Dicta

The home of “things said” by the National Association of Scholars.

From Campus to Kavanaugh: The Title IX Trajectory

Teresa Manning

When did presumption of innocence become presumption of guilt?

Harvard's Discrimination Isn't 'Likeable'

David Randall

Racial preferences are unpopular. Who would have thought?

On Point with Peter Wood

NAS

On Wednesday, NAS President Peter Wood spoke to NPR’s On Point’s Meghna Chakrabarti about the case Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard.

College Officials, Take Note: We’re Watching You

Roger Clegg

Roger Clegg discusses public disapproval of affirmative action, Fisher II, and responsible legal options for universities. 

Fisher II and Strict Scrutiny: Not Very Strict

Glenn Ricketts

Jonathan Bean isn't expecting a great deal to change if the Supreme Court holds the University of Texas to "strict scrutiny."

A Primer on the Abigail Fisher Case

Peter Wood

A quick summary of Fisher v. University of Texas.

NAS Joins New Amicus Brief in Fisher Case

Glenn Ricketts

We join once again with the Pacific Legal Foundation in opposing race-based admissions policies.

Supreme Court to Rehear Fisher Case

Glenn Ricketts

The Supreme Court has an opportunity to revisit an affirmative action case - and hopefully end race-based admissions policies.

Black No More

Jonathan Bean

The case of Rachel Dolezal highlights the relevance of the satirical novel Black No More.

The Court Should Finish What It Started in the Fisher Case

Roger Clegg

Roger Clegg argues that the Supreme Court should again review the Fisher v. University of Texas case.

Top-Down or Bottom-Up? Winter AQ Issue Examines Campus Progressivism's Origins

NAS

The last issue in Academic Questions' 2013 volume considers the sources of progressive ideology on campus.

Diversity Uber Alles!

George Leef

Ignoring the Supreme Court's statements in Fisher v. Texas, the Departments of Education and Justice have told college officials that racial preferences are still permissible.

Affirmative Action: A Change in the Air?

Glenn Ricketts

Public commentary suggests that more academics are expressing dissatisfaction with race-based "diversity" policies.

Diversity After Fisher: The Establishment Speaks

Peter Wood

Doubts about racial preferences could cause fissures in higher ed's coral reef of "diversity."

Poll: Public Support for Affirmative Action at an All-Time Low

Glenn Ricketts

No surprise: public support for affirmative action policies has dropped sharply. But it may be for different reasons than some academics think.

Peter Wood on Larry Parks Show

Peter Wood

In an interview with Larry Parks, NAS president Peter Wood discussed Bowdoin College and the National Association of Scholars' work in higher education reform.

Ask a Scholar – U.S. v. Cruikshank

Robert Heidt

Did a Reconstruction-era Supreme Court decision restrict legal remedies for African Americans?

Supreme Court to Hear Proposition 2 Case

Glenn Ricketts

The Supreme Court will rule on Michigan's ban on the use of racial preferences in public universities.

Whither Fisher?

Glenn Ricketts

Idle speculations on the Supreme Court's probable ruling in a major affirmative action case.

Two Books I'd Love to See the Justices Reading

George Leef

Wounds That Will Not Heal and Mismatch take a wrecking ball to the foolish notion that "affirmative action" is a benign policy.

Racial Color-Blindness Won't Defend Itself

Peter Wood

Peter Wood reflects on the recent decision by the Sixth Circuit Court to strike down Michigan's ban on racial preferences in admission to public universities. He considers that we can't take for granted that the Supreme Court will reverse this decision.

Jennifer Gratz Reflects on the Battle Over Racial Preferences

George Leef

The successful plaintiff in the case against the University of Michigan's undergraduate racial preferences writes about the recently argued Fisher case before the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court Hears Arguments in Fisher v. Texas

Ashley Thorne

As the Supreme Court hears the arguments for and against racial preferences in higher education admissions, NAS gives a roundup of our coverage of the Fisher v. Texas case so far.

Retired Officers Join Obama Administration in Fisher Case

R. Lawrence Purdy

A group of veterans seek to annul the longstanding guarantee of “equal opportunity” without regard to race.

Supreme Court’s Health Care Decision, Campus Issues, Engage Student Press Corps

Glenn Ricketts

Student press corps regulars provide coverage and analysis of summer issues.

Asian-American Groups Submit Briefs in Fisher Case Opposing Racial Preferences

Glenn Ricketts

As the Supreme Court approaches a decision, some new briefs oppose racial preferences in college admissions.

Diversity: Obama's Higher Education Agenda, Part 5 of 8

Peter Wood

In the fifth of an eight-part series, Peter Wood examines the president’s pursuit of diversity in higher education.

What Do Student Journalists Say About Fisher v Texas?

Glenn Ricketts

Undergraduate opinion writers and edtorial boards ponder the significance of a major affirmative action case now under review by the Supreme Court.

What Will the Court Do About Affirmative Action?

Glenn Ricketts

John Rosenberg dissects the "diversity' policies at the University of Texas now under scrutiny by the SCOTUS.

Fisher Case Generates Wide Press Coverage, Reactions

Glenn Ricketts

Press coverage and commentary of the US Supreme Court's decision to accept the case of Fisher v. University of Texas for review.

SCOTUS Agrees to Hear Fisher Case

Ward Connerly

The decision of the Supreme Court to hear the Fisher v. UT case is potentially of historic significance.

SCOTUS Grants Certiorari in UTexas Admissions Case

Glenn Ricketts

The Supreme Court grants Certiorari in a major affirmative action case in Texas.

 

SCOTUS Strikes Down Raced-Based Redistricting in Texas

Glenn Ricketts

Race based legislative boundaries are banned in Texas in a case that bears on university admissions policy.

Why the SCOTUS Should Reverse Grutter

Glenn Ricketts

The 2003 Supreme Court decision in Grutter v Bollinger was severely flawed. Larry Purdy wants it overturned.

By the Content of Their Character

Glenn Ricketts

A summary of where we stand on group-based preferences, what we've done, and where we're going.

NAS California Affiliate Introduces Amicus Brief Filed in Pending Supreme Court Case

John M. Ellis

The California Association of Scholars offers a statement on the amicus curiae brief they submitted in support of Fisher v. University of Texas, a case that challenges the use of racial preferences in university admissions.

Supreme Court May Revisit Racial Preferences

Ashley Thorne

NAS is a "friend of the court" in what could be a landmark case on the diversity rationale for racial preferences in college admissions. 

Video: The Triumph of Judicial Conservatism

Ed Whelan joins Andy Nash for a conversation on “judicial conservatism” and the state of law school education, civics, and the relationship between the law, Western Civilization, and the Christian tradition.

Needless Educational Credential -- The JD

George Leef

In this Washington Examiner piece, lawyer Hans Bader, a Harvard Law School grad, argues that law school is unnecessary and that people who wish to go into legal practice should be allowed to study for the bar exam as they wish. Law school is a high barrier to entry that does not ensure competence.

Supreme Court to Decide Christian Legal Society v. Martinez

Ashley Thorne

The case aims to settle a longstanding controversy: whether a religious student group, recognized or funded by a public university, has the right to specify that its members must share the group’s religious beliefs.

Follow the Money: How Radical Speakers Get Rich on Campus Lecture Tours

Jonathan Bean

Jay Schalin has an excellent piece examining one of the dirty secrets of higher education: the generous funding of left-wing speakers and the exclusion of other viewpoints. See his essay "Radical Rhetoric on Somebody Else's Dime."

As a faculty adviser to College Republicans, we have asked--and been denied--student-fee funding repeatedly. One year, we raised $7,000 in private funds to bring Ward Connerly to our law school. We needed another $1,500. Guidelines encourage students to raise some money on their own rather than simply milking the cash cow of student fees. Surely, $7,000 more than matches $1,500?

Answer from student government: a) we don't think graduate or professional students would be interested in your speaker; b) yes, you raised private funds (through donations) but normally we prefer bake-sale type events (although I am sure they did not have "affirmative action bake sale" events in mind!). After much buttonholing on my part, we got our $1,500, Connerly arrived to a packed house and it was one of the best events in many years.

Meanwhile, the College Democrats went to student government and asked for $22,000 to bring James Carville to campus. Answer: "No problem, here you go!" THEY promised to raise another $1,500 by charging nonstudents a $3 admission fee. No doubt the group made money on the event.

Again and again, speakers far to the Left come to campus; student fees give them $10,000 to $100,000. Look up speaker bureaus online and you will see that the more militant the speaker, the more money they make. At his peak, Ward Churchill raked in $20K per rant.

Why is this important? Because it is illegal under the Southworth decision of 2000. The Supreme Court ruled:

"When a university requires its students to pay fees to support the extracurricular speech of other students, all in the interest of open discussion, it may not prefer some viewpoints to others."

Follow the money, document the money, and bring a case against unequal funding of speakers. Otherwise, the law is nothing more than words--and those who control the money know they can present one-sided viewpoints.