RACIAL PREFERENCES: A new study released by the National Association of Scholars documents reverse discrimination in the criteria of admissions policies at three universities: the University of Virginia, the William and Mary Law School, and North Carolina State University. Author David J. Armor, a scholar at George Mason University and expert on desegregation policies in public schools, examined the weight given to racial or ethnic criteria in the schools??¢â???¬â???¢ admissions policies. Black and Hispanic applicants were preferred over white and Asian applicants who had comparable SAT scores. The data for the study were obtained from Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. NAS President Stephen J. Bach pointed out, ??¢â???¬?????Public universities that continue to discriminate on the basis of race and ethnicity now know that they will not be able to do secretly. NAS will continue to demand that the practice of such discrimination be made known to the taxpayers who support these institutions. They??¢â???¬â???¢re entitled to an account of what their money is being used for.??¢â???¬ For a copy of the 10-page report, visit the NAS website: www.nas.org.
DEATH AND TAXES: Rep. Chris Cox (R.-Calif.) is proposing a bill in the first session of the 109th Congress that would eliminate the federal ??¢â???¬?????death tax,??¢â???¬ including the estate and gift taxes and the tax on generation-skipping transfers. Cox is seeking co-sponsors for his legislation, the ??¢â???¬?????Family Heritage Preservation Act,??¢â???¬ that would repeal the ??¢â???¬?????death tax??¢â???¬ in its entirety. The legislation points out that death taxes ??¢â???¬?????raise almost no material revenue for the federal government. In fiscal year 2004, they produced about 1% of total federal revenues.??¢â???¬ If the legislation passes and becomes law, the repeal of the ??¢â???¬?????death tax??¢â???¬ would apply after Dec. 31, 2004.
PARENTAL RIGHTS: Two legislative proposals seek to minimize the ongoing war on families by the courts, radical feminists, assorted ??¢â???¬?????child rights??¢â???¬ advocates, and state ??¢â???¬?????social and protective services.??¢â???¬ The Parental Rights and Responsibilities Act of 2005 (PRRA) would protect the constitutional rights of parents by intrusive state agencies. Some parents are probably unaware, while other parents know full well, of renegade state-based ??¢â???¬?????social services??¢â???¬ bureaucracies that can??¢â???¬ ¦quot;on the basis of unsubstantiated rumor or hearsay??¢â???¬ ¦quot;show up at your child??¢â???¬â???¢s elementary school and interview your child at length about her home environment, parental discipline practices, eating habits, home life, etc., without notifying the parents in advance based on little more than innuendo or unsubstantiated third-party complaints. As some state agencies now operate, parents under investigation of child neglect or abuse often are forced to prove their innocence when hearsay complaints of neglect or abuse are reported. This guilty-until-proven-innocent scenario would be unconstitutional under PRRA. The Parental Due Process Act of 2005 would serve to protect the ??¢â???¬?????due process rights??¢â???¬ of parents who are subjected to the threat of interrogation or home invasion without the constitutional protections afforded others under our system of justice, e.g., a trial by jury, right to a fair and speedy trial, etc.
GAY ADOPTION BAN UPHELD: The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear a challenge to a Florida law that bars homosexuals from adopting children. Three homosexuals filed a lawsuit against the state for prohibiting gay adoptions. The Florida legislature voted in 1977 to prohibit ??¢â???¬?????adoptions by gays,??¢â???¬ according to the New York Times, ??¢â???¬?????in the midst of a campaign led by the entertainer Anita Bryant to repeal a gay-rights ordinance adopted by Dade County. Arkansas is threatening to file suit after a state trial judge in December struck down a law that bans placing foster children in gay-run homes. The court??¢â???¬â???¢s ruling followed a lawsuit filed by the ACLU.
TERMINATOR KEEPS PROMISE: California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R.) has kept his campaign promise not to raise taxes in order to balance the California budget. Schwarzenegger??¢â???¬â???¢s proposed budget would carve $10 billion in spending from the state??¢â???¬â???¢s $109-billion budget. He has proposed a process of across-the-board spending cuts to replace the current budgetary system whenever spending outstrips the state??¢â???¬â???¢s revenues.
