a four-year strategic plan that focuses on, among other things, continued efforts to address "systemic discrimination" in the workplace.  

Not surprisingly, the EEOC's strategic plan sets forth a primary objective (which the EEOC acknowledges will exhaust the majority of its resources) to combat employment discrimination through administrative (e.g., investigation and conciliation) and litigation enforcement mechanisms with regard to private employers, labor organizations, employment agencies, and state and local government employers and through adjudicatory and oversight mechanisms Congress has given the EEOC with regard to federal employers.  

Based upon the EEOC's admittedly limited resources, the strategic plan states a need "to think strategically about how best to target its efforts to ensure the strongest and broadest impact possible in its efforts to stop unlawful employment discrimination."  In this regard, the strategic plan asserts that a top priority will be to continue the EEOC's 2006 "Systemic Initiative" designed to identify, investigate and litigate cases of alleged systemic discrimination (which the EEOC describes as "pattern or practice, policy, and/or class cases where the alleged discrimination [often by a single charging party] has a broad impact on an industry, profession, company, or geographic area").  

We look forward to gaining insight on how the EEOC intends to marshal its resources over the next several years - such as through the use of Commissioner charges, directed investigations, and empirical data - to address allegedly discriminatory policies or other instances of "systemic discrimination" from EEOC Commissioner Victoria A. Lipnic during DRI's 35th annual Employment & Labor Seminar, to be held May 2-4, 2012 in Chicago, IL.  If you have not already registered for this event, please access the registration information here and secure your spot today. 

The Supreme Court of the United States will reconsider the issue of affirmative action in higher education for the first time since its 2003 decision in Grutter v. Bollinger.  In Grutter the Court held that, “The Equal Protection Clause does not prohibit the [University of Michigan] Law School’s narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body.”  Today, the Court agreed to hear the appeal of Abigail Fisher, a white student, who alleges she was denied admission to the University of Texas because of the color of her skin.  At issue in the Fisher case is whether the Court’s decisions interpreting the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, including Grutter, permit the University of Texas at Austin’s use of race in undergraduate admissions decisions.

The Texas case will be argued in the fall and the changed makeup of the Supreme Court could foretell a different outcome.  Chiefly, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who wrote the majority 5-4 decision, has been replaced by Justice Samuel Alito.  Further, Justice Elena Kagan has been recused from the case.  Her recusal is likely a result of the Justice Department’s participation in the case in the lower courts at the time when she served as solicitor general.

What impact, if any, will the changed makeup up of the Supreme Court have on its decision?  Is there a compelling interest in obtaining educational benefits from a diverse student body?  Could a reversal of the Court’s decision in Grutter result in resegregation in public colleges and universities?

As was recently reported, tomorrow a federal district court in California will consider whether the Wal-Mart v. Dukes class action lawsuit recently reversed and remanded by the U.S. Supreme Court may proceed in the form of multiple class action lawsuits involving narrower classes.

On June 20, 2011, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Wal-Mart v. Dukes. That decision, among other things, held that the proposed nationwide class of some 1.5 million female employees was not consistent with Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Specifically, the Court concluded that Rule 23(a)(2) requires a party seeking class certification to prove that the class has common questions of law or fact, i.e., the claims must depend upon a common contention of such a nature that it is capable of classwide resolution. On remand, an open question remains whether the commonality requirement can be met if the gargantuan class action is broken down into hundreds if not thousands of smaller class actions.

Where do trial courts go after Wal-Mart v. Dukes? What do the "new and improved" classes look like if they are to pass the standard announced by the Supreme Court? As a matter of policy, what is the right outcome for our system of justice?