Michigan Law Prof. Richard Lempert Responds to Richard Sanders on “Academic Mismatch” at UMLS

Lempert’s article, “University of Michigan Bar Passage 2004-2006: A Failure to Replicate Professor Sander’s Results, with Implications for Affirmative Action,” is here. And here is the abstract:

In a recent issue of the Denver Law Review, Professor Richard Sander presents data on race-based affirmative action that purportedly supports his theory that any benefits African Americans enjoy from affirmative action are more than offset by detrimental effects of academic mismatch. Specifically, he references a yet unpublished study in which he claims to have found that for the years 2004-2006 the bar passage rate of African-American graduates of the University of Michigan Law School is 62 percent for first time takers rising to only 76 percent after multiple takes. This paper shows that these results are quite implausible given the best data we have on African American bar passage rates at schools similar in selectivity to Michigan, and then reports the results of an effort to replicate Professor Sander’s methods with more complete data. The replication yields quite different results as it indicates that during the years Professor Sander studied the bar passage rate for Michigan Law School’s African American alumni was about 78% on first attempt with a lower bound estimate exceeding 90% where there had been an opportunity for repeat test taking. Moreover, the data are quite inconsistent with the predictions of mismatch theory. Hispanic students, many of whom benefited from affirmative action, had about the same bar pass rates as white students who did not, and Asian students who did not benefit from affirmative action had bar pass rates not much different from those of African American students who did benefit.

Lempert makes note of some of Sanders’ research methods; the one I find particularly troublesome is this:

During that debate for the first time I learned that [Sanders] had identified the race of UM’s bar takers through the use of UM’s first year student facebooks, which meant I could attempt to replicate the results of his research.

Can’t believe Sanders gets away with that kind of racial profiling.

Ninth Circuit Rejects Challenge to Cal. Anti-Affirmative Action Statute

Here is the opinion.

NYTs: “College Diversity Nears Its Last Stand”

Here.

Sixth Circuit Grants En Banc Review of Affirmative Action Decision

Not surprisingly, the Sixth Circuit granted en banc review of the Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action v. Regents of the University of Michigan decision, which struck down Prop. 2, Michigan’s anti-affirmative action constitutional amendment.

The order is here.

News coverage here.

Ninth Circuit Declines to Review Panel Decision to Force Challengers to Native Hawaiian School Preferences to Disclose Their Names Publicly

Here is today’s order — with dissents (filled with outrage) from both Chief Judge Kozinski and Judge Reinhardt, as well as a concurrence signed by the three panel judges — denying en banc review in Doe v. Kamehameha Schools.

Here is the panel decision.

“Affiliate” of Alaskan Native Corporation Not Entitled to Title VII Exemption

Here are the materials in Fox v. Portico Reality Servs. Office (E.D. Va.):

Portico Motion for Reconsideration

Fox Opposition

Portico Reply

DCT Order on Reconsideration

The court’s first order holding the same thing (but sua sponte, and apparently without the benefit of any briefs, is here).

Fourth Circuit Upholds North Carolina Statute Encouraging Black and Indian Public Contracting

Interesting case, quite possibly going to the Supreme Court for review (assuming the CA4 doesn’t reverse en banc) — H.B. Rowe Co. v. Tippett.

California AG Opinion Approving State Indian Preference Rules Despite State Ban on Affirmative Action

A very important opinion (h/t Indianz): Cal AG opinion.

In states like Michigan, tribal advocates have argued that state programs and laws designed to benefit Indian people are excluded from the application of the so-called Michigan “civil rights” amendment. This AG opinion approves of exactly the same argument.

Calif. AG Opines that Calif. Prop. 209 is Unconstitutional

From the SF Chron.:

The 1996 ballot measure that outlawed preferential treatment for women and minorities in government programs is unconstitutional because it prohibits all affirmative action and fosters the discrimination it was supposed to eliminate, Attorney General Jerry Brown told the state Supreme Court on Wednesday.

Brown’s opinion, which the court requested in considering a lawsuit that two white-owned contractors brought against San Francisco, could reopen the legal debate on Proposition 209. A federal appeals court upheld the measure in 1997, but the state’s high court has never ruled on its validity.

It could also become an issue in Brown’s expected campaign next year for the Democratic nomination for governor. Although Prop. 209 was approved by 54 percent of the voters, Brown’s position might help him in his party’s primary.

Continue reading

Post-Judgment Motion in Indian Preference Case — Indian Educators Federation v. Kempthorne

This case, decided in April and reported here (see opinion and materials), is in the D.C. district court. Now the question is whether the plaintiffs, who prevailed in April, are entitled to a preliminary injunction demanding the Secretary comply with the order the way the plaintiffs want, or whether the Secretary can comply in his or her own manner. The court denied the union’s motion.

ief-motion-for-preliminary-injunction

doi-motion-for-entry-of-final-judgment

doi-response-to-motion-for-pi

ief-reply-brief

ief-v-kemppthorne-post-judgment-dct-order