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
Why do people need preferential treatment because they're of a specific race? How about banning the admission based on anything other than merit (including sports). If you're smart enough and dedicated enough to get admitted, you should be. If you're not, maybe you don't deserve to be. Not everyone needs to go to the most prestigous schools. Affirmative action seems more anti-white than pro-non-white.
-SaNo
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.
The notion that because an individual is a member of a group which has been or is being disadvantaged compared to other groups, that individual deserves to be favoured above members of other groups, is ridiculous. It's dangerous, unfair and unjust nonsense. It's discrimination, pure and simple. There's no such thing as "positive discrimination".
Every individual deserves to have the same chance as everybody else, and should be judged on their merits alone.
"Short of amending the State Constitution, a Herculean task, racial minorities in Michigan are deprived of even an opportunity to convince Michigan's public colleges and universities to consider race in their admission plans..."
It sounds like what she wants is colleges to consider race during admissions. Please explain to me how race would even factor in unless a higher qualified person of one race is rejected in favor of a lesser qualified person of another race?
I'll admit I'm about as white as they come so according to many who are not white I am unqualified to provide an opinion. However I will say if I was given preferential treatment for anything to my knowledge because of my color and not my qualifications I would be pissed off to the point of declining that treatment.
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.
However I will say if I was given preferential treatment for anything to my knowledge because of my color and not my qualifications I would be pissed off to the point of declining that treatment.
And here's where culture comes into play. There are many African American's that feel they are "owed" something whereas someone from Kenya wouldn't have this mindset.
Life is not for the lazy.
...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.
a black Attorney General, black Supreme Court Justices, black Secretaries of State, and numerous black Senators and Congressmen. Yet there have been few Latinos in the upper echelons of the government and even few Asians. I think affirmative action has already done it's job and is no longer needed.
AA isn't about letting Forrest Gump into Yale. It's about people who *have* potential but haven't had the means to exercise it. Schools want the athlete with the 3.5 GPA not the sheltered bookwork with a 4.0. For example, you might have worked 40 hours a week to pay your way through college and thus your grades may have suffered. Now, for the sake of argument say a kid who didn't have to work, didn't participate in activities, probably had all his bills and car paid for by his parents, etc. shows up with a slightly higher GPA. Universities want that guy who's a hard worker *and* doing more with less. Remember, they want people who are going to go out into the workforce and produce both alumni revenue and reputation, not disappear into quiet government lab.
Another example, in my high school we had a girl who was just about a straight A student and took technical classes. In her senior year, a girl from another school enrolled who went to a school with AP classes (that we didn't have) in English and literature and didn't take any technical classes. Now, on paper one had a 4.0 GPA and the other had a 4.5 [sic] GPA. Who do you think a university wants?
It's silly to think that the enrollment process is so
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
You think that because you don't have a clue, hence your "it really seems" comment. Go look at the groups specifically targeted for AA by your college. This list at my alma mater included kids from economically advantaged communities and backgrounds in rural towns (which in Kansas means probably 99% chance of being White). AA also applies to women.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
Then explain why he's wrong rather than posting a bunch of ad hominem garbage.
Thats does not seem to ever be the Democrat method these days.
"His name was James Damore."
I see everyone going off on either Libertarian or Leftist rants here... but it's not quite that simple.
First, my son is black, I'm white... so I have a vested interest in both races succeeding :-) So that's full disclosure I guess...
First, the reason for affirmative action is often argued as a way to help "the disadvantaged" Well, this is just flat out wrong. Diversity in a school, or anywhere for that matter, doesn't aid the minority students all that much. Yea, sure, they would have gotten in where maybe they otherwise couldn't, but does that really help them? Do get into a school they weren't qualified for? Diversity helps the SCHOOL and the students of the majority. If you went to an all white school, how well prepared do you think you would be for the modern working world? Diversity gives the school and the students have a broader view of the world. Marketing students gets more experience with other races and cultures. Programers learn how to communicate with people that might not speak English that well. (I just got out of a metting where my 60yr old co-worker was completely lost because the guy leading the meeting was teleconferencing from India. I didn't have a problem.) Engineering students learn new techniques from people that may have had different experiences.
With regard to my son, it's really hard to find good role models for him. Yes, there are plenty of great African American Scientists form throughout history. But they are not held in that high of a regard by the African American community. I get to go to "African American Parents groups" and I see it there. It's kind of weird that an the majority of a communities basis for success is related to professional athletes. It's something I had not anticipating as being that big of a problem, but I can really see it now that I have a son that's black. Obama, though I disagree with almost all of his policies, has been a huge boon in that regard. I can point to him and say "See? The most important person in the free world looks like you!" and yes, that is something he's asked about. I think the only real problem he has now is he wishes he had strait hair because he wants to have more than 3 options (shaved, Mohawk or Afro) when he goes to the barber.
So the question is: Should the schools garner this diversity benefit at the expense of white kids? I say no. And again, I think the arguments been reversed. It's not a dis-service to the white students. They'll get a degree from somewhere. But what does this do to the minority community? I don't want my son to EVER think he deserves something because of the color of his skin, or some injustice that happened to his ancestors. I want him to know that when he succeeds that it was on his own merits. Granted, my son will never be in poverty while I'm around (providing the job market doesn't crash) but I'd say that if poverty is your concern you should address that directly. Donate to charities that help with school and give scholarships. A scholarship can be race based, I have no problem with that. But don't you ever tell my son he's less of a person because of his ancestry and needs the states help to get into college.
The college admission "process" is so arbitrary and broken that doing pretty much anything to it would be an improvement.
That being said, I have a hard time believing in equality as a tenet of our country (even equality of opportunity) when the opportunities of a poor kid from the ghetto, a farm kid from small-town America, a middle-class kid from the burbs, and a rich kid from a mansion differ so greatly. Affirmative action was a way (no matter how imperfect) to attempt to address this issue. I wonder how long the myth of American "equality" can sustain itself when even ameliorative programs such as this are shut down with nothing offered in their place to address this issue.
That is all.
For those of you here who have actually been around the block a few times, how many black or hispanic kids are there in in your kid's classes, as opposed to when you were a kid?
If you don't live in a city, how integrated is your neighborhood (oh, sorry, I know that (un)real estate agents get the cooties over that word, I meant "ethnically diverse")?
And if you personally can't deal with affirmative action because you think it kept you from getting into a school, or a job, then a) maybe there's another reason, like not enough of either, or b) maybe you *ain't* that good.
mark "and no, it won't help me personally"
'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.'
The majority of those voters being White. Just trade in your judicial robe for a Klan outfit, Kennedy.
Anyone who thinks Sotomayor is a "racist" is a total idiot
Anone who claims she's NOT a racist is fucking liar.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."