DOCSLIB.ORG

Voting Rights Enforcement & Reauthorization

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Voting Rights Enforcement & Reauthorization Voting Rights Enforcement & Reauthorization The Department of Justice’s Record of Enforcing the Temporary Voting Rights Act Provisions U.S. Commission on Civil Rights May 2006 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Washington, DC 20425 Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300 Visit us on the Web: www.usccr.gov Voting Rights Enforcement & Reauthorization The Department of Justice’s Record of Enforcing the Temporary Voting Rights Act Provisions U.S. Commission on Civil Rights May 2006 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Washington, DC 20425 Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300 Visit us on the Web: www.usccr.gov U.S. Commission on Civil Rights The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights is an independent, bipartisan agency established by Congress in 1957. It is directed to: • Investigate complaints alleging that citizens are being deprived of their right to vote by reason of their race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or national origin, or by reason of fraudulent practices. • Study and collect information relating to discrimination or a denial of equal protection of the laws under the Constitution because of race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or national origin, or in the administration of justice. • Appraise federal laws and policies with respect to discrimination or denial of equal protection of the laws because of race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or national origin, or in the administration of justice. • Serve as a national clearinghouse for information in respect to discrimination or denial of equal protection of the laws because of race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or national origin. • Submit reports, findings, and recommendations to the President and Congress. • Issue public service announcements to discourage discrimination or denial of equal protection of the laws. Members of the Commission Gerald A. Reynolds, Chairman Abigail Thernstrom, Vice Chairman Jennifer C. Braceras Peter N. Kirsanow Arlan D. Melendez Ashley L. Taylor, Jr. Michael Yaki Kenneth L. Marcus, Staff Director U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 624 Ninth Street, NW Washington, DC 20425 (202) 376-8128 voice (202) 376-8116 TTY www.usccr.gov This report is available on disk in ASCII Text and Microsoft Word 2003 for persons with visual impairments. Please call (202) 376-8110. VOTING RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT & REAUTHORIZATION ____________________________________________________ THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE’S RECORD OF ENFORCING THE TEMPORARY VOTING RIGHTS ACT PROVISIONS U.S. COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS May 2006 Letter of Transmittal The President The President of the Senate The Speaker of the House Sirs: The United States Commission on Civil Rights transmits this report, Voting Rights Enforcement & Reauthorization: The Department of Justice’s Record of Enforcing the Temporary Voting Rights Act Provisions, pursuant to Public Law 103-419. The Voting Rights Act is a landmark legislation, realizing the 15th Amendment’s promise of the right to vote ninety-five years after passage. On August 6, 2007, the act’s core temporary provisions will expire unless reauthorized. This report examines the Department of Justice’s record in enforcing the act, in particular Section 5. The Commission reviewed Justice Department documents, relevant court decisions, books and articles, and prior Commission studies on the act. Oral and written voting rights testimonies presented at a Commission briefing and at hearings of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution augmented the findings. The Commission finds that objections as a percentage of submitted changes from covered jurisdictions have declined markedly over 40 years to the point that during the last decade, objections have virtually disappeared. In particular, the study examined three legislative periods, 1965–1974, 1975–1982, and 1982–2004, and found that the proportion of objections to submitted changes decreased from 5.5 percent in the first period to 1.2 percent in the second, and to 0.6 percent in the third. Notably, the proportion of objections to submitted changes was less than 0.1 percent in the period 1995–2004. The Commission’s purpose in preparing this report is to offer a factual record that may inform decision-makers of all political persuasions as they consider the reauthorization of the expiring provisions of the Voting Rights Act. At its May 4, 2006 meeting, the Commission adopted the report by a vote of five to two. Chairman Reynolds, Vice Chair Thernstrom and Commissioners Braceras, Kirsanow, and Taylor, Jr. voted in favor, while Commissioners Melendez and Yaki voted against. The report includes Vice Chair Thernstrom’s concurrence and Commissioners Melendez’s and Yaki’s joint dissent. For the Commissioners, Gerald A. Reynolds Chairman v Acknowledgments The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights acknowledges the assistance of Mr. Mark Posner in the preparation of Voting Rights Enforcement & Reauthorization: The Department of Justice’s Record of Enforcing the Temporary Voting Rights Act Provisions. Mr. Posner contributed part of the data on which this report is based and prepared a draft which subsequently was revised and expanded upon by the Commission. vi Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..........................................................................................................................................ix OVERVIEW OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 1965 ...........................................................................................1 METHODOLOGY........................................................................................................................................................4 THE SECTION 5 PRECLEARANCE REQUIREMENT.............................................................................................6 The Preclearance Procedure ...................................................................................................................................6 Framing the Extension Question ..........................................................................................................................11 The Supreme Court’s Construction of Section 5 Since 1982...............................................................................14 Section 5 Enforcement Actions.....................................................................................................................14 Section 5 Preclearance Standard ...................................................................................................................17 Compliance with the Preclearance Requirement..................................................................................................19 Justice Department Preclearance Determinations ................................................................................................20 Section 5 Determinations Since 1965 ...........................................................................................................21 Section 5 Determinations in the Current Extension Period..................................................................................28 Numbers of Objections .................................................................................................................................29 Objections by Types of Changes...................................................................................................................29 A Detailed Examination of Changes Most Frequently Denied .....................................................................32 Geographic Distribution of Submitted Changes and Objections ..................................................................39 Section 5 Legislative Extension Questions ..........................................................................................................42 Extension of Section 5 ..................................................................................................................................43 Section 5 Bailout Procedure..........................................................................................................................44 THE MINORITY LANGUAGE REQUIREMENTS OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT..........................................45 Statutory Requirements ........................................................................................................................................45 Justice Department Enforcement..........................................................................................................................48 Lawsuits ........................................................................................................................................................49 Cost of Section 203 Compliance...................................................................................................................50 Section 5 Objections .....................................................................................................................................51 Election Monitoring ......................................................................................................................................51 Informal Compliance Efforts.........................................................................................................................52 THE EXAMINER AND OBSERVER PROVISIONS OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT........................................53 Registration Examiners ........................................................................................................................................53
Load more

Recommended publications
  • SFFA V. Harvard: How Affirmative Action Myths Mask White Bonus
    Boston University School of Law Scholarly Commons at Boston University School of Law Faculty Scholarship 4-2019 SFFA v. Harvard: How Affirmative Action Myths Mask White Bonus Jonathan P. Feingold Boston University School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Higher Education Commons, and the Law and Race Commons Recommended Citation Jonathan P. Feingold, SFFA v. Harvard: How Affirmative Action Myths Mask White Bonus, 107 California Law Review 707 (2019). Available at: https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/faculty_scholarship/828 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Commons at Boston University School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons at Boston University School of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. SFFA v. Harvard: How Affirmative Action Myths Mask White Bonus Jonathan P. Feingold* In the ongoing litigation of Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College, Harvard faces allegations that its once-heralded admissions process discriminates against Asian Americans. Public discourse has revealed a dominant narrative: affirmative action is viewed as the presumptive cause of Harvard’s alleged “Asian penalty.” Yet this narrative misrepresents the plaintiff’s own theory of discrimination. Rather than implicating affirmative action, the underlying allegations portray the phenomenon of “negative action”—that is, an admissions regime in which White applicants take the seats of their more qualified Asian-American counterparts. Nonetheless, we are witnessing a broad failure to see this case for what it is. This misperception invites an unnecessary and misplaced referendum on race-conscious admissions at Harvard and beyond.
    [Show full text]
  • Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Minority Group Entry Into the Building Trade Unions
    Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Minority Group Entry into the Building Trade Unions At a time when the high rate of black unemployment is a leading cause of racial unrest in our nation,1 the construction industry is ac- tually experiencing a shortage of skilled labor.2 Even with present union members working large amounts of overtime,3 demand still far exceeds supply.4 As a result, although productivity gains in recent years seem to have been minimal," wages have increased considerably both in absolute terms6 and in comparison with other industries3 Moreover, barring a major economic setback, this demand is not likely to diminish in the future.8 1 See R. KENNEDY, To SEEK A NEwER WORLD 34-35 (1968); NATIONAL ADVISORY COMm'N ON CiviL DisoRDERs, REPORT 413 (Bantam ed. 1968). 2 Garino, Home Builders Hobbled by Lack of Skilled Help as Well as Tight Money, Wall Street Journal, May 1, 1968, at 1; Jedlicka, Crafts Training Gets Push, Chicago Daily News, Aug. 2, 1968, at 12; Wicker, New Construction in Building Trades, Chicago Today, Oct. 3, 1969, at 25. 3 A May 1967 survey by John Fenlon, an economist for the Bureau of Labor Statistics, showed that 22.9% of all workers in the construction industry worked more than 41 hours a week. (This survey included union and nonunion, skilled and unskilled workers). Fenlon, Patterns in Overtime Hours and Premium Pay, MONTHLY LABOR REV., October 1969, at 42, 45. Estimates of how much the industry pays in overtime costs run as high as one billion dollars a year.
    [Show full text]
  • 6 “THE BLACKS SHOULD NOT BE ADMINISTERING the PHILADELPHIA PLAN” Nixon, the Hard Hats, and “Voluntary” Affirmative Action
    6 “THE BLACKS SHOULD NOT BE ADMINISTERING THE PHILADELPHIA PLAN” Nixon, the Hard Hats, and “Voluntary” Affirmative Action Trevor Griffey The conventional history of the rise of affirmative action in the late 1960s and early 1970s tends toward a too simple dialectic. The early creation and extension of affirmative action law is often described as an extension of the civil rights movement, whereas organized opposition to affirmative action is described as something that occurred later, as a backlash or reaction that did not fully take hold until Ronald Reagan was elected president in 1980.1 In this chapter, I tell a different story. I describe the role that labor union resistance to affirmative action played in limiting the ability of the federal gov- ernment to enforce new civil rights laws well before the more overt backlash against affirmative action became ascendant in U.S. political culture in the 1980s and 1990s. There was no heyday for attempts by federal regulatory agencies to impose affirmative action on U.S. industry. There was no pristine origin against which a backlash could define itself, because enforcement of affirmative action had accommodated its opponents from the beginning. Affirmative action law emerged out of and in response to civil rights move- ment protests against the racism of federal construction contractors, whose discriminatory hiring policies were defended and often administered by the powerful building trades unions.2 But the resistance of those unions to the 1969 Revised Philadelphia Plan—the first government-imposed affirmative action plan—severely curtailed the ability of the federal government to enforce affirma- tive action in all industries.
    [Show full text]
  • FLETCHER Was Born December 18, 1790 in Fauquier County, Virginia, and Died February 06, 1866 in Bureau County, Illinois
    Descendants of Townsend Fletcher Generation No. 1 1. TOWNSEND1 FLETCHER was born December 18, 1790 in Fauquier County, Virginia, and died February 06, 1866 in Bureau County, Illinois. He married SUSANNAH READY December 13, 1817 in Fauquier County, Virginia, daughter of JAMES READY and MARY SUDDOTH. She was born April 17, 1798 in Fauquier County, Virginia, and died November 06, 1887 in Concord Township, Bureau County, Illinois. Children of TOWNSEND FLETCHER and SUSANNAH READY are: 2. i. MARY2 FLETCHER, b. 1817, Unknown; d. 1843, Lamoille Township, Bureau County, Illinois. ii. JAMES H FLETCHER, b. 1820, Unknown; d. Unknown, Unknown. 3. iii. SARAH ANN FLETCHER, b. March 19, 1825, Fauquier County, Virginia; d. April 05, 1853, Bureau County, Illinois. 4. iv. WILLIAM A FLETCHER, b. August 10, 1829, Fauquier County, Virginia; d. September 11, 1910, Wyanet, Illinois. v. FRANCES "FANNIE" FLETCHER, b. September 11, 1832, Virgnia; d. March 24, 1920, Bureau County, Illinois; m. JACOB JAMES KINNICK, April 02, 1872, Unknown; b. January 04, 1846, Dover Township, 4 miles north of Princeton, Bureau County, Illinois; d. 1923, Wyanet, Bureau County, Illinois. 5. vi. JOHN THOMAS FLETCHER, b. March 14, 1833, Fauquier County, Virginia; d. January 22, 1920, Washington County, Iowa. vii. HANNA JANE FLETCHER, b. 1837, Ohio; d. Aft. 1850, Unknown. viii. AMANDA FLETCHER, b. 1839, Ohio; d. Unknown, Unknown; m. JOHN GORMAN, Unknown, Unknown; b. Unknown, Unknown; d. Unknown, Unknown. ix. DANIEL FLETCHER, b. 1841, Ohio; d. Aft. 1860, Unknown. x. SAMUEL FLETCHER, b. 1842, Ohio; d. Aft. 1850, Unknown. xi. ELIZABETH FLETCHER, b. Unknown, Unknown; d. Aft. 1906, probably San Francisco, California; m.
    [Show full text]
  • Affirming Affirmative Action by Affirming White Privilege: SFFA V
    Affirming Affirmative Action by Affirming White Privilege: SFFA v. Harvard JEENA SHAH* INTRODUCTION Harvard College’s race-based affirmative action measures for student admissions survived trial in a federal district court.1 Harvard’s victory has since been characterized as “[t]hrilling,” yet “[p]yrrhic.”2 Although the court’s reasoning should be lauded for its thorough assessment of Harvard’s race-based affirmative action, the roads not taken by the court should be assessed just as thoroughly. For instance, NYU School of Law Professor Melissa Murray commented that, much like the Supreme Court’s seminal decision in Grutter v. Bollinger3 (which involved the University of Michigan Law School), the district court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, by “focus[ing] on diversity as the sole grounds on which the use of race in admissions may be justified,” avoided “engag[ing] more deeply and directly with the question of whether affirmative action is now merely a tool to promote pluralism or remains an appropriate remedy for longtime systemic, state-sanctioned oppression.”4 This Essay, however, criticizes the district court’s assessment of Harvard’s use of race-based affirmative action at all, given that the lawsuit’s central claim had nothing to do with it. In a footnote, the court addresses the real claim at hand—discrimination against Asian- American applicants vis-à-vis white applicants resulting from race-neutral components of the admissions program.5 Had the analysis in this footnote served as the central basis of the court’s ruling, it could have both * Associate Professor of Law, City University of New York School of Law.
    [Show full text]
  • Anecdotes and Biographical Sketches Of
    Kansas Republican Party SOME ANECDOTES AND BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES OF BLACK KANSAS REPUBLICANS Blue silk regimental flag of the 1st Kansas Colored Infantry, the first African American regiment in the Civil War. Recruitment began August 1862 and it was mustered into Federal service January 13, 1863. The Regiment saw its first action at Island Mound, Missouri, October 29, 1862. The flag bears the names of eight battle honors. 1 | P a g e Kansas Republican Party EXODUSTER MOVEMENT The influx of poor (1879-1881) and unskilled blacks caused a backlash of The end of Reconstruction in 1876 caused a mass resistance to the outflow of black refugees from the Old South, new immigrants. fleeing violence and poverty. Many headed for Governor John P. St Kansas which was associated with freedom, John (R), a fiery Bleeding Kansas, and John Brown. Baptist Minister, Benjamin “Pap” Singleton, a former slave from fought back against Tennessee encouraged people to move to those opposing the Kansas where they would be able to purchase exodusters. He land and establish a better life. In 1873, he led a ridiculed democrat group to Cherokee County near Baxter Springs. Benjamin “Pap” Singleton allegations that he He organized another colony to come from was trying to import Kentucky and settle in Graham County. This thousands of Republican voters. settlement of Nicodemus grew and prospered He likewise dismissed objections based on cost for a time until the railroad bypassed Nicodemus and resources arguing that God would find a way and built in a neighboring town. for Kansas and that he would never turn back refugees who had suffered cruelty, outrage, and wrong, who were destitute, hungry and without adequate clothes in the winter.
    [Show full text]
  • Asian Americans As “Model” College Applicants
    Racial Politics, Resentment, and Affirmative Action: Asian Americans as “Model” College Applicants Corresponding author: Michele S. Moses, University of Colorado Boulder 249 UCB, School of Education Boulder, Colorado 80309 [email protected] @MicheleSMoses Co-authors: Daryl J. Maeda, University of Colorado Boulder 339 UCB, Department of Ethnic Studies Boulder, Colorado 80309 [email protected] @darylmaeda Christina H. Paguyo, University of Denver Teaching and Learning 2150 E. Evans Avenue Anderson Academic Commons Library Denver, Colorado 80208 [email protected] Abstract This article uses philosophical analysis to clarify the arguments and claims about racial discrimination brought forward in the recent legal challenges to affirmative action in higher education admissions. Affirmative action opponents argue that elite institutions of higher education are using negative action against Asian American applicants so that they can admit other students of color instead, using race-conscious affirmative action. We examine the surrounding controversy, positing that the portrayal of Asian Americans as a model minority in this debate foments a politics of resentment that divides racial groups. Our analysis centers on how key concepts such as racial discrimination and diversity may be central to this politics of resentment. Given persistent threats to access and equity in higher education, it is important to gain conceptual clarity about the racial politics of anti-affirmative action efforts. Keywords: affirmative action, Asian Americans, college access, model minority myth, politics of education, race 1 Introduction Affirmative action in selective higher education admissions is being challenged again in the courts and by the federal government. While the case Students for Fair Admissions v.
    [Show full text]
  • People in the News Rights Pioneer Arthur Fletcher Remembered Walter Mosely Speaks on New Novels, Race
    How (^an I Flan for my (Child's I-ducalion? - Fage 3 Good Fridays What Janet, Jimmy at Solomon's Mexico Thinks & Terry Back Porch of You Together Page Page 3 Page 7 nA Division of tMON ^^^^^^Rppoztiinity News, Inc. Volume XIV, Number XXVH SERVING PLANO, DALLAS, RICHARDSON, GARLAND, IRVING. MCKINNEY AND MESOUITE July 21 -July 28, 2005 Your Gateway to Dallas North of Trinity River Fifty Cents www.MO^TheGazette.com "Piano is such a melting pot, Harry LaRosiliere I never felt I was different," Walter Mosely Speaks People In By: Monica Tbomton said Mr. LaRosiliere. "I truly feel my calling is to help people," He is, however, well aware said Piano City Council member Harry that there is an east-west divide on New Novels, Race The News LaRosiliere. within the city, both economi­ By: Paul Malley Rawlins mysteries series The newly elected council member, repre­ cally and socially. Rather than "It is easier lo get some­ began with Devil in a Blue senting District 5 in West Piano, added that he view this as a weakness for the one that dislikes you to like Dress, which was adapted joined the council to help city, he believes this is you than it is to get some­ to film in 1995, and fea­ one of its challenges and all of Piano, not just West one to understand you, that tured Denzel Washington strengths, presenting the Piano. is the essence of racial prob­ opportunity for the Mr. LaRosihere moved lems in America today." to Piano from New York council to bridge a gap.
    [Show full text]
  • Association of American Law Schools Section on Labor Relations and Employment Law: Tributes Honoring Senior Law Professors
    ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN LAW SCHOOLS SECTION ON LABOR RELATIONS AND EMPLOYMENT LAW: TRIBUTES HONORING SENIOR LAW PROFESSORS A TRIBUTE HONORING JAMES E. JONES, JR.* Professor Vicki Schultz**: Good morning. I'm Vicki Schultz, the 2004 Chair of the Labor and Employment Law Section of the Association of American Law Schools. Last year, my predecessor, Professor Roberto Corrada, initiated a practice of having our section honor someone who has made a significant contribution to our field. This morning, it is my great pleasure to be able to honor my dear friend and colleague James E. Jones, Jr., the Nathan P. Feinsinger Professor of Labor Law, Emeritus at the University of Wisconsin Law School and the School of Labor and Industrial Relations. There is so much to say about this brilliant and big-hearted man; I can't even begin to cover his many achievements in the time available. So, let me simply touch on a few of his most significant contributions to the law, the field, and the university he loves so much, and to his students and colleagues, who, in turn, love him so much. I. DEVELOPING EARLY AFFIRMATIVE ACTION LAW Before he joined the legal academy, Professor Jones had already had a significant career in the United States Department of Labor. He began as a legislative attorney, progressed to Counsel for Labor Relations, Director of the Office of Labor Management Policy Development, and then became Associate Solicitor, Division of Labor Relations and Civil Rights in the Office of the Solicitor of Labor. During that phase of his career, Professor Jones played an important role in developing and defending the emerging concept of affirmative action in employment.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Procurement After Adarand
    U.S. COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights is an independent, bipartisan agency established by Congress in 1957. It is directed to: ■ Investigate complaints alleging that citizens are being deprived of their right to vote by reason of their race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or national origin, or by reason of fraudulent practices. ■ Study and collect information relating to discrimination or a denial of equal protection of the laws under the Constitution because of race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or national origin, or in the administration of justice. ■ Appraise federal laws and policies with respect to discrimination or denial of equal protection of the laws because of race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or national origin, or in the administration of justice. ■ Serve as a national clearinghouse for information in respect to discrimination or denial of equal protection of the laws because of race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or national origin. ■ Submit reports, fi ndings, and recommendations to the President and Congress. ■ Issue public service announcements to discourage discrimination or denial of equal protection of the laws. MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION Gerald A. Reynolds, Chairman Abigail Thernstrom, Vice Chairman Jennifer C. Braceras Peter N. Kirsanow Ashley L. Taylor Michael Yaki Kenneth L. Marcus, Staff Director U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 624 Ninth Street, NW Washington, DC 20425 (202) 376-8128 voice (202) 376-8116 TTY www.usccr.gov This report is available on disk in ASCII and WordPerfect 5.1 for persons with visual impairments. Please call (202) 376-8110. Federal Procurement After Adarand iii Letter of Transmittal The President The President of the Senate The Speaker of the House Sirs: The United States Commission on Civil Rights transmits this report, Federal Procurement After Adarand, pursuant to Public Law 103-419.
    [Show full text]
  • Private Discounts to Print
    Dissent and Reform in the Arab World: Empowering Democrats A Report of the American Enterprise Institute Dissent and Reform in the Arab World Project Edited by Jeffrey Azarva, Danielle Pletka, and Michael Rubin The AEI Press Publisher for the American Enterprise Institute WASHINGTON, D.C. AEI Press Publisher for the American Enterprise Institute 1150 Seventeenth Street, N.W. Washington D.C., 20036 www.aei.org/books © 2008 by the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, Washington, D.C. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever without permission in writing from the American Enterprise Institute except in the case of brief quotations embodied in news articles, critical articles, or reviews. The views expressed in the publications of the American Enterprise Institute are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the staff, advisory panels, officers, or trustees of AEI. Printed in the United States of America Contents INTRODUCTION, Jeffrey Azarva, Danielle Pletka, and Michael Rubin 1 PART I: ESSAYS BY PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS 9 1. BAHRAIN 11 Challenging Government Control of Media Omran Salman 11 2. EGYPT 19 Challenges to Democratization Ayat M. Abul-Futtouh 19 3. IRAQ 26 Pluralism—Its Wealth and Its Misery Haider Saeed 26 The Development of Shi’ite Islamic Political Theory Sama Hadad 32 4. JORDAN 41 Building a Political Will Jamil al-Nimri 41 The Challenge of Progress Emad Omar 51 5. LEBANON 59 Together: Equal but Different Jad al-Akhaoui 59 Hezbollah and the Problem of State Control Lokman Slim 63 A Country to Be Born Najat Sharafeddine 71 6.
    [Show full text]
  • The Slow Demise of Race Preference
    Boston College Law School Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School Boston College Law School Faculty Papers 1-1-2015 The loS w Demise of Race Preference Mark S. Brodin Boston College Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/lsfp Part of the Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons, Constitutional Law Commons, and the Law and Politics Commons Recommended Citation Mark S. Brodin. "The loS w Demise of Race Preference." NYU Review of Law & Social Change 39, no.3 (2015): 369-380. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Boston College Law School Faculty Papers by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. For more information, please contact [email protected]. BRODIN_9.20.15_FINAL_AN.DOCX (DO NOT DELETE) 9/20/15 5:59 PM THE SLOW DEMISE OF RACE PREFERENCE MARK S. BRODIN∞ 2014 SYMPOSIUM ISSUE DIVERSITY IN EDUCATION AND THE FUTURE OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION I. THE “REAGAN REVOLUTION” ......................................................................... 371 II. THE WHITE APPLICANT AS VICTIM ............................................................... 374 III. PREFERENCE VERSUS “MERIT” .................................................................... 378 IV. CLOSING OBSERVATIONS ............................................................................ 379 I recently saw an interview with cultural historian Richard Slotkin in which he was asked to explain the American obsession with guns. He attributed it, at least in part, to “a sense of lost privilege, that men and particularly white men in the society feel their position to be imperiled and their status called into question.”1 He observed that “one way to deal with an attack on your status in our society is to strike out violently.”2 A similar phenomenon may explain the backlash against affirmative action and race preference in recent years.
    [Show full text]