Language Accommodation and the Voting Rights Act

Since 1975, the language assistance provisions of the federal Voting Rights Act have provided important safeguards of voting rights to racial and ethnic minority citizens. Despite the renewal of key provisions of the Voting Rights Act in 2006 for an additional twenty-five years, Congress has not articulated a comprehensive theory of language rights in the voting arena, nor has it provided language assistance mechanisms that provide adequate assistance to all limited-English-proficient voters. This paper articulates a theory of language accommodation within federal antidiscrimination jurisprudence and suggests revisions to key sections of the Voting Rights Act to expand coverage of the law

A Constitutional Analysis of Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 and Voluntary School Integration Policies

On June 28, 2007, a sharply divided United States Supreme Court invalidated student assignment plans in Seattle, Washington and Louisville, Kentucky that were designed to promote racial diversity and to address racial isolation in K-12 education. By a 5-to-4 vote in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. I and McFarland v. Jefferson County Board of Education, the Court struck down voluntary integration plans under the strict scrutiny standard applied to race-conscious policies challenged under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and ruled that the plans were not narrowly tailored to the interests asserted by the school districts.The Supreme Court\u27s ruling in Parents Involved in Community Schools is disappointing and troubling for a number of reasons. First, the ruling significantly limits the use of race by school districts voluntarily seeking to integrate their schools, at a time when racial isolation and resegregation are increasing nationwide. Second, when viewed in the context of the Court\u27s landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education, the ruling marks a sharp turn in the Court\u27s historical commitment to addressing racial segregation in public schools. Third, the ruling sends a strong signal that a majority of the Court\u27s current membership is highly skeptical of race-conscious policies designed to promote equality and the integration of public institutions. Indeed, four members of the Court, including its two newest members, appear ready to strike down any deployment of race designed to advance equalopportunity.Nevertheless, because of the voting alignment of the Justices in these cases and the limits of the Court\u27s rulings, school districts retain the ability to employ race-conscious measures designed to integrate their schools. Five of the Justices endorsed the compelling interests in reducing racial isolation and in promoting educational diversity in elementary and secondary schools, and the opinions of those Justices provide guidance on how school districts might proceed in designing constitutionally permissible policies. Moreover, the Supreme Court as a whole made clear that Grutter v. Bollinger, its 2003 ruling upholding the use of race to promote student body diversity in higher education, is good law.This paper examines the Seattle and Louisville cases and discusses their impact on K-12 education and constitutional doctrine. The analysis is divided into three parts. Part I examines the Justices\u27 opinions in Parents Involved in Community Schools and discusses the constitutional boundaries for voluntary race-conscious integration policies established by the Court. Part II discusses the implications of the cases in creating and implementing K-12 policies designed to avoid racial isolation and to promote educational diversity. Part III assesses the impact of the cases on equal protection doctrine and race-conscious policy making more generally

"'Asianness Under Construction:' The Contours and Negotiation of Panethnic Identity/Culture among Interethnically Married Asian Americans."

Based on life-history interviews of interethnically married U.S.-raised Asians, this article examines the meaning and dynamics of Asian American interethnic marriages, and what they reveal about the complex incorporative process of this “in-between” racial minority group into the U.S.. In particular, this article explores the connection between Asian American interethnic marriage and pan-Asian consciousness/identity, both in terms of how panethnicity shapes romantic/ marital desires of individuals and how pan-Asian culture and identity is invented and negotiated in the process of family-making. My findings indicate that while strong pan-Asian consciousness/ identity underlies the connection among intermarried couples, these unions are not simply a defensive effort to “preserve” Asian-ethnic identity and cultur against a society that still racializes Asian Americans, but a tentative and often unpremeditated effort to navigate a path toward integration into the society through an ethnically based, albeit hybrid and reconstructed identity and culture, that helps the respondents retain the integrity of “Asianness.

Revisiting Bakke and Diversity-Based Admissions: Constitutional Law, Social Science Research, and the University of Michigan Affirmative Action Cases

The decisions of the United States Supreme Court in two major cases – Gratz v. Bollinger and Grutter v. Bollinger – are expected to have broad effects on the future of race-conscious affirmative action in the United States