Slashdot Mirror
Supreme Court Upholds Michigan's Ban On Affirmative Action In College Admissions
Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes: "The Supreme Court, by a vote of 6 — 2, has upheld a Michigan law banning the use of racial criteria in college admissions, finding that a lower court did not have the authority to set aside the measure approved in a 2006 referendum supported by 58% of voters. 'This case is not about how the debate about racial preferences should be resolved. It is about who may resolve it,' wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy. 'Michigan voters used the initiative system to bypass public officials who were deemed not responsive to the concerns of a majority of the voters with respect to a policy of granting race-based preferences that raises difficult and delicate issues.' Kennedy's core opinion in the Michigan case seems to exalt referenda as a kind of direct democracy that the courts should be particularly reluctant to disturb. This might be a problem for same-sex marriage opponents if a future Supreme Court challenge involves a state law or constitutional amendment enacted by voters.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor reacted sharply in disagreeing with the decision in a 58 page dissent. 'For members of historically marginalized groups, which rely on the federal courts to protect their constitutional rights, the decision can hardly bolster hope for a vision of democracy (PDF) that preserves for all the right to participate meaningfully and equally in self-government.' The decision was the latest step in a legal and political battle over whether state colleges can use race and gender as a factor in choosing what students to admit. Michigan has said minority enrollment at its flagship university, the University of Michigan, has not gone down since the measure was passed. Civil rights groups dispute those figures and say other states have seen fewer African-American and Hispanic students attending highly competitive schools, especially in graduate level fields like law, medicine, and science."
Justice Sonia Sotomayor reacted sharply in disagreeing with the decision in a 58 page dissent. 'For members of historically marginalized groups, which rely on the federal courts to protect their constitutional rights, the decision can hardly bolster hope for a vision of democracy (PDF) that preserves for all the right to participate meaningfully and equally in self-government.' The decision was the latest step in a legal and political battle over whether state colleges can use race and gender as a factor in choosing what students to admit. Michigan has said minority enrollment at its flagship university, the University of Michigan, has not gone down since the measure was passed. Civil rights groups dispute those figures and say other states have seen fewer African-American and Hispanic students attending highly competitive schools, especially in graduate level fields like law, medicine, and science."
We've made enormous strides in racial equality since this was originally needed. Time for it to go away, at least in Michigan. Other states may decide for themselves.
...seems to think it's ok to reject an Asian American applicant to make room for an African or Hispanic American. That is despicable.
Justice Sotomayor sounds like a huge racist since she doesn't seem to believe that blacks or hispanics are capable of getting admitted on their own merit.
Discrimination in college admissions still exists in the form of legacy admission practices, i.e. giving a *very* significant advantage to the children of alumni.
There can be no level playing field as long as that exists.
Consider the enormous advantages that say, President Obama's daughters have over say, an Asian girl from a economically disadvantaged family. Yet the check marks that each would mark on a college application would result in the President's daughters getting racial preference.
This is 2014. The idea that race is the predominant factor, or even a sizable factor, in opportunity is held only by those who wish to use race for their own agendas. The biggest factors now are family structure, and geography. If you grow up in rich suburbia to parents who care, you will have more opportunity than someone who grows up the ghetto to a single parent that is neglectful.
If you want a level playing field, then look for socioeconomic factors, not race.
Wisest quote I saw from the pundit class:
“I just keep wishing that the people who spend so much time trying to end racial preferences in higher ed would work to end the racial differences in the education we provide K-12”
--Kati Haycock, Education Trust
Gay marriage is about gaining the SAME right as the rest of the population. Affirmative action is about granting certain racial groups EXTRA rights over the rest of the population. These are very different considerations. Affirmative action was only seen as a temporary fix to correct historical imbalances, not in perpetuity. Why should the son of a wealthy African American get admitted to a top school just because he is black? Why should someone who is tall w/blue eyes and blonde hair get extra admission consideration just because his name is Gonzalez and he speaks Spanish? This is very different than granting two lesbians who've been together for 40 years the right to marry. The two are a bad comparison.
It's funny: you say "anti-white", but in California at least it is strongly anti-Asian. There was a referendum that turned out much worse for affirmative action out there than expected because Asian voters, who are normally reliably Democratic-leaning, broke ranks with the party because affirmative action winds up screwing them over the worst.
I'm not and I never have been a member of the GOP. I am a liberal, through and through. Justice Sotomayor is not a liberal, you are not a liberal. Justice Sotomayor sees every social issue through the lens of race. There is no problem that cannot be solved by looking at a racial solution. After all she is the "Wise Latina", that was elevated to the supreme court. If she had just been a Wise Korean she never would have made it. You should really give up the asterisks. They don't make your arguments any stronger.
...why does it always seem to be "African American affirmative action" in practice?
It often strikes me that it really seems to be a program for African Americans and not specifically designed to promote broader racial diversity. It seems like most of the examples talked about in the news reporting on MIchigan refer to African American enrollment at UMich, never to the levels of Hispanic, Asian, Native American or other ethnic group enrollment.
You can get into an epic pissing contest over which of these groups is more historically a victim of prejudice (my vote goes to Native Americans, genocide and ethnic cleansing trumps slavery by a small margin) but there seems to be a subtle bias in these programs towards African Americans. And I'm not saying it's not statistically valid by many measures (especially in Michigan).
But nationally Hispanics outnumber African Americans and all other non-white races combined outnumber African Americans by almost 2:1.
It just strikes me that there's a lot unsaid in this debate and probably some painful and unpleasant facts unspoken.