The U.S. Supreme Court’s willingness to reconsider a controversial 2003 ruling upholding America’s affirmative action laws could signal a welcome shift in this ill-conceived policy.
Affirmative action – or the right (and in some cases the requirement) of agencies and institutions to factor race, gender, sexual orientation and other characteristics into their admission, appointment or hiring decisions – is inherently racist.
The original decision granting judicial cover to affirmative action – Regents of the University of California v. Bakke – was reached in 1978. The 2003 case – Grutter v. Bollinger – upheld this decision. In that case – which dealt with admissions to the University of Michigan Law School – the court ruled that the U.S. Constitution permitted the “narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body.”
However, a concurrent ruling – Gratz v. Bollinger – ruled against the use of quota systems at Michigan which assigned specific points to applicants based on their race.
Confusing, right?
Now the court has agreed to take up a Texas case in which a successful race-neutral admissions policy is being challenged. The Texas policy – in which the top 10 percent of graduates from all Texas High Schools are automatically granted admission to the state’s flagship university – has achieved diversity given the numerous majority-black and majority-Latino schools in the Lone Star State.
Despite this, the school wants to preserve its right to continue using race – not academic achievement – as a determining factor for admissions.
In December U.S. President Barack Obama’s administration affirmed its support for affirmative action – with the U.S. Departments of Education and Justice issuing new guidelines encouraging colleges and universities to ramp up their efforts to admit more minority students.
“Ensuring that our nation’s students are provided with learning environments comprised of students of diverse backgrounds is not just a lofty ideal. As the Supreme Court has recognized, the benefits of participating in diverse learning environments flow to an individual, his or her classmates, and the community as a whole. These benefits greatly contribute to the educational, economic, and civic life of this nation,” Obama’s guidelines note.
Previous guidelines from the administration of George W. Bush had stressed the limits of affirmative action policies.
We have always believed that any law which unfairly limits an individual’s rights on the basis of their skin color, ethnic origin, gender or sexual orientation is wrong. Unfortunately such an inherently fair world view is anathema to many in our “fair share” world – where the fundamentally American notion of equal opportunity has been replaced by an expectation of equal outcomes for all.
Oh well, hopefully the Supreme Court will take a stand for equal opportunity by striking down affirmative action once and for all.
***
By theo February 22, 2012 at 12:58 pm
Too bad “higer ed” judges not by the content of one’s character or by the achievement record of the applicant, but rather by the applicant’s colour.
Nothing could be more racist.
By BigT February 22, 2012 at 1:01 pm
FITS: When you make the claim that Voter Verification legislation is Racist…and you draw your views on race from a movie that was set way back in the past…
It’s kinda hard to take anything you say as credible in regard to race…
When you’re all over the road, no one will have much faith in your opinion….
In other words: We really don’t want you on our side…
By Ohmaar February 22, 2012 at 1:03 pm
Agreed. It surprises me that NONE of our civil-rights activists have taken notice that educational outcomes of minorities have FALLEN dramatically since Affirmative Action began.
Well, no. That actually DOESN’T surprise me. If they actually achieved racial “equality”, they would all lose their “jobs.”
By Joe February 22, 2012 at 2:02 pm
Ohmaar bringing the truth. AA is a classic example of the aims of modern liberalism – it is NOT about the results, but all about intentions. And we will NEVER have racial equality in this country because there is too much money being made by the race agitators and their accomplices in the media.
By sid February 22, 2012 at 1:12 pm
“Affirmative action – or the right (and in some cases the requirement) of agencies and institutions….”
You mean “authority” or “power,” not “right.” Individuals have rights. Institutions and agencies do not. An organization of individuals could have rights, and a collective of individuals identified by a certain trait or designation could have rights. But an institution or agency, especially one established by some form of governmental edict, does not have rights.
By Really? February 22, 2012 at 1:45 pm
I’m generally not a post-er, but couldn’t help it for this one. Is this really true? Does the outcome of this case really have the potential to make a difference about this?
AA is an overtly racist policy that has long outlasted any purpose that it ever served. What is more, many minorities in the work place continue to be the subject of suspicion because of the preferential treatment afforded them from this policy. While in Harvard Law School, our current president acknowledged that he would not have attained the position without recourse to Affirmative Action.
This policy is morally wrong on its face. It is blantantly, overtly, and literally racist in its plain text. Only tweaked and twisted left-wing logic could explain its way around that. The Constitution guarantees the equal protection of the law, but many in this country want special priviledged classes to get equality AT LEAST.
I still doubt any big change to this policy will come from this case, but I will eagerly await the outcome. If it results in meaningful change, then I’ll say, in the words of one of history’s most famous AA beneficiaries, “for the first time in my life, I’m proud of my country.”
By 803andy February 22, 2012 at 1:58 pm
Here you go:
http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/1588/tumblrlrjddnqewc1qfk66b.png
By Jeff February 23, 2012 at 3:18 pm
Thats argument is tired….the only thing keeping any person down is lack of self esteem and knowledge.
And both have to do with having BOTH parents willing to step up and break the cycle.
over 60% of Black children are born to single Mothers with multiple children, never thinking to stop at 1 and give them the best chance at a great life.
By wawa February 22, 2012 at 2:01 pm
I’ll agree it’s racist but without an alternative way for measuring students it’s a decently useful too.
If I see a kid who grew up in Shandon, with 2 parents, and a stay at home mom with the same academic statistics as a fatherless kid from Dillon who’s mom works 16 hours a day I’d admit the kid from Dillon all day over the other kid.
I didn’t designate race in this hypothetical but I imagine readers associated one themselves. Now if the kid from Shandon was black and the kid from Dillon was white everyone gets screwed and a huge flaw in the system is exposed.
Basically all things being equal I’d much rather have a candidate with a tougher more diverse childhood as a classmate. We’re not in home school anymore folks – sooner or later you’ll have to have contact with people darker than you… Even if you go to Bob Jones you’ll presumably have to encounter one in your work life at some point.
By Pops in Forest Acres February 24, 2012 at 12:56 pm
All of our help, many years ago, was darker than us. The guys who checked our luggage at the train station was darker than us and all the help that poured our drinks at the country club were darker than us. Why, I even had a young man that would gladly swim after my ducks no matter how cold the pond was during duck season. His color never came into question. His mother who did our ironing was as fine a lady as they come. Color was never a problem back then.
By james February 22, 2012 at 2:02 pm
College admission is a nebulous subject–we all agree that we want motivated high achieving applicants; as far as our public colleges are concerned, some of the accepted applicants are third generation idiots of alumni, football players who cannot read and a preference for instate over out of state applicants. A more objective system would be ACT or SAT scores as the primary selection method.
Affirmative action has outlived the era of outright racism and denial of admissions to minorities (about 50 years now). Instead we have a system that looks down on graduating minorities (who either attend lesser institutions like SC State or are less likely to be considered equivalent to whites in the same program). Poverty is more likely a determiner of educational success than race itself. Ironically, asians in california are hurt by affirmative action programs in their colleges; they are a minority but very bright as a group and are being limited in access to college opportunities.
By wawa February 22, 2012 at 2:16 pm
On point James – and for the sake of the article the girl who was denied admission to Michigan Law School was VASTLY unqualified. Her LSAT score would have barely gotten her into SC let alone a top 10 institution.
Also – I feel like a lot of people’s view of affirmative action is some black kid getting into school with less impressive scores/grades than a white kid who’s denied but (at most institutions at least) it is typically only used as a tie breaker of sorts.
It isn’t nearly the civil rights issue most people think it is (not to say it isn’t one at all).
By 803andy February 22, 2012 at 2:45 pm
I wonder if I’m being CENSORED, waits for earlier (topic-related) photo to post…….
By political hack February 23, 2012 at 1:38 am
The Civil Rights act of 1964 and any subsequent affirmative action policy are genius. It is Cloward Piven. The left has their Manchurian Candidate in office. He is free to enact as many socialist policies as he wishes and there will be no dissent for fear of being labeled a racist. Racism in itself is a rather obtuse concept. People discriminate and is inherent human nature. We are naturally inclined to want to further their own ancestral bloodline. The thought police have you more worried about hurting one’s feelings about how you are capable of recognizing differences than what that person actually stands for from an ideological or moral perspective. Does anyone else find it somewhat too perfect that Obama, a product of affirmative action by his own admission, the son of a black communist and a white hippie, went to a Ivy League Fabian Socialist cesspool that worships there god Keynes, got his first job shaking down banks for “redlining” (not practicing affirmative action in lending) and is now in the most powerful job arguably in the world? This wonderful concept of “democracy” everyone holds up as if it were the golden calf is a failure when bad policy cannot be debated in the public realm because the true majority who would dissent to such policy has been silenced since the immaculate inception. Unopposed power begets tyranny.
By SCBlues February 25, 2012 at 11:24 am
I couldn’t wait to see the posts on this thread.
No surprise that some of the most rabid Obama-Haters are on here chiming in – EVERYTHING and ANYTHING that this President does is wrong according to these usual suspects.
When was the last time that a United States President has had to battle the smears and innuendo that this President has? What is different about this President?
I grew up here in South Carolina – what a wonderful history we have on civil rights – this state is infested with bigots and racists – they are well-represented on these forums. I’m sure you folks are proud of our own Joe “You Lie” Wilson.
The RepubliCON slogan for any of its 2012 Presidential candidates reads “We want the White House White again”.