NEWS COVERAGE:  Page 2 of 2
The Calif. Supreme Court unanimously rules against race and gender preferences.

Ongoing and Related News Articles

Some Public Colleges CAN Consider Applicants' Race (12/05/00)

Ruling covers much of West, but not California
Based on the San Francisco Chronicle Story

Synopsis:  California and Washington state are exempt from a court ruling that public colleges can use racial preferences in determining student admissions. 

          California and Washington state's anti-preferences laws trump the Court's ruling, but seven other western states in the 9th U.S. Circuit must abide by the court's decision: Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Hawaii, Montana, Nevada, and Oregon.

          A three judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals (based in San Francisco) issued the ruling Dec. 4, 2000 stating that public colleges are free to use race and ethnicity to deny white students entrance in order to promote "diversity".

          The opinion was prompted by a 1997 federal lawsuit against the University of Washington's racially biased admissions policies.  The plaintiffs were three white applicants who were denied admission in favor of lower-scoring minorities.

          The Chronicle writes:   "The ruling by a three-judge panel led by one of the court's most conservative judges, Ferdinand Fernandez, was welcome news for affirmative action advocates after a crushing defeat in the California Supreme Court.

          "[The California Supreme Court] ruled unanimously last week that Prop. 209, the 1996 initiative outlawing race and gender preferences in state and local government, prohibits recruitment programs that selectively distribute information to minorities and women even if they were not given an advantage in bidding. The ruling in a San Jose case could invalidate scores of local programs, including a San Francisco contracting ordinance.

          "Yesterday's federal court ruling "sends a very important message that there is still room for race- and gender-conscious remedies under the federal Constitution, barring a local 209-type law," said American Civil Liberties Union lawyer Edward Chen.

          "The Clinton administration's Justice Department and several educational organizations filed arguments supporting the view that the court ultimately took.

          "Attorney Michael E. Rossman of the Center for Individual Rights, a conservative organization based in Washington, D.C., that filed the federal suit, said the issue is ripe for U.S. Supreme Court review because the ruling created a split among appeals courts.  "We think there is far too much consideration of race in the admission process," he said." 

(Excerpted from the story by Bob Egelko in the 12/5/00 San Francisco Chronicle.)

[link http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/12/05/MN35352.DTL ]

END 209 News Coverage Page 2 of 2