Edward Blum (litigant)

Last updated

Edward Blum
Born
Edward Jay Blum

(1951-01-09) January 9, 1951 (age 73)
Benton Harbor, Michigan, U.S.
Education University of Texas at Austin (BA)
State University of New York at New Paltz
Political party Republican

Edward Jay Blum (born 1952) is an American conservative litigant who opposes diversity programs such as affirmative action based on race and ethnicity. [1]

Contents

Blum is the director of the Project on Fair Representation which he founded in 2005. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill says he is the only member of this organization, [2] However Slate disputes this characterization, describing Blum and his organization as the recipients of wealthy and powerful right-wing benefactors. [3] The Harvard Crimson reported that his work is funded by conservative trusts and foundations, including Donors Trust, the Searle Freedom Trust, the Sarah Scaife Foundation, and The 85 Fund. [4]

Since the 1990s, Blum has been heavily involved in bringing eight cases to the United States Supreme Court. [5] He was a key figure in Bush v. Vera and the Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College lawsuits.

Early life and education

Blum was born in 1952 into a Jewish family in Benton Harbor, Michigan, where his parents owned and operated a shoe store. [6] He graduated from the University of Texas at Austin (UT-A) in 1973. He then studied at the State University of New York at New Paltz. He describes his parents as generally left-wing liberals who supported Democratic presidents like Franklin Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman and that he was, eventually, "the first Republican my mother ever met". [7] He has said that the anti-Semitic discrimination his family experienced during his youth helped form his beliefs. [8]

Political activism

While working as a stockbroker in Houston, Texas, in the early 1980s, he became involved in the neoconservatism movement. In 1990, he realized that the Democratic incumbent in his congressional district, Craig Anthony Washington, was running unopposed, so decided to run against him for the Republican Party. During that campaign, Blum and his wife Lark went door-knocking and realized that the boundaries of their district erratically divided streets based on ethnicity, with the suspected purpose to gerrymander a majority African-American district in order to grant increased voting power to minorities. [9] Blum eventually lost the congressional race. But he and others filed a lawsuit against the state of Texas, claiming that the racially gerrymandered districts violated the Fourteenth Amendment. The case, Bush v. Vera , went to the Supreme Court, which ruled in Blum's favor. [6]

Blum holds a fellowship at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) where his areas of research include civil rights policy, affirmative action, multiculturalism, and redistricting. He wrote the 2007 book The Unintended Consequences of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

His litigation includes United States Supreme Court cases Bush v. Vera (1996), Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 v. Holder (2009), Fisher v. University of Texas (2013), Shelby County v. Holder (2013), Evenwel v. Abbott (2016), and Fisher v. University of Texas II (2016).

In Shelby County, the Supreme Court struck down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which subjected certain states and parts of states to federal scrutiny when they tried to modify voting procedures. [10] This scrutiny, known as "preclearance", was intended to prevent states from enacting voting procedures that disproportionately burden racial minorities. After unsuccessfully lobbying Congress to modify the preclearance rules in the Act's 2006 reauthorization, Blum set out to challenge the Act's constitutionality in court. He wanted to change or eliminate the law because it had led to the pro-minority gerrymandering that he encountered in the 1990s when he ran for Congress. [9] Blum convinced Shelby County to file suit after trolling government websites and cold calling a county official. [11] He secured lawyers to represent them and funded the litigation with monies provided by conservative donors. [11]

In Evenwel, Texas voters sued Texas in a constitutional test case. Texas, like other states, divides its state legislative districts in a way that equalizes the total population of each district. However, some districts have more eligible voters than others because they have fewer minors, non-citizen immigrants, and convicted felons. The plaintiffs contended that this discriminates against voters in districts with high numbers of eligible voters since each person's vote has less power. [12] They wanted the Supreme Court to mandate that districts be drawn based on voter-eligible population rather than total population. In an April 2016 ruling, the Supreme Court upheld Texas's district scheme. [13]

The Fisher case, which challenged the University of Texas's (UT) consideration of race in its undergraduate admissions process, was decided at the Supreme Court in 2013 and again in 2016. The first time, the Court bolstered the legal standard that universities must satisfy if they wish to consider race, emphasizing that the use of race is only permissible if race-neutral alternatives would be ineffective at producing campus diversity. [14] The second time, the Court applied the heightened legal standard to UT's admission policy, concluding that it passes muster and upholding it. [14] Blum sought out the plaintiffs in the Fisher case, persuaded them to file suit, and obtained legal representation for them as well as funding from wealthy conservative donors to fund the case. [11]

Other than the University of Texas, Blum has challenged race-conscious admissions policies at universities including Harvard University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, claiming that they do not comply with the strict legal standard set forth in Fisher. To that end, he founded Students for Fair Admissions, an offshoot of the Project on Fair Representation. This organization solicits individuals who claim to have been rejected by higher education institutions admissions departments and engages in lawsuits on their behalf. [15] [ non-primary source needed ] Websites were set up to solicit complainants in connection with Harvard, the University of North Carolina, and also the University of Wisconsin at Madison. In November 2014, Students for Fair Admissions, led by Blum, filed federal lawsuits against Harvard and UNC-Chapel Hill.

On October 1, 2019, a District Court ruled in favor of Harvard University. In the 130-page ruling, Judge Allison D. Burroughs found that the University did not discriminate on the basis of race, did not engage in racial balancing or the use of quotas, and did not place too much emphasis on race when considering an applicant’s admissions file. She also wrote that "Harvard has demonstrated that no workable and available race-neutral alternatives would allow it to achieve a diverse student body while still maintaining its standards for academic excellence." [16] SFFA petitioned the Supreme Court to review both the First Circuit's decision in the Harvard case and a similar decision from the Middle District of North Carolina, Students for Fair Admissions v. University of NC, et al., which focused on the impact on both Caucasian and Asian American applicants at the University of North Carolina and which had been decided in the school's favor in October 2021. On June 29, 2023, the Supreme Court issued a decision that, by a vote of 6–3, reversed the lower court ruling. In writing the majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts held that affirmative action in college admissions is unconstitutional. [17]

In September 2023, SFFA filed a lawsuit challenging the use of race and ethnicity as admissions factors at the United States Military Academy, as the Supreme Court exempted military academies from its ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard. In February 2024 the organisation was blocked from appealing a decision to the Supreme Court where it failed in lower courts to stop West Point Academy from using race as a factor in admissions to the military academy. [18]

Lawsuits against diversity requirements in businesses

Blum is the president of the Alliance for Fair Board Recruitment, an organization opposed to diversity requirements on corporate boards. The organisation is the plaintiff in lawsuits challenging diversity requirements for boards of certain publicly traded companies. The group sued to challenge California's race and gender quotas, [19] and Nasdaq's comply-or-explain rule. [20] California's race and gender quotas were found to be unconstitutional, and struck down. [21] [22]

Blum continued his campaign against diversity mandates, particularly focusing on race. He founded a Texas group to file lawsuits the American Alliance for Equal Rights. The group's first lawsuit was in 2023 against the Fearless Fund, a venture capital fund that supports Black women business owners, it was founded to award grants to Black women who own small businesses through one of its programs. Blum's lawsuit challenges the legality of the grantmaking program under Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866. [23]

Works

Related Research Articles

Affirmative action refers to a set of policies and practices within a government or organization seeking to benefit marginalized groups. Historically and internationally, support for affirmative action has been justified by the idea that it may help with bridging inequalities in employment and pay, increasing access to education, and promoting diversity, social equity and redressing alleged wrongs, harms, or hindrances, also called substantive equality.

Reverse discrimination is a term used to describe discrimination against members of a dominant or majority group, in favor of members of a minority or historically disadvantaged group.

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978), was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that involved a dispute of whether preferential treatment for minorities could reduce educational opportunities for whites without violating the Constitution. It upheld affirmative action, allowing race to be one of several factors in college admission policy. However, the court ruled that specific racial quotas, such as the 16 out of 100 seats set aside for minority students by the University of California, Davis, School of Medicine, were impermissible.

Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003), was a landmark case of the Supreme Court of the United States concerning affirmative action in student admissions. The Court held that a student admissions process that favors "underrepresented minority groups" did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause so long as it took into account other factors evaluated on an individual basis for every applicant. The decision largely upheld the Court's decision in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), which allowed race to be a consideration in admissions policy but held racial quotas to be unconstitutional. In Gratz v. Bollinger (2003), a separate case decided on the same day as Grutter, the Court struck down a points-based admissions system that awarded an automatic bonus to the admissions scores of minority applicants.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">1996 California Proposition 209</span> Ballot proposition that banned affirmative action in California

Proposition 209 is a California ballot proposition which, upon approval in November 1996, amended the state constitution to prohibit state governmental institutions from considering race, sex, or ethnicity, specifically in the areas of public employment, public contracting, and public education. Modeled on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the California Civil Rights Initiative was authored by two California academics, Glynn Custred and Tom Wood. It was the first electoral test of affirmative action policies in North America. It passed with 55% in favor to 45% opposed, thereby banning affirmative action in the state's public sector.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund</span> Organization in New York, United States

The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. is an American civil rights organization and law firm based in New York City.

<i>Hopwood v. Texas</i> 1996 U.S. court case

Hopwood v. Texas, 78 F.3d 932, was the first successful legal challenge to a university's affirmative action policy in student admissions since Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. In Hopwood, four white plaintiffs who had been rejected from University of Texas at Austin's School of Law challenged the institution's admissions policy on equal protection grounds and prevailed. After seven years as a precedent in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the Hopwood decision was abrogated by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2003.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Michigan Civil Rights Initiative</span> American ballot initiative

The Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI), or Proposal 2, was a ballot initiative in the U.S. state of Michigan that passed into Michigan Constitutional law by a 58% to 42% margin on November 7, 2006, according to results officially certified by the Michigan Secretary of State. By Michigan law, the Proposal became law on December 22, 2006. MCRI was a citizen initiative aimed at banning consideration of race, color, sex, or religion in admission to colleges, jobs, and other publicly funded institutions – effectively prohibiting some affirmative action by public institutions based on those factors. The Proposal's constitutionality was challenged in federal court, but its constitutionality was ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Affirmative action in the United States</span>

In the United States, affirmative action consists of government-mandated, government-approved, and voluntary private programs granting special consideration to groups considered or classified as historically excluded, specifically racial minorities and women. These programs tend to focus on access to education and employment in order to redress the disadvantages associated with past and present discrimination. Another goal of affirmative action policies is to ensure that public institutions, such as universities, hospitals, and police forces, are more representative of the populations they serve.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund</span>

The Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund (AALDEF) is a New York-based national organization founded in 1974 that seeks to protect and promote the civil rights of Asian Americans. By combining litigation, advocacy, education, and organizing, AALDEF works with Asian American communities across the country to secure human rights for all.

Racial diversity in United States schools is the representation of different racial or ethnic groups in American schools. The institutional practice of slavery, and later segregation, in the United States prevented certain racial groups from entering the school system until midway through the 20th century, when Brown v. Board of Education forbade racially segregated education. Globalization and migrations of peoples to the United States have increasingly led to a multicultural American population, which has in turn increased classroom diversity. Nevertheless, racial separation in schools still exists today, presenting challenges for racial diversification of public education in the United States.

Fisher v. University of Texas, 570 U.S. 297 (2013), also known as Fisher I, is a United States Supreme Court case concerning the affirmative action admissions policy of the University of Texas at Austin. The Supreme Court voided the lower appellate court's ruling in favor of the university and remanded the case, holding that the lower court had not applied the standard of strict scrutiny, articulated in Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) and Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), to its admissions program. The Court's ruling in Fisher took Grutter and Bakke as given and did not directly revisit the constitutionality of using race as a factor in college admissions.

Schuette v. BAMN, 572 U.S. 291 (2014), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States concerning affirmative action and race- and sex-based discrimination in public university admissions. In a 6-2 decision, the Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause does not prevent states from enacting bans on affirmative action in education.

The Constitutional Accountability Center(CAC) is a non-profit think tank located in Washington, D.C., that seeks to advance a progressive interpretation of the Constitution of the United States. The group has filed numerous lawsuits against former President Donald Trump.

Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, 600 U.S. 181 (2023), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in which the court held that race-based affirmative action programs in college admissions processes violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. With its companion case, Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina, the Supreme Court effectively overruled Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) and Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), which validated some affirmative action in college admissions provided that race had a limited role in decisions.

Richard Henry Sander is an American lawyer and professor of law at the UCLA School of Law and a critic of affirmative action, primarily known for the mismatch theory.

Fisher v. University of Texas, 579 U.S. 365 (2016), also known as Fisher II, is a United States Supreme Court case which held that the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit correctly found that the University of Texas at Austin's undergraduate admissions policy survived strict scrutiny, in accordance with Fisher v. University of Texas (2013), which ruled that strict scrutiny should be applied to determine the constitutionality of the University's race-conscious admissions policy.

Jonathan Franklin Mitchell is an American lawyer, academic, and legal theorist who served as the Solicitor General of Texas from 2010 to 2015. He has argued seven cases before the Supreme Court of the United States. Mitchell has served on the faculties of Stanford Law School, the University of Texas School of Law, the George Mason University School of Law, and the University of Chicago Law School. In 2018, he opened a private solo legal practice in Austin, Texas.

Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) is a nonprofit legal advocacy organization founded in 2014 by conservative activist Edward Blum for the purpose of challenging affirmative action admissions policies at schools. Blum is also the founder of Project on Fair Representation, with a goal to end racial classifications in education, voting procedures, legislative redistricting, and employment.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">William Consovoy</span> American attorney (1974–2023)

William Spencer Consovoy was an American attorney known for his advocacy for conservative causes.

References

  1. ↑ Smith, Morgan (February 23, 2012). "One Man Standing Against Race-Based Laws". The New York Times . Retrieved April 4, 2016.
  2. ↑ Barnes, Robert (October 24, 2022). "How one man brought affirmative action to the Supreme Court. Again and again". The Washington Post. Retrieved January 21, 2024.
  3. ↑ Park, Jeannie; Penner, Kristin (October 25, 2022). "The Absurd, Enduring Myth of the "One-Man" Campaign to Abolish Affirmative Action". Slate. Retrieved January 21, 2024.
  4. ↑ Orakwue, Nia L.; Teichholtz, Leah J. (October 28, 2022). "SFFA Funded by Large Conservative Trusts, Public Filings Show". The Harvard Crimson. Retrieved January 21, 2024.
  5. ↑ Savage, David G. (December 22, 2015). "Conservative legal strategist has no office or staff, just a surprising Supreme Court track record". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved January 21, 2024.
  6. 1 2 Biskupic, Joan (December 4, 2012). "Special Report: Behind U.S. race cases, a little-known recruiter". Reuters . Retrieved July 4, 2016.
  7. ↑ "The Imperfect Plaintiffs" (Podcast). Radiolab. WNYC. June 28, 2016.
  8. ↑ Hartocollis, Anemona (November 19, 2017). "He Took On the Voting Rights Act and Won. Now He's Taking On Harvard". The New York Times . ISSN   0362-4331 . Retrieved May 14, 2023.
  9. 1 2 "Decade in review: One man's crusade against race-based policies". SCOTUSblog. December 30, 2019. Retrieved December 1, 2020.
  10. ↑ Barnes, Robert (June 25, 2013). "Supreme Court stops use of key part of Voting Rights Act". Washington Post. Retrieved January 21, 2024.
  11. 1 2 3 Writer, Staff (December 7, 2012). "Activist's goal: a nation blind to race". The Columbus Dispatch. Retrieved January 25, 2024.
  12. ↑ Lithwick, Dahlia (December 9, 2015). "What Exactly Does "One Person, One Vote" Mean, Anyway?". Slate. Retrieved January 21, 2024.
  13. ↑ "Evenwel v. Abbott, Governor of Texas" (PDF). US Supreme Court. Retrieved August 1, 2016.
  14. 1 2 "Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin" (PDF). US Supreme Court. Supreme Court of the United States. Retrieved August 1, 2016.
  15. ↑ "Project on Fair Representation Files Suits against Harvard and UNC". Students For Fair Admissions. Retrieved August 1, 2016.
  16. ↑ Walsh, Colleen (October 2019). "Judge upholds Harvard's admissions policy". news.harvard.edu/gazette. Harvard University. Retrieved October 1, 2019.
  17. ↑ Totenberg, Nina (June 29, 2023). "Supreme Court guts affirmative action, effectively ending race-conscious admissions". NPR. Archived from the original on June 29, 2023. Retrieved June 30, 2023.
  18. ↑ Students for Fair Admissions v USMA West Point Academy, unsigned (United States Supreme Court02 February 2024).
  19. ↑ "California Race, Gender Quotas for Boards Face Legal Test (1)".
  20. ↑ "SEC Approves Nasdaq "Comply-or-Explain" Proposal for Board Diversity". August 26, 2021.
  21. ↑ Goldberg, Nicholas (May 17, 2022). "Column: California's law requiring women on corporate boards was just struck down. I'm glad". Los Angeles Times . Retrieved July 8, 2023.
  22. ↑ Courts decide California can’t mandate corporate board diversity
  23. ↑ Raymond, Nate (August 2, 2023). "Conservative activist behind US affirmative action cases sues venture capital fund". Reuters.

Further reading

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.