Final Project

Annotated Bibliography

Research Question: Does Affirmative Action program achieve diversity?


Chace, William M. “Affirmative Inaction: Opposition To Affirmative Action Has Drastically Reduced Minority Enrollment At Public Universities; Private Institutions Have The Power And The Responsibility To Reverse The Trend.” American Scholar 80.1 (2011): 20-31. America: History & Life. Web. 28 Mar. 2012.



The American Scholar article examines the affirmative action program from its historical roots in 1965 to the current challenge facing it. The article explains affirmative action was started to address the wrongs perpetrated against African Americans through slavery and black codes in the past that has created an unbalance in equality for them to compete. The aim of affirmative action was to help disenfranchise blacks achieve a higher education, now the program is being used to create diversity represented by America’s commonwealth.  The article goes on to explain the challenges and opposition against Affirmative action through political and legal actions.  The private institution of American higher education system might be the last stand for such a program to exist, withstanding political and litigation challenges. The tide of public opinion has been changing over the years with fewer supporters of the program, even among minorities .The article contrast, where diversity might be low at Universities, its high in prison.



William M. Chace is a Professor of English and President Emeritus of Emory. He teaches courses on James Joyce, Irish Fiction, and Poetry. He holds a B.A. from Haverford College (1961) and master’s (1963) and doctoral (1968) degrees in literature from the University of California at Berkeley. He was a Professor of English at Stanford University (1968-1988) and President of Wesleyan University (1988-1994). Chace is an author of two published book .The Political Identities of Ezra Pound and T.S. Eliot (1973) and Lionel Trilling: Criticism and Politics (1983)—he also edited Justice Denied: The Black Man in White America; Making It New (poetry anthology); James Joyce: A Collection of Critical Essays; and An Introduction to Literature. He has written on multiculturalism, political correctness, consumerism and university finances, among other education topics. His many scholarly articles include writings on Ezra Pound, T. S. Eliot, Lionel Trilling, Graham Greene, D. H. Lawrence, T. E. Lawrence and James Joyce.  He also contributed to academic journals such as : American Scholarly,  American Quarterly, and Critical Inquiry. Based on his credentials and contribution to academic journals, Chace’s position at the university and credentials help established a very important reliable source for my research. Chase uses logos in his argument for Affirmative Action.




This source is a very unbiased views of the historical look at affirmative action program and insight from within the universities structure. The article has a lot of statistical data and over view look at the possible trajectory of the affirmative action program.


Research Question: Does Affirmative Action program achieve diversity?

Webb, James. “Diversity and the Myth of White Privilege.”  Wall Street Journal. 23 July 2010: A.17 SIRS Issues Researcher. Webn 13 Mar 2012.



The article in the Wall Street Journal talks about the disadvantages that poor whites also had to endure and advocates the end of preferential treatment of anyone who is non- white.  Webb argues that poor whites in the south suffer the same mistreatment and hardships that blacks have under the social economic tier, and that the Affirmative action program has now began discriminating against whites. Webb explains that Affirmative action program is good in helping blacks but it’s being abused by new immigrants from Asia, Latin America and Africa who never face the same discrimination from our government.  Webb also contends that non-whites also get special consideration in business startup, academic admissions, job promotions and lucrative government contracts and he advocate ending the program all together.




James Webb is a congressional senator from Virginia  and an Emmy-award winning journalist, a film-maker, and the author of nine books. He has written for Marine Corps Gazette, Proceedings of the United States Naval Institute, USA Today, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal. Being a Senator means he is a reliable source of credibility, and his article in the Wall Street Journal means it’s read nationally.



James Webb makes a couple good argument against the Affirmative Action program and highlights some unknown fact about whites, such as not all white people are the same. Very insightful and informative about the plight of White America. This view point helps me see disadvantage can also come in white.


Source Analysis


The issue of Affirmative action has often been controversial and divisive among Americans. When it comes to using race as a factor in promotions, school admission, hiring and government contracts; people are split down the middle base upon their race. For white American the program seem unfair and discriminatory, while minorities feel the program doesn’t go far enough to create diversity and level the playing field.


In James Webb article “Diversity and the Myth of White Privilege”, published in the Wall Street Journal   tackles the subject of Affirmative Action from a new perspective. Webb argues that the Affirmative action program has not really helped blacks and at the same time the program has been detrimental to whites.

In the Article Webb points out that historically the program was meant to help correct the injustice of America policy towards Blacks. But the program he add has gone on more than just correct the problem it has been shifted towards discriminating against whites.

Another argument he puts forth is the program has been used by other minorities who have never experience the discrimination of Slavery, Jim Crow or segregation, at the hand of government. These new minorities take full advantage of the program, while poor whites suffer.

Webb concludes that blacks are still struggling and need the program but advocates the totally removal of Affirmative action program altogether. The program which rewards people base on race is unfair to whites who are suffering just as much as black, he suggest governments should enable opportunities not pick winners base on race.


James Webb “Diversity and the Myth of White Privilege” uses Ethos and Logos to persuade the audience that his argument for the elimination of the affirmative action program is valid one.

Webb starts with Ethos to establish to the audience reader that he is a person of credibility without any bias, “I have dedicated my political career to bringing fairness to America’s economic system and to our work force, regardless of what people look like or where they worship”. James Webb wants the audience to know as U.S. Congressman from Virginia, he spent career fighting for the peoples right. Being an elected official and a congressman he is a person the audience can trust in. (Wall)

After establishing Ethos, Webb uses Logos for the rest of his arguments.

For example Webb points out that new Immigrants are benefiting from  Affirmative Action program who barely immigrated to America.

Those who came to this country in recent decades from Asia, Latin America and Africa did not suffer discrimination from our government, and in fact have frequently been the beneficiaries of special government programs. The same cannot be said of many hard working white Americans, including those whose roots in America go back more than 200 years. (Webb)

Webb uses a comparison to help illustrate his point between the programs flaws when considering helping people solely base on race. He points out the program ignores real American whites who have been living in the country longer. This appeals to the audiences logic and established the short coming of program for the audience.

He furthers his Logos by using statistic as evidence in his argument .

Of the south 1.8 million sharecroppers, 1.2 million were white ( a mirror of the population, which was 71% white.)The literacy rate was five times that of the North Central states and more than twice that of New England and the Middle Atlantic…The total endowment of all the colleges and universities of the were less than the endowment of Harvard and Yale alone. The average school child in the South had $25 a year spent on his or her education compared to $141 for children in New York.(Webb)

Here Webb gives empirical evidence of the disadvantage of poor white southerner. The evidence he shows depict that equality was not all the same for whites either. The cost and investment in education varies depending on region and state.

James Webb makes good use of Logos to show his points to the reader. The used of statistic and hard numbers combine with his comparison appeals to the logic delivers a sound argument for eliminating Affirmative Action. Webb ethos aids in his credibility as he is a representative of the people and held accountable for his words.

Webb article “Diversity and Myth of White Privilege “ is an excellent source in debating the hot topic of Affirmative Action . He adds a different if not unique argument than the other sources. In his piece, he makes a bold claim of white disenfranchisement.



The article “College Diversity at Risk” by Lee Bollinger of  the Washington Post gives the aftermath of what happened to Colleges that have eliminated the Affirmative Action program.  In the article lees cites the major court case that has challenge the race base consideration of Colleges and the implication that it will do to America.

The articles points out the drop in minority’s enrollment after schools have shy away from the program. The elimination of such program at the University level has dramatic after effect not only to the student body but also America as a whole.

Bollinger argues that Affirmative action program has been beneficial in promoting a diverse and true representation of America. The benefits of Affirmative Action program create a much more cross multi-cultural experience that enriches not only the student but also America.


Lee Bollinger uses Logos in his article “College Diversity at Risk” to appeal to the reader logics. Bollinger brings up statistic to show the repercussion of eliminating Affirmative action.

Sixteen years ago, California adopted a ballot measure banning the consideration of race in admissions decisions. Within five years, only 3 percent of the students in California’s public law school were African American (compared with 10 percent at the state’s private law schools).  And black enrollment declined throughout the state system. (Bollinger)

Bollinger uses the statistic as hard evidence that the elimination of race base decision has decline minorities diversity. The drop to only 3% vs. 10% gives creates a comparison that public university has less diversity than that of private institution. This is important since public school are representative of the states multi-ethnic population.

Bollinger further this appeal logic by showing an important factor to the reader.

In an amicus brief submitted to the court, retired U.S. military leader also advocated racially diverse student bodies, nothing that with minorities constituting 40 % of the active –duty armed forces as of 2002, “success with the changes of diversity is critical to national security.”(Bollinger)

He explains that 40% of the U.S military is comprised of minorities, yet universities aren’t anywhere near that number. This statistic point out to the reader that military is more diverse place than an educational institution. The question that Bollinger is silently asking the audience is ,“it’s okay for minorities to be represented in the military but not in University?”

Lee Bollinger Article was effective in it’s used of Logos in conveying the need of Affirmative Action program in America. The used of statistic and his own credibility helps the audience understand the perspective that he brings to the table. Being the defendant in the Affirmative Action case Grutter vs. Bollinger and Gratz vs. Bollinger ; gives him a personal experience .

Bollinger article is great in many ways, first the statistic and logical approach in the article is much different from my other sources. The argument of representation in military vs. education  helps build a comparison of representation and under representation in America. The best part of the Article is Bollinger himself, being involved in the Michigan Affirmative action lawsuit and president of two Universities. Bollinger has the law back ground and personal understanding of the Affirmative Action that makes him a truly unique source on the topic of race base decision.



In Peter Schmidt article “Asian, Not Whites, Hurt the Most by Race – Conscious Admissions”, he finds out that Affirmative Action program has really effected Asian enrollment more than it has for whites.  The new research of Affirmative Action shows that the program has been used to discriminate against Asian.

Schmidt points to the new research statistic that after the program of race based was eliminated, the numbers of Asian admission to Universities had increased. This he concludes show that the Affirmative action program had been promoting blacks and Hispanic over more qualified Asian students.

The  article furthers points out that whites admission level does not change even after the elimination of the program, but gives indication that a white backlash  will occur against the neutral admission policy if Asian continue to make gains. In the end Schmidt poses an interesting question to the audience, how can Affirmative action came to promote diversity ,if it discriminates against Asian minorities?


Peter Schmidt Article makes used of Logos to deliver an effective message to the audience, showing the clear results of neutral base admission policy. The statistic and numbers from the three universities are indicators of his argument.

More than 15% at the University of Texas at Austin after a 1996 federal court ruling barred consideration of race in admissions.

More than 15% at the University of Florida after Gov. Jeb Bush persuaded the state university system’s governing board to vote in 2000 to end race and ethnicity conscious admissions.

More than 20% at the University of California Berkley, more than 10% at UCLA and more than 30% at the University of California San Diego after the state’s voter passed a 1996 ballot measure barring the used of Affirmative action preference by Public college and other state agencies.(Schmidt)

Schmidt uses the new research statistic data to show what happened when Affirmative action was removed. The numbers don’t lie as they show Asian enrollment increased. The data suggest to the reader that Affirmative action actually discriminates, but not to white.

Peter Schmidt article is very straight forward and gives statistic data from research done. The article was able to debunk the myth of whites being discriminated against but statistic shows the real discrimination is against Asian minorities.  Schmidt article creates a new dilemma in the already controversies issues of Affirmative action, in pursuit of diversity it discriminates other minorities.

The article is good source in using for my research, it brings with it hard statistic evidence of what happens when race isn’t considered in admissions. The source also clears up myths about whites being discriminated against. The source also challenges the idea of diversity when such problems discriminate against other minority groups.

The topic of Affirmative Action has many controversies and base on these sources, there are many arguments for and against. Each source brings with it a different angle and argument to the debate. Even the new data and statistic coming out shows a different result after the elimination of program. The question of diversity, representation and equality still looms over America with no clear definite answer to this enigma.



Issue Summary



The program of Affirmative Action has been a very contentious and controversial in the American history over its policy of promoting representation by minorities and woman. The issues that make many Americans question this program is the use of race and gender as considerations for qualification in admissions, promotions and awarding. The controversies of the program is it preferential treatment of one group of people over another. The opponents of Affirmative Action argue that the program discriminates against white males and promotes unqualified individuals. While supporters of Affirmative action contend it is needed to promote diversity and level playing field for minority groups.


The year was 1961 , Breakfast at tiffany was nominated for  an Oscar, Barbie had just met her Ken and America was doing the twist to Chubby Checker ;  in this very moment president  John F. Kennedy had two objectives : one was to get a man on the moon and the other was to desegregate America. The start of the civil rights movements had prompted a change in American attitude towards Jim Crow segregation. To achieve this vision of an integrated blacks and whites America, President Kennedy created the Affirmative Action program.  The objective of Affirmative Action program is to actively promote black and other minorities attain equal opportunities in both private and public organization, which were denied to them by discriminations.

“You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say. ‘you are free to compete with all the others,’ and still justly believe that you have been completely fair,” Declared President Lyndon Johnson during a commencement address at Howard University on June 4, 1965. President Johnson delivered one of the most important speech ever given in the civil right movement ,”To Fulfill These Rights” marked a shift in government intervention  policy in addressing  past discrimination. (LBJ)

Historically America has been very discriminatory against minorities groups and often denied them the same economic opportunities that were given to white males. These disadvantages had led to huge disparities in education and poverty among these groups.  Even with the aid of Affirmative Action program, minority’s still lag behind in representation and economic equality.

A 1998 Department of Labor statistic showed Blacks earnings were less than whites, followed by Latinos. Blacks and other minorities were twice more likely to be unemployed.  According to the U.S. Census bureau earning for minorities were significantly lowered compared to their white counter parts, and that even in white earnings, white males still earn more than female. (

According to the U.S. Census Bureau report Black males earn only 73% of every dollar that white males earn, while black women earn 84% of every dollar compared to white women. (Greenblatt)For Latinos the pay disparities is even larger with Hispanic men earning only 63% of every dollar that a white male earns and Hispanic women earning only 52% of every dollar that a white women earns. The same disparities in compensation are true between white and Asian. White males hold 80% of the top jobs in U.S. Corporation, college faculty, law firms, government and news media.  White college graduate earn more than 11% against Asian graduate, while white high school graduate earn 26% more than Asian graduates. (

When contrasting gender and race together against a white male, the divergence is even larger. A report on wage equity released by National Committee on Pay Equity showed that a college four year white male will receive on average $55,307 in compensation, a white women will earns $15,115 less, a black woman $19,054 and Hispanic women by $21,247. The data shows women with the same education and qualification will earn up to 38% less because of their gender and race. The report also reveals that better qualification does not equal higher pay, when a woman with a master degree will make $4,765 less than a white male with bachelor degree. (


The representation of minorities in Fortune 500 Companies is even more dismal.  A report from the Alliance for Board Diversity Census data depicts the growth of minorities group in the American population is increasing but representation in the 500 biggest companies board seat in America remain the lowest. The 2010 data shows white males holding 77.6 % of all board seat, followed by 15.7% women (3% minority women) and only 9.8% for minorities. Citigroup which ranked number 12 on the fortune 500 list comes in number 1 as having the broadest diversity group of all the companies. Citigroup has a total of 17 board seats comprising of 14 males and 3 females of which 14 are whites, 1 Asian, 1 Hispanic and 1 Black.  The overall data exhibits minorities group makes up only a token representation, while whites dominate the rest. Between 2004 and 2010 the number of African and Hispanic board seats has actually dropped, although White made gain and Asian stayed stagnant. (


The difference in income and representation is still apparent in America, so why has Affirmative action come under attack?


Democratic Congressman James Webb of West Virginia argues that Affirmative Action program has been unfair to whites. Webb believes the program is discriminating against whites as whole.” Contrary to assumptions in the law, white America is hardly a monolith. Of the south 1.8 million sharecroppers, 1.2 million were whites. The literacy rate was 5 times that of North Central states and twice that of New England and Middle Atlantic regions. “Web argues that whites who suffer the same plight as some Blacks don’t get any preferential treatment.  For many whites that are livings in abject poverty are forgotten, while new immigrants that come to the country benefit from the program. The congressman advocates that the program of affirmative action should be removed all together, “Our government should be in the business of enabling opportunity for all, not picking in winners. It can do so by ensuring that artificial distinctions such as race do not determine outcomes.”( Webb)


The critics of the Affirmative Action often state that the program discriminates against whites while advancing unqualified minorities. This stereotype of promoting those less qualified candidate has stigmatizes the beneficiary. “Once it is assumed that everything you do achieve is because of your race, there is no way out” says Justice Thomas Clarence, referring to many job interviews he had endured. For Justice Clarence his Yale degree had no value because Affirmative Action had taken away his accomplishment.  (Kirchick) On the other hand Justice Sotomayor a beneficiary of Affirmative action remarks a very different perspective “I am the perfect affirmative action baby. I am Puerto Rican, born and raised in the south Bronx. My test scores were not comparable to my colleagues at Princeton and Yale. Not so far off so that I wasn’t able to succeed at those institutions.”  (Mears)


The issues of Affirmative Action became a national focus in 1996 when Jennifer Gratz , an honor student of  Southgate Anderson High School, was denied immediate admission to the University of Michigan. “When I applied to University of Michigan in Ann Arbor for admission in 1995, I thought it was my path to medical school.” Says Jennifer Gratz ,”When I received a rejection letter, I ultimately reconsidered my career choice, and pursued a degree in math at another University of Michigan campus. My confidence was shaken.” Gratz and other white students who were denied admission to Michigan and its law school, felt that their constitutional rights were violated because they were denied based on their race. (Gratz)

“The University of Michigan has established an admissions process based on race. At the undergraduate level, African-American students and some Hispanic students and Native American students receive 20 points out of a maximum of 150, “ says President Bush “not because of any academic achievement or life experience, but solely because they are African-American, Hispanic or Native American. To put this in perspective, a perfect SAT score is worth only 12 points in the Michigan system. Students who accumulate 100 points are generally admitted, so those 20 points awarded solely based on race are often the decisive factor.” The President remarks were regarding the process by which points were awarded by Michigan Admission program. The point system by Michigan also allowed for zip codes, upper and lower region of the state, social and economic factors, not just race. (Greenblatt)


Gratz and other white students who were denied admission were approached by four conservative Michigan legislators to serve as plaintiff in suing the University. In that same year 1400 other white students were also admitted in Michigan with better or comparable grades to those of minority’s student under affirmative action program. The issue drew a national debate about affirmative Action program and the so called “quota system” used by colleges for admissions. The issue of reverse discrimination garnered the support of President Bush in supporting Gratz against Michigan admission program.

In 2003 the case was finally heard before the Supreme Court, the case of Gratz vs. Bollinger (undergraduate) and Grutter vs. Bollinger (law school). The Supreme court ruled in favor of Gratz  in declaring Michigan University had violated the constitution but in the Grutter case the court approved the use of race being used during admissions. The difference between the cases is Michigan undergraduate admission program was broad, while the law school took into account of each individual student factors into consideration. “The benefits of a diverse student body are not theoretical but real” declared Justice Sandra Day O’ Connor writing the opinion for the majority of court. The use of race to achieve diversity at the University was upheld. (Bollinger)

“When students encounter others’ points of view and discover how contrary opinions have been forged by different life experiences, they learn more than how we differ:  They learn what we have in common,” Says Lee Bollinger, former president of the University of Michigan at the time of Supreme Court case. Bollinger believes that Grutter case shows that the benefits of diversity is essential to American interest. The U.S. military has a 40% minority’s representation since 2002 but Universities numbers are nowhere near that. The job of Universities is to bring youth together so jealousies and prejudice are overcome when students connect, collaborate and communicate. (Bollinger)

“I see benefits from different opinions, different thoughts on any number of subjects. But I don’t think that’s necessarily race coming through. “says Jennifer Gratz on the issues of diversity ,”I don’t think like every other white person…Your race doesn’t mean that you’re going to think this way or that.”(Josh)

So what happens when Affirmative Action is banned from admissions policy at University?

In 1996 opponents of the Affirmative Action did just that, ending 30 years of the program through a ballot initiative, proposition 209 in California. The aftermath was a dropped of 57 %of black enrollment at UCLA,with only 96 black students in the freshman class. The Enrollment at the University of California law schools saw a 3% drop for black from 6% , while Latinos 12% fell down to only 8%. Out of a class of 250 at Berkley’s Boalt Hall school of Law only one black student enrolled. (Love)

“We are turning down Asians and whites with 4.0 averages to take in blacks and Chicanos with 2.8. We can’t go into the 21st century with half the people entitled to preference because of their race and the rest standing on the sidelines boiling with anger.” Says Ward Connerly one of the boards  of regent who voted for measure.

“As California goes so goes the nation”, the saying that California leads often other states will follow in suit. Two years after prop 209, Washington follows with the same measure, then Florida ,Texas and in 2006 Michigan. Later Nebraska, Arizona and Colorado passed similar initiative were put to a vote all but the exception of Colorado passed.

David Love of the McClatchy newspaper explains that opponents of Affirmative action have found a new way of ridding Affirmative action without going to the courts, since every motion to label the program as unconstitutional has been lost. “In hard economic times in America, people look for someone to blame for their insecurities. And the forces behind these anti-affirmative action initiatives appeal to white Americans by perpetuating a number of fallacies.” Says Love. Most of these initiatives to ban were voted down a race line, with whites supporting the measure and minorities group against. Love asserts” Today, the ideological descendant of these segregationist use ballots initiatives in an attempt to achieve the same result. And they must not succeed in turning back the clock on civil rights in the United States.” (Love)

Since the passing of these initiatives researchers have managed to gather data showing quite a surprising statistic. The data found that Asians, not whites, are the true victims of discrimination when it comes to race preference decision.  The data shows that 15%-20% gain by Asians in University after the used of Affirmative action was banned in state. The same data only shows a 1.5% increase for whites or declined. While school where Asian historical have resided, like Berkeley, saw an increase of 46% in Asian freshmen and an undergraduate population of 41%.(Schmidt, Egan)

According to the data, Asian students were held to a higher standard than that of Black, Hispanic and Whites. The selective Colleges have stereotyped Asian as overachievers and academic savvy, making the standard testing for Asians often discriminatory. Research from University of Michigan showed that Asians having scored about 140 higher than Hispanic and 240 points higher than black were admitted the lowest at only 54%. Another research by Thomas Espenshade of Princeton University looked at over 100,000  applicants  at three highly selective Universities found that  African Americans candidate was worth an additional 230 SAT points on the 1600 point scale, and  Hispanics were worth 185 points but Asian candidates had a handicapped of -50 SAT Points. (Egan, Chace)

 Should merits be the only factor used in considering candidates qualifications? 

The critics have agreed the only measure of someone qualification is through merits, and to measure these merits is through standardized testing. This new approach which does not include a person race or economic background in consideration seem fair to most Americans. However Professor Lani Guinier  of Harvard law school and Professor Susan Sturm of Columbia Law school both disagree on that matter. Merits according to the professors can be considered in many ways but to measure someone future performance based on timed paper and pencil testing is a bad indicator.

A study performed on three classes of Harvard alumni over three decades found that people who were successful in life defined by income, community involvement and professional satisfaction had two criteria as freshman. The two criteria were low SAT scores and a blue- collar background.  While another study done on the LSAT testing at Michigan Law School revealed that those that scored high on LSAT tended not to contribute to their community, were unhappy about career and income.(Guinier 9)

“Considering the linkage between test performance and parental income,” explained the Professors” Average family income rises with each hundred –point increase in SAT scores…within each racial and ethnic group, SAT scores increase with income.” The testing results identify there is a strong correlation between income and performance on these test. Those who came from well off family tended to perform better due to better educations, more resources and less hardship. (Guinier 13)

The professor suggest an alternative to standardized testing, the new approach focus on performance on the job, or assessment on job performance rather than testing to indicate performance. The performance in real world scenario is different than testing on paper as indicator for success. “Various studies have shown that ‘ experts often fail on formal measures of their calculating or reasoning capacities but can be shown to exhibit precisely those same skills in the course of their ordinary work.” the professors state. (Guinier 17)

President Lyndon Johnson antecedently acknowledged this fact about merits back in 1964

To this end equal opportunity is essential, but not enough, not enough. Men and women of all races are born with the same range of abilities. But ability is not just the product of birth. Ability is stretched or stunted by the family that you live with, and the neighborhood you live in–by the school you go to and the poverty or the richness of your surroundings. It is the product of a hundred unseen forces playing upon the little infant, the child, and finally the man.(LBJ)

In the final analysis after hearing all these different perspective on Affirmative action, I recognized that the program has its short coming but to terminate it would unravel the progress made by the Civil Rights Movement. America needs affirmative action today as much as it did in the past. When discrimination has decayed, the need for equality will vanish with it. Let us not forget the promise of the Great Society to eliminate poverty and racial injustice. Let America Be America again!









Lyndon B. Johnson, “To Fulfill These Rights,” (4 June 1965) in Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Lyndon B. Johnson, 1965 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1966), 2:635–40

Web 13 Mar 2012.

Web 13 Mar 2012.

Web 13 Mar 2012.


Gratz , Jennifer. “Jennifer Gratz: It’s time for ‘equal’ to mean equal.”

Web 13 Mar 2012.


Bollinger, Lee C.  “ College Diversity at Risk.” Washington Post. 16 Jan 2012: A. 15. SIRS Issues  Researcher. Web 13 Mar 2012.

Greenblatt, Alan. “Race in America.” CQ Researcher  11 July 2003: 593-624. Web. 15 Apr. 2012.

Jost, Kenneth. “Affirmative Action in Undergraduate Admissions.” CQ Researcher 21 Sept. 2001: 737-60. Web. 15 Apr. 2012.

Webb, James. “ Diversity and the Myth of White Privilege.” Wall Street Journal. 23 Jul 2010: A. 17. SIRS Issues Research.  Web 13 Mar 2012.

Schmidt, Peter. “ Asians, Not Whites, Hurt Most by Race- Conscious Admissions.” USA TODAY. Feb 20 2008: A12 SIRS Issues Researcher Web 14 Mar 2012.

Egan, Timothy. “ Little Asia on the Hill.” New York Times . Jan 7 2007: Sec. 4A, 24+ SIRS Issues Researcher. Web 14 Mar 2012.

Kirchick, James. “Who’s the hyprocrite?” Los Angeles Times. Oct 15, 2007 Web. April 15, 2012


Mears, Bill. “Sotomayor says she was ‘perfect affirmative action baby’.” CNN.Com June 11,2009 Web. April 15, 2012


Guinier, Lani and Susan Sturm. Who’s Qualified? Boston: Beacon Press, 2001. Print


Love, David A. “Michigan Must choose Diversity Over Jim Crow Education.” McClatchy Newspapers. Jan 18 2007:n.p. SIRS Issues  Researcher . Web 14 Mar 2012.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: