CONYERS: Members Hold Forum On Affirmative Action, Racial Climate On College Campuses

WASHINGTON – On FRIDAY, September 8^th, Members of the U.S. House of Representatives held a forum entitled “Affirmative Action, Inclusion, and Racial Climate on America’s Campuses.” Amidst national conversations on white supremacy, xenophobia, and racial inequality, reports surfaced suggesting that the Trump Administration has plans to reexamine the values of racial diversity on campuses.

This forum convened student officers, representatives from institutions of higher education, and key legal experts to discuss the role of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act in ensuring that students are welcomed to a safe, inclusive learning environment free of harassment and intimidation on the basis of race, color, or national origin.

         

• 
  
• Congressman John Conyers, Jr. (MI-13), Ranking Member. Committee on the Judiciary
• Congressman Bobby Scott (VA-03), Ranking Member, Committee on Education & the Workforce
• Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee (TX-18)
• Congressman Hank Johnson, Jr. (GA-04)
• Additional Members of Congress
• Sherrilyn Ifill, President and Director-Counsel, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund
• Richard Cohen, Executive Director, Southern Poverty Law Center
• Theresa Sullivan, President, University of Virginia
• Dr. Benjamin Reese, Vice President of the Office for Institutional Equity, Duke University
• Roger Worthington, Chief Diversity Officer, University of Maryland
• Taylor Dumpson, Student President, American University
• Weston “Wes” Gobar, President, Black Student Alliance, University of Virginia
• Payton Head, Former Student Body President, University of Missouri

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

House, Senate Democratic Leaders Push Trump Administration for Answers on Affirmative Action

Amid national conversation on race and white supremacy, new efforts from the Trump Administration to reexamine the values of racial diversity on campus are deeply troubling

Democrats: “This is the latest effort by [Trump]Administration to step away from enforcing the protections provided under the Civil Rights Act and instead promote policies that undermine civil rights protections”

Congressman John Conyers  (D-MI), ranking member of the House Committee on Judiciary, Congressman Bobby Scott (D-VA), ranking member of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce,, Congressman Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), ranking member of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, and Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), ranking member of the Senate Committee on Judiciary, sent a letter, below, to Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos about a recent memo that showed intent of the Departments of Justice (DOJ)  and Education (ED) to reexamine the process by which the federal government ensures racial diversity on college campuses.

“Recently, an internal hiring posting from DOJ citing ‘investigations and possible litigation related to intentional race-based discrimination in college and university admissions’ caused public concerns as to whether DOJ and ED are launching a new effort to reexamine the values of racial diversity on campus,” the Members wrote. “This is the latest effort by this Administration to step away from enforcing the protections provided under the Civil Rights Act and instead promote policies that undermine civil rights protections and your Departments’ Civil Rights Offices. The Supreme Court has made it clear that racial diversity is a compelling state interest and that it is in our national interest that talented students from a variety of backgrounds get a close look and a fair chance at overcoming obstacles to higher education.” 

The Members also highlighted that this memo follows a disturbing pattern of the Trump Administration’s hostile view of the federal government’s role in protecting civil rights.

“This action is especially suspect given this Administration’s lack of attention to civil rights issues in our education system thus far,” the letter continues. “For example, neither DOJ nor ED have publically addressed the spate of racially charged incidents on college campuses nor the rise in white supremacist recruiting efforts and incidents on college campuses which the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) describes as unprecedented.   Such incidents include the stabbing of an African American student commissioned as a second lieutenant in the U.S. Army by a fan of white supremacist websites, or bananas hanging from nooses labeled ‘Harambe bait.’”

House, Senate Democratic Leaders Letter To Trump Administration for Answers on Affirmative Action 8-21-2017... by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS, SCOTT Statement On Reports Of Trump Administration Plans To Attack Affirmative Action

WASHINGTON – Representatives Bobby Scott (VA-03) and John Conyers, Jr. (MI-13), the ranking members of the House Committees on Education and the Workforce and the Judiciary, respectively, issued the following statement after reports surfaced that the Department of Justice plans to attack and undermine affirmative action programs in colleges and universities. 

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.

“While we cannot comment on the veracity of this alleged memo, we are deeply concerned by news reports that the Department of Justice intends to challenge the application of affirmative action programs in colleges and universities.  What is already clear is the Trump Administration’s public record of attacking civil rights protections on multiple fronts. 

“As ranking members, we led 86 Members of the House in an amicus brief in support of affirmative action programs in higher education. We were one of nearly 70 organizations to take the same position, including retired Chiefs of Staff of our nation’s Armed Services, leading Fortune 500 companies, academics, 19 state governors, the faith community and many others. The position that we took was ultimately affirmed by the Supreme Court – the consideration of race and ethnicity to achieve diversity in admissions is a constitutional and is a compelling state interest that can be achieved through narrowly tailored means.

“Whether it is the Department of Justice’s decision to examine the use of consent decrees with state and local police departments, which are designed to reduce instances of police brutality and discriminatory treatment; Attorney General Session’s decision to  return to the harsh application of mandatory minimum sentences which have been proven to be racially discriminatory and counterproductive to reducing crime; the White House’s so-called election integrity commission which purports to “solve” voter fraud while requesting the most personal data of the Nation’s 200 million registered voters; or efforts to weaken the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) – agencies charged with the enforcement of employment nondiscrimination laws, the Trump administration has not wasted any opportunity to roll back existing civil rights protections for underrepresented minorities.

“Further, the Administration’s reactionary efforts were signaled in the White House’s proposed budget to which reduces or eliminated funding tied to the enforcement of federal civil rights laws.  The Trump Administration’s budget undermines the constitutional promise of Brown v. Board of Education by cutting federal funding to support public schools that serve our nation’s poorest students. It proposes elimination of the environmental justice program, gutting the primary tool to examine and address the impact of environmental policies and decisions on communities of color, low-income and tribal communities. And proving the adage “any rights without remedies are no rights at all,” the President’s budget proposes eliminating federal funding for the Legal Services Corporation (LSC) that provides civil legal aid for low income Americans to help them have their day in court.

“These actions, already on the record, provide a clear, yet unsettling picture of this Administration’s hostile view of the federal government’s role in protecting civil rights.”

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS, JACKSON LEE & COHEN APPLAUD SUPREME COURT AFFIRMATIVE ACTION DECISION

Washington, D.C. - Today, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, upholding affirmative action programs at the University of Texas at Austin. House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.), Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security Ranking Member Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), and Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice Ranking Member Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) released the following joint statement:

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.

“With today’s ruling, the Supreme Court finally put to rest the question of whether race-conscious admission programs can be employed in a Constitutional manner to achieve the state interest of a diverse student body.  Though the ruling rests on highly particularized findings of fact, this precedent should send the signal that this Court has grown weary of the constant array of challenges to affirmative action plans by test-case litigants like Fisher. 

“In a globalized and increasingly interconnected world, the nation that succeeds is the one best positioned to adapt to a world of differences -- cultural, religious, economic, social, racial, and political. Given the challenges facing our nation, it is more important than ever before that our institutions of higher learning prepare our diverse student population to lead and innovate into the 21^st century.”

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Conyers: Supreme Court Ruling Poses Another Obstacle to Racial Progress & Diversity

(DETROIT) – Today, the United States Supreme Court in Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action,reversed the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit’s ruling and upheld Michigan Proposal 2 prohibiting affirmative action in public education, government contracting, and public employment. Today’s decision did not deal with the issue of race-conscious admissions generally, which have been previously upheld and which the court reiterated today. After the ruling, Ranking Member of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.) released this statement:

U.S. Representative
John Conyers, Jr.

“Today’s decision continues a troubling line of recent Supreme Court decisions that are hostile towards our history of civil rights and our struggle for equality. It is unfortunate that this Court allowed Proposal 2 to overrun the intent of the Constitution’s equal protection clause: protecting disadvantaged minorities from discrimination,” said Conyers.

“The blatant unfairness of this approach was highlighted by the Sixth Circuit in their opinion striking down Proposal 2 stating that, while ‘sons and daughters of alumni’ and children of big donors are afforded those non-merit considerations in the admissions process, Proposal 2 would require a minority student to ‘convince the Michigan electorate to amend its constitution - an extraordinary expensive process and the most arduous of all the possible channels for change.’ Similarly, as Justice Sotomayor eloquently stated in her dissent, ‘The Constitution does not protect racial minorities from political defeat. But neither does it give the majority free rein to erect selective barriers against racial minorities.’ She wrote ‘the political process doctrine…ensure[s] that the Majority, when it wins, does so without rigging the rules of the game to ensure its success.’

Representative Conyers added, “Our nation has come a long way in seeking to end discrimination, but our work is far from complete at a time of continued under representation of minorities in higher education and many walks of life. One has to look no farther for evidence of this than the fact that there was a significant drop in minority enrollment after Proposal 2 was enacted - African-American enrollment declined by one third at the University of Michigan Ann Arbor between 2006 and 2012, at the same time overall enrollment expanded by one tenth. Now is not the time for the Court to blindly ignore the biases that continue to exist in our society.”

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Conyers Applauds Sixth Circuit’s Upholding Affirmative Action in Michigan

“Affirmative Action is a Vital and Active Part of our Social, Economic, and Educational Fabric”

(WASHINGTON) – Yesterday, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit rejected Michigan’s ban on affirmative action in the state - Proposal 2 - which was passed by voters in 2006 as an amendment to the state constitution.  The Court found that Proposal 2 deprives minorities of equal protection of the law by creating a structural burden that minority students would have to shoulder in order to address admissions policies. Congressman John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.) issued the following statement in response:

“I applaud the Sixth Circuit for rejecting the burdensome consequences of Proposal 2 and would urge the Michigan Attorney General to not further appeal the decision.  Nearly 10 years ago, in Grutter v. Bollinger, the Supreme Court found that the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of ‘equal protection of the laws’ was upheld by the University of Michigan Law School’s affirmative action policy that used race as a factor in order to achieve greater diversity in higher education.  Since that time, however, a misguided and twisted notion has been promoted about the positive impact that affirmative action policies have on admissions standards.

“Yesterday, the Sixth Circuit provided us with an accurate description of how admissions policies at Michigan Universities benefit lobbying by the ‘sons and daughters of alumni of the University,’children of donors, and permits other considerations for admissions not based on merit. The Court also rightly distinguished the effect these consideration have on race-conscious admissions policies, by illustrating how instead of lobbying the admissions committees at Michigan universities, a minority student would be required to launch a Herculean lobbying effort - ‘by convincing the Michigan electorate to amend its constitution - an extraordinary expensive process and the most arduous of all the possible channels for change.’

“Currently, the Supreme Court is considering Fisher v. University of Texas, another affirmative action case where a Abigail Fisher, a young Caucasian woman, has argued that she was denied admission to the University of Texas because of their affirmative action policy.  Notwithstanding the merits of Ms. Fisher’s case, I believe the Sixth Circuit, in rejecting Proposal 2, has provided a significant opportunity for the Supreme Court and for the country to discuss misguided notions opposing racial and ethnic considerations in higher education admissions, and to juxtapose these notions  against other non-merit considerations currently in the admissions processes of Michigan universities.”

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Conyers Calls 6th Circuit Decision Overturning Proposition 2 a Key Step Toward Restoring Equity in Michigan Higher Education

Conyers Calls 6^th Circuit Decision Overturning Proposition 2 a Key Step Toward Restoring Equity in Michigan Higher Education

(Washington) – House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.) called today’s Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals decision to overturn Michigan’s ban on affirmative action a victory for equal opportunity in higher education.  The court ruled Proposition 2 violated the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.   The 2006 law required Michigan’s public university system to abandon its affirmative action programs despite a series of Supreme Court decisions in 2003 that had upheld the policy’s constitutionality.  “As an opponent of Proposition 2, I am heartened by today’s decision from the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals,” said Conyers.  “After losing in court, forces from outside our state attempted to gain a victory through the referendum process, like they did in several other states.  This ruling stops their momentum and gives us the opportunity to restore an admissions process, approved by the same courts, that will give all students an equal opportunity to attend our state universities, while still recognizing the unique hurdles overcome by those from racial or ethnic minority groups.” “This victory should be considered a key step toward restoring equity in Michigan higher education.”