Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 Page 19 Page 20 Page 21 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 Page 27 Page 28 Page 29 Page 30 Page 31 Page 32 Page 33 Page 34 Page 35 Page 36 Page 37 Page 38 Page 39 Page 40 Page 41 Page 42 Page 43 Page 44 Page 45 Page 46 Page 47 Page 48 Page 49 Page 50 Page 51 Page 52 Page 53 Page 54 Page 55 Page 56 Page 57 Page 58 Page 59 Page 60 Page 61 Page 6239 38 Knowledge Is Key Research shows that diversity has a positive impact on everybody. We all benefit when we have exposure to the ideas, opinions, and life experiences of people from different racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic backgrounds. That’s why, for decades, Mintz Levin has played a significant role in helping the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Economic Justice (LCCR) fulfill its mission of “combating racial discrimination and the resulting inequality of opportunity.” In the fall of 2015, LCCR called upon Mintz Levin to help file an amicus (“friend of the court”) brief in the US Supreme Court’s Fisher v. University of Texas case to counter one filed by UCLA Law Professor Richard H. Sander presenting the “mismatch” hypothesis. Sander’s theory posits that a mismatch occurs when a minority student is accepted to a more selective university because of affirmative action, where the decision is based upon a “very large” racial preference. The claim is that at a more selective university, the minority student will be at a disadvantage—more likely to struggle, and less likely to thrive and graduate, than if the student had attended a less challenging school. The problem is that social science and statistical research do not support Professor Sander’s mismatch hypothesis. LCCR and Mintz Levin were compelled to make sure the Court was aware of all the facts. Attorney Mathilda McGee-Tubb, along with attorneys Colin Van Dyke and Yalonda Howze, and former Mintz Levin attorney Chip Phinney, worked with LCCR to finalize a 27-page brief that brought together the opinions and findings of distinguished academicians and scientists representing over 274 collective years in the fields of quantitative social science and statistical methodology. “When the Supreme Court is presented with a social science theory that is meant to guide its thinking on an important constitutional issue, it is critical that the Court be aware of what the empirical research actually says,” said Mathilda. The brief, which references over 40 articles and scientific studies, informed the Court of the substantial methodological flaws in the research supporting Professor Sander’s mismatch hypothesis. For example, contrary to the mismatch hypothesis, at least one study referenced in the brief indicates that students admitted under an affirmative action policy earned higher than average grades, dropped out of schools at lower rates than other students, and were as satisfied with college life as the rest of the student body. By effectively rebutting the mismatch hypothesis, the brief implicitly supports the benefits of diversity in education. “There is ample evidence to support that we are all better prepared to succeed when we have exposure to people from all walks of life,” said Colin. “Mintz Levin has brought its incredible resources to bear to bring the struggle for civil rights from the streets to the courtroom. Without Mintz Levin we would have never been able to file the brief to bring this important perspective to the Supreme Court. We are grateful to have them as our partner in this historic case.” Iván Espinoza-Madrigal, Esq. Executive Director Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Economic Justice continued