Search

This article explores the backlash against diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs following the Supreme Court's decision to end affirmative action in college admissions. It discusses legal challenges against private law firms for their DEI initiatives and emphasizes the need to understand the legal boundaries of these programs. The article suggests that organizations should view DEI as a cultural commitment rather than just metrics, and that embedding these values throughout the organization can protect against litigation and promote corporate social responsibility. It also highlights the economic benefits of prioritizing DEI and the legal and financial obligations of corporate managers in addressing these issues. While acknowledging the existence of backlash, the article suggests that it may lead to stronger and more effective commitments to DEI values, emphasizing the importance of culture and character in promoting DEI. [Extracted from the article]

The article focuses on the recent Supreme Court decision to abolish affirmative action for college admissions, particularly at institutions like Harvard and the University of North Carolina. It discusses how affirmative action programs have changed and become more radicalized, leading to debates about their continued relevance. It highlights the shift from the original intention of promoting racial integration to a more divisive and controversial approach.

The article discusses the impact of a recent Supreme Court ruling on affirmative action in college admissions and its implications for employers. The ruling states that using race as a "plus factor" in college admissions violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. However, this ruling does not directly apply to private employers, as the Equal Protection Clause only applies to federal and state actors, and Title VI protections only apply to recipients of federal funding. Affirmative action in the employment context has always been limited, and employers should expect increased scrutiny and challenges to their workplace affirmative action plans and diversity initiatives. The article also provides guidelines for employers to ensure that their affirmative action plans are lawful and narrowly tailored to address underrepresentation without unduly harming non-beneficiaries. Additionally, it advises employers to reconsider the use of race or gender as a factor in workplace diversity initiatives and to focus on expanding opportunities for underrepresented groups without negatively impacting opportunities for the majority. [Extracted from the article]

The article discusses the U.S. Supreme Court case Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina concerning racial discrimination in affirmative action programs in college admissions processes. The court granted certiorari for college admissions processes violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The article discusses the U.S. Supreme Court case Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina concerning racial discrimination in affirmative action programs in college admissions processes. The court granted certiorari for college admissions processes violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The article discusses the U.S. Supreme Court case Regents of the University of California v. Bakke dealing with a dispute of whether preferential treatment for minorities can reduce educational opportunities for whites without violating the Constitution. The court held that a university's admissions criteria which used race as a definite and exclusive basis for an admission decision violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The article focuses on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision on affirmative action or race-based college admissions at Harvard University. Topics include comments on diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiative or the practice of selecting candidates to achieve particular proportions of race and gender in the U.S., the opposition of most Americans to the use of race and ethnicity as a factor in college admission, and other cases involving race-based admissions at U.S. colleges and universities.

Panelists at the ABA Midyear Meeting discussed the aftermath of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which found that the admissions programs at Harvard and the University of North Carolina violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The panelists noted that universities and private entities have been overreacting to the decision, often going beyond what was required. They also discussed the evolution of affirmative action cases in the U.S. and the conflicts that arise in these cases. The discussion highlighted the impact of the decision on Asian students, who are caught between affirmative action and negative action. [Extracted from the article]

The article discusses the legal challenges against affirmative programs in education in the U.S. and how the ruling by the Supreme Court in the cases Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) v. Harvard College and SFFA v. University of North Carolina (UNC) Chapel Hill could affect said programs. According to Legal Defense Fund's Turnage Young, the ruling will affect whether private and public higher education institutions could use race as factor in their admission process.

Harvard University has reported a decline in the number of first-year Black students following a US Supreme Court ruling that prohibited colleges from considering race in admissions. The percentage of African American or Black students in the new class of first-year undergraduates dropped from 18% to 14%, while Hispanic or Latino students increased by 2 percentage points to 16%. Asian American students remained steady at 37%. This ruling has forced colleges to reconsider how they promote diversity, as Black and Hispanic admissions had previously increased under affirmative action, while Asian American students were seen as being penalized. However, the trend varied among different institutions, with some reporting a decline in Black students but a rise in Asian American students. Harvard stated its commitment to serving students from diverse backgrounds and emphasized the importance of bringing together students with varied perspectives. The university was a defendant in the Supreme Court case, along with the University of North Carolina. The ruling allowed universities to consider how race affected individual applicants' lives. Harvard made changes to its essay requirements and included a question about how applicants' experiences have shaped them. However, this year, admissions readers did not have access to applicants' self-reported answers about race and ethnicity. Harvard and other elite schools have also announced the reintroduction of standardized testing requirements for applicants in 2025, which may impact future diversity. Harvard has implemented a rural recruitment initiative and other programs to attract minority applicants and first-generation college students. The incoming class of 2028 includes 21% of students who qualified [Extracted from the article]

The share of Asian-American freshmen at Yale University has declined in the first school year after the US Supreme Court ruled that race could no longer be used in admissions decisions. However, the percentage of Black students remained steady at 14%. The incoming class also showed increased diversity in income, with a quarter of students being lower-income and receiving Pell Grants. The data also revealed that the percentage of White students increased, while Hispanic and Latino students rose slightly. The changes in admissions policies were implemented following the Supreme Court ruling, which posed challenges for universities in promoting diversity. [Extracted from the article]

The share of Asian-American freshmen at Yale University has declined in the first school year after the US Supreme Court ruled that race could no longer be used in admissions decisions. However, the percentage of Black students remained steady at 14%. The incoming class also showed increased diversity in income, with a quarter of students receiving Pell Grants and 58% receiving need-based financial aid. The percentage of White students increased, while Hispanic and Latino students saw a slight increase. The admissions process at Yale underwent changes following the Supreme Court ruling, including the removal of access to self-identified race and/or ethnicity data for application reviewers. [Extracted from the article]

A recent poll conducted by The Washington Post and Ipsos found that 62% of Americans support corporate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts. However, the wording used to describe DEI programs makes a significant difference in public acceptance. When DEI programs were defined as efforts to hire underrepresented groups and promote equity in the workplace, 69% expressed support. In other news, a group of 18 conservative state attorneys general have sued the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) over its expanded harassment guidance, claiming it infringes on religious and speech freedoms. Additionally, a survey by the law firm Littler Mendelson found that U.S. employers are preparing for increased regulatory enforcement and challenges related to artificial intelligence in HR. [Extracted from the article]

The US Supreme Court, which has previously been cautious in supporting former President Donald Trump, has recently given him significant boosts in his legal battles. The court rejected Trump's attempts to overturn Joe Biden's election victory, denied his bid to keep his tax returns private, and rejected his challenges from prosecutors and lawmakers. However, in a 6-3 decision, the court's ruling means that Trump may never face trial for his attempts to overturn the 2020 election results. This decision, along with a previous victory in March, marks a new phase in the court's relationship with Trump, who appointed three of its justices. These appointments have created a conservative majority that has made significant legal changes. The court's ruling provides Trump with a win that ensures he won't face trial while running for the presidency again. This victory may also help Trump in his bid to be reelected and potentially appoint more Supreme Court justices. [Extracted from the article]

The article discusses the U.S. Supreme Court case Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College concerning racial discrimination in affirmative action programs in college admissions processes. The case seek review weather the Supreme Court decision Grutter v. Bollinger be overruled and institutions of higher education should be banned from using race as a factor in admissions, and the violation of the Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.

The article discusses the U.S. Supreme Court case Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College concerning racial discrimination in affirmative action programs in college admissions processes. The suit alleged that Harvard College's admittedly race-conscious undergraduate admissions process violates Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by discriminating against Asian American applicants in favor of white applicants.

The article explores the defense of diversity programs by employers using the First Amendment, citing recent legal cases. Topics discussed include legislative challenges to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, court battles over their implementation, and employers asserting their free speech rights to oppose certain viewpoints.

The article focuses on the legal challenges to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, particularly in the context of legislation introduced in response to the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on affirmative action. Topics include the introduction of bills in multiple states seeking to restrict or prohibit employer-sponsored DEI initiatives and ongoing legal battles targeting these programs in court.

The US Supreme Court recently ruled in favor of a St. Louis police sergeant who claimed that a job transfer she experienced was discriminatory. While human rights groups celebrated the decision as a win for workers, lawyers warned that it could have a negative impact on employers' diversity initiatives. The ruling makes it easier for employees to sue over discriminatory job transfers, and some employment lawyers believe that the same reasoning could be applied to workplace development programs or employee resource groups. This decision has prompted companies to reexamine their diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, with some fearing that it may open the door to new attacks on such initiatives. [Extracted from the article]

The US Supreme Court has declined to hear an appeal challenging the admissions policy of Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology in Virginia. The policy, which aimed to increase geographic and economic diversity, was criticized by some students and parents who claimed it was intended to reduce the number of Asian-American students. The Supreme Court's decision is seen as a setback for opponents of racial preferences in admissions, following a previous ruling involving Harvard College and the University of North Carolina. The policy at Thomas Jefferson High School replaces admissions tests with a process that considers socio-economic factors. [Extracted from the article]

The article discusses the recent Supreme Court decision that ruled race-conscious affirmative action in higher education as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. The author, a recruiter for URL Media, emphasizes the importance of diversifying the talent pipeline in journalism by looking beyond highly selective schools and considering community colleges and public schools that are more affordable and diverse. The author shares a personal experience of working with student reporters from the California State University system who uncovered a story about the enforcement of a vaccination policy. The article highlights the need for advancement programs and accessible newsrooms to support journalists of color. The author also acknowledges that the SCOTUS ruling could negatively impact diversity in journalism, but calls on professionals in the field to mitigate these effects by opening doors and welcoming everyone in. [Extracted from the article]

"Mandatory affirmative actionfor employers typically comes aboutthrough contracting with the federalgovernment and sometimes stategovernments", says Craig Leen,an attorney with K&L Gates inWashington, D.C., and former headof the Office of Federal ContractCompliance Programs. ALL THINGS WORK Employers may shift their DE&I strategies to focusmore on inclusion Employers may not see sweeping changes to voluntary andmandatory affirmative action in employment, which someobservers forecast following the U.S. Supreme Court's recentruling striking down affirmative action in higher education. [Extracted from the article]

Explores the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court on the case Adarand versus Peña involving affirmative action programs in higher education. Discussion on the arguments of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor related to affirmative action programs; Impact of the ruling on lower courts and the executive branch of the federal government; Examination on previous Supreme Court rulings related to affirmative action programs; Stand of the administration of President Bill Clinton on the issue.

The US Supreme Court recently made two significant rulings that impact college students. In a 6-3 decision, the court ended affirmative action, a policy aimed at promoting diversity in elite colleges. Lawsuits against Harvard College and the University of North Carolina claimed that affirmative action discriminated against white and Asian American students, and the court agreed. Additionally, the court voted 6-3 to overturn a government plan that would have provided debt relief for millions of Americans who took out loans for college. Some argued that the plan was unfair to those who did not attend college, while others believed that college would become unaffordable without debt relief. [Extracted from the article]

American medical schools are facing their first major challenge since the US Supreme Court's decision to outlaw race-based college admissions. In response, efforts are being made to address the impact on the pipeline for future Black doctors. The National Medical Association is raising money for a new scholarship, and the Association of American Medical Colleges is getting involved in K-12 education for the first time. Underrepresentation of Black doctors has long been a problem, and the ruling has highlighted the need to eliminate systemic obstacles throughout the education process. The disparities begin in early education, where Black students have less access to advanced mathematics and science courses. The likelihood of Black college students continuing to medical school is closely linked to where they do their undergraduate studies, with Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) producing a disproportionate share of Black graduates. However, HBCUs have warned that the influx of applications following the ruling could strain their resources. The cost of medical school is also a significant barrier, with a quarter of medical students coming from the richest 5% of households. Black non-Hispanic graduates face a heavier burden of debt compared to students of other races. Efforts are being made to raise funds for scholarships to address the shortage of Black doctors in the US. The end of affirmative action makes it even more critical to boost representation of Black students in medical schools. [Extracted from the article]

Though the Supreme Court's decision didn't explicitly target the workplace, the implications of this ruling for businesses are unmistakable and could potentially shape future corporate policies on diversity and inclusion. The U.S. Supreme Court's 6-3 decision to curb affirmative action in higher education ended a four-decade precedent that allowed colleges and universities to consider applicants' race in their admissions processes. [Extracted from the article]

The US Supreme Court's ruling against affirmative action has sparked a fierce debate over the future of diversity in corporate America, with dueling sides claiming either that workplace programs are unaffected by the decision, or that they're suddenly open to legal challenges. The chair of the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Charlotte Burrows, whose agency enforces workplace equity issues, has also weighed in on the Scotus ruling, reassuring companies that it doesn't address employer programs. [Extracted from the article]

"Employers can respond to the ruling proactively by focusing their initiatives on building relationships with diverse talent and supporting them through mentorship programs and other initiatives that are not directly related to hiring", says Kim. While many employers are working to strengthen their DEI programs and build more inclusive benefits, another ruling from the Supreme Court could hurt their progress, if not render them obsolete. [Extracted from the article]

The article presents information on the American Association for Access, Equity and Diversity's 48th annual national conference. Topics discussed during the event include the two cases to be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court that will affect the future of race-based admissions considerations at postsecondary institutions, the impact of the Court's ruling on minority students and the classroom experience, and the importance of diversity to educational institutions and other organizations.

The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling limiting the use of race in college admissions decisions has raised concerns about the impact on underprivileged students in Chicago's most disinvested neighborhoods. The ruling is expected to have the greatest effect on selective schools, potentially leading to a decline in diversity. Colleges are now implementing new protocols to maintain diversity while adhering to the ruling. However, there is uncertainty about how colleges will respond, which may create additional barriers for students from disadvantaged backgrounds. The ruling is also seen as part of a broader backlash against diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts. [Extracted from the article]

In the article, the author discusses higher education issues in the U.S. like the affirmative action and diversity by analyzing the affirmative action case involving Harvard University that is being heard by the Supreme Court. Also cited are the alleged efforts by diversity denier Ed Blum, and the expected focus on diversity in education if affirmative action is defeated in the court.