affirmative action policies memo sophie g. wilson oregon state · pdf file ·...

Running head: AFFIRMATIVE ACTION MEMO

Affirmative Action Policies Memo

Sophie G. Wilson

Oregon State University

Author Note

Sophie G. Wilson, College Student Services Administration, Oregon State University.

This legal memo assignment is for AHE 554: Legal Issues in Higher Education

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION MEMO 1

January 26, 2014

To: Vice President of Student Affairs, Oregon State University

From: Sophie Wilson, Diversity Admissions Coordinator, Oregon State University

Subject: Implications of Affirmative Action for OSU’s Office of Admissions

Section I: Introduction

Oregon State University (OSU) is a land, space, sea, and sun grant public state institution

that has over 26,000 students. OSU is located in Corvallis, Oregon which has a population of

over 55,000 residents. In order to provide students with a diverse and global experience, OSU

has developed an intuitional Strategic Plan. One of the Strategic Plan’s Core Values is

“Diversity”; specifically “diversity and excellence go hand-in-hand, enhancing our teaching,

scholarship, and service as well as our ability to welcome, respect, and interact with other

people” (Strategic Plan). All OSU departments are encouraged to follow the Strategic Plan, and

implement their own departmental Diversity Action Initiative by the 2014-2015 academic year.

As the Diversity Admissions Coordinator at OSU, my role is to recruit and oversee the

admissions of prospective students who can contribute to OSU’s diverse student body. This

occurs through strategic marketing, admission fairs, campus tours, and high school visits on

behalf of the Office of Admissions, and through reviewing the current admissions requirements.

In order to market OSU to diverse audiences, the institution strongly encourages the Office of

Admissions to have clear policies on how OSU facilitates diverse applicants through the

application and admissions process. As part the preparation for the launch of the Office of


Admission’s 2014-2015 Diversity Action Initiative, I have been tasked to review national and

state affirmative action policies and their relation to OSU’s current admissions policies.

Affirmative action has been under scrutiny from U.S. courts, and has been the subject of

numerous court cases regarding alleged reverse discrimination suits by higher education

institutions (See Section III: Legal Issues for more information). Institutions have had to

reinterpret affirmative action policies to adapt to the changes in case law. By reviewing

affirmative action policies, the Office of Admissions is hoping to determine if any changes in

policies need be made in tandem with the 2014-2015 Diversity Action Initiative.

OSU has and is working to diversify its campus through strategic admissions policies;

these policies are reflected in OSU’s current admissions requirements. This memo is organized

to provide a review of the role of affirmative action policies in relation to the Office of

Admissions. The first part of the memo will include relevant OSU policies influencing

affirmative action. Questions will be posed that will be addressed throughout the entire memo.

Next, a summary of past and current court cases, state propositions, and federal acts relating to

affirmative action in higher education will be provided. Lastly, this memo detail policy

recommendations for OSU’s Office of Admissions, and questions for further reflection and

exploration.

Section II: Policy/Educational/Administrative Issues and Questions

OSU has current affirmative action policies that support the institution’s mission of

increasing and supporting diversity on it campus. Combined with the institution’s Strategic Plan,

Office of Admissions is contributing to the diversity of OSU’s student population through the

use of an affirmative action influenced strategic admissions requirement – the Insight Résumé.

Reviewing current admissions and affirmative action policies will shed light on any potential


changes necessary for OSU’s admission practices in relation to increasing diversity at the

institution. Below are current OSU policies and practices that incorporate affirmative action and

influence the current admissions process:

OSU’s Affirmative Action Plan

OSU’s Affirmative Action Plan is evaluated annually by OSU’s Office of Equity and

Inclusion to ensure that fair practices, as outlined in affirmative action laws, are being

implemented. If there is a noticeable gap in certain minority groups then OSU will establish

intentional recruitment goals. The most recent annual Affirmative Action Plan:

…prohibits discrimination on the basis of age, color, disability, gender identity or

expression, national origin, race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, veteran status,

and mental or physical disability... (Office of Equity and Inclusion)

In relation to OSU’s Affirmative Action Plan, what is the role of the Office of Admissions for

bridging potential gaps in minority student populations? How can the Affirmative Action Plan be

incorporated into current OSU Office of Admissions’ policies while also staying mindful of

related affirmative action case law (see Section III)?

OSU’s Equal Opportunity Statement

The Office of Equity and Inclusion (OEI) has a statement on Equal Opportunity that

reflects the larger OSU values surrounding affirmative action on campus. OEI’s statement reads,

Equal Opportunity is the opportunity to gain entry to, participate in, and benefit

from employment, services, programs, activities, and privileges of the institution

regardless of race, national origin, sex, ability or other protected status...OSU's

commitment also includes a moral obligation to address the needs of groups

historically underrepresented in the institution and those that have faced barriers


to equal opportunity, such as discrimination or discriminatory harassment on the

basis of protected status. (Office of Equity and Inclusion)

Referencing OSU’s “moral obligation” towards groups that have faced barriers to equal

opportunity, how does this obligation relate to current Office of Admission practices? What

measures are there to assess the success of these obligations? Whose responsibility is it to uphold

these obligations beyond Office of Admissions?

Office of Admission’s Insight Résumé

Office of Admissions requires all OSU applicants to complete an Insight Résumé. The

Insight Résumé is a written experiential assessment of a prospective student’s experiences. It

consists of six questions relating to six categories about a prospective student’s contribution to

the OSU community and their own academic success (Insight Résumé, 2007). The six categories

are: (1) Leadership/Group Contributions, (2) Knowledge in a Field/Creativity, (3) Dealing with

Adversity, (4) Community Service, and (5) Handling Systemic Challenges (Insight Résumé,

2007). Some of the categories are further defined to encompass experiences relating to facing or

witnessing discrimination, diverse perspectives, and dealing with challenges. This provides

prospective students an opportunity to self-disclose diverse identities. The Insight Résumé does

not use a points system when evaluating prospective students nor does it award automatic points

for diverse identities. OSU has demonstrated that the Insight Résumé has assisted in increasing

student diversity and retention, but is there more that can be done (OSU Admissions Blog,

2007)? Is the Insight Résumé substantial enough to identify prospective minority students or is it

too open-ended?

Memo Questions


After reviewing OSU’s current policies influencing the Office of Admissions admission

policies, I will be analyzing the following questions relating to OSU’s Office of Admissions

current admissions process in this memo:

1. Is the Insight Résumé a legally safe method of increasing racial diversity among

prospective OSU students?

2. What additional policies, beyond Insight Résumé, need to be implemented that

contribute to the Office of Admissions 2014-2015 Diversity Action Initiative that

aligns with the larger OSU policies (e.g. Affirmative Action Plan and the Equal

Opportunity Statement)?

Section III: Legal Issues

Court cases are not the only sources of law that have influenced affirmative action

policies in an institutions admission process. Other applicable laws, statues, and regulations are

listed below that are often at the crux of case law pertaining to affirmative action policies within

higher education:

National Laws, Orders & Policies

Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment: The Equal Protection Clause in

the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits states from denying individuals equal protection of the law

within their jurisdiction.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or

immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person

of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person

within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. (U.S. Const. amend. XIV,

§1)


Within the affirmative action context, this clause prohibits discrimination based on race,

ethnicity or sex by public institutions.

Executive Order 10925: This order was signed by President Kennedy on March 6, 1961

and introduced concept of affirmative action in the U.S. The purpose of the order was to promote

strategies towards achieving non-discrimination in the U.S., specifically in the workplace.

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: This act prohibits discrimination against race,

color and national origin. This act is applicable to public and private institutions receiving

federal financial assistance (Kaplin and Lee, 2007, p. 339).

Executive Order 11246: This order was signed by President Johnson in 1965, and

required that all government employers take an affirmative action approach to hiring employees.

This order further demonstrated the U.S. federal government’s stance on the role of affirmative

action.

State Initiatives:

California Civil Rights Initiative, Proposition 209: Proposition 209 was an initiative to

amend the California constitution, and was approved by 54% of voters on November 5, 1996.

Proposition 209 amended the California constitution so that state government was prohibited

from considering race, sex or ethnicity with regards to public employment, public contracting

and public education.

California Senate Constitutional Amendment No. 5 (SCA-5): Proposed by State Senator

Hernandez on December 3, 2012, this amendment would remove the language and provisions

from Proposition 209 relating to higher education. By removing this section of Proposition 209,

higher education intuitions could review race, ethnicity and sex in the admissions process. SCA-


5 was passed on January 30, 2014 by the California Senate and will be on the state ballot

November 2014.

Initiative 200: Initiative 200 was a Washington initiative that was approved November

1998 by 58.22% of voters. It amended the Washington law so that state and local government

could not have racial or gender preferences. The specific language of the law is the following,

“(1) The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or

group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public

employment, public education, or public contracting”

Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, Proposal 2: Proposal 2 was a proposed amendment to

the Michigan Constitution that banned the use of racial preferences in public institution

admissions policies, specifically public institutions “shall not discriminate against, or grant

preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or

national origin” (Cohen, 2014). Proposal 2 effectively prohibited affirmative action by public

institutions. The proposal passed on November 2006 with a 58% majority vote, and created

Section 26 of the Michigan Constitution. Proposal 2 is currently being analyzed by the courts

(see Section III: Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action) in order to determine its

constitutionality.

Nebraska Civil Rights Initiative, Initiative 424: Initiative 424 was a proposed Nebraska

constitutional amendment which would prohibit the state from discriminating or granting

preferential treatment to “any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or

national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting”.

Initiative 424 was passed in 2008 with 58% of the vote, and prohibited affirmative action by

public institutions.


Colorado Discrimination and Preferential Treatment by Government, Initiative 46: On

the November 4, 2008 Initiative 46 proposed a constitutional amendment that prohibited

discrimination or preferential treatment by the state government in public employment,

education, and contracting. Specifically, discrimination or preferential treatment “to any

individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin”. The ballot was

defeated with 66% of the vote.

State of Oregon

Policy of Affirmative Action and Fair and Equal Employment Opportunities and

Advancement, ORS §243.305: This policy is divided into two sections. The first section states

that Oregon shall take a leadership role in affirmative action for employment and advancement in

programs and services and in the awarding of contracts. The second section provides a definition

of affirmative action. Affirmative action is defined as “a method of eliminating the effects of past

and present discrimination, intended or unintended, on the basis of race, religion, national origin,

age, sex, marital status or physical or mental disabilities. [1975 c.529 §1; 1981 c.436 §1; 1989

c.224 §35]” (ORS §243.305).

Case Law

I have compiled case law on affirmative action practices within higher education that

pertains to institutional admissions practices. All of these cases relate to an institution’s goal of

increasing diversity, often further defined as racial diversity, in its student population. The cases

are divided into categories that apply to admissions policies within institutions.

Separate Admissions Process & Minority Quotas:

DeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 U.S. 321 (1974). DeFunis, a White male, was denied

admission to University of Washington’s Law School. DeFunis alleged that he was denied


admission because of the institution’s affirmative action policy. The University of Washington’s

admission process viewed minority applications separately from other applications and used

racial quotas. DeFunis’ argued that his predicted first year average (which was a used in the

admission process) was higher than all but one of the minority applicants from that year.

Washington’s Supreme Court stated that the institution’s minority assessment measurement tool

was justified because it furthered state interests by “promoting integration in public education”

and the “education interest…in producing a racially balanced student body at the law school”

(Kaplin and Lee, 2007, p. 340).

The U.S. Supreme Court vacated the Washington State Supreme Court’s decision and

remanded the case. Throughout the court hearings, DeFunis was able to attend the University of

Washington law School. He was in this third year when the case was heard by the U.S. Supreme

Court and allowed to graduate by the institution. This case did not resolve the use of racial

quotas in admission policies.

Hupart v. Board of Education of the City of New York, 420 F. Supp. 1087 (S.D.N.Y.

1976). The plaintiff argued that they were unlawfully denied admissions to the Biomedical

Program of the Center for Biomedical Education of the City College of New York (hereafter

referred to Biomedical Program) because of their race. They stated that the school discriminated

against Whites and Asian applicants in favor for meeting a 50% quota for Black and Hispanic

applicants. The Biomedical Program stated that one of their goals is to encourage minority

students to apply so that they better serve urban communities upon graduation. However, the

Admissions Committee of the Biomedical Program did not have a clear policy on the role of race

in the admissions process. The lower court ruled that the Biomedical Program had discriminated

against the plaintiff and violated the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.


Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978). The

Medical School of University of California at Davis (hereafter referred to as Medical

School) had two admissions programs for potential applicants – regular admissions and

special admission. The regular admissions process included grade point average,

interview, MCAT score, and letters of recommendations and extracurricular activities

which resulted in a total benchmark score. The special admissions process was made up

of a majority of racial minorities who were not held to the same regular admissions

benchmark scores, and were not ranked against applicants in the regular admissions

process. The Medical School had allocated 16 spaces of 100 applicants for minority

applicants to get into its medical school. In 1973 Bakke, a White male, sued the school

arguing that the admission program was racially exclusive which violated the Equal

Protection Clause of the Fourteen Amendment, California Constitution, and Title VI of

the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The U.S. Supreme Court found that University of California’s admission program was

unconstitutional in its exclusion of Bakke and allowed his admittance to the medical program.

Justice Thomas summarized his ruling stating that the educational benefits of a racial or

ethnically diverse student body should not be viewed as compelling state interests, and so “the

alleged educational benefits of diversity cannot justify racial discrimination today” (Kaplin and

Lee, 2007, p. 342). The court also ruled that that “in some considerations race is nevertheless

permissible in affirmative action admissions plans”, but concluded that there were other non-

intrusive methods of achieving student racial diversity beyond special admissions policies

(Kaplin and Lee, 2007, p. 342).


This case is viewed as a landmark case for institutions and affirmative action admissions

policies because it set a precedent for an institution’s admission policies:

Racial quotas are not allowed in institution’s admission process

A separate system for reviewing minority applicants and applicants is not allowed

Race-Conscience Admissions Factors:

McDonald v. Hogness, 598 P.2d 707 (Wash. 1979). McDonald, a White male, applied to

University of Washington’s School of Medicine and was denied admission. McDonald stated

that he was discriminated against which is a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, Title VI of

the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and 42 U.S.C. of 1983. The Court of Appeals determined that using

race as a positive factor in the Medical School’s admission policy was appropriate. The court

stated McDonald would not have been admitted to the Medical School even if race had not been

an admissions factor due to the evidence he presented. The court approved the use of the Medical

School’s race conscience admissions policies.

DeRonde v. Regents of the University of California, 625 P.2d 220 (Cal. 1981). The

plaintiff DeRonde, a White male, was denied access to the University of California at Davis

School of Law, and alleged that the admission selection polies were unconstitutional because

there was a preferences towards minority applicants. Race was one of several factors used by the

School of Law as part of their admissions process. The U.S. Supreme Court of California heard

the case and relied on the Bakke case to make their decision. The court upheld the University of

California at Davis law school’s affirmative action policy, because they did not utilize racial

quotas when reviewing prospective applicants. In summary, the result of this case was that “the

courts upheld that student body diversity was a constitutionally sufficient justification for race-

conscience admissions policies” (Kaplin and Lee, 2007, p. 344).


Davis v. Halpern, 768 F. Supp. 968 (E.D.N.Y. 1991). Davis, a White male, was denied

admission to City University of New York and stated that the institution was violating the

Fourteenth amendment, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000d, et seq., and

42 U.S.C. §§1983 and 1985. The institution stated that it did not use a racial quota for minorities,

and that prospective students were reviewed using four criteria – academic abilities, special

affinity to the program, diverse students, and their connection with New York City and New

York. Those who are selected for the program demonstrated strength in one or more of those

criteria. Davis’ claims were ultimately denied, and the federal district court upheld the use of

race-conscience admissions policies at City University of New York.

Minority Ranking & Points System:

Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244 (2003). The University of Michigan used a ranking

points system for minorities applying for undergraduate admissions to the institution. Of the 150

total points that could be given to a student during the admission process, 20 points were

awarded for race. A prospective student who was denied admittance sued, and the case was

heard by the U.S. Supreme Court. The court decided 6-3 that the institution’s admission policy

was unconstitutional. Justice Rehnquist stated that by using a points system for race “ensures that

the diversity contributions of applicants cannot be individually assessed”. By automatically

giving points for prospective students because of their race prevented the opportunity to make

individual determinations of each prospective student. The court stated that institutions are

legally required to review race-neutral admissions options that would result in the student

diversity rather than use a ranking points system.

Critical Mass:


Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003). Grutter, a white Michigan resident, was

rejected from the University of Michigan Law School (hereafter referred to as Law School).

Grutter sued stating that she was racially discriminated against, and that the Law School was in

violation of the 14th

Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The case was

heard by the Supreme Court of the United States.

The Law School stated that it seeks a mix of students with different backgrounds and

experiences for its program. A portion of the Law School’s admission process were “soft

variables” that included the prospective student’s undergraduate institution, recommendations

and diversity aspect. The Law School’s admission policy definition of diversity went beyond

race or ethnicity. One of the goals of the Law School is to enroll a “critical mass” of

underrepresented minority students. During the court proceedings, critical mass was defined by

the institution as “meaningful numbers” or “meaningful representation” so that minorities would

not feel isolated. The Law School stated that there is no numerical number that is equated with

critical mass.

The District Court concluded that the Law School’s use of race as factor in admission

was unlawful, but the Court of Appeals reversed that decision in a 5-4 vote to allow higher

education to use race as part of admission policy. Justice O’Connor stated that the Constitution

“does not prohibit the 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 decision overturned the Hopwood v. Texas ruling, and re-allowed

higher education institutions to use race in their admissions policies.

Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, 631 F. 3d 213 (2008). Abigail Fisher, a White

woman, was denied admission to the University of Texas in 2008. Fisher sued the institution


claiming that that race could not be used as a factor in the admissions process if there were other

race-neutral options available that would have the same impact on student diversity (which was

noted in the Gratz v. Bollinger ruling). A federal district judge ruled in favor of University of

Texas, and a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the ruling for

University of Texas in 2011. In June 2013 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7-1 to vacate the Firth

Court decision and remanded the case back to the Fifth Circuit Court for further consideration.

This decision is an example of the potential legal risks of using race as a factor in admission

policies, especially when the goal of increasing racial minority students is referred to as a

“critical mass” which is not correlated with a numeral value.

Institutions That Were in the Wrong:

Hopwood v. Texas, 78 F. 3d 932 (5th

Cir. 1996). Hopwood, a White female, sued

University of Texas School of Law after being denied admission to their program. The case was

heard in district court and then the Fifth Circuit Court. The Fifth Circuit Court ruled that the

institution could not use an prospective applicant’s race as a factor for admission decisions,

because it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th

Amendment and did not further

government interest. Circuit Judge Smith stated that,

the University of Texas School of Law may not use race as a factor in deciding

which applicants to admit in order to achieve a diverse student body, to combat

the perceived effects of a hostile environment at the law school, to alleviate the

law school's poor reputation in the minority community, or to eliminate any

present effects of past discrimination by actors other than the law school.

The institution appealed for cert. to the U.S. Supreme Court but was denied.


Johnson v. University of Georgia, 263 F.3d 1234 (11th

Cir. 2001). Three White women

applicants were denied admission to the University of Georgia 1999 freshman class, and sued the

school saying that their admissions policies were in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act

of 1964. The District Court of the Southern District of Georgia found the institution’s admission

policy unconstitutional, and the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals agreed that the institution’s

policies were wrong. The Court of Appeals stated that University of Georgia could not use race

as a factor in admission decision as a method for achieving diversity among its student

population.

State Policy on Affirmative Action:

Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, 134 S.Ct. 49 (2013). Proposal 2

(which is also referred to as the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative) was a proposed amendment to

the Michigan Constitution and was passed on December 22, 2006. Proposal 2 effectively

prohibited affirmative action by public institutions. Proposal 2 banned the use of racial

preferences in public institution admissions policies, specifically public institutions “shall not

discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of

race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin” (Cohen, 2014).

On March 18, 2009 it was ruled constitutional by the Michigan District Court, but the

ruling was reversed in 2001 by the Sixth Circuit Court. The Sixth Circuit Court ruled that

Proposal 2 violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The petitioner,

Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette, stated that because there is no discriminatory intent or

racial classification in Proposal 2, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

does not apply. On March 25, 2013 the Supreme Court granted a writ of cert. and began to hear


the case in October 2013. The result of this case could influence the use of affirmative action on

public universities admissions policies. The case is still being heard by the courts.

Section IV: Recommendation for Action

Based upon my review of legal issues relating to higher education institutional

admissions policies, I have complied three policies recommendations for OSU’s Office of

Admission that can be implemented for the 2014-2015 Diversity Action Initiative. These policy

recommendations will provide a framework for future policies and procedures for OSU’s Office

of Admissions’ practices.

Create General Statement on Affirmative Action Policy at OSU:

It is important to have a uniform message of the institution’s stance on affirmative action

throughout all departments. This was demonstrated in Hupart v. Board of Education of the City

of New York, 420 F. Supp. 1087 (S.D.N.Y. 1976). City College of New York Admissions

Committee did not have a clear policy on the role of race in the admissions process, and the

courts responded stating that,

[E]very distinction made on a racial basis…must be justified…It cannot be

accomplished thoughtlessly or covertly, then justified after the fact…It is not for

the court to supply a … compelling basis…to sustain the questioned state action

[420 F. Supp. At 1106]. (Kaplin and Lee, 2007, p. 352)

Consultation with OSU individuals who are authority figures on affirmative action policy

to review the Office of Admissions current policies and their alignment with the objectives of

OSU’s mission is recommended. These individuals could include, but are not limited to,

members of General Council and the Office of Equity and Inclusion. This collaboration is also


important in aligning the Office of Admissions 2014-2015 Diversity Action Initiative with the

larger current OSU policies.

Insight Résumé Review:

The Office of Admissions’ admissions policies do not use racial quotas, race-conscience

admissions factors, a separate admissions process, award/points ranking systems, or have a

critical mass diversity goal. Yet, the question remains, is the Insight Résumé a legally safe

method of increasing racial diversity among prospective OSU students? To answer this question

it is recommended that the Insight Resume be reviewed by OSU’s General Council for any

potential violations of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Title VI of the

Civil Rights Act, and any other additional potential legal violations. The Office of Admissions is

not a legal authority, and should not determine the legality of their admissions policies without

additional expert assistance.

State & OSU Institutional Policy Alignment:

With so many states banning affirmative action, it is pertinent to review current Office of

Admissions policies in relation to the State of Oregon’s stance on affirmative action (See Section

III: ORS §243.305). This means that the Office of Admissions needs to stay on top of any

potential initiatives or proposals to the State of Oregon laws or constitution that impact

affirmative action. Questions that should be addressed through this review of the State of

Oregon’s stance on affirmative action are:

1. Is the Office of Admissions in alignment with the State of Oregon’s affirmative action

policies?

2. What can OSU do to better align with the State of Oregon’s affirmative action policies?

Section V: Conclusions, Implications, Questions for Further Exploration


Affirmative action has played a large role in the admissions processed of higher

education institutions in the U.S. as demonstrated by case law (See Section III). Through

landmark cases such Bakke, Grutter and Grazt, institutions are provided legal guidelines on how

to utilize affirmative action admissions policies. Some states are also doing away with

affirmative action policies in public institutions, although that is currently being contested in

Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, 134 S.Ct. 49 (2013). OSU’s Office of

Admissions will continue to work to ensure that the institution’s admission process works to

enhance the diversity of the institution, meet OSU’s Strategic Plan, and following case law.

OSU has an affirmative action stance that it presents to prospective students as

demonstrated through its current institutional policies. It is important that a continued review of

institutional affirmative action policies are done to ensure that the institution is legally protected.

It is also important to demonstrate to prospective students OSU’s and the Office of Admissions’

goal of increasing student diversity. In order to balance this message and goal with affirmative

action case law, I have proposed additional questions that should be further reviewed by the

Office of Admissions in the future:

How can the Office of Admissions better communicate its policies and stance on affirmative

action, with a special emphasis towards prospective White students (who are the majority of

plaintiffs for affirmative action cases against higher education institutions)?

Does additional training need to occur for all employees within the Office of Admissions to

ensure that a uniform message is given regarding the office’s and institution’s stance on

increasing its student diversity?

Does the Office of Admissions need an official affirmative action policy or will that create

additional legal repercussions?

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION MEMO

References

Cohen, C. (2014). The Michigan Civil Rights Initiative and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Michigan Law Review. Retrieved from http://www.michiganlawreview.org/articles/the

michigan-civil-rights-initiative-and-the-civil-rights-act-of-1964

Kaplin, W.A., & Lee, B.A. (2007). The Law of Higher Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

OSU Admissions Blog. (2007, March 3). OSU admissions recognized for holistic admissions

policy [Web log comment]. Retrieved from

http://oregonstate.edu/admissions/blog/2007/03/03/osu-admissions-recognized-for

holistic-admissions-policy/#sthash.Y9nBOh90.68OOcTNf.dpbs

Table of Cases

Davis v. Halpern, 768 F. Supp. 968 (E.D.N.Y. 1991)

DeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 U.S. 321 (1974)

DeRonde v. Regents of the University of California, 625 P.2d 220 (Cal. 1981)

Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, 631 F. 3d 213 (2008)

Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244 (2003)

Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003)

Hopwood v. Texas, 78 F. 3d 932 (5th

Cir. 1996)

Hupart v. Board of Education of the City of New York, 420 F. Supp. 1087 (S.D.N.Y. 1976)

Johnson v. University of Georgia, 263 F.3d 1234 (11th

Cir. 2001)

McDonald v. Hogness, 598 P.2d 707 (Wash. 1979)

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978)

Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, 134 S.Ct. 49 (2013)

Amendment

U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1

Acts & Executive Orders

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §2000d et seq. (1964)

http://www.michiganlawreview.org/articles/the%09michigan-civil-rights-initiative-and-the-civil-rights-act-of-1964

http://www.michiganlawreview.org/articles/the%09michigan-civil-rights-initiative-and-the-civil-rights-act-of-1964

http://oregonstate.edu/admissions/blog/2007/03/03/osu-admissions-recognized-for%09holistic-admissions-policy/#sthash.Y9nBOh90.68OOcTNf.dpbs

http://oregonstate.edu/admissions/blog/2007/03/03/osu-admissions-recognized-for%09holistic-admissions-policy/#sthash.Y9nBOh90.68OOcTNf.dpbs

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION MEMO

Exec. Order No. 10,925, 3 C.F.R (1961)

Exec. Order No. 11,246, 3 C.F.R (1965)

State Initiatives & Policies

California Civil Rights Initiative, Proposition 209, California (1996)

California Senate Constitutional Amendment No. 5 (SCA-5), California (2012)

Colorado Discrimination and Preferential Treatment by Government, Initiative 46, Colorado

(2008)

Initiate 200, Washington (1998)

Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, Proposal 2, Michigan (2006)

Nebraska Civil Rights Initiative, Initiative 424, Nebraska (2008)

Policy of Affirmative Action and Fair and Equal Employment Opportunities and Advancement,

ORS §243.305

OSU Policies

(2007, July). Insight résumé: Written experiential assessment. Retrieved from

http://oregonstate.edu/admissions/sites/default/files/gallerix/insight_resume_worksheet.

df

(n.d.). Office of Equity and Inclusion. Affirmative action plan. Retrieved from

http://oregonstate.edu/oei/affirmative-action-plan

(n.d.) Strategic plan. Retrieved from http://oregonstate.edu/leadership/strategicplan

http://oregonstate.edu/admissions/sites/default/files/gallerix/insight_resume_worksheet.%09df

http://oregonstate.edu/admissions/sites/default/files/gallerix/insight_resume_worksheet.%09df

http://oregonstate.edu/oei/affirmative-action-plan

http://oregonstate.edu/leadership/strategicplan

affirmative action policies memo sophie g. wilson oregon state · pdf file ·...

Documents