News
HMS Is Facing a Deficit. Under Trump, Some Fear It May Get Worse.
News
Cambridge Police Respond to Three Armed Robberies Over Holiday Weekend
News
What’s Next for Harvard’s Legacy of Slavery Initiative?
News
MassDOT Adds Unpopular Train Layover to Allston I-90 Project in Sudden Reversal
News
Denied Winter Campus Housing, International Students Scramble to Find Alternative Options
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.