Reply With Quote
The corrupt extremist VWRC ing SCOTUS Five will certainly kill affirmative action.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...wlI_story.html
When the Supreme Court in 2003 narrowly approved the consideration of race in public university admission decisions, it came with loads of restrictions and a sort of expiration date.
“We expect that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today,” Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote for the majority in Grutter v. Bollinger.
But, of course, O’Connor is now retired from the court, replaced by Samuel A. Alito Jr., a justice far more skeptical of racial remedies. And two recent decisions in lower courts have raised the prospect that the issue will return to the high court far ahead of O’Connor’s timeline.
One is from Texas, where a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit upheld a race-conscious admissions policy at the University of Texas at Austin. An attempt to have the entire circuit hear the case failed 9 to 7, and dissenters practically invited the Supreme Court to step in.
The other is from Michigan, where voters in 2006 passed a cons utional amendment to forbid the state’s public colleges and universities from granting “preferential treatment to any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin.”
A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit ruled 2 to 1 that the amendment violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment because it restructures the state’s political structure to the detriment of minorities.
Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette (R) on Friday asked the full circuit to review the decision, and said that the Supreme Court would be the next stop if he is unsuccessful with the circuit court.
“It’s absurd to conclude that banning racial discrimination somehow perpetuates racial discrimination,” Schuette said in announcing his plans.
The decisions focus renewed attention on the court’s controversial pair of decisions in June 2003 regarding racial preference programs at the University of Michigan.
In Gratz v. Bollinger , the court ruled 6 to 3 that the university’s undergraduate admissions policy was uncons utionally discriminatory because it automatically awarded a bonus to applicants who were underrepresented minorities.
But in Grutter, the court upheld the law school’s policy of considering race as part of a holistic evaluation of an applicant. O’Connor said government had a compelling interest in diversity, including seeking a “critical mass” of minority students.
The combination of rulings seem to allow colleges and universities to approve the consideration of race if the policy, among other things, is narrowly tailored, free of quotas, flexible and individualized, does not award points simply on the basis of race and is limited in duration, or at least periodically reviewed.
The Texas case, Fisher v. University of Texas , is the farthest along. Washington lawyer Bert W. Rein, who represents Abigail Fisher and Rachel Michalewicz, two students who said UT’s policy discriminated against them, has until mid-September to file a pe ion with the Supreme Court asking for review.
Rein has argued that the use of race is unnecessary, because UT has in place a race-neutral admissions policy that already results in percentages of minority students “far beyond” the numbers at issue in Grutter.
Texas law provides that graduates in the top 10 percent of their Texas high school be automatically admitted to any state university. They account for the vast majority of UT freshman classes, and Rein said 30 percent of the enrolling students are from underrepresented minorities.
But UT officials do not feel that is enough for a state in which — in the near future — there will be no majority race. In evaluating applicants not in the top 10, it decided after Grutter to consider race along with a number of other factors, such as community service, leadership qualities, test scores and work experience.
The panel said such a plan satisfied the court’s standards set in Grutter. But other judges in the circuit disagreed. Chief Judge Edith H. Jones wrote that the panel’s deference to university officials and talk of classroom diversity are not what Supreme Court precedent demands; instead, they are “misguided and pernicious to the goal of eventually ending racially conscious programs.”
Civil rights groups get nervous when such cases arise before the recons uted Roberts Court. NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund President John A. Payton hopes Texas’s unique system makes it a bad fit for a high court review of race-conscious programs.
“I don’t think the court is looking to overturn Grutter,” he said.
But Jennifer Gratz disagrees. She was the named plaintiff in one of the 2003 cases. She won the battle in her own case only to lose the war in the other. She now works for the American Civil Rights Ins ute in California, where she directs state efforts at removing racial preferences.
“At some point, the split in Gratz and Grutter will have to end up back at the Supreme Court,” she said.
The corrupt extremist VWRC ing SCOTUS Five will certainly kill affirmative action.
You racists make me sick. To believe that minorities are not good enough to compete on a level playing field, you believe they are inferior. The very definition of racism is believing one race is better than another.
Now that you got that out of the way, any thoughts about the OP or affirmative action?
I am all for the original ideas behind Affirmative Action. Just take the quota based favoritism out.
Tell me...
Since sports have a disproportionate amount of whites, are you in favor of a quota system, to more accurately represent the population?
So you disagree with O'Connor that the government has a compelling interest in diversity.
I don't compare apples to oranges. Professional sports are not run by the government. I also don't know for a fact that there's a 'disproportionate amount of whites' in professional sports either.
What are you talking about? I don't think universities are allowed to use quotas anymore.
In effect, Gratz did get rid of any quota system (a logical extension of systems automatically awarding bonuses for simply being a minority); Grutter ins uted "race as a consideration." So it seems you would agree with Justice O'Connor.In Gratz v. Bollinger , the court ruled 6 to 3 that the university’s undergraduate admissions policy was uncons utionally discriminatory because it automatically awarded a bonus to applicants who were underrepresented minorities.
But in Grutter, the court upheld the law school’s policy of considering race as part of a holistic evaluation of an applicant. O’Connor said government had a compelling interest in diversity, including seeking a “critical mass” of minority students.
Wild KKKobra getting bukkaked
Ok,I stand corrected. It's still favoritism, and a form of saying they cannot compete on a level playing field. Thanks for reminding me that quota's are not the only politically correct way to be a racist.
As usual, WC gets his facts wrong and has to completely contradict himself to save face.
Rotfl @ this WC Surgeon troll.
Affirmative action is racist. There are no ifs, ands, or buts about it. It basically says that minorities are dumbasses and screwed because of their skin color and that they need help from whitey. It also says that whitey doesn't need any help because every white person is rich and has never struggled.
Affirmative action says nothing about skin color. Never did, AFAIK.
Man, so much fail in this thread.
Financial aid says poor people are stupid, and can't make money on their own.
I'm for aid based on financial need and for equal academic requirements for EVERYONE.
The smarter argument to be made is that the "race as a factor" approach uses race and racial iden y as a way of thinking about how to administer governmental programs. At some base level, when race is used as a part of these programs - the system of thinking that undergrids racism is reinforced. When you think race is a way of evaluating/categorizing people, you run into the same type of thinking that allows racism - the color of their skin is important. That's why affirmative action is ed - it "thinks" in a racist way.
Yea, I know this is the old colorblindness argument. And I understand the argument that recognizing racial oppression/its history is important for combatting it. But there is a difference between recognizing historical and current racial oppression on the one hand, and codifying it in governmental programs on the other.
I don't hear the same arguments when it comes to women, and affirmative action applies just as equally to gender as it does to race.
What I do think is that programs that seek diversity do need to be periodically reviewed, specifically to see if they're still necessary.
There is also a Wild Cobra Kai!Rotfl @ this WC Surgeon troll.
Like I said before, many people hate me. Kind of empowering in a way to know I am capable of ruffling so many feathers.
Did you read Kennedy's executive order?
linkThe actual phrase "affirmative action" was first used in President John F. Kennedy's 1961 Executive Order 10925 which requires federal contractors to "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin." The same language was later used in Lyndon Johnson's 1965 Executive Order 11246.
I thought it only mentioned race, not color. I stand corrected. My other point stands though, it simply isn't cir scribed to race or color, even though that's majorly where the general whining is pointing at.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
