Allan Favish is a Los Angeles-based attorney whose focus is on General Insurance Defense and Litigation Insurance Coverage/Reinsurance & Bad Faith Litigation. A UCLA graduate, he received his J.D. at Hastings College of Law in 1981.
Article about the financial incentives for racial preferences in ObamaCare. (September 7, 2012)
On my Website, there are two lawsuits against the University of California over its racial admissions policy for its law and medical schools:
Consumer Fraud/False Advertising Lawsuit Against The Regents of the University of California (This includes admissions data extracted from the University showing the extent to which race was used to admit students to its law and medical schools.) A pre-filing unsigned copy of the lawsuit plus the data exhibits is in this PDF file.
Letter from Allan J. Favish to UC requesting raw admissions data. Such a request letter is the first step to take in obtaining the data.
Letter from UCLA School of Law's Dean of Admissions, Michael Rappaport, to Allan J. Favish, saying that the requested information is "not available." (This letter was in response to a 1993 request for raw admissions data for UCLA School of Law's 1993 entering class.)
California Public Records Act lawsuit against The Regents of the University of California seeking the raw admissions data that forms the basis for the data exhibits to the consumer fraud lawsuit.
Press release. A pre-filing unsigned copy of the lawsuit plus the data exhibits is in this PDF file.
A pre-filing unsigned copy of the lawsuit plus the data exhibits is in this PDF file.
Appellate court opinion in consumer fraud lawsuit, Allan J. Favish v. Regents of The University of Califorrnia.
The California Supreme Court denies Favish's Petition for Review and the Supreme Court's Order Depublishing the Appellate Court's Opinion.
When the Court of Appeal in California makes a decision, it decides whether to publish the decision in the official reports or leave the decision unpublished and just released to the parties in the case. In either case, the decision is still binding on the parties to the case. Only about 12% of the Court of Appeal's decisions are published in the official reports. Usually, those cases that involve new legal issues or that change a previous rule of law or are otherwise noteworthy will be published. If every Court of Appeal decision were published, the law library would be bursting with many decisions of very little significance.
Letter to the Regents explaining what Favish suit was about, what happened in the courts and requesting that the Regents tell the truth to prospective applicants about UC's racial discrimination policy.
Article describing how Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg supported a racial quota plan when she was on the Washington D.C. Circuit Court of Appeal. (July 13, 1993)
Article discussing UCLA School of Law's racial admissions to the 1993 entering class. (January 10, 1995)
Letter to the editor responding to criticism of Favish's opinion. (March 10, 1995)
Letter to the editor responding to criticism of Favish's opinion. (October 17, 1995)
Article discusses Favish's consumer fraud lawsuit against The Regents of the University of California. (January 30, 1996) A pre-filing unsigned copy of the lawsuit plus the data exhibits is in this PDF file.
Letter to the editor responding to op-ed article by UCLA School of Law Professor Reginald Alleyne's that defended the use of racial preferences. (March 29, 1996)
Law review article describing and critically analyzing the history of UCLA School of Law's racial admissions system.
Letter to the editor responding to an op-ed article by a self-professed beneficiary of a racial college admission. (May 24, 1996)
Article that 1) explains why the appellate court erred in holding that the consumer fraud law did not apply to the Regents, 2) why the state attorney general believes the holding is erroneous, and 3) invites the attorney general to formally support Favish's petition for review to the California Supreme Court. (July 24, 1996)
Unpublished article explaining how Los Angeles County Supervisor Yvonne Braithwaite Burke distorted former Vice-President Hubert H. Humphrey's civil rights record in order to perpetuate race and sex preferences. (August 1996)
Letter to the editor responding to a reported statement by UC Berkeley's undergraduate admissions director Bob Laird. (September 3, 1996)
Letter to the editor responding to opponents of Proposition 209 (aka the CCRI) at California State University, Northridge, inviting David Duke to defend the initiative at a debate. (September 12, 1996)
Letter to the editor responding to an op-ed article by Los Angeles Times columnist Peter King about Proposition 209 (CCRI) and David Duke. (October 4, 1996). The Times significantly weakened my letter with their editing. Here is the full text of my letter with the portions in brackets that were omitted by the Times.
Rebuttal to Stanley Fish's 1995 op-ed that was published in the New York Times. (late 1996)
Article explaining one reason why Judge Thelton Henderson's decision granting a preliminary injunction against Proposition 209 was wrong. (December 31, 1996)
This digital version is identical with the published version except that this version contains the second paragraph, below, which quotes from Proposition 209 and the last two sentences of the fourth paragraph, which contain additional quotes from Judge Henderson. The title was theirs, not mine.
Letter to the editor explaining why Judge Thelton Henderson's ruling on Proposition 209 was wrong. (December 19, 1996)
Letter to the editor rebutting Earl Ofari Hutchinson's account of Martin Luther King's view of racial preferences for blacks. (January 17, 1997)
Article about the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Decision in the Proposition 209 Case. (April 10, 1997)
The first time the phrase "affirmative action" was used in a Presidential Executive Order was March 1961 when President John F. Kennedy ordered that federal contractors,
take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin.
A racial or sexual quota simply means that racial or sexual preferences are exercised in order to meet a particular racial or sexual outcome. The exercise of racial or sexual preferences, without any particular racial or sexual outcome as a goal, still constitutes the rejection of some individuals and the acceptance of others on the basis of the racial or sexual preference. The preferences, even without quotas, will be determinative in some individual cases. If the preferences were never determinative there would not be any reason to have them. In those cases where consideration of race affects the final outcome for a specific individual, then race was a deciding factor.
Education Code §§ 87100-87107 require the governing board of each community college district to establish an affirmative action plan (with goals and timetables) to hire and promote "persons who are underrepresented in the work force compared to their number in the population, including handicapped persons, women, and persons of racial and ethnic backgrounds" with respect to administrative, faculty, and other positions. The Chancellor and the Board have the responsibility to enforce this requirement. The State Controller has the duty to disburse State funds appropriated for this purpose.
THE 1964 FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS ACT
Two of the main sections of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and an important part of it's legislative history are summarized and then presented.
42 USC § 2000d prohibits racial discrimination in programs receiving Federal money. This applies to school and college programs that receive Federal money.
42 USC § 2000e-2 prohibits racial and sexual discrimination by employers when hiring, training and providing other employment opportunities. This applies to state government employers, as well as private employers.
Explanation about how the CCRI will not increase sexual discrimination against women.
[Some opponents of the California Civil Rights Initiative have charged that the CCRI will legalize sexual discrimination against women that is now illegal. This charge was made in an op-ed article by law professors Erwin Chemerinsky and Laurie Levenson entitled "Sex Discrimination Made Legal," Los Angeles Times, Commentary section, January 10, 1995. The charge also has been made in a Los Angeles Times news article dated February 23, 1996. Here is my essay in response to the Los Angeles Times news article and a response to the Chemerinsky and Levenson op-ed article.]
I hope everybody has a well-sharpened number two pencil ready. Now please remove everything from the top of your desks except for your answer sheet and the pencil. I will now show you two separate question and answer exchanges. Please identify the U.S. President in each exchange and then select the President whose view is most compatible with that of Martin Luther King, Jr., whose birthday we celebrate on the third Monday of each January.
Eric Foner, a professor of history at Columbia University has recently written an inaccurate article and letter to the editor that erroneously asserts that Martin Luther King endorsed a policy of racial preferences for blacks in school admissions and jobs. Prof. Foner's article appeared in Slate, an online magazine published by Microsoft and available on the world wide web. His letter appeared in the Los Angeles Times. My response to his article and letter were sent to the respective publications but were not published. You can read them here.
The California Civil Rights Initiative (CCRI), aka Proposition 209 on California's November 1996 ballot, will prohibit discrimination and preferences by state and local government, based on race and sex, etc. The CCRI does not use the words "affirmative action." Opponents of the CCRI sued California's attorney general in order to force him to include the words "affirmative action" in his ballot label and title for the CCRI. This appellate opinion rejected the opponents' arguments and supported the attorney general.
Justice William Rehnquist's dissenting opinion in Steelworkers v. Weber, 443 U.S. 193, 61 L Ed 2d 480 (1979). The most comprehensive judicial presentation of the legislative history of the 1964 Civil Rights Act available for downloading in rich text format.
The official web site for the California Civil Rights Initiative (CCRI) (aka Proposition 209).
The California Secretary of State's official ballot analysis and arguments for the CCRI (aka Proposition 209).
Article about the financial incentives for racial preferences in the Democrats' health care bill of 2009. (July 21, 2009)
The Supreme Court will revisit affirmative action, worrying many advocates of officially sponsored racial preferences. But proponents of racial preferences are actively seeking to restore them in the state of California.