An Unequal and Unlevel Playing Field
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
AN UNEQUAL AND UNLEVEL PLAYING FIELD: CRITICALLY EXAMINING THE RACE-CONSCIOUS AFFIRMATIVE ACTION LEGAL DEBATE IN HIGHER EDUCATION THROUGH THE EYES OF THE COUNCIL ON LEGAL EDUCATION OPPORTUNITY (CLEO) by Dana N. Thompson BS in Accounting, Lincoln University of Pennsylvania, 1994 Juris Doctor, University of Pittsburgh School of Law, 1999 Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of School of Education in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) in Social and Comparative Analysis in Education University of Pittsburgh 2007 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH SCHOOL OF EDUCATION This dissertation was presented by Dana N. Thompson It was defended on April 16, 2007 and approved by Kevin Deasy, J.D., Associate Dean of Students and Professor, School of Law Consuella Lewis, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Administrative and Policy Studies Eugene Lincoln, J.D., Ed.D., Associate Professor, Administrative and Policy Studies Dissertation Advisor: William E. Bickel, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Administrative and Policy Studies ii Copyright © by Dana N. Thompson 2007 iii An Unequal and Unlevel Playing Field: Critically Examining the Race-Conscious Affirmative Action Legal Debate in Higher Education Through the Eyes of the Council on Legal Education Opportunity (CLEO) Dana N. Thompson, J.D., Ph.D. University of Pittsburgh, 2007 Race relations in the United States have a tumultuous and painful history. The current legal battles over race-conscious affirmative action policies simply add more fuel to the fire and rekindle centuries-old racial conflicts and biases amongst many Americans. Some researchers are concerned that the current never-ending legal battles are being used to eliminate race- conscious education programs and destroy the original intent of affirmative action policies to equalize opportunities between Blacks and Whites alike. Researchers fear that the policies will be eradicated before the playing field has been leveled. This study critically examined how the race-conscious affirmative action legal debate in higher education has evolved from the implementation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 until 2006. The researcher used two constructs of critical race theory – interest convergence and whiteness as property - to guide the study in the examination and analysis of federal race- conscious legal cases in higher education and state anti-affirmative action policies. The researcher evaluated whether the evolution of the legal debates supports white privilege. Additionally, the researcher used case study methodology to investigate whether the legal debates relate to changes in a specific race-based legal education program, the CLEO program. The researcher analyzed multiple sources of evidence inclusive of both qualitative and quantitative data. iv The findings in this study indicate that more reverse discrimination lawsuits are saturating the legal landscape and include multiple White plaintiffs. Concurrently, CLEO, which has assisted underrepresented racial minorities with entering and graduating law school, has experienced significant changes to its funding, programs, and the racial/ethnic and academic profiles of its students. The data support a correlation between the race-conscious affirmative action legal debates for more than 30 years, and the significant changes in CLEO’s funding, the types of programs offered, and the types of students served. The findings show that an unequal and unlevel academic playing field still exists, yet the race-conscious affirmative action legal debate in higher education will continue until all policies and programs are annihilated. The findings also suggest that the evolution of legal cases and anti-affirmative action policies support the maintenance of white privilege in American society. v TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ........................................................................................................ XII 1.0 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................ 1 1.1 WHERE THE LEGAL DEBATE BEGAN....................................................... 1 1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM................................................................. 4 1.3 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY .............................................................................. 7 1.3.1 Research Questions....................................................................................... 9 1.3.2 Background – The CLEO Program .......................................................... 10 1.4 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK – CRITICAL RACE THEORY (CRT) 18 1.4.1 A CRT Construct - Interest Convergence ................................................ 19 1.4.2 Another CRT Construct – Whiteness as Property .................................. 20 1.5 RESEARCHER’S ASSUMPTIONS ................................................................ 22 1.6 RESEARCHER’S BACKGROUND................................................................ 23 1.7 DELIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY.............................................................. 24 1.8 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY ................................................................... 25 2.0 SECOND CHAPTER ................................................................................................ 26 2.1 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ...................................................... 26 2.1.1 A History of Race-Based Legal Cases and Legislation............................ 27 2.1.2 Race-based Legal Cases in Education....................................................... 36 vi 2.1.3 What is Affirmative Action - The Pros and Cons .................................... 48 2.1.4 Federal Affirmative Action Education Programs.................................... 59 2.1.4.1 TRIO Programs and GEAR UP........................................................ 60 2.1.5 The Origins and Development of Critical Race Theory.......................... 71 2.1.5.1 Major Criticisms of CRT ................................................................... 78 2.1.5.2 CRT and Education............................................................................ 79 2.1.5.3 CRT and Affirmative Action ............................................................. 86 3.0 THIRD CHAPTER .................................................................................................... 91 3.1 METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................ 91 3.1.1 Research Design – The Case Study ........................................................... 92 3.1.2 Setting and Data Sources............................................................................ 95 3.1.2.1 Document and Archival Records ...................................................... 96 3.1.2.2 Interview Sample Selection................................................................ 98 3.1.2.3 Federal Legal Cases and State Anti-Affirmative Action Policies... 99 3.1.3 Data Analysis............................................................................................. 100 3.1.4 Use of CRT Constructs............................................................................. 105 3.1.5 Format of Addressing the Research Questions...................................... 108 4.0 FOURTH CHAPTER .............................................................................................. 109 4.1 THE EVOLUTION OF AN ENDURING LEGAL DEBATE..................... 109 4.1.1 The 1970s – The First Wave of Federal Legal Cases............................. 110 4.1.2 The 1990s – The Legal Debate Gains Momentum ................................. 121 4.1.2.1 Anti-Affirmative Action Policies and Executive Orders............... 130 4.1.3 The 2000s – Revisiting Bakke as the Legal Debate Intensifies.............. 139 vii 4.1.4 Analyzing the Legal Debate from a Critical Race Theory (CRT) Perspective ................................................................................................................ 152 5.0 FIFTH CHAPTER................................................................................................... 167 5.1 THE CLEO PROGRAM: THE FINDINGS ................................................. 167 5.1.1 CLEO’s Operations: Then and Now....................................................... 168 5.1.1.1 CLEO’s Purpose, Funding, and Programs .................................... 173 5.1.2 CLEO’s Students: Past and Present ...................................................... 181 5.1.2.1 Students’ Undergraduate GPAs and LSAT Percentile Scores..... 182 5.1.2.2 Students’ Race/Ethnicity.................................................................. 193 6.0 SIXTH CHAPTER................................................................................................... 206 6.1 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................ 206 6.1.1 Summary of Research Findings............................................................... 209 6.1.2 Current Climate Surrounding the Legal Debate, Law School, and the Legal Profession ....................................................................................................... 222 6.1.3 Conclusions and Implications .................................................................. 229 6.1.3.1 The Future of Race-Conscious Affirmative Action Legal Debates and the Implications for CLEO and Other Race-Based Programs ............ 230 6.1.3.2 The Future of Underrepresented Minorities in Law Schools and the Legal Profession..............................................................................................