Apparently the majority Justices of the Supreme Court want another shot at dismantling Affirmative Action.

The Huffington Post

The Supreme Court is broadening its examination of affirmative action by adding a case about Michigan’s effort to ban consideration of race in college admissions.

The justices already were considering a challenge to the University of Texas program that takes account of race, among many factors, to fill remaining spots in its freshman classes. The Texas case has been argued, but not yet decided.

The court on Monday said it would add the Michigan case, which focuses on the 6-year-old voter-approved prohibition on affirmative action and the appeals court ruling that overturned the ban. The new case will be argued in the fall. A decision in the Texas case is expected by late June.

The dispute over affirmative action in Michigan has its roots in the 2003 Supreme Court decision that upheld the use of race as a factor in university admissions. That case concerned the University of Michigan law school.

In response to the court’s 5-4 decision in that case, affirmative action opponents worked to put a ballot measure in front of voters to amend the state constitution to outlaw preferential treatment on the basis of race and other factors in education, as well as government hiring and contracting. In November 2006, 58 percent of Michigan voters approved the measure.

Civil rights groups sued to block the provision the day after the vote. In November, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals voted 8-7 to invalidate the ban as it applies to college admissions. It did not address hiring or contracting.

The appeals court said the constitutional amendment is illegal because it prohibits affirmative action supporters from lobbying lawmakers, university trustees and other people who ordinarily control admissions policies. Instead, opponents of the ban would have to mount their own long, expensive campaign through the ballot box to protect affirmative action, the court said.

That burden “undermines the Equal Protection Clause’s guarantee that all citizens ought to have equal access to the tools of political change,” the court said. The 6th Circuit divided along ideological lines, with its more liberal judges in the majority.

In the Texas case, a white student who was denied admission to the University of Texas is suing to overturn the school’s use of race among many factors to fill out its incoming freshman classes. The bulk of the slots go to Texans who graduated in the top 10 percent of their high school classes.

The Michigan case is Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, 12-682.

Related articles

• The Liberals Against Affirmative Action (realclearpolitics.com)
• The White Student Suing to Overthrow Affirmative Action Was Too Dumb to Get Into Her Chosen College (gawker.com)
• Does Affirmative Action Do Its Job? (theroot.com)
• Texan kills affirmative action and voting rights (educationviews.org)
• What the New York Times gets wrong about affirmative action (thegrio.com)
• A Colorblind Constitution: What Abigail Fisher’s Affirmative Action Case Is Really About (propublica.org)

Yet here we are, twenty years later, with little progress to show for the broad-based effort that has been called diversity.

In the last few years, as the recession has taken hold, I’ve seen diversity initiatives thrown under the bus as cost-cutting efforts took hold in companies of all sizes and in all geographies. Chief Inclusion/Diversity Officers’ positions were cut entirely, or their focus was shifted in whole or in part to “other things.”

Why? All because their organizations–and, yes, in some cases they–failed to make the business linkage between their efforts and real, bottom-line impacts.

For years, much of Corporate America has been stuck on the concept of diversity – i.e., race and gender – and hasn’t gotten the bigger picture of changing the workplace culture to one of inclusion that leverages the benefits of diversity for business gains. More significantly, inclusion and diversity haven’t been treated as mission critical; they haven’t been linked to business outcomes.

While hiring women and people of color is a historic tactic for achieving a diverse workforce, it is not a primary strategy for driving change. It is particularly not a primary strategy in an increasingly global economy.  Targeted hiring remains critical, but no sustainable change will occur until senior leaders leverage the business connection between diversity and the bottom line.

We keep saying it, and we will keep saying it: Hiring women and people of color has never been important simply for the sake of political correctness or because it is “the right thing to do.” The goal has always been a double edged sword – attracting and retaining the best talent for the benefit of the business as well as opening the doors of opportunity across the entire demographic spectrum.

And, if we can convince companies to think of inclusion as a business imperative and not as a numbers game or a compliance initiative, we can begin to see real charge.

Twenty years from now, let’s hope that we will see progress, conveyed through core business metrics that capture the minds of CEOs around the globe.

So our mantra remains: inclusion is a business imperative!

Related posts:

Diversity and Inclusion: Being “Nice” While Doing “Good”

Why Diversity Isn’t the Same as Inclusion and Why You Should Care

Resolve to Focus on Inclusion in 2013

For instance, on a personal level, despite the fact that we know it’s “good for us” to be in shape and to eat healthy foods, we’re far more likely to succeed if there’s a real reason for our actions–we are at risk or, or have been diagnosed with a disease (like diabetes or hypertension) that demands action, our class reunion is coming up, etc. Business decisions operate on the same principle:

• Business leaders, especially senior leaders,  have been notably reluctant to embrace social media. “Where’s the return?,” they ask. It’s a valid question.
• Businesses don’t expand into new markets because it’s a “nice” thing to do; they expand into new markets because they believe they can make a good return on their investment (we would also tell them, that they could make an even greater return if that expansion relied upon the input of those most familiar with, and most like, the new market!)
• Business leaders don’t hire people because they want to be “nice” to them–they hire them because they believe that can contribute to the company in some measurably positive way.

The bottom line: we, whether individuals or businesses, do things because we believe there will be some tangible benefit in doing them. Our mission and our passion is around showing businesses that there is measurable benefit to be gained by being inclusive.

Inclusion is a business imperative. We believe it. We live it.

Inclusion isn’t about being “nice” to people of color, to older or younger generations, to the disabled, to veterans or to anyone else. Inclusion is a business imperative–not the nice thing to do, but the right thing to do. To us, this has long been a no-brainer. Yet we continue to see examples of organizations and individuals that just don’t get it. Either they don’t get it and continue to be focused on counting people. Or, even worse, they don’t get it and continue to ignore the voices and input of those around them–both inside and outside their organizations.

This year, resolve to focus on inclusion. Resolve to:

• Seek the input of employees from all levels and all departments within your organization.
• Listen to those inputs–especially when what you hear challenges your own opinions and perspectives.
• Ensure that your workforce mirrors your market–if you serve a global market your workforce should reflect global perspectives.
• Capitalize on the inputs of multiple generations within your workforce–we have much to learn from all of them.
• Innovate to meet customer needs by developing a deep understanding of who your customers are and what they value.
• Be inclusive!

Happy New Year!

The PPM (Portable People Meter) used for Radio and listening ratings; The PPM collects data on what people are really listening to on the radio.

“This way, Arbitron can collect much more accurate listenership data. With more accurate data radio stations can turn to their advertisers all, “See, we have *this many* listeners.” And since the PPMs are accurate to the minute, radio stations will know what type of programming [that people are really listening].”

Why is the PPM device need?  The old method was using pen and paper log books; Some claim certain demographics did not fill out the log book this we reassign a portion of the rating automatically to certain stations thus falsifying the rating allowing these less popular formats to appear more popular than they are thus being able to charge more for ads then they are really worth; This also made the number of stations in the subsidized formats boom.  Just Another case of affirmative action gone bad.  On the other side many stations that were actually more popular were punished by steeling the ratings away for the subsidized stations.

Who were the subsidized stations?  All we have to do is follow the affirmative action trail; Spanish Language Radio, R&B, Hip-Hop, Rap, are a few examples.

PPM will give us honest, accurate rating of radio stations without the adjusted bias that has been occurring since the 1960’s.

Who are the winners in the ratings when the PPM device is used?  Country Music, Talk, 80’s Mix, 50 Oldies, News in that order.

Who are the BIGGEST loosers when the PPM device is used? Spanish Language Radio, Rap, Hip Hop.  These are now the bottom three rated formats in the 50 Markets that the PPM is being used.

Maybe with real numbers for radio, TV and movies will shift their choices in music to go with their shows, movies and sports over time.  Maybe we can get the same thing for TV; DirectTV has been offering the Raw Data for year, but then again MTV, BET and other would not want real rating to come out.

Can you believe supposed Civil Rights groups like the ACLU and NAACP have file suites to prevent the use of the PPM, and DirectTV numbers?

Inspired by and quotes from:

http://www.upi.com/Entertainment_News/2008/10/11/Radio-officials-question-ratings-device/UPI-30951223743793/

-

http://techcrunch.com/2008/08/13/new-device-should-provide-far-more-accurate-radio-ratings/

Is there discrimination in the land of cheese? Yes, said an advocacy group based in Falls Church, Va., that seeks to promote a “colorblind society.”

The Center for Equal Opportunity claims that the University of Wisconsin–Madison uses drastically different standards when deciding admission for African-American and Latino students than they use when reviewing applications for white and Asian students.The group released a report Tuesday that analyzes admission data from the school itself.

An examination of class rank and SAT scores collected found that the odds are 576-1 favoring African-American applicants against white applicants. The odds are 504-1 favoring Hispanics in the same comparison.

The center’s chairwoman, Linda Chavez characterized the University of Wisconsin-Madison’s admission standards as “the most severe undergraduate admissions discrimination that CEO has ever found in the dozens of studies it has published over the last 15 years.”

But university policies that favor specific racial or ethnic groups are not new. In a 2003 Supreme Court case, Gratz v. Bollinger, the University of Michigan was told it must abolish a policy that made it easier for underrepresented racial and ethnic groups to gain admission to the university.

In the unconstitutional formula, those underrepresented groups were given 20 extra points toward admission in a 150-point system, where 100 points were required to gain admission. As a point of comparison, applicants with perfect scores on the SAT were only awarded 12 points.

While the University of Michigan undergraduate affirmative action policy was struck down, others have remained.This is because not all affirmative action policies are unconstitutional. The court ruled against the University of Michigan in Gratz v. Bollinger because its formula was too mechanistic.

However, in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, a 1978 landmark Supreme Court affirmative action case, the court found that using race as a factor in admissions in some cases can serve as a compelling government interest.

Regardless of what the courts have to say about the constitutionality of such policies, I personally find them antithetical to not only the many American ideals that stress hard work and merited achievement, but also to the dream Martin Luther King Jr. envisioned for America on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial.

In his 1963 speech, King said he yearned for that day when his children would “not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”

Unfortunately, that day has yet to come, as there are still many institutions, such as the University of Wisconsin–Madison, that wish to continue to do the very thing King found so abhorrent and fought against his whole life: namely, institutionalized discrimination. Blatant discrimination aside, however, these policies send a fundamentally bad message.

When a university places more importance on race than it does on academic achievement, as the University of Michigan did, it is implicitly stating that diversity is more important than academic achievement — a value I presume most universities would not be likely to espouse publicly.

In an even more staggering instance of mission departure, though, Sandra Day O’Connor, who cast the deciding vote in another 2003 Supreme Court affirmative action case, this time in support of the school, said, “We expect that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today.”

Her statement is not staggering insofar as it acknowledges that institutionalized racial preferences exist and are constitutional despite laws such as the 1964 Civil Rights Act and various amendments to the U.S. Constitution, but instead because it reveals the court’s affirmative action rulings are indeed a form of judicial activism.

She argued that since racial minorities have a history of oppression in America and policies such as affirmative action serve to repay those oppressions, the policies are constitutional because they serve that court-approved “interest.” Well, I might add, if the government’s interest is fighting injustice with injustice and not with a renewed effort to ensure fair and equal treatment under the law, what really is the government’s interest?

Perhaps O’Connor or the University of Wisconsin-Madison might be able to tell you.

We are currently in recession, jobless recovery or Great Depression 2 if you prefer.

What it is is a Man-session! Why a Man-session? The large majority of those laid-off were man and those being re-hired are disproportionately Woman thus this is a Man-session.

The very groups that were setup to fight for equal treatment of people and to defend people from being treated as second class citizens are now focused on maintaining repressive laws and rules that treat others as second class citizens. Put simply,

The people that are first to yell Racist, are the racists right in plan sight under the disguise of civil rights!

When is someone going to stand up for MY civil rights!

I have that same dream!

Martin Luther King Jr would have opposed any law and / or program that used race as a criteria.

The Name Calling or the “Race Card” are used as “I am take my ball and going home” and I do not want anyone to play with you, they should only play with me, feel sorry for me and hate you.

The user of the Name Calling or the “Race Card” is whining and can not defend the attitude, actions or belief system they have. SHAME ON THEM!

Wow, that is Racist…Our First Affirmative Action President And I thought it was NOT about Race.

I DO NOT AGREE WITH OBAMA’S POLICIES, and I think Obama is more of a Bubler than George W Bush; I Did not Like George W Either, but at least he was not a Socialist.

Welcome to the Socialist Republic of the United States of America.

I hope for the day when my children and I have opportunity to…”live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”  I hope for a day when institutional racism ends.

If we end Affirmative Action today, “We will be able to speed up that day when all of God’s children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual: Free at last! Free at last!”

I am tired of being discriminated against for not being the right color for some hiring quota dating back to the 1970′s.  This is not the “Dream” Martin Luther King Jr. spoke of in Washington DC August 1963, Yes, the quotes in the article are from Martin Luther King Jr.

Affirmative Action promotes racism; Racism is trying to die and here we are doing CPR and putting it on life support so Racism can recover and become strong with the on going enforcement of Affirmative Action quotas.  So lets let Racism Die; End Affirmative Action today.

Have you ever meet someone that got into Harvard Law School and wonder did this person get into Harvard Law School or through Harvard Law School all because of Affirmative Action?

When a persons knowledge and abilities not match historically what is expected, you start to wonder if standards were lower to get them into the institution, and make them pass.

So I raise my glass to Obama, our first affirmative action President.  A man that makes George W. Bush look smarter everyday.

The 1967 Civil Rights Act prohibited the use of quotas but we have them; No matter what you are told I have seen it in the public and private sector.

Affirmative Action AKA Affirmative Discrimination is building a wall of hate.

You must choose to speak up and stand strong for equal rights and treatment, but do not fail by promoting special rights making you as evil as those that discriminated against you.

Employee resource groups have been around for a long time and, originally, were viewed as a way for those with shared characteristics (whether sex, race, or ethnicity) to gather today with a group of like-minded individuals. There is certainly value in that. But the potential value can go far beyond the affinity shared between the members.

Businesses can achieve real bottom-line benefits from the use of employee resource groups to help them understand the issues, interests and perspectives of various groups within their organizations.  Often these groups share traits of those external to the organization–customers or potential customers.

It’s important, though, that these groups not become exclusionary by their very nature. The value of ERGs is providing a forum and a voice for groups of employees with unique perspectives. But, if those unique groups, aren’t also interacting with other employees–and managers–who are not like them, the value of those voices is lost.

The lesson for leaders: find ways to be inclusive when it comes to celebrating diversity.

 
Regardless of the merit of the claim, the case has drawn national attention, and a great deal of contention, related to Affirmative Action, a construct that dates back to 1961 when JFK signed Executive Order 10925.

The companies who have come forward to express their opposition publicly include Microsoft, Wal-Mart and GE, part of a group of more than 50 major corporations that argue that affirmative action helps their businesses by ensuring diversity. More importantly, we feel, this may also have a positive impact on inclusion—ensuring that the wide array of voices that represent our markets are included and heard.

The practice of giving preference to those who had been traditionally held back from active participation in the workforce (e.g. women and minorities) is long-standing and has generally been favorably supported – at least at a 10,000 foot level. The issue gets much more personal, of course, when individuals like this young woman who feels she has been negatively and, in her mind, unfairly impacted by the practice.

It’s not the first time that such an issue has been raised before the Supreme Court – remember California v. Bakke, the 1978 case where Allan Bakke claimed that he had been denied admission to the University of California Davis Medical School because of a set aside of 16 spots out of 100 for African-Americans.

As with any other controversial issue there are passionate arguments made on both sides:

Those who support affirmative action point to its ability to ensure an equal playing field for those who may have been formerly oppressed, providing the opportunity to address inequalities in employment and pay, provide access to education and repair social imbalances.

Those opposed, on the other hand, feel that its use results in “reverse discrimination” and may actually devalue the valid contributions and competitiveness of those who may be classified as “minorities.”

Wouldn’t it be grand if we had reached the point in our long and often turbulent history, where we truly were able to claim equal opportunity for all? Wouldn’t it be grand if each of us were indeed judged only on our merits?

Well, there’s a problem with that notion, however noble, and that’s really why this issue remains so contentious. Some of us have had greater opportunity to develop these merits than others based on inequities that, yes, still exist. If some of us don’t have access to the support systems, the education systems, the social systems, etc., that others readily have access to, then we’re not really comparing apples to apples – or women to men, or Whites to Hispanics.

Wouldn’t it be grand? What do you think? Where do you stand on this issue and why? What impact—pro or con—do you feel existing Affirmative Action practices have on moving us toward a national culture of inclusion?

While CEO of his own firm, Mitt Romney felt no compunction to have any particular interest in the gender make-up of his executive team or his core partner group. For many, this was exactly how it should be and many would not have expected anything different from Mr. Romney. No awards for inclusivity or diversity were given to him as CEO and frankly none were expected. Diversity in his work force was a non-issue that simply did not matter to him. I am not critiquing or specifically judging him, I’m just stating what appears to be the reality.

Something changed when he got his first “government” job and became Governor of Massachusetts.

In response to an audience question: ” …. your views on equal pay for equal work ….”, instead of a simple yes or no answer, Candidate Romney offered insight into his warm embrace of affirmative action when he was Governor. It was an interesting moment because it revealed important insight into how a person calculates how they will not answer a question by introducing a new narrative. The challenge of course is to avoid making new-news when answering a simple yet uncomfortable question, and for heavens sake, never make new-news by pandering to the audience.

Now keep in mind, the most important decision a leader makes, (either in the private or public sector), is how to build his/her executive leadership team. More than often, the team is built on the best and brightest talent available. It is also not uncommon for the team to be comprised of legacy, family, pals and buddies that are not necessarily the best, just the best pals and buddies. On a rare occasion, the team is chosen based on their unique skill set AND because they represent a certain demographic. It is the latter choice that was interesting to hear about last night.

The Supreme Court is taking up an issue this term that deals with a female student who believes she was not admitted to a Texas college because of affirmative action. Her core argument is the University specifically sought a specific demographic for admission that she was not a member of and therefore discriminated against her. The case may be seminal and it is being watched by many. Prior to last night, Governor Romney stated he did not support efforts of public institutions , (see government), to advocate for affirmative action. Last night he proudly rejected that claim in order to demonstrate his support of women in the Government workforce – by specifically rejecting a slate of male candidates for his Cabinet and Executive team.

Candidate Romney revealed that when presented with names of prospects to fill his Cabinet and Executive team in Massachusetts, he noticed there were no women on the list. This clearly disturbed him and he made it his mission to find women candidates. He said he went to Women’s groups and canvassed the state looking specifically for women to give an executive leadership level job to in his administration. He claimed he received “binders full of women” and he was able to find what he was looking for.

As a matter of pride, he commented that a New York based organization bestowed on him an award, (or at least a high-level acknowledgement), that his Government Administration had the most women in leadership positions than any of the other 49 states. A very proud moment for the Governor and one recollected with warmth and a confident smile last night. An affirmation that in the case of Massachusetts, the Governor’s affirmative-action plan was acceptable to the Governor and many others.

Here is a few question tingling in my brain:
1. Why was it important as Governor to support affirmative action in the public sector but not important to support affirmative action in the private-sector when he was CEO of Bain Capital?

2. Since it was important to have an Administration/Executive Cabinet with the best and brightest professional women on board, were they paid “equally”/”paid the same” as their male counterparts?

3. Does Candidate Romney now support demographic balancing of the entire workforce in the public-sector to ensure gender equality?

4. Did we just witness a moment of pride or a moment of pander at the most recent debate?

Please know that I am not taking a position on affirmative action at all; this is not the thrust of my post. I am not saying affirmative action is bad or good. What I am asking is why Candidate Romney decided to take the position he espoused last night and tell his personal affirmative-action story in response to a simple question from an undecided voter on “equal pay”.

When an elected official decides he does not like a pool of candidates for a job and instead publicly or privately seeks a new pool of candidates, (a binder full of females to be more accurate), specifically based on gender or race, that is affirmative action …. in action.

Mitt Romney had an affirmative action moment in last nights debate.

Let’s see if anyone other than I noticed and whether a few follow-up questions might get asked. Frankly, with the Supreme Court taking this issue up, I do want to know how Mitt Romney really feels about affirmative action when it impacts others.

Great debate last night.