In August 2024, following a ruling by the United States Supreme Court declaring Harvard and the University of North Carolina’s use of race-based admissions policies as unconstitutional, the impact of this decision extended beyond the realm of education. However, some universities continue to implement admissions policies that show racial preferences under the guise of diversity.
After the Supreme Court ruling, both the Eastern District Court of Tennessee and the Southern District Court of Texas decided that the principle applies to business development and project contracting. At the 3rd Annual Conference of Californians for Equal Rights (CFER) in 2024, lawyer Jack Brown of the Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) introduced the situation in California: “We represented CFER in a case against Alameda County, where the controversy centered on the county allocating 15% of contracting shares to minority-owned businesses. The county government argued that this was a four-year-old provision and was beyond the statute of limitations.”
“Statute of limitations should not be used this way; the county government has been doing this for four years with impunity,” Brown said. Unfortunately, the trial court accepted the county government’s argument. However, “fortunately, the California 1st District Court of Appeals dismissed the case because the ongoing unconstitutional conduct did not exceed the limitation period.”
Brown mentioned that Alameda County’s actions also violated California’s Proposition 209, which prohibits discrimination or preference based on race, gender, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public education, public employment, and public contracting. Following the court ruling, the Alameda County Board of Supervisors abolished the practice.
This year, PLF representing CFER also secured another victory as San Francisco discontinued the Gender Identity Forward Together (GIFT) program. Lawyer Andrew Quinio stated that the CFER conference last year was held a month after the Supreme Court ruling: “We are optimistic and hopeful about the future because this applies not only to university admissions but also helps in uncovering any government attempts to treat people differently based on race, color, etc., across various areas.”
In 2023, Minnesota allocated $500,000 to provide up to $15,000 in grants to Emerging Farmers who met the criteria, to assist in purchasing their first farm. “Lance Nistler, ranked ninth among the 176 selected in the draw, met all the conditions. However, as he was not a person of color, female, or transgender, he was not only pushed to the end of the list but also placed last on the waiting list, needless to say, he did not receive the grant.” Quinio said that PLF represented him in litigation and won the case.
“Thanks to the courage of a small-scale farmer,” Quinio said, Minnesota later repealed the “Emerging Farmers” policy that favored specific races/genders. He mentioned that PLF encourages other states to follow Minnesota’s lead, “stop unconstitutional provisions, and ensure equality for all before the law.”
Oregon also made similar changes, with a reimbursement program for “Diverse Education Teachers.” “We had a white client who had taught Spanish for over 30 years but could not receive compensation because ‘Diverse Education Teachers’ referred to people of color, women, or non-native English speakers.” Quinio stated that, with PLF, the client sued, leading to Oregon canceling the program.
Lawyer Brown mentioned that PLF is monitoring an internship program at the Los Angeles Zoo. The program was only open to certain races, violating the U.S. 14th Amendment and California’s Proposition 209 on public employment regulations.
Quinio believes that higher education institutions claiming that “(education) benefits from student diversity” is not a “convincing and reasonable” justification for using race to differentiate how people are treated. Laws would apply racial discrimination in rare cases, namely to correct past specific discriminatory situations or to quell or alleviate racial unrest in prisons, none of which apply to higher education institutions.
Although the Supreme Court has made its ruling, “applicants can indicate their race in their applications, allowing university admissions officers to utilize racial preferences,” Quinio said. People need to closely examine what universities are doing.
The University of California (UC system) announced at the end of July that it had admitted approximately 167,000 students for the fall 2024 term across its nine undergraduate campuses. UC Chancellor Michael V. Drake stated: “The University of California is committed to expanding access to education, particularly for historically underrepresented groups, resulting in the highest proportion of these students in our freshman class ever.” The proportion of “historically underrepresented” students admitted by UC, including African Americans, Native Americans, Pacific Islanders, and Hispanic students, has risen to 45.4%, with Hispanic students comprising the largest portion at 38.6%; African American student admissions have increased by nearly 10%.