Writes Adam Liptack in the NYT.
ADDED: You can read the transcripts for the 2 cases here (University of North Carolina) and here (Harvard).
AND: From Robert Barnes and Ann E. Marimow in The Washington Post: "Conservative Supreme Court justices on Monday seemed open to ending decades of precedent allowing race-conscious admission decisions at colleges and universities, repeatedly expressing doubt that the institutions would ever concede an 'endpoint' in their use of race to build diverse student bodies."
Posts
44 comments:
I'm betting on a statutory based outcome, deferring the constitutional question.
BTW, David Bernstein's book "CLASSIFIED", on the irrationality of the racialist categories employed by schools, companies, and governmental subdivisions, is a watershed in its lampooning of the bizarre arbitrariness of the whole racialism game. After you read it, you will see the AA systems for what they are: the work of well-meaning nincompoops, far less concerned about justice than the appearance of justice.
Nothing will change except for rejected applicants suing more frequently and perhaps prevailing for some $$$ but not with admittance.
Education is a social construct.
Ampersand: thanks for the tip on Bernstein's book. Definitely sounds worthwhile --and it obviously resonated in today's arguments. An earlier book which I found helpful was "Mismatch." And, of course, anything by Thomas Sowell.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the relevant precedent say racial preferences need to sunset at some point? If so, perhaps that point is now, in which case a decision to find them unlawful would be consistent with precedent.
""By the end of five hours of vigorous and sometimes testy arguments, a majority of the justices appeared ready to reconsider decades of precedents and to rule that the programs were unlawful.""
This is wrong.
Racism has millennia of precedent.
It is still wrong and the NYT's and Harvard are both racist institutions.
This is going to be interesting.
I liked Justice Thomas' comment that "research" showing the benefits of racial diversity in the classroom were the same arguments he heard in favor of segregation many years ago.
Let's see how far the leftist Justices pretzel themselves to vote for racial preferences. I am particularly interested in the logic of our newest Justice. I suspect that she has a rather unique of the Constitution and of logic.
Repeating my comment from the other post: California dumped affirmative action more than twenty-five years ago and reaffirmed that decision in the last election 57-43. Current demographics at UC Berkeley (3 percent Black, 40 percent Asian) foretell what Harvard will soon look like if the Supreme Court rules against it.
There is a not so nuanced difference between affirmative action and affirmative discrimination practiced under DIE doctrine inclusive but not equal to racism.
At least it's not a wicked solution rationalized in color blocs with "Jew privilege", "social justice", "redistributive change", "reproductive health", etc.
"repeatedly expressing doubt that the institutions would ever concede an 'endpoint' in their use of race to build diverse student bodies."
The point of prog race mongering, as of any prog policy, is that there is no endpoint. Never enough is prog MO.
And SCOTUS itself made them adopt the diversity rationale. If diversity is an inherent good, why should they concede anything?
But even if SCOTUS tells them to stop, they will keep at it. Progs are SCOTUS deniers.
Name me an issue on which the left would concede an ending. It's their biggest flaw--not one of their issues has a limiting principle.
CJR: "Isn't that what the case is about?"
Harvard wants to discriminate on the basis of race without discriminating on the basis of race.
So, the Court was wrong to ignore decades of precedent in ruling Brown vs. Board of Education?
In dicta J. O'Connor said that after 25 years it was hoped that racial preferences were no longer needed. It wasn't part of the holding and is mere dicta.
"Race doesn't matter, we aren't discriminating on race, but it will be a disaster if you end race based affirmative action".
I think it will be 6-3 to end Grutter. Two decades of imbeciles are enough.
Finally, O'Connor's sunset appears?
("Not yet. Soon. Really soon. OK, in a little while. But soon!")
It is notable how much the establishment media has come to value "precedent". Wasn't that way just a few years ago.
But if it does somehow happen, then that means that Rush Limbaugh was correct before his time, and from beyond the grave:
"Women and Minorities hardest hit."
First I believe the race should play no part in admissions decisions and I hope that SCOTUS finally steps up to the plate on that.
Will that decision change Harvard's admission composition? As many have noted Harvard uses what it calls an "holistic" approach to admissions. SAT scores and grades play a part, extracurriculars play a part, character/leadership plays a part, athletic or other potential contributions to the school( band, chorus, debate, etc.) play a part, legacies play a part. It is a complex process that has the objective of filling the academic, athletic and social requirements of the College over the four years a class is at Harvard. I don't think that will change significantly, but I do think that removing race as an easy eliminator will reduce race favoritism ( known as Affirmative Action) and make the admissions process somewhat fairer.
At least one minority already is “hardest hit” by the current practice of “affirmative action.” Those of Asian heritage.
Ampersand, I absolutely dispute the "well-meaning" part of your statement. With extreme extreme prejudice.
Look, there is a perfectly good solution for Harvard, Yale, and all the other Ivies to adopt that is perfectly legal and constitutional. All applicants get their names put into a hat, and the names are drawn out one by one until the class size is filled with a list of alternates if the offer is declined. That way, the distribution of the class ethnic categories will reflect the ethnic distribution of the people who applied. If the applicant pool is 13% African-American, then roughly 13% of the incoming class will be African-American.
Problem solved, right? Right?
After listening to the audio, I went 'Ouch... As the chief goes, so do the rest of the conservatives.'
It's time for government sanction discrimination to end.
Just like slavery was the antitheses of liberty, there is no way our society can be 'color blind' and yet discriminates based on color!
And we had a civil war over the slavery question. Do we need another one to end discrimination based on color or national origin or creed?
SCOTUS must rule ALL DISCRIMINATION based on race, creed, color, or national origin is wrong.
No, make it...
SCOTUS must rule ALL DISCRIMINATION based on race, creed, color, sex, or national origin is wrong!
"World Ends: Women, Minorities Hardest Hit" predates Limbaugh.
IIRC it was originally in National Lampoon(?) Mock NYT headline.
Alito is brilliant and brave. A man of God. Truth seeker.
As a result. He nailed the lawyer...without using his penis, unlike Paul Pelosi...
To Alito, it's not about winning or losing. It about the absolute truth of "equal protection under the law", no matter how that pendulum racially swings in American history. God's truth doesn't have a pendulum anymore. The New Testament took care of that. The New Testament created...All men are created equal. Even the unborn, up to fifteen weeks gestation. Lincoln understood.
Alito is defending ZERO racism. He got the lawyer to defend "just a little bit of racism". That's beautiful and FUNNY!!!
As an alternative to overruling Bakke-Grutter-Fisher 2, Harvard’s lawyer and the Solicitor General both ended up asking for a remand so that the lower courts can fix whatever error in the application of the strict scrutiny test the court may find was committed below. There was nothing strict and little actual scrutiny in how the lower courts reviewed the universities’ admissions programs in these cases. I think Harvard and the SG realize that the only question, after this argument, is whether the court issues a ruling broadly rejecting racial preferences in university admissions, or a narrower ruling tinkering with the lower courts’ application of the strict scrutiny test in this context. I think we will end up with the broader ruling, since merely adjusting how strict scrutiny is supposed to be applied just guarantees that the issue will be back — and soon. It’s not going away.
appeared ready to reconsider decades of precedents and to rule that the programs were unlawful
ummm, Aren't They? isn't The Best To End Racial Discrimination, to just stop discriminating by race?
I read one book by Tom Sowell, where he talks about race preferences all around the world.
He said they never ever go away.
Blogger Earnest Prole said...
Repeating my comment from the other post: California dumped affirmative action more than twenty-five years ago and reaffirmed that decision in the last election 57-43. Current demographics at UC Berkeley (3 percent Black, 40 percent Asian) foretell what Harvard will soon look like if the Supreme Court rules against it.
Hans Landa: Ja, und?
Marcus B. THEOLDMAN
This clip also applies here.
How do you get people to accept transparently false syllogisms?... in the case of affirmative action? who wants to be called racist?
In the case of the vaccines... Who wants to be called anti-vaxer?
In the case of free expression... Who wants to be called a hate monger?
In the case of questioning an election... Who wants to be called an insurrectionist?
On and on, they have come upon an effective way to shut down dissent.
Are we really ready to give up Plessy v. Feruson? Admit non-Whites to public facilities on the same terms that we admit Whites? (And by the way, the Whites are going to have to compete with Chinese, Koreans, etc. Up your game, Whitey!)
The first woman associate justice predicted it some 30 years ago and the simple truth is that racism is inherent and nearly unavoidable when basing decisions on race. Even Roberts can phrase it succinctly and has.
Prole is correct in us Californians rejecting race based admissions. I’d like to see the race questions outlawed on any government or medical or educational form. It should be just as impolite for a form as for a person to ask “what race are you?”
The leftist justices (and that’s what they are, leftists) appeared to be arguing (and that’s what they were doing in the form of their questions, arguing) simultaneously (1) there’s no real injury here because no one can show they’re missing out because of these racial preferences, and (2) if they can’t use racial preferences, the numbers of blacks being admitted will plummet. Hmm?
And Thomas was his usual consistent self on this issue: the arguments in favor of the preferences are the same ones we rejected in Brown v Board.
If not now, when?
The growth of non-quantifiable criteria is an attempt to mask the underlying racial preference. And not just at Haaaavahd. Hard to root out if you have layers of true believers at the helm.
Current demographics at UC Berkeley (3 percent Black, 40 percent Asian) foretell what Harvard will soon look like if the Supreme Court rules against it.
There’s a story about Ronald Reagan when he was Governor of California. He was told that ending racial preferences in the University of California system would lead to Berkeley being 100% Asian.
His response then is the same I’d make today. “What’s wrong with that?”
Earnest Prole said...
Current demographics at UC Berkeley (3 percent Black, 40 percent Asian) foretell what Harvard will soon look like if the Supreme Court rules against it.
Maybe true but that doesn't mean blacks and others will not matriculate to other post-secondary education, and actually do better.
Although the more prestigious schools saw a significant decrease in admissions of underrepresented minorities similar to that predicted by Proposition 209’s opponents, UC Santa Cruz and UC Riverside saw a drastic increase in admissions of underrepresented minorities. Students are being admitted on the strength of their credentials. UC Santa Cruz and UC Riverside continue to enroll a strong percentage of underrepresented minority students.
By ensuring that minority students would be admitted only to those schools at which their entering credentials match those of white and Asian students, Proposition 209 facilitated the improvement of minority students’ performance in the colleges/universities they are attending. For example, at UC Berkeley, the six-year or less graduation rate of African American and Hispanic freshmen entering in the fall of 1998, increased by 6.5% and 4.9%, respectively, compared to the graduation rates of their peers just two years earlier, before Proposition 209 was in effect.
At UC San Diego, the average freshman GPAs for minorities all but converged with the GPAs of white and Asian students, just one year after Proposition 209 was implemented. Although other factors may play a role in this trend, the data shows that minority students are capable of high academic achievement equal to that of their white and Asian peers when admission is based on academic credentials rather than racial preferences.
The CSU system experienced a similar effect on admissions after the adoption of Proposition 209. From 1995 to 2004, the enrollment of white, non-Latino students decreased significantly by 4.0%. African American and Asian American enrollment decreased slightly by 0.7% and 0.9% respectively. The enrollment of Hispanic students increased significantly by 4.7%.
DID THE SKY REALLY FALL? (BYU, 2005)
1. Admission by lottery. $100 for a ticket. One entry per social security number.
2. First year tuition ... $0.00.
3. Subsequent years' tuition TBD but in line with the cost of providing the education. Not cheap.
4. It is only after students proves their academic ability in the first year that families and interest groups can decide to fund them or not.
Affirmative Action suppresses diversity.
What were the other arguments for it again?
Post a Comment