Jump to content
Head Coach Openings 2024 ×
  • Current Donation Goals

    • Raised $2,716 of $3,600 target

Open Club  ·  46 members  ·  Free

OOB v2.0

Supreme Court on Affirmative Action: 'Eliminating Racial Discrimination Means Eliminating All of It'


Muda69

Recommended Posts

https://reason.com/2023/06/29/supreme-court-on-affirmative-action-eliminating-racial-discrimination-means-eliminating-all-of-it/

Quote

The Supreme Court has stuck down race-based affirmative action in college admissions. In a 6–3 decision today, the Court ruled that both Harvard and the University of North Carolina's admissions policies engaged in unlawful racial discrimination, violating the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. The decision effectively ends almost 50 years of legalized racial discrimination in the college admissions process.

"Eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it," wrote Chief Justice John Roberts in the Court's majority opinion. "In other words, the student must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual—not on the basis of race.

The ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College marks a decisive victory for those who had long hailed the practice as unjust and unconstitutional. It also reaffirms a reading of the 14th Amendment as prohibiting racial discrimination in all but the narrowest of circumstances, even when such discrimination is done in service of an otherwise "noble" goal.

The Reason Foundation (the nonprofit that publishes this website) wrote an amicus brief last year urging the Court to rule against Harvard and UNC.

The evidence that both universities engaged in racial discrimination, particularly against Asian applicants, is staggering. According to the ruling, "over 80% of all black applicants in the top academic decile were admitted to UNC, while under 70% of white and Asian applicants in that decile were admitted." At Harvard, an Asian American applicant in the top academic decile has a lower chance of being admitted than a black student in the fourth-lowest academic decile.

"While the dissent would certainly not permit university programs that discriminated against black and Latino applicants, it is perfectly willing to let the programs here continue," wrote Roberts. "In its view, this Court is supposed to tell state actors when they have picked the right races to benefit."

While the ruling has attracted strong condemnation from supporters of race-conscious college admissions, polling suggests that a majority of Americans of all racial groups disapprove of these policies. A 2019 Pew Research poll found that 73 percent of all Americans, including 62 percent of black Americans and 65 percent of Hispanic Americans, did not think that colleges should be able to consider an applicant's race or ethnicity when making decisions about student admissions.

As reflected in the Court's ruling, the best argument against affirmative action in college admissions is a simple one: All people are created equal and should be treated equally before the law. Treating individuals differently based on their race is an unacceptable affront to this idea, even if it is in the service of a well-intentioned goal. Taking this idea further, treating college applicants differently based on any demographic trait—including legacy status—offends this same principle.

It's possible to believe these principles while also acknowledging that many racial minority groups—black Americans in particular—are affected by past and present racial discrimination. As Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in a concurring opinion, "While I am painfully aware of the social and economic ravages which have befallen my race and all who suffer discrimination, I hold out enduring hope that this country will live up to its principles so clearly enunciated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States: that all men are created equal, are equal citizens, and must be treated equally before the law."

It is interesting to contrast the opinions of Mr. Thomas and Ms. Jackson.  From a newsletter I subscribe to:

 

Quote

Liberal racism suffered a big blow yesterday. Compare and contrast the opposing views of the two black members of the Supreme Court, Justice Ketanji Jackson and Justice Clarence Thomas (you can read them both if you scroll down in the PDF of the overall decision). First, an excerpt from Thomas:

  https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.ama  
  https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.ama  
  https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.ama  
  https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.ama  
  https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.ama  

She certainly does have a different view. Justice Jackson believes racism and white supremacy are a universal explanation:

  https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.ama  
  https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.ama  

Affirmative action forever! says Justice Jackson. Seriously, there is never an end date for these discriminatory policies. Whites suffered from them before. Now Asians do. If not for the SCOTUS majority yesterday, they still would:

  https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.ama  

And:

  https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.ama  

Your vote matters. I don’t like Donald Trump, but because he was president, and because Republican presidents appointed the justices who made up the majority yesterday, the evil of liberal racism suffered a huge setback.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

https://reason.com/2023/06/29/supreme-court-on-affirmative-action-eliminating-racial-discrimination-means-eliminating-all-of-it/

It is interesting to contrast the opinions of Mr. Thomas and Ms. Jackson.  From a newsletter I subscribe to:

 

 

They are finally telling on themselves by saying the quiet part out loud.

“Dear black people,

You are too inferior to succeed without the help of kind-hearted white people.”

Is this the white supremacy I’ve heard so much about over the past 3 years?

06A2EB11-8870-4AD5-9116-84703DC840DE.jpeg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Justice Jackson's comment "Colorblindness for all" is/was the mantra of the black community that ISF was brought up believing in the 70's.  Skin color didn't matter, and that was the basis of MLK - equality for all.

"Deeming race irrelevant in law does not make it so in life" - Sorry, but skin color (among countless other identity traits) truly shouldn't matter.  The past 2 decades of government efforts to divide the population in as many identity groups as possible needs to be called out every chance we can by the population reuniting.

Finally SCOTUS is (IMHO) on the right track.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember when I was in law school the Bakke case - one of the precedents overruled by the Court in this decision - was working its way through the 9th Circuit and headed for SCOTUS. We debated it endlessly. Regardless of your politics, anyone with a brain can recognize that there are compelling arguments on both sides.

In reading the opinion, I was struck by Justice Thomas’ take on the issue. He’s not considered the greatest intellectual that ever sat on the Court. But he took a very practical view. America is, more than ever, a racial melting pot. Who is black? Who is Hispanic? Sometimes it’s obvious. But often it is not.

Racial discrimination has been a problem in this country for a long time. Affirmative action was designed to create opportunities for those who would not otherwise have them because of that discrimination. But in the college admissions context, it sought to make up for “systemic” racism that saw people of color being denied opportunities, not because of the color of their skin, but because they otherwise didn’t meet standards due to inferior primary and secondary schooling - a consequence of systemic racism. Have we come far enough as a society to say that is no longer true, and thus the need for affirmative action in college admissions no longer exists? I don’t think that’s what the Court was saying. The opinion paints with a much broader brush than the college admissions process. There is going to be a lot of fallout from this decision.

By the way, I think it’s fair to characterize both this decision and the earlier decision overturning Roe v. Wade as part of the legacy of President Trump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bobref said:

I remember when I was in law school the Bakke case - one of the precedents overruled by the Court in this decision - was working its way through the 9th Circuit and headed for SCOTUS. We debated it endlessly. Regardless of your politics, anyone with a brain can recognize that there are compelling arguments on both sides.

In reading the opinion, I was struck by Justice Thomas’ take on the issue. He’s not considered the greatest intellectual that ever sat on the Court. But he took a very practical view. America is, more than ever, a racial melting pot. Who is black? Who is Hispanic? Sometimes it’s obvious. But often it is not.

Racial discrimination has been a problem in this country for a long time. Affirmative action was designed to create opportunities for those who would not otherwise have them because of that discrimination. But in the college admissions context, it sought to make up for “systemic” racism that saw people of color being denied opportunities, not because of the color of their skin, but because they otherwise didn’t meet standards due to inferior primary and secondary schooling - a consequence of systemic racism. Have we come far enough as a society to say that is no longer true, and thus the need for affirmative action in college admissions no longer exists? I don’t think that’s what the Court was saying. The opinion paints with a much broader brush than the college admissions process. There is going to be a lot of fallout from this decision.

By the way, I think it’s fair to characterize both this decision and the earlier decision overturning Roe v. Wade as part of the legacy of President Trump.

But isn’t affirmative action simply racially discriminatory in its own right, just disguised under a different name.

The Temp came from nothing…single parent household.  Alcoholic/abusive parents.  Mocked and told to pay his own way for wanting to go to college.

The Temp also busted his ass, was involved in extracurricular activities, and had grit that came from within once he reached secondary school.  He realized no one was going to help him.  No one was going to do it for him.  He became his own person and was no longer handcuffed as a victim of his circumstances.

Spoiler alert:  The Temp is a white male.

Don’t tell me that the American dream is impossible for some in 2023.  It’s no longer the 1950s.  Do we have progress to make?  Sure.  Are we perfect?  Absolutely not.

It’s not being colorblind, more so not painting with a broad brush.  In the Temp’s explanation above, he would likely be passed over in favor of a minority candidate if the numbers were tight.

THAT is discriminatory.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those of you hailing the decision as a blow for “equality,” there is another viewpoint. It’s based on principles of societal benefit, rather than legal reasoning. While I don’t agree with a lot of the author’s anti-SCOTUS  remarks, he makes an excellent point about the value of diversity in the classroom.

https://michaelleppert.com/yes-white-folks-the-u-s-supreme-court-hurt-you-too/

YES, WHITE FOLKS, THE U.S. SUPREME COURT HURT YOU TOO

The U.S. Supreme Court really outdid themselves at the end of their session this year. 

For the top cadre of the American judicial branch — one experiencing its lowest level of public confidence in the history of measuring it — you would think they would try harder. And now that the ink is dry on some of the court’s lowlights from last week, the white folks celebrating them should be sober enough to give these awful rulings a little thought. 

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

It is always fascinating to see the reactions to SCOTUS rulings. They often say more about the celebrators than they do about the decisions, and this week is a prime example. In the expected decisions ending affirmative action programs at Harvard and the University of North Carolina, Americans rejoicing were largely white, largely male, and largely Republican. It will take some time, but time will show how that bunch is largely wrong. 

Segments of our culture continue to display infinite smallness, and those supporting the decisions in Students for Fair Admissions (“SFFA”) v Harvard/UNC-Chapel Hill, do so by claiming these are victories for fairness. “Merit-based” standards for college admission is the only way for the process to truly be fair, right? The problem with this shallow perspective primarily is its smallness. 

Look no further than the precedent that was overturned by the rulings themselves, the landmark decision on affirmative action, Regents of the University of California v Bakke in 1978 for guidance. Most of those celebrating this week don’t mention the reversal of the reasoning of this case, because the most important part of it is the finding that affirmative action in admissions provides obvious value to everyone. 

Kevin Brown, a former law professor at Indiana University, currently at the University of South Carolina, described the important standard from that case in an interview with The Atlantic. He said that in the ruling, the court “went on to say that the only justification for affirmative action was the educational benefits of having a diverse student body.” Those are educational benefits that white people benefit from too.

Trust me. I’ve already seen it with my own eyes. The value of a diverse classroom cannot be overstated, and that value is felt by every student in the class. Yes, every student. 

No one in America won on Thursday when the court attempted to throw red meat at partisans who believe that any benefit felt by a minority is, by definition, a loss to the majority. The white majority will not benefit from a less diverse student body. And the white majority won’t always be the racial majority in America either. 

In the 1978 case, six of the nine justices wrote opinions. Justice Harry Blackmun wrote, “In order to get beyond racism, we must first take account of race. There is no other way. And in order to treat some persons equally, we must treat them differently.” The decision ended quotas in admissions while touting the inherent value affirmative action provided. 

Compare the thoughtfulness that the court invested in the 1978 decision versus the lack of it in 2023, and it becomes clear how far the institution has fallen. Today’s court doesn’t seem to have the capacity to handle concepts as difficult as “equal but different.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/6/2023 at 11:26 AM, Bobref said:

For those of you hailing the decision as a blow for “equality,” there is another viewpoint. It’s based on principles of societal benefit, rather than legal reasoning. While I don’t agree with a lot of the author’s anti-SCOTUS  remarks, he makes an excellent point about the value of diversity in the classroom.

https://michaelleppert.com/yes-white-folks-the-u-s-supreme-court-hurt-you-too/

YES, WHITE FOLKS, THE U.S. SUPREME COURT HURT YOU TOO

The U.S. Supreme Court really outdid themselves at the end of their session this year. 

For the top cadre of the American judicial branch — one experiencing its lowest level of public confidence in the history of measuring it — you would think they would try harder. And now that the ink is dry on some of the court’s lowlights from last week, the white folks celebrating them should be sober enough to give these awful rulings a little thought. 

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

It is always fascinating to see the reactions to SCOTUS rulings. They often say more about the celebrators than they do about the decisions, and this week is a prime example. In the expected decisions ending affirmative action programs at Harvard and the University of North Carolina, Americans rejoicing were largely white, largely male, and largely Republican. It will take some time, but time will show how that bunch is largely wrong. 

Segments of our culture continue to display infinite smallness, and those supporting the decisions in Students for Fair Admissions (“SFFA”) v Harvard/UNC-Chapel Hill, do so by claiming these are victories for fairness. “Merit-based” standards for college admission is the only way for the process to truly be fair, right? The problem with this shallow perspective primarily is its smallness. 

Look no further than the precedent that was overturned by the rulings themselves, the landmark decision on affirmative action, Regents of the University of California v Bakke in 1978 for guidance. Most of those celebrating this week don’t mention the reversal of the reasoning of this case, because the most important part of it is the finding that affirmative action in admissions provides obvious value to everyone. 

Kevin Brown, a former law professor at Indiana University, currently at the University of South Carolina, described the important standard from that case in an interview with The Atlantic. He said that in the ruling, the court “went on to say that the only justification for affirmative action was the educational benefits of having a diverse student body.” Those are educational benefits that white people benefit from too.

Trust me. I’ve already seen it with my own eyes. The value of a diverse classroom cannot be overstated, and that value is felt by every student in the class. Yes, every student. 

No one in America won on Thursday when the court attempted to throw red meat at partisans who believe that any benefit felt by a minority is, by definition, a loss to the majority. The white majority will not benefit from a less diverse student body. And the white majority won’t always be the racial majority in America either. 

In the 1978 case, six of the nine justices wrote opinions. Justice Harry Blackmun wrote, “In order to get beyond racism, we must first take account of race. There is no other way. And in order to treat some persons equally, we must treat them differently.” The decision ended quotas in admissions while touting the inherent value affirmative action provided. 

Compare the thoughtfulness that the court invested in the 1978 decision versus the lack of it in 2023, and it becomes clear how far the institution has fallen. Today’s court doesn’t seem to have the capacity to handle concepts as difficult as “equal but different.”

Trust me. I’ve already seen it with my own eyes. The value of a diverse classroom cannot be overstated, and that value is felt by every student in the class. Yes, every student. 
 

Why so vague with this statement?

Spill it.  What are these “values?”

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ISF just heard that MLK JR just rolled over in his grave.

https://nypost.com/2023/07/09/liberal-supreme-court-justice-comes-out-in-favor-of-segregation/

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is trying to put one over on America. 

In her dissent from the high court’s long-overdue ruling against racial preferences in college admissions, she cited an utterly bogus statistic.

“For high-risk Black newborns, having a Black physician more than doubles the likelihood that the baby will live,” she wrote in rationalizing Harvard’s bigotry against Asian-American applicants

Yet that black-infant mortality number is obvious bunk.

If it were true, it would mean thousands of black infants dying every year thanks to white doctors’ secret racism.

And other issues (such as the awful racial disparity in very-low-birthweight babies) dwarf any MD factor.

Brown Jackson herself is no dummy. She’s a lifelong academic overachiever, a grad of both Harvard and Harvard Law. Did she really not recognize a garbage stat simply because it confirms her worldview?

She basically just quoted a brief filed in support of Harvard, but didn’t look back at the study the brief cited, which doesn’t make the absurd claim: It found a minuscule difference, and also a hair of a higher mortality rate for black doctors treating white newborns.

Follow the the justice’s “logic” to its ugly conclusion, and she’s calling for racially segregated medical care. Happily, the Supremes kiboshed the “separate but equal” farce decades ago. 

In the clear light of day, Brown Jackson’s dissent on affirmative action just reaffirms the majority’s wisdom in at long last striking it down.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...