Griggs v. Duke Power

This paper by Bryan O’Keefe and Richard Vedder raises a provocative question. Does the increase in college enrollment over the past 30 years partly reflect the changing pressures on employers based on a 1971 Supreme Court decision? And if so, could these pressures also explain the much-touted increase in earnings that comes from a college education?

O’Keefe and Vedder explore the impact of the Griggs v. Duke Power decision on today’s college enrollment. In Griggs, the plaintiffs argued that Duke Power’s reliance on two aptitude tests discriminated against minority groups. Subsequent cases and statutory law have changed the environment for employer testing. This may have changed the pressure to attend college.

The paper is jointly published by the Pope Center for Higher Education Policy and the Center for College Affordability and Productivity.


Court’s squishy language should allow conservatives to join the campus debate

Conservatives willing to brave the touchy-feely miasma of the Supreme Court’s recent decision of Grutter v. Bollinger, which allows universities to consider race in admissions as an element of diversity, should be heartened by the ruling, flawed as it is. Here’s why.


Supreme Court poised to offer long-overdue clarity on racial preferences

By next June the nation’s highest court could finally issue a much-needed clarification of the constitutionality of using racial considerations in college admissions decisions. The Supreme Court took up two cases in which white applicants argued that their applications to the University of Michigan and its law school were turned down because of their race.




Supreme Court case has implications for N.C. universities

A case before the Supreme Court could change the way public universities in North Carolina and across the nation allocate student-activities fees. The Justices agreed to hear a suit five law students at the University of Wisconsin brought against their school over how the university allocated a portion of the mandatory activity fees it collects. Across the country, there has been several similar cases recently concerning potential First-Amendment violations by universities in their collection and expenditure of mandatory fees.