|(As of Jan.
27, 1999, the Center for Individual Rights is running an advertisement in college papers
across the country which features this, or similar, text regarding college and university
use of racial quotas and preferences. Adversity.Net supports CIR's campaign without
Nearly every elite college in America
violates the law.
Individual Rights): Using racial preferences to achieve a particular
racial mix of students has been illegal for at least the last twenty years. Yet many
schools persist in treating applicants differently by race in order to achieve racial
The lingering presence of unlawful racial preferences makes applying to college or
professional school all the more difficult and admissions decisions all the more
arbitrary. Students need to know whether they are being treated in accordance with the
College and university trustees may be held liable personally for illegal admissions
procedures at their schools. Trustees need to be familiar with the law and the ways that
their schools may be violating it.
CIR has prepared two handbooks which are available free of charge -- one for college
students and the other for college trustees. Each handbook explains the law in everyday
terms and suggests ways to reform unlawful admissions practices.
DOWNLOAD or VIEW the
A Project of the:
Center for Individual Rights
1233 20th St, N.W. Suite 300
Washington, D.C. 20036
Telephone: (202) 833-8400 Fax: (202) 833-8410
Links and Stories:
Conservatives open drive
against affirmative action (01/25/99 - dead)
"On 15 campuses across the country, students will open
their college newspapers Tuesday to a full-page advertisement with the headline 'Guilty
by Admission' and, in bold print, 'Nearly Every Elite College in America Violates
the Law. Does Yours?' "
"The advertisement, which condemns 'the lingering presence of unlawful racial
preferences' and urges students to download or send away for a free handbook on how to
tell whether their college is breaking the law on race and admissions, is part of a new
campaign by the Center for Individual Rights, a conservative public-policy law firm in
"The student handbook includes sections on how to use freedom of information laws,
what kinds of data to request from the university, what disparities to note and how to
find a lawyer and bring a lawsuit.
"The campaign, to be announced Tuesday at a Washington news conference featuring
former Education Secretary William Bennett and the commentator Nat Hentoff, asserts that
most colleges that engage in race-conscious admissions do so in a way that violates the
law." (Associated Press, via the Star Telegram, 01/25/99, by Ethan Bronner)
Campus affirmative action
embattled (01/27/99) (dead link)
"The handbooks have all the subtlety of television ads for personal injury
lawyers. Every elite university in the nation violates federal law, they warn.
Trustees, you may be personally responsible for a costly lawsuit. Students, your rights
may have been - and probably were - breached.
"They go on to offer help: how to find a lawyer, how to file a freedom of information
act. They list the documents needed to win the court case, and prod, 'Be tenacious,' and
always 'Appeal, appeal, appeal.'
" 'Up until now, trustees and students have been told that the university complies
with federal law, but the truth is, it probably doesn't,' said Terence Pell, senior
counsel for the Center for Individual Rights, which, with the privately funded Pope
Institute for the Future of Higher Education, is sponsoring the campaign."
(Boston Globe, 01/27/99, by Kate Zernike)
affirmative action embattled (01/27/99)
"Conservatives who say top U.S. colleges are illegally using racial preferences in
admissions are taking their case to the nation's college newspapers. The newspaper
ads by the Center for Individual Rights, a conservative law firm representing students
suing universities, are headlined 'Guilty by Admission' and charge that nearly every
elite college in the United States violates the law.
"The center issued two 30-page handbooks it says are intended to help students
identify discrimination and to help institutions keep from getting sued, but critics say
the handbooks are designed to incite lawsuits.
"The ads and handbooks are part of a campaign to highlight the use of racial
preferences in admissions, say conservatives, including former Education Secretary William
Bennett, who called college diversity programs 'an antithesis of the civil rights
movement.' " (Associated Press, via Star Tribune, 1/27/99)
Group Publishes Guide to Help
Colleges Avoid Lawsuits (Pay Site; 01/26/99)
"To protect themselves and their universities from
lawsuits, trustees should study federal-court decisions on affirmative action and end
campus policies that use preferences to increase racial diversity, according to a trustee
"handbook" being released today by a non-profit legal firm that has sued
colleges over these policies. The manual -- as well as a companion text urging students to
scrutinize campus policies and sue to reform them -- is the latest attempt by partisans in
the affirmative-action debate to influence college officials on the future of race-based
policies." (PAY SITE: Chronicle of Higher Education, 01/26/99, by Patrick
[link to pay site: http://www.chronicle.com/daily/99/01/99012603n.htm
Cleveland Judge Holds College
Administrators Liable for Reverse Discrimination! (Jan. 1999 - dead link)
"Judge David S. Perelman of the U.S. District Court in Cleveland, Ohio, has issued a
warning to college and university administrators stubbornly holding on to
affirmative-action policies: You are personally liable for damages if you are sued over
the policies, because you should know by now the policies are unconstitutional.
"[Judge] Perelman struck down Cuyahoga Community College District's
affirmative-action policy as unconstitutional this fall, and in doing so he rejected the
attempt by the president, two vice-presidents and nine trustees of the college to gain
qualified immunity from damages. The college officials sought the immunity because, they
said, under Ohio law they were obliged to institute a set-aside program benefiting
minority business and because court decisions had left the constitutionality of such a
"Perelman, however, said the officials knew that the U.S. Supreme Court had already
found, in several rulings, that such programs violated the 14th Amendment. Qualified
immunity, he wrote, 'is not intended to allow individual officers to abdicate their
decision-making obligations in blind reliance on state statutes.' " (The
Clarion, Jan. 1999)
Student Reverse Discrimination"