SCOTUS: First it was the 2A, then Roe V Wade, and now
...Affirmative Action
"The U.S. Supreme Court announced it would hear one of two cases on Oct. 31 that could dismantle the 40-year precedent of race-based affirmative action in university admissions, with universities now urging the court to preserve the decision despite some expert opinion to the contrary.
Students for Fair Admissions Inc. (SFFA) v. President & Fellows of Harvard College is one of two cases to come before the Supreme Court urging it to eliminate race as an admissions factor and, as a result, overturn the precedent case, Grutter v. Bollinger. The case also seeks to answer whether Harvard College violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act through its alleged discrimination against Asian American students, stemming from the initial lawsuit. "
"I’m not going to read Time Magazine, I’m not going to read Newsweek, I’m not going to read any of these magazines; I mean, because they have too much to lose by printing the truth"- Bob Dylan, 1965
August 11, 2022, 02:23 PM
bdylan
Long term, this court very well may make America great again. A 40 year precedent of legal discrimination is nothing to be proud about.
August 11, 2022, 02:27 PM
tatortodd
I hope SCOTUS fixes this wrong.
I always think of MLK when the pendulum has swung too far past equalibrium on something race related. It's equal period - not less equal, not more equal, not equal plus punitive damages for past generations.
quote:
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
~MLK
Ego is the anesthesia that deadens the pain of stupidity
DISCLAIMER: These are the author's own personal views and do not represent the views of the author's employer.
August 11, 2022, 03:01 PM
DaveL
This should not be a surprise. The majority opinion in Grutter (the SCOTUS case that approved this practice) went to great lengths to explain that the core purpose of the 14th Amendment is to end all governmentally imposed racial discrimination so any race-conscious policy can only last for a limited time. This was summed up by Justice O'Connor in a quote that you'll hear repeated a lot as this debate continues: "We expect that 25 years from now [2003], the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today."
It will be interesting to watch this case unfold. I'll offer a prediction just to make things interesting: The court will declare this policy unconstitutional, saying essentially what Justice Thomas said so well in his dissent in Grutter: "The Constitution abhors classifications based on race, not only because those classifications can harm favored races or are based on illegitimate motives, but also because every time the government places citizens on racial registers and makes race relevant to the provision of burdens or benefits, it demeans us all."
August 11, 2022, 03:58 PM
HRK
Whenever someone says Trump and the R senate didn't get things done, look at SCOTUS's recent rulings.
The Harvard admissions situation is clearly bias, restrictive, hurts those who should attend, it's used to discriminate at all universities.
The simple fact is race, sex, height, weight, hair color, sexual preference, none of this should be legal to use as a determining factor.
Applications for admission, jobs all should be void of any personal information, nothing more than name, phone, address, and your accomplishments/transcript, and your scores.
August 11, 2022, 04:04 PM
Skins2881
It never made sense to me that Asian (or anyone else) should be discriminated against to correct previous racism. The math just doesn't add up.
Jesse
Sic Semper Tyrannis
August 11, 2022, 04:15 PM
Edmond
quote:
Originally posted by Skins2881: It never made sense to me that Asian (or anyone else) should be discriminated against to correct previous racism. The math just doesn't add up.
Asians are supposed to be good at math. Maybe that's why it adds up?
_____________
August 11, 2022, 05:13 PM
71 TRUCK
I can't wait to hear what all the main stream media is going to say about this, I can only imagine.
"Just think being looked at not by color,race,gender,ethnicity any more is good. Giving people who work hard and succeed the credit they deserve to get to where they want to be, this is going to be a good thing."
Yea Right
The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State
NRA Life Member
August 11, 2022, 06:30 PM
nhtagmember
The media will get it wrong
You can count on that
August 11, 2022, 06:56 PM
darthfuster
Discrimination based on immutable characteristics to compensate for discrimination based on immutable characteristics would be a comedic irony if it weren’t so destructive. Seems politicians and governments simply can’t bring themselves to employ equality.
You’re a lying dog-faced pony soldier
August 11, 2022, 08:02 PM
Rey HRH
quote:
Originally posted by HRK: Whenever someone says Trump and the R senate didn't get things done, look at SCOTUS's recent rulings.
.
I love the statement I came across: “Trump is having a great second term and he’s not even President!”
It also presents a paradox for me. Trump made great picks for his SCOTUS nominees for which I am grateful. Given that he had the same advisors who had his ears, he doesn’t have a good track record for the rest of the people he picked or could have fired - Comey, both of his AGs, etc.
"It did not really matter what we expected from life, but rather what life expected from us. We needed to stop asking about the meaning of life, and instead to think of ourselves as those who were being questioned by life – daily and hourly. Our answer must consist not in talk and meditation, but in right action and in right conduct. Life ultimately means taking the responsibility to find the right answer to its problems and to fulfill the tasks which it constantly sets for each individual." Viktor Frankl, Man's Search for Meaning, 1946.
August 12, 2022, 10:59 AM
tsmccull
quote:
Originally posted by HRK:
The simple fact is race, sex, height, weight, hair color, sexual preference, none of this should be legal to use as a determining factor.
Applications for admission, jobs all should be void of any personal information, nothing more than name, phone, address, and your accomplishments/transcript, and your scores.
Well, it’s probably ok to use height if you’re hiring for a basketball team.
August 12, 2022, 11:15 AM
jhe888
quote:
The simple fact is race, sex, height, weight, hair color, sexual preference, none of this should be legal to use as a determining factor.
Applications for admission, jobs all should be void of any personal information, nothing more than name, phone, address, and your accomplishments/transcript, and your scores.
However, only the protected classes (age, race, religion, for example) are protected. You could discriminate on the basis of height, weight, and hair color, your favorite football team, and a million other things. All in all, I'd rather have less regulation, so I wouldn't want the government to add to the list of protections.
The fish is mute, expressionless. The fish doesn't think because the fish knows everything.
The simple fact is race, sex, height, weight, hair color, sexual preference, none of this should be legal to use as a determining factor.
Applications for admission, jobs all should be void of any personal information, nothing more than name, phone, address, and your accomplishments/transcript, and your scores.
However, only the protected classes (age, race, religion, for example) are protected. You could discriminate on the basis of height, weight, and hair color, your favorite football team, and a million other things. All in all, I'd rather have less regulation, so I wouldn't want the government to add to the list of protections.
Even better, name only, however that could be a give away, Houz Bin Phartin - Muslim, Tashiqua Jackson - Black, Billy Jo Smith - White, maybe we all should have numbers, bar coded like 47.
August 12, 2022, 11:59 AM
corsair
quote:
Originally posted by jhe888:
quote:
The simple fact is race, sex, height, weight, hair color, sexual preference, none of this should be legal to use as a determining factor.
Applications for admission, jobs all should be void of any personal information, nothing more than name, phone, address, and your accomplishments/transcript, and your scores.
However, only the protected classes (age, race, religion, for example) are protected. You could discriminate on the basis of height, weight, and hair color, your favorite football team, and a million other things. All in all, I'd rather have less regulation, so I wouldn't want the government to add to the list of protections.
...and, if you're Asian, its perfectly ok to discriminate because they're over-represented like Whites ergo, a thumb needs to be pressed onto the scale of fairness.
The amount of overt bigotry when it comes to school admissions, has reached stupid-levels.
Regardless of what the Supreme Court decides this fall on racial preferences, colleges can help prospective students make better-informed decisions about their chances of success. Robert VerBruggen July 11, 2022 EducationPolitics and lawThe Social Order
Near the end of its just-concluded term, the Supreme Court ended the half-century reign of Roe v. Wade and forced several blue states to grant gun-carry permits more liberally. The six-justice majority of Republican-appointed “originalists” intends to leave its mark on the law, and it’s not skirting controversy. The Court’s next term, starting in October, promises more landmarks. Among other cases, the justices will hear challenges to racial preferences in admissions at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina—one a private school and the other public. Conservatives on the Court have long doubted that such policies are legal.
The Constitution limits the use of race by government entities. More explicitly, federal law states that “No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.” If the justices simply take those words to mean what they say, any school receiving federal funds will have to stop considering race. The ultimate impact of that decision is hard to predict—many schools will, no doubt, continue to use race covertly, or even restructure their entire admissions processes to get their desired ethnic mix through an ostensibly colorblind system. (Many are already dropping standardized tests, for instance.) But the days of schools openly using applicants’ races as a “plus factor” are almost certainly numbered.
The affirmative-action debate’s many dimensions—legal, ethical, and more—will receive another airing in the months ahead. But in a new Manhattan Institute issue brief, I examine a more empirical topic that strikes to the heart of affirmative action’s purpose: To what extent do affirmative action’s beneficiaries suffer from being “mismatched” with better-qualified peers, rather than benefiting from enhanced educational opportunities? ...
August 12, 2022, 12:26 PM
PeteF
I wonder if they will decide this on a narrow basis or broad. By this i mean, admissions only, or any other legalized descrimination, such as whats found in government contracts about "Women and minority owned" businesses.This message has been edited. Last edited by: PeteF,
August 13, 2022, 04:28 AM
126911
It will be very narrow I think. Hard to imagine the can of worms a broad based de-discrimination decision would be. Discriminatory preference is a government staple.
August 13, 2022, 06:24 AM
joel9507
MLK had it right here - judging by the color of the skin is wrong. It will be noted he didn't add any qualifiers.
When history looks back, they will discover that the policies of reverse-discrimination and 'protected classes' harmed the people they were supposedly trying to benefit far more than they helped.
August 13, 2022, 08:04 AM
nhtagmember
Let’s end discrimination by discriminating against those that had nothing to do with discrimination
