The title of this post is reflective of the tone of the headlines you’ll see all day. The truth of the matter is the Supreme Court ended race-based admission policies, and in doing so, the court says, will not be violating the US Constitution.
Genuine Affirmation Action has never been about using a person’s race to determine whether they will be admitted to a school or a job; it’s about outreach making sure minority groups know they can apply for a position, and making an effort to have those individuals enter the competition for a job or an admission. Essentially, it’s about equal opportunity, not guaranteed outcomes.
Bottom line, this is an excellent decision. Here are the details.
A splintered Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled 6-2 that states may end racial preferences without violating the U.S. Constitution, upholding a Michigan law that grew out of the state’s long-running debate over affirmative-action policies at public universities.
The ruling leaves in place the outcome of a 2006 Michigan ballot initiative where voters backed an end to racial preferences at state schools. But it also left intact legal precedents that protect minorities from being targeted for unfair treatment through the political process.
Tuesday’s ruling means racial preferences won’t soon return to the University of Michigan–or any other university in states that have chosen to end the practice–but suggests the justices are far from consensus on when affirmative action may be allowed, an issue sure to return to the court in the coming years.
Eight states have ended affirmative action since 1996, including California. The higher-education establishment favors the use of racial preferences to promote diversity in the student body. Many of the nation’s most selective universities, including the private Ivy League, flagship public institutions such as the University of Texas at Austin and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and the U.S. military academies, employ affirmative action.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for a plurality including Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, said the case wasn’t about resolving the debate over affirmative action, but rather “who may resolve it.” He wrote the Constitution doesn’t forbid voters from ending the practice, which was instituted by officials at the University of Michigan and other state agencies…
The University of Michigan has been a frequent battleground over affirmative action. In 2003, a narrowly divided court upheld the practice at the flagship university’s law school but struck down the point-based method it employed for undergraduate admissions for making race too dominant a factor.
“Our state Constitution requires equal treatment in college admissions, because it is fundamentally wrong to treat people differently based on the color of their skin,” Republican Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette said. “A majority of Michigan voters embraced the ideal of equal treatment in 2006, and today their decision was affirmed.”
More via Twitchy:
Taranto’s WSJ column, First Among Equals: An Orwellian dissent from a muddled ruling, highlights some of the odd nuances and uncertainties about this situation.
I think of ruling as allowing States to end quota action. True affirmative action of reaching out to minorities will still rightly occur, but there won’t be a required percentage outcome.
U. of Michigan’s fight song is, The Victors, written in 1898 after a victory over the U. of Chicago. With our current Chicago Divider-in-Chief, it seems fitting that this victory was based in Michigan. Here’s link to, The Victors. http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=michigan+fight+song&FORM=VIRE3#view=detail&mid=2190CFB3AC4A28C8CF502190CFB3AC4A28C8CF50
Apparently Justice Sotomayor read her opinion from the bench. You have to check out her opinion. She is one constitutional hot mess. Forget the stereotypical “just a lawyer in a black robe”, she’s an irrational academic in a black robe”!
Rick
The Supreme Court decision of Bush-Gore 2000 still rankles Democrats and they’re trying to negate it by having States promise to provide their Electoral College votes based on national popular vote. When JFK was a Senator, some Republicans wanted to do that also. JFK had the following perspective on that.
“…Then-Sen. John F. Kennedy made the case for the college this way: “Direct election would break down the federal system under which states entered the union, which provides a system of checks and balances to ensure that no area or group shall obtain too much power.”…”
Excellent point, representative of the underpinning of States rights. Another example that JFK’s party is not today’s.
http://nypost.com/2014/04/27/bush-v-gore-the-sequel/