News
Community Safety Department Director To Resign Amid Tension With Cambridge Police Department
News
From Lab to Startup: Harvard’s Office of Technology Development Paves the Way for Research Commercialization
News
People’s Forum on Graduation Readiness Held After Vote to Eliminate MCAS
News
FAS Closes Barker Center Cafe, Citing Financial Strain
News
8 Takeaways From Harvard’s Task Force Reports
To the editor of The Crimson:
I winced to read in the April 21 Crimson that I declared flatly (even if in paraphrase) that "The racial quotas and timetables of the federal government's affirmative action regulations are unconstitutional...."
First, I was extremely careful to describe the statistical requirements of the affirmative action program as "goals," not "quotas," and specifically pointed out that quotas can only be imposed by courts after a finding of discrimination. Second, in response to the question on the constitutionality of affirmative action goals, I answered, first, that only the Supreme Court can decide what is constitutional; second, that reputable law professors--and I mentioned Harry T. Edwards, visiting professor at the Harvard Law School, and Theodore St. Antoine, Dean at the University of Michigan Law School--argue goals can be considered constitutional; third the direction of Supreme Court decisions since 1954 and Justice Douglas's opinion in De Funis suggest that the Court might find affirmative action goals unconstitutional; and finally, I hoped they would.
But all this is very different from saying that I asserted goals are unconstitutional. Nathan Glazer Professor of Education and Social Structure
Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter.