Robert C. Vogt, Moderator. Maybe it’s useful now for me to give the authors of our papers a chance to respond to some of the panelists, and then turn it over to you, if you have any questions for them to respond to. Professors Jackson and Riddlesperger?
Donald W. Jackson: Very briefly, on the question of whether the Civil Rights Act of 1991 was chiefly a matter of education: If that is the case, one should be able to find the evidence of the consequences of that argument. Our coauthor, Gary Fowler, is a litigator who represents employers in employment discrimination cases; he’s not here today because he’s in court defending an employer. The suggestion that education was the key issue in the Civil Rights Act of 1991 came as a surprise to him. And it came as a surprise to the president of the chief interest group that represents employers in employment discrimination cases, the Employment Policy Foundation. There is no evidence there. The federal cases—there are not many, of course, because it hasn’t been that long since 1991–don’t talk about education. In other words, there’s essentially no evidence whatsoever that the Civil Rights Act of 1991 had anything particularly to do with education.
The consequences of the 1991 Civil Rights Act came from two other sources entirely separate from quotas and education, and they have to do chiefly with the availability of jury trials in employment discrimination cases and the allowance of compensatory and punitive damages capped at $300,000, which allowed all of these people to file suits with greater expectations of being able to recover damages. And so the consequences have been the dramatic increase in the number of cases brought in court, and there appears to be no evidence that anyone that I know of can find that education had anything to do with that at all. One other point–
C. Boyden Gray: If I could just interrupt, I’m sorry. Of course it had. There were two separate issues, always: quotas and damages. They weren’t connected. They never were connected. They aren’t connected now. No one ever said they were connected. And we knew the damages problem was going to be a problem. We knew it was going to be a problem, and we said so, and we predicted it, and it’s happened. Now, that’s different than the other issue. The two are separate. I’m sorry, but they’re separate.
Jackson: Well, I was getting ready to address the education issue. It is clearly wrong to equate a high school diploma and education per se. Most states do not do that. That is why they’ve introduced ability testing and skills testing in verbal skills and quantitative skills; that’s why colleges and universities use other measures of education.
Gray: Because diplomas don’t mean anything.