News

Progressive Labor Party Organizes Solidarity March With Harvard Yard Encampment

News

Encampment Protesters Briefly Raise 3 Palestinian Flags Over Harvard Yard

News

Mayor Wu Cancels Harvard Event After Affinity Groups Withdraw Over Emerson Encampment Police Response

News

Harvard Yard To Remain Indefinitely Closed Amid Encampment

News

HUPD Chief Says Harvard Yard Encampment is Peaceful, Defends Students’ Right to Protest

CONSTITUTION

THE MAIL

NO WRITER ATTRIBUTED

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.

Tags