Next Monday, the Supreme Court hears oral arguments in the two affirmative-action cases before it, involving Harvard and the University of North Carolina. Given the nature of several of the Court’s decisions last term, many observers think that the Court will rule that admissions discrimination, as practiced by the two universities (and so many others), is unlawful.
Okay, but what then? Most university leaders have determined “diversity” to be an educational and moral imperative. Will they meekly acquiesce? Just recall the defiant reaction of the president of the University of Michigan, Mary Sue Coleman, after voters approved a referendum to outlaw discrimination by state institutions in 2006.
Thinking ahead, attorney Louis K. Bonham has written an article for Minding the Campus in which he sets forth a number of good ideas for state lawmakers to adopt.
Bonham recommends a clear statement in statute that discrimination is illegal and that there are no exceptions for “diversity” or other leftist obsessions. Then, in cases of violation, the law should allow students enrolled to sue to recover 50 percent of their tuition. That should get the educrats’ attention.
And there’s more. Bonham would also have the law state that officials who violate it will bear personal responsibility. No qualified immunity: Hit ’em in the pocketbook.