February 11, 2015
"Whether the Fifth Circuit’s re-endorsement of the University of Texas at Austin’s use of racial preferences in undergraduate admissions decisions can be sustained under this Court’s decisions interpreting the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, including Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
23 comments:
It'd be nice if the Supreme Court can make a clear statement on this issue--we've been getting muddle since the 1970s, which has tied schools in knots trying to determine how much racism is too much.
Here's a nice dividing line--can race be a factor in college admissions?
1) Yes, racism is totally okay because history, diversity, or whatever you need to justify it. The only way we're going to get enough black students into college is through discriminating in their favor. Go ahead and do it openly.
2) No, racist admission policies are never okay, full stop. The 14th Amendment is pretty clear, if you don't like it, repeal it. If you want more blacks to get into school, figure out how to address why blacks aren't making it in by your legitimate criteria. Or don't--that's not for the Court to decide, we just have to interpret the law as written.
Otherwise, expect to see hundreds more lawsuits like this.
Again, this shows the difficulty of collective guilt and collective reward, and rating people by race--it becomes harder and harder to hide what you're doing. Much easier to use race-neutral factors, and judge people as individuals. If some individuals are facing obstacles, identify and rectify those obstacles. Short of that, stop trying to argue "diversity" or "addressing historical wrongs" or "correcting racial privilege" as if that's what you're really going for.
In a notable 2012 column Linda Chavez destroyed the entire notion of racial preferences benefiting the poor and underprivileged. Analyzing the statistics shows quite the opposite -- the result is that the "beneficiaries were no longer disadvantaged minority kids who had attended underperforming schools but middle-class and even wealthy students who went to integrated, often suburban or private schools."
No reasonable person could be against a program that evaluates a person's drive and initiative overcoming a disadvantaged background. No reasonable person could be in favor of a program that provides advantages to privileged youths who underperform relative to their socio-economic peers but have the "right" skin color or last name.
Even in California where the voters outlawed discrimination the state U's are still doing it. You can tell by the much lower graduation rates of blacks and hispanics.
Then no one wants to hire even the ones who graduate because the degrees are devalued.
We already had a Civil War to decide whether race is a legitimate criteria upon which the government can favor one class of persons over another. The union, Republican side won and the answer was "no."
Had the southern, Democrat side won, the answer would havew been "yes."
The Supreme Court should follow its only member who has been subjected to Jim Crow and vote 9-0 "no."
Race never matters, under the law, as it is immaterial to all things legal.
"Equal justice under law"?
"Race is not the sole determinant of who is admitted, but it is a significant factor."
But how "significant" can it be? Is it ok for race to be more significant that any other factor?
And if it can be more significant than any other factor, how can it can it not be a determinant factor?
The study of constitutional law has become an exercise in frivolity.
I agree with that guy who said "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."
I believe exactly 438.3 angels can dance on the head of a pin. Over to you, Supreme Court...
The 14th Amendment is pretty clear, if you don't like it, repeal it
Is it really "pretty clear"?
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
If racial discrimination in state admissions runs afoul of the 14th amendment, doesn't academic and financial discrimination run afoul of it as well?
So-called "affirmative action" is disgraceful and racist, but I'm not completely convinced it is unconstitutional. The 14th was more concerned with things like former slaveowners forcing people back into a state of de facto slavery, with the tacit approval of white politicians and law enforcement.
I am a former municipal lawyer. The city automaticly imposed contractual penalties on contractors failing to achieve preset percentages of minority contractors. I advised that was an unlawful quota by another name. The officer in charge told me not to argue the meaning of words with him. The city continues to do what it wants. Governmental action should have no presumption of lawfulness.
Preset percentages of minority subcontractors.
Discrimination by color and other incidental features is only the beginning. Other attributes that may lead to violation of equal protection are physical, mental, dispositional, and spiritual disparities. The Constitution is woefully inadequate to address natural and accumulated disparities, as well as premeditated murder of wholly innocent, unwanted human lives... I mean, Progeny... clumps of cells.
Anyway, Affirmative Action was intended as an ex post facto review to identify and address probable evidence of latent prejudice. It was not intended to institutionalize prejudice a la South African "progressive" Consitution.
"Then no one wants to hire even the ones who graduate because the degrees are devalued."
Here is where the real harm is but, as long as blacks vote D at 95%, nothing will happen.
The increasing tendency for employers to hire from a small set of schools seen as "elite" is another factor.
College degrees replace IQ tests and "elite schools" compensate for the affirmative action grads of most colleges.
One thing it is certain that the original meaning of the 14th Amendment did not prohibit a state from denying anyone the right to vote on account of race.
From what I remember, in the old days, legislators distinguished between civil rights and political rights.
Those government lawyers sure are having a tough time deciding that racial discrimination is bad, and that equal protection under the law is good.
I guess its because they're all subtle 'n' stuff.
One thing it is certain that the original meaning of the 14th Amendment did not prohibit a state from denying anyone the right to vote on account of race.
Sort of. The actual methods used by the states to prevent non-whites from voting *were* illegal under the 14th amendment. States were only allowed to ban races from voting if they stopped counting members of those races when determining how many representatives the state would get.
Pettifogger said...
I am a former municipal lawyer. The city automaticly imposed contractual penalties on contractors failing to achieve preset percentages of minority contractors. I advised that was an unlawful quota by another name.
That's national and omnipresent, not in just that city, and, I think, a far, far bigger deal than university admissions. Don't hear much about it though, for some mysterious reason.
Having a minority-owned business certification can help you tap into a bevy of public and private sector programs. Here’s how to apply.
The goals for minority and female participation for construction contracts were published as notices in Federal Register (minority goals were published on October 03, 1980, and the female goal was published on December 30, 1980).
I always like to ask "What race is our president?" when questions of racial preferences, affirmative action, diversity and other such nonsense is under discussion.
Race in the US should be something the government completely ignores. As it is, government does more to institutionalize racism and racist behavior than anything else in the US.
Today a Dallas area news sight is reporting that UT - Austin and it's President Bill Powers are involved in a secret, back-door admissions acceptance process that is thought to allow up to 300 or more high school students who fail (by large margins) to meet the rigorous academic standards of the school. Investigation reveals that 1/3rd of the entrants were from Dallas's Highland Park neighborhood.
Here's the article:
http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2015/02/kroll_international_report_bill_powers_ut_admissions.php
Post a Comment