A New Playbook: The Procedural Resilience of Oregon’s Rooney Rule in the Wake of Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard

Author

• Jada I. CookFollow

Graduation Year

2026

Date of Submission

4-2026

Document Type

Open Access Senior Thesis

Degree Name

Bachelor of Arts

Department

Philosophy, Politics, and Economics (PPE)

Reader 1

Michael Fortner

Abstract

This article evaluates the constitutionality of Oregon’s codified Rooney Rule considering the Supreme Court’s decision to end affirmative action in Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) v. Harvard. Passed in 2009, the Oregon mandate requires public universities to include at least one minority applicant in the interview process for all head coaching vacancies. By analyzing the architectural origins of the Rooney Rule within the National Football League (NFL) and the systemic racial exclusion it sought to dismantle, this research explores whether interview-stage mandates, that are applied at the state level, can survive the rigorous application of the strict scrutiny standard. This research argues that unlike outcome-determinative admissions policies, a codified Rooney Rule is purely procedural and does not inherently disadvantage non-minority candidates. Consequently, while the SFFA decision casts doubt on race-conscious institutional policies, legislative frameworks modeled after the Rooney Rule may offer a narrow, yet resilient pathway for states to promote diversity within public institutions without violating contemporary constitutional interpretations of colorblindness.

Recommended Citation

Cook, Jada I., "A New Playbook: The Procedural Resilience of Oregon’s Rooney Rule in the Wake of Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard" (2026). CMC Senior Theses. 4208.
https://scholarship.claremont.edu/cmc_theses/4208