Jack Salzman, Cornel West Struggles in the Promised

302 // JEROME A. CHANES
and presaged involvement in Supreme Court activity that followed. From 1972
to 1975 six national Jewish organizations 50 and presaged involvement in Supreme Court activity that followed. From 1972
to 1975 six national Jewish organizations engaged the Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare (HEW) over proposed revision of HEW guidelines on
hiring practices of colleges and universities which received federal grants. While
they reached agreement in principle with HEW, it was widely believed that
50 engaged the Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare (HEW) over proposed revision of HEW guidelines on
hiring practices of colleges and universities which received federal grants. While
they reached agreement in principle with HEW, it was widely believed that
HEW policies and pressures had actually fostered reverse discrimination in several
instances because universities feared the loss of government funds as a penalty
for noncompliance. In any event, the Jewish organizational stance on the HEW
matter angered Black spokesmen, and increased tensions between the two communities.
Typical was the assertion by Carlton B. Goodlett, a prominent Black
journalist: "If Jews are not prepared to accept a quota system as a means of quantitatively
evaluating the eradication of racism in America, when then?" 31 matter angered Black spokesmen, and increased tensions between the two communities.
Typical was the assertion by Carlton B. Goodlett, a prominent Black
journalist: "If Jews are not prepared to accept a quota system as a means of quantitatively
evaluating the eradication of racism in America, when then?" This
statement prefigured a generation of African American reaction to Jewish stances
on affirmative action.
31 This
statement prefigured a generation of African American reaction to Jewish stances
on affirmative action.
//
During the 1970s and 1980s, Supreme Court decisions expanded the rubric of
acceptable affirmative-action practices. First the 1978 Bakke ruling said that race
could be taken into account; the the 1979 Weber case permitted the voluntary adoption
by private employers of race-conscious race -conscious programs; the 1980 Fullilove case permitted
the "setting aside" by Congress of a percentage of federal funds in a pub-
lic-works program for minority contractors.
The first Supreme Court test test of race-conscious affirmative action was DeFunis
v. Odegaard (1974), in in which DeFunis, a white, Jewish applicant, challenged the
University of Washington Law School's refusal to admit him, while the school
accepted less qualified minorities under a special affirmative-action program.
While the school denied having a quota, quota, it did acknowledge that its goal was to
achieve a reasonable representation of minorities in the university. The ADL,
AJCongress, and AJC AJC—the — the three "defense" agencies—all agencies — all filed amicus briefs in the
case in favor of DeFunis. The case did not reach a decision in the Supreme Court,
because DeFunis, under a special special order, was was a student in the law school and was
within weeks of graduation, graduation, and the case was was therefore moot.
The firestorm over DeFunis had barely died down when an almost identical
case was decided by the Supreme Court: Bakke v. Regents, University of California.
Bakke is worth exploring in some detail for here was the first affirmative-action
case decided by the High Court; and because Bakke had ramifications for Black-
Jewish relations.
Deluged by amicus briefs in Bakke, most of which supported the constitutionality
of the minority-admissions program, the Supreme Court split three ways.
Four justices said the admissions program was legal; four said it was not. Justice
Lewis Powell held that reserving a number number of seats for minorities was racial clis-