'Supreme Court upholds Michigan affirmative action ban'

Auster

Auster

New member
The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld a Michigan law banning the use of racial criteria in college admissions, a key decision in an unfolding legal and political battle nationally over affirmative action.

The justices found 6-2 that a lower court did not have the authority to set aside the measure approved in a 2006 referendum supported by 58% of voters.

It bars publicly funded colleges from granting "preferential treatment to any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin."

Justice Sonia Sotomayor reacted sharply in disagreeing with the decision.
Click to expand...
Pick your poison:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/22/justice/scotus-michigan-affirmative-action/index.html
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/22/supreme-court-upholds-michigan-affirmative-action-ban/
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/4/23/michigan-affirmativeaction.html

Lol @ Al Jizzera. As always.
 
Does anyone remember the issue a few years ago regarding written exams for fireman who wanted to promote? It was decided that exams should be made easier for black fireman because they did not have the same (equal) access to good schools as their white counterparts. This meant that they could not compete on equal footing for promotions using an exam that they could not have been prepared for.

I thought the argument compelling. Then I read that the exam is something any candidate could study for ahead time. Isn't college entrance exams also something anyone can prepare for? Don't all poor kids, regardless of race, sex, ethnicic background, encounter the same disadvantage? Meaning that any special consideration for grants should be income based only?
 
Here's Sotomayor's dissenting opinion. She's my new heroine.

"Our Constitution does not guarantee minority groups victory in the political process.... It guarantees that the majority may not win
by stacking the political process against minority groups permanently, forcing the minority alone to surmount
unique obstacles in pursuit of its goals—here, educational diversity that cannot reasonably be accomplished through
race-neutral measures.

Today,by permitting a majority ofthe voters in Michigan to do what our Constitution forbids,the Court ends the debate over race-sensitive admissions
policies in Michigan in a manner that contravenes constitutional protections long recognized in our precedents."

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-682_j4ek.pdf
 
Last edited:
christiefan915 said:
Here's Sotomayor's dissenting opinion. She's my new heroine.

"Our Constitution does not guarantee minority groups victory in the political process.... It guarantees that the majority may not win
by stacking the political process against minority groups permanently, forcing the minority alone to surmount
unique obstacles in pursuit of its goals—here, educational diversity that cannot reasonably be accomplished through
race-neutral measures.

Today,by permitting a majority ofthe voters in Michigan to do what our Constitution forbids,the Court ends the debate over race-sensitive admissions
policies in Michigan in a manner that contravenes constitutional protections long recognized in our precedents."

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-682_j4ek.pdf
Click to expand...

How can educational diversity not be accomplished through race-neutral measures? Is she arguing that certain races are not capable of competing with other races academically?
 
cawacko said:
How can educational diversity not be accomplished through race-neutral measures? Is she arguing that certain races are not capable of competing with other races academically?
Click to expand...

Colleges look at more than just the grades of applicants. Look at mediocre legacy students, for example, why should they get preference? Or why should an academically-challenged athlete get recruited and helped through the system, such as this UNC bonehead who got an A- on his paper?

On the evening of December Rosa Parks decided that she was going to sit in the white people section on the bus in Montgomery, Alabama. During this time blacks had to give up there seats to whites when more whites got on the bus. Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat. Her and the bus driver began to talk and the conversation went like this. “Let me have those front seats” said the driver. She didn’t get up and told the driver that she was tired of giving her seat to white people. “I’m going to have you arrested,” said the driver. “You may do that,” Rosa Parks responded. Two white policemen came in and Rosa Parks asked them “why do you all push us around?” The police officer replied and said “I don’t know, but the law is the law and you’re under arrest.

There are plenty of ways to look at unfairness in the system without penalizing someone because of their race or ethnicity. And no, I don't think that by and large the playing field is equal for whites and blacks.
 
I have to say, at a base level I agree with the Supreme Court on this one.

Personally I think making decisions based on race is bad.

The only reason I hesitate is that the minority starts with a built in bias against him, just like the person who comes from a line of poor members of the majority.

When people who don't otherwise qualify (GWB) get into institutions of higher education because of who their parents were... the minority and the people who come from a line of poor members of the majority suffer unfairly.

Two wrongs don't make a right, usually, and that is why I have to come down on the side with the Supreme Court.... But I would encourage some effort me made to correct the other wrong, the one that favors people who's parents were Presidents, Senators, Directors of the CIA..., or even just alumni of a particular institution.

BTW, by default, because a vast majority of African Americans are decedents of slaves, and because of the many years of segregation, a disproportnal number of black Americans do not qualify for the benefit that got GWB into Yale.
 
Jarod said:
I have to say, at a base level I agree with the Supreme Court on this one.

Personally I think making decisions based on race is bad.

The only reason I hesitate is that the minority starts with a built in bias against him, just like the person who comes from a line of poor members of the minority.

When people who don't otherwise qualify (GWB) get into institutions of higher education because of who their parents were... the minority and the people who come from a line of poor members of the majority suffer unfairly.

Two wrongs don't make a right, usually, and that is why I have to come down on the side with the Supreme Court.... But I would encourage some effort me made to correct the other wrong, the one that favors people who's parents were Presidents, Senators, Directors of the CIA..., or even just alumni of a particular institution.

BTW, by default, because a vast majority of African Americans are decedents of slaves, and because of the many years of segregation, a disproportnal number of black Americans do not qualify for the benefit that got GWB into Yale.
Click to expand...


The question was not whether race can be considered a factor in admissions at public universities. That question is settled and the answer is, yes, it can. The question before the court was whether race, and race alone, can be singled out as being barred from consideration in public university admissions such that those persons who want to promote race-sensitive admissions cannot pursue that goal other than by another constitutional amendment.
 
Sotomayor's dissent gives a lot of examples of how law is circumvented when it comes to race.

(She takes a few swipes at Scalia [65-66, 70-71], awesome. And "On this point, and this point only, I agree with JUSTICE SCALIA that the plurality has rewritten those precedents beyond recognition." Starting page 89 she really lets him have it. You go, Sonia!)
 
Last edited:
christiefan915 said:
Here's Sotomayor's dissenting opinion. She's my new heroine.

"Our Constitution does not guarantee minority groups victory in the political process.... It guarantees that the majority may not win
by stacking the political process against minority groups permanently, forcing the minority alone to surmount
unique obstacles in pursuit of its goals—here, educational diversity that cannot reasonably be accomplished through
race-neutral measures.

Today,by permitting a majority ofthe voters in Michigan to do what our Constitution forbids,the Court ends the debate over race-sensitive admissions
policies in Michigan in a manner that contravenes constitutional protections long recognized in our precedents."

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-682_j4ek.pdf
Click to expand...

Today,by permitting a majority of the voters in Michigan to do what our Constitution forbids,the Court ends the debate over race-sensitive admissions
policies in Michigan in a manner that contravenes constitutional protections long recognized in our precedents."

Hooray for the US Constitution....finally.

If educational diversity that cannot reasonably be accomplished through race-neutral measures, you look for the reason why and work to correct that problem,
not by doing what is obviously unconstitutional and using law to favor one race over another.....the ends do not and should not justify the means.
 
Bonestorm said:
I think she's making an observation about reality, cawacko.
Click to expand...

Ok. As even Darla has said white women have been the biggest beneficiaries of affirmative action. That stat I saw was 140 women graduated college now for every 100 men and more women get associate, bachelors, masters and doctorate degrees than men. So from that perspective AA is working very well.

When we talk politics and voting Asians are considered minorities. When we talk education they aren't. In California Asians make up 13% of the population and over 35% of the incoming students at UC schools. They would in fact be hurt by AA.

Those are also realities.
 
Its not right for a less qualified black guy to get into college over a more qualified white guy.

The Republicans scream about that... but they don't see to care when...

The less qualified rich guy gets into college over a more qualified poor guy. (GWB)
 
NOVA said:
Today,by permitting a majority of the voters in Michigan to do what our Constitution forbids,the Court ends the debate over race-sensitive admissions
policies in Michigan in a manner that contravenes constitutional protections long recognized in our precedents."

Hooray for the US Constitution....finally.

If educational diversity that cannot reasonably be accomplished through race-neutral measures, you look for the reason why and work to correct that problem,
not by doing what is obviously unconstitutional and using law to favor one race over another.....the ends do not and should not justify the means.
Click to expand...

"...what the majority could not do, consistent with the Constitution, is change the ground rules of the political process in a manner that makes it more difficult for racial minorities alone to achieve their goals. In doing so,the majority effectively rigs the contest to guarantee a particular outcome." (P. 85)
 
christiefan915 said:

"...what the majority could not do, consistent with the Constitution, is change the ground rules of the political process in a manner that makes it more difficult for racial minorities alone to achieve their goals. In doing so,the majority effectively rigs the contest to guarantee a particular outcome." (P. 85)
Click to expand...

The majority does this all the time. Who is most likely to have lost a seat at Yale when they accepted GWB?
 
Jarod said:
The majority does this all the time. Who is most likely to have lost a seat at Yale when they accepted GWB?
Click to expand...

Exactly. And Sonia writes on P. 102 "The President and Chancellors of the University of California (which has 10 campuses, not 17) inform us that
“[t]he abandonment of race-conscious admissions policies resulted in an immediate and precipitous decline in the rates at which
underrepresented-minority students applied to, were admitted to, and enrolled at” the university. "
 
Legacys really only work at private schools. That said there is a real dogfight at top tier privated (think Ivy League) for minority.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top