The conservative activist behind the U.S. Supreme Court case and June decision rejecting race-conscious admission policies at colleges and universities has now set his sights on diversity initiatives in the private sector. Edward Blum, a former stock broker, is not a lawyer. He is a legal strategist who matches plaintiffs and lawyers to set up cases to advance the conservative agenda of eliminating affirmative action programs and voting rights laws across the country. He draws most of his funding from several conservative foundations: DonorsTrust, the Searle Freedom Trust, the Sarah Scaife Foundation, and the 85 Fund.
Blum set up the case that led to the 2013 Supreme Court decision in Shelby County v. Holder that gutted key provisions of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Blum, who is now 72, also founded and led the group Students For Fair Admissions. This group was the plaintiff in the lawsuit against Harvard and the University of North Carolina, which resulted in the Supreme Court decision confirming affirmative action policies that consider a student’s race for college admissions are unconstitutional.
In a July New York Times interview, Blum said he’ll be monitoring how elite colleges and universities abide by the SCOTUS decision and placing corporate America under scrutiny for its affirmative action programs.
RELATED STORY: Some Senate Democrats want to keep fighting for Supreme Court ethics
Campaign Action
Asked whether he believes that systemic racism exists in the U.S., Blum gave this outrageous response:
“No, I do not believe in it. What your question implies is that in the American DNA there is racism. It was founded upon racism. It is part of what this country is. I reject that.”
And he said that diversity, equity, and inclusion programs can be challenged if they “involve a racial preference,” citing the SCOTUS decision on college admissions:
“What is actionable is a corporation that says, “We are putting a ‘help wanted’ sign on the office door, and here’s the kind of employee that we’re looking to hire. We’re looking to hire those of this race, but not that race.” So all of these preferences, whether it’s in the employment arena, contracting arena, internships—all of that I think will be energized by this Supreme Court opinion. And we’re blessed to have this Supreme Court opinion.”
Blum told Reuters that an organization he founded, the Texas-based American Alliance for Equal Rights, plans to file lawsuits challenging race-based policies used by private corporations. The Washington Post reported that since late June, “there has been a rush of legal activity aimed at translating the court’s race-blind stance to the employment sphere.”
The Post wrote:
In July, 13 attorneys general sent a letter to the CEOs of Fortune 100 companies, warning that the overturning of affirmative action could have ramifications for corporate diversity, equity and inclusion programs. In recent months, America First Legal, the conservative nonprofit organization backed by former Trump adviser Stephen Miller, has filed complaints against Nordstrom, Activision Blizzard and Kellogg’s, alleging that their DEI policies constitute racial discrimination.”
Last month, the American Alliance for Equal Rights filed two anti-affirmative action lawsuits. The first was against a venture capital firm that supports small businesses owned by Black women, and the second was against two prominent law firms over their diversity fellowship programs.
In a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Atlanta, Blum’s group claimed that the Atlanta-based Fearless Fund is violating the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which bans racial discrimination in contracts, by making only Black women eligible for its grant competition. Reuters reported:
Fearless Fund was launched in 2019 by three prominent Black women—actress Keshia Knight Pulliam, entrepreneur Arian Simone and corporate executive Ayana Parsons—and counts as investors Bank of America, Costco Wholesale, General Mills, Mastercard and JPMorgan Chase.
...
The lawsuit centers on Fearless Fund's Fearless Strivers Grant Contest, which awards Black women who own small businesses $20,000 in grants, digital tools to help them grow their businesses and mentorship opportunities provided in conjunction with Mastercard.
Prominent civil rights attorneys, including Ben Crump, held a news conference in New York to announce that they would join the defense for the Fearless Fund, The Associated Press reported.
“Today, the playing field is not level — that is beyond dispute,” Alphonso David, a civil rights attorney who serves as president & CEO of The Global Black Economic Forum, said at the news conference. “Those targeting Fearless Fund want to propagate a system that privileges some and shuts out most. They want us to pretend that inequities do not exist. They want us to deny our history.”
Blum’s organization also filed lawsuits last month against two law firms alleging that their diversity fellowship programs for law school students excluded applicants based on their race, The Washington Post reported. The lawsuits again cited the 1866 Civil Rights Act.
Kenneth Davis, a professor of law and ethics at Fordham University, told the Post that “it’s the height of irony” that “federal laws that were intended to ensure equal opportunity and rights for people of color are now being used as a weapon to deny them rights.”
The Post quoted Blum as saying: “Excluding students from these esteemed fellowships because they are the wrong race is unfair, polarizing and illegal. Law firms that have racially-exclusive programs should immediately make them available to all applicants, regardless of their race.”
Blum’s organization filed its lawsuit against Seattle-based Perkins Coie LLP in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas in Dallas, and against San Francisco-based Morrison Foerster LLP in the Southern District of Florida.
The lawsuits seek temporary restraining orders barring the firms from selecting fellows, as well as permanent injunctions ending the programs. The fellowships pay as much as $50,000 and provide an opportunity for fellows to be hired for full-time associate positions after graduation.
Blum targeted the two law firms because they’re known for their efforts to promote diversity. In June, Morrison Foester received the 2023 Chambers Award as the “Outstanding Firm for Diversity & Inclusion.” The firm’s website cites its efforts to advance racial justice by supporting criminal justice reform and voting rights.
Perkins Coie’s website said the firm is committed to doing its part “to end racism and to help create a more just and equal society.” Voting rights attorney Marc Elias headed Perkins Coie’s political law practice until he left in 2021 to found his own firm. The firm once ranked among the top law firms providing legal services to the Democratic National Committee and other party entities, although recently it has expanded its work for tech and emerging companies, Bloomberg Law reported.
Blum’s lawsuit cited paid diversity fellowships offered by Perkins Coie to first- and second-year law students, which the firm says are intended for members of groups “historically underrepresented in the legal profession, including students of color, students who identify as LGBTQ+, and students with disabilities.”
Perkins Coie spokesman Justin Cole told the Post that the firm has been “a leader in efforts to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion in the legal profession” and that its “commitment to those values remains steadfast.” Cole said the firm “will defend this lawsuit vigorously.”
As for Morrison Foester, The Washington Post reported Wednesday that after the lawsuit was filed, the corporate law firm opened its Keith Wetmore Fellowship for Excellence, Diversity and Inclusion to students of all races, according to a change on its website.
The firm previously listed this criteria for applicants for its 2023 fellowships: “Member of a diverse population that has historically been underrepresented in the legal profession, specifically African American/Black, Latinx, Native Americans/Native Alaskans, and/or members of the LGBTQ+ community.”
The Post reported:
Weeks after the lawsuit was filed, all references to race have been removed from the program page on the Morrison Foerster website. The move signals uncertainty about how the fellowship and others like it will hold up to legal scrutiny as litigants try to translate the race-blind Supreme Court stance on college admissions to the private sector.
The program is now framed as recognizing “exceptional first and second-year law students with a demonstrated commitment to diversity and inclusion in the legal profession.” The change was first reported by the Washington Free Beacon. Morrison Foerster did not respond to a request for comment from The Washington Post.
Among the criteria for fellowship applicants, Morrison Foerster includes an “ability to bring a diverse perspective to the firm as a result of your adaptability, cultural fluency, resilience, and life experiences” as well as a “demonstrated commitment to promoting diversity, inclusion, and accessibility.”
The lawsuits come at a time when diversity remains a problem in the legal profession, and the lawsuits by Blum and others could make the situation even worse.
A July 2022 article on the American Bar Association website, titled, “How to Improve Diversity in the Legal Profession,” began by stating:
The legal profession is struggling with diversity. Women make up 37% of practicing attorneys, even though they account for 50.8% of the U.S. population. Men still outnumber women in equity partner positions nearly 5 to 1. Only 4.7% of practicing attorneys are Black, with about 10% of attorneys falling into other racial minority groups. Within the legal profession since 2010, representation of individuals in minority racial and ethnic groups combined has grown just 6%, the percentage of practicing Black attorneys has increased by less than 1%, and the percentage of women attorneys has only increased 4.6%. At this rate, it will take 30 years for the demographics of the legal profession to reflect the demographics of today’s population.
It’s not clear how successful conservative legal activists will be in restricting corporate DEI programs through the courts, but Republican politicians across the country are already taking aim at these programs. In April, The Associated Press reported:
Republican lawmakers in at least a dozen states have proposed more than 30 bills this year targeting diversity, equity and inclusion efforts in higher education, an Associated Press analysis found using the bill-tracking software Plural. The measures have become the latest flashpoint in a cultural battle involving race, ethnicity and gender that has been amplified by prominent Republicans, including former President Donald Trump and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, potential rivals for the GOP presidential nomination in 2024.
In May, DeSantis signed a bill banning Florida’s public colleges and universities from spending money on DEI programs. He then upped the ante by saying that as president he would mandate the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division to quash DEI programs nationwide in corporations, government, and academia.
A day after SCOTUS issued its ruling banning affirmative action in college admissions, former President Donald Trump, who remains the frontrunner for the GOP presidential nominee despite four state and federal criminal indictments, told a Philadelphia rally of the conservative Moms For Liberty group that he would continue this path of destruction. He explained, “I will eliminate all ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ programs across the entire federal government.”
RELATED STORIES:
How student loan debt has fueled the pay gap for Black women
Biden is resistant to SCOTUS reform. This term’s Moore decision means he should get over it