Is it legal for government to enforce affirmative action on political views in public universities?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 02:31:00 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  Constitution and Law (Moderator: World politics is up Schmitt creek)
  Is it legal for government to enforce affirmative action on political views in public universities?
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Is it legal for government to enforce affirmative action on political views in public universities?  (Read 1257 times)
David Hume
davidhume
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,581
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.77, S: 1.22

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: March 14, 2023, 05:36:14 AM »

This may be very hard to enforce, but is it legal? In fact, I heard that conservative students are somehow easier to get into law school (not sure how accurate).
Logged
Skill and Chance
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,522
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: March 14, 2023, 09:36:07 AM »
« Edited: March 14, 2023, 09:48:46 AM by Skill and Chance »

1. Several states have political views/party membership as an explicit protected class under state civil rights laws.  If a DeSantis type governor got elected in one of those states and  wanted to aggressively bring "hostile environment" style civil rights cases on behalf of conservative students and student groups subject to protests, etc, they presumably could.  Also, these political discrimination laws are usually explicitly applied to private institutions/employers as well. 

2. In a state that doesn't have political views as a protected class but does have party registration, I think there would be nothing stopping a legislature from requiring that public institutions select faculty and students so that party registration at the state university matches statewide party registration?  Even in an open primary state, they could try to do this based on R vs. D primary turnout, because which primary someone voted in is a public record.  However, this would be aggressively gamed.  If you know that UT Austin or the University of Florida is now required to admit and hire more registered Republicans/Republican primary voters than Democrats because statewide Republican registration/turnout is higher, well, there's going to be a lot more "Republicans."  Quite possibly enough to defeat conservative candidates in the primary!

3.  A conservative legislature concerned about this issue could change state law or propose an amendment to the state constitution to require confirmation votes in the state legislature for university administrators, admissions officers, and candidates for tenure at public institutions.  This would seem to be the most direct way of moving the needle.  However, it's easily attacked as "replacing academic freedom with a fascist spoils system" or the like.  It would objectively be hilarious though if Scott Walker became the next president of UW Madison or Ted Cruz became the next dean of UT Law. 


Logged
Donerail
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,345
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: March 14, 2023, 09:59:16 AM »

I don't believe conservative students have any advantage in the law school admissions process (it is, if anything, a disadvantage). The "affirmative action" line comes from post-graduation clerkships with judges, which are much easier to get if you're a conservative given the ideological composition of most law schools vs that of the federal judiciary.
Logged
Skill and Chance
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,522
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: March 14, 2023, 10:10:12 AM »

I don't believe conservative students have any advantage in the law school admissions process (it is, if anything, a disadvantage). The "affirmative action" line comes from post-graduation clerkships with judges, which are much easier to get if you're a conservative given the ideological composition of most law schools vs that of the federal judiciary.

Interesting.  I believe there is something of a tradition of appeals level judges intentionally hiring one opposite ideology clerk to strengthen their arguments?
Logged
Donerail
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,345
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: March 14, 2023, 10:50:36 AM »

I don't believe conservative students have any advantage in the law school admissions process (it is, if anything, a disadvantage). The "affirmative action" line comes from post-graduation clerkships with judges, which are much easier to get if you're a conservative given the ideological composition of most law schools vs that of the federal judiciary.

Interesting.  I believe there is something of a tradition of appeals level judges intentionally hiring one opposite ideology clerk to strengthen their arguments?
The increasingly bifurcated hiring process makes this less common now. Most of the liberal judges hire "on plan," meaning they wait to hire students at the end of their 2L year (they'll hire their 2024-25 class of clerks this June, for example). The conservative judges, by and large, do not follow the plan and hire much easier, midway through 1L in most cases. If you're a liberal interested in counter-clerking, most of the spots with conservatives are full by the time you're applying; if you're a conservative, it'd require passing up a lot of openings to wait for when the liberals start hiring.
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,714
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: March 14, 2023, 11:56:40 PM »

I don't believe conservative students have any advantage in the law school admissions process (it is, if anything, a disadvantage). The "affirmative action" line comes from post-graduation clerkships with judges, which are much easier to get if you're a conservative given the ideological composition of most law schools vs that of the federal judiciary.

Interesting.  I believe there is something of a tradition of appeals level judges intentionally hiring one opposite ideology clerk to strengthen their arguments?
The increasingly bifurcated hiring process makes this less common now. Most of the liberal judges hire "on plan," meaning they wait to hire students at the end of their 2L year (they'll hire their 2024-25 class of clerks this June, for example). The conservative judges, by and large, do not follow the plan and hire much easier, midway through 1L in most cases. If you're a liberal interested in counter-clerking, most of the spots with conservatives are full by the time you're applying; if you're a conservative, it'd require passing up a lot of openings to wait for when the liberals start hiring.
Why is there a difference in how liberal and conservative judges tend to do it? And for that  matter why do they hire so early?
Logged
Donerail
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,345
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: March 15, 2023, 04:16:16 AM »

The increasingly bifurcated hiring process makes this less common now. Most of the liberal judges hire "on plan," meaning they wait to hire students at the end of their 2L year (they'll hire their 2024-25 class of clerks this June, for example). The conservative judges, by and large, do not follow the plan and hire much easier, midway through 1L in most cases. If you're a liberal interested in counter-clerking, most of the spots with conservatives are full by the time you're applying; if you're a conservative, it'd require passing up a lot of openings to wait for when the liberals start hiring.
Why is there a difference in how liberal and conservative judges tend to do it? And for that  matter why do they hire so early?
Why so early: every judge, like every legal employer in America, is chasing after the same six people. There's only so many graduates of the elite law schools with perfect grades, and some judges care very much about whether they can send their clerks on to clerk at One First Street. Even if they don't, moving early lets you scoop the others and get the best talent available.

As to your first question: Is it really a surprise that the conservative judges tend to favor the scheme that maximizes their individual choice, while the liberal judges have by and large been more willing to go along with the centralized uniform plan? Liberal/conservative is, to be fair, pretty broad — plan compliance also varies a lot by circuit (eg DC is mostly on-plan, even the conservatives; the 10th is mostly off, even the liberals). But I think it makes a lot of sense.
Logged
David Hume
davidhume
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,581
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.77, S: 1.22

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: March 15, 2023, 05:41:11 AM »

1. Several states have political views/party membership as an explicit protected class under state civil rights laws.  If a DeSantis type governor got elected in one of those states and  wanted to aggressively bring "hostile environment" style civil rights cases on behalf of conservative students and student groups subject to protests, etc, they presumably could.  Also, these political discrimination laws are usually explicitly applied to private institutions/employers as well. 

2. In a state that doesn't have political views as a protected class but does have party registration, I think there would be nothing stopping a legislature from requiring that public institutions select faculty and students so that party registration at the state university matches statewide party registration?  Even in an open primary state, they could try to do this based on R vs. D primary turnout, because which primary someone voted in is a public record.  However, this would be aggressively gamed.  If you know that UT Austin or the University of Florida is now required to admit and hire more registered Republicans/Republican primary voters than Democrats because statewide Republican registration/turnout is higher, well, there's going to be a lot more "Republicans."  Quite possibly enough to defeat conservative candidates in the primary!

3.  A conservative legislature concerned about this issue could change state law or propose an amendment to the state constitution to require confirmation votes in the state legislature for university administrators, admissions officers, and candidates for tenure at public institutions.  This would seem to be the most direct way of moving the needle.  However, it's easily attacked as "replacing academic freedom with a fascist spoils system" or the like.  It would objectively be hilarious though if Scott Walker became the next president of UW Madison or Ted Cruz became the next dean of UT Law. 



This is also what I was thinking. In term of constitution and Federal law, it seems perfectly legal to affirmative action on political views. But why they haven't done that?
Logged
Skill and Chance
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,522
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: March 15, 2023, 09:18:15 AM »
« Edited: March 15, 2023, 10:42:35 AM by Skill and Chance »

1. Several states have political views/party membership as an explicit protected class under state civil rights laws.  If a DeSantis type governor got elected in one of those states and  wanted to aggressively bring "hostile environment" style civil rights cases on behalf of conservative students and student groups subject to protests, etc, they presumably could.  Also, these political discrimination laws are usually explicitly applied to private institutions/employers as well. 

2. In a state that doesn't have political views as a protected class but does have party registration, I think there would be nothing stopping a legislature from requiring that public institutions select faculty and students so that party registration at the state university matches statewide party registration?  Even in an open primary state, they could try to do this based on R vs. D primary turnout, because which primary someone voted in is a public record.  However, this would be aggressively gamed.  If you know that UT Austin or the University of Florida is now required to admit and hire more registered Republicans/Republican primary voters than Democrats because statewide Republican registration/turnout is higher, well, there's going to be a lot more "Republicans."  Quite possibly enough to defeat conservative candidates in the primary!

3.  A conservative legislature concerned about this issue could change state law or propose an amendment to the state constitution to require confirmation votes in the state legislature for university administrators, admissions officers, and candidates for tenure at public institutions.  This would seem to be the most direct way of moving the needle.  However, it's easily attacked as "replacing academic freedom with a fascist spoils system" or the like.  It would objectively be hilarious though if Scott Walker became the next president of UW Madison or Ted Cruz became the next dean of UT Law. 



This is also what I was thinking. In term of constitution and Federal law, it seems perfectly legal to affirmative action on political views. But why they haven't done that?

Perhaps out of concern that it would legally entrench other forms of affirmative action they oppose?   Or they live in states subject to #1 (where it would presumably be as unconstitutional to set party quotas as it would be to set ethnicity quotas)?  Possibly, but less likely, there could also be fear of a flood of campus "Republicans" leading to conservative primary losses?

Several red states are flirting with #3 now.
Logged
I’m not Stu
ERM64man
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,747


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: March 15, 2023, 02:40:53 PM »

It isn't legal. It violates the 1A.
Logged
David Hume
davidhume
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,581
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.77, S: 1.22

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: March 15, 2023, 04:01:05 PM »

It a compelling state interest to boost diversity in ideas, and narrowly tailored because there are no other ways to achieve the goal.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: March 16, 2023, 02:53:16 PM »

Using ideology or party registration as a quota mechanism surely violates the First Amendment. It also is an utterly horrific idea.

It also would lead it dissembling. Hey, Boalt Hall, I am a Federalist Society MAGA Pub, so you have to let me in to fill that quota! Yes, last year I was a Dem, but that was just my socialist phase. You know, when young to be a conservative means you have no heart, while when adult, to be a socialist means you have no brain. I become an adult this year. And I can write as well as Churchill to boot. Just saying.
Logged
Donerail
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,345
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: March 16, 2023, 04:46:43 PM »

It also would lead it dissembling. Hey, Boalt Hall, I am a Federalist Society MAGA Pub, so you have to let me in to fill that quota!
Subtle touch to call them "Boalt Hall" to reinforce the MAGA persona, well done.
Logged
Skill and Chance
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,522
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: March 16, 2023, 05:43:52 PM »

Using ideology or party registration as a quota mechanism surely violates the First Amendment. It also is an utterly horrific idea.

It also would lead it dissembling. Hey, Boalt Hall, I am a Federalist Society MAGA Pub, so you have to let me in to fill that quota! Yes, last year I was a Dem, but that was just my socialist phase. You know, when young to be a conservative means you have no heart, while when adult, to be a socialist means you have no brain. I become an adult this year. And I can write as well as Churchill to boot. Just saying.

Yes, this is the issue.  You get flooded with fake R's, and then maybe eventually fake D's at some point down the line. 

To me, only my 3rd point is really worth pursuing if you're concerned about this issue.  Let the legislature appoint the public university administrators, and maybe also require a legislative "confirmation vote" for state university professors up for tenure.
Logged
Libertas Vel Mors
Haley/Ryan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,871
United States


Political Matrix
E: 9.03, S: -0.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: March 19, 2023, 04:14:20 PM »

Using ideology or party registration as a quota mechanism surely violates the First Amendment. It also is an utterly horrific idea.

It also would lead it dissembling. Hey, Boalt Hall, I am a Federalist Society MAGA Pub, so you have to let me in to fill that quota! Yes, last year I was a Dem, but that was just my socialist phase. You know, when young to be a conservative means you have no heart, while when adult, to be a socialist means you have no brain. I become an adult this year. And I can write as well as Churchill to boot. Just saying.

As the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom noted in reference to requirements that officeholders be of certain faiths:

Quote
[It] tends only to corrupt the principles of that very Religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing with a monopoly of worldly honours and emoluments those who will externally profess and conform to it;
Logged
lfromnj
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,221


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: March 19, 2023, 06:28:07 PM »

Probably illegal but following that logic should ban diversity statements as well as an ideological test.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.042 seconds with 12 queries.