by such institutions might be subjected to a different standard. See, e.g., Rudebusch, 313 F.3d 506 (considering a university's equity pay adjustment under Title VII's standards for affirmative action programs); Cerrato v. S.F. Cmty. Coll. Dist., 26 F.3d 968 (9th Cir.1994) (affirming a district court judgment dismissing a claim, brought by a professor who was passed over for the position of dean, that challenged the district’s affirmative action policy under an unmodified Title VII standard). 3 . The majority's reference to the First Amendment roots of "educational autonomy,” see Maj. Op. at 841, is misleading since the Supreme Court has consistently rejected First Amendment interests as a justification for racial discrimination. See, e.g., Runyon, 427 U.S. at 176, 96 S.Ct. 2586 (<HOLDING>); Norwood v. Harrison, 413 U.S. 455, 470, 93
holding that although parents have a fundamental right to the care and custody of their children they have no fundamental right to allocate support to their children as they see fit recognizing fundamental right of parents to care for their children holding that while it may be assumed that parents have a first amendment right to send their children to educational institutions that promote racial discrimination it does not follow that the practice of excluding racial minorities from such institutions is also protected by the same principle holding that it is not holding that it may not