The United States Supreme Court is wrong in its ruling Thursday that affirmative action is unconstitutional. The easiest way to understand why is to consider what, if not race, colleges can still consider when evaluating students for admission.
Can they use athletic ability as a guide? Sure! How are the Big Ten supposed to field competitive football teams otherwise?
Can they give special consideration to legacy applicants — the children of grateful alumni? Of course. If the college goes broke it can’t admit anybody, and multi-generational bonds bring home the bucks.
Foreign students paying full freight? Check. Hollywood stars stepping back from the limelight? Double check.
As anyone knows who has ever taken a prospective freshman tour, led by a perky sophomore fiercely proud of her ability to walk backwards while delivering paean of praise to alma mater, colleges consider all sorts of qualifications. If they need someone from Idaho so they can say they enroll students from all 50 states, the bar is nudged downward for an Idaho applicant. If the band is short on trombones, then this is the lucky day for rising seniors who list “trombone” as their passion.
But being Black or Asian, apparently, doesn’t affect one’s life the way, oh, being captain of the high school chess team does. Not according to the Supreme Court. Ruling in two lawsuits, against Harvard and the University of North Carolina, it decreed that their efforts to ensure an integrated college violated the 14th Amendment guaranteeing “equal protection under the law.”
Or in Chief Justice John Roberts’ words: “The student must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual — not on the basis of race. Many universities have for too long done just the opposite. And in doing so, they have concluded, wrongly, that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned but the color of their skin. Our constitutional history does not tolerate that choice.”
Or in Chief Justice John Roberts’ words: “The student must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual — not on the basis of race. Many universities have for too long done just the opposite. And in doing so, they have concluded, wrongly, that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned but the color of their skin. Our constitutional history does not tolerate that choice.”
To continue reading, click here.
Isn't it wonderful that all that racial nonsense is behind us, and we can march proudly into a color blind future? I am furious, sad, and disgusted at this cruel SCOTUS decision and have just sent a copy of "The Talk" by Darrin Bell to my grandsons. Everyone needs to read it.
ReplyDeleteWe all knew beforehand how the six fascists on SCOTUS would rule. They want the country to go back to 1800 in everything.
ReplyDeleteEven the demented Clarence believes that, even though if that happened, he'd be lynched for being married to a white woman.
And Alito wants to go back 400 years when witches were burned.
The Handmaiden is a fool, Kavanaugh would be happy with anything as long as he has a lot of beer & Gorsuch just wants revenge for how his crackpot mother was treated when she tried to destroy the EPA under Reagan.
And Roberts, I can't figure that nut out at all, sometimes he's 100% fascist, like this ruling, Citizen's United & killing the Voting Rights Act & occasionally, he's close to sane, when he saved Obamacare.
"The United States Supreme Court is wrong in its ruling Thursday that affirmative action is unconstitutional. The easiest way to understand why is to consider what, if not race, colleges can still consider when evaluating students for admission."
ReplyDeleteYou are wrong. Not about the SCOTUS being wrong in its ruling. I believe they absolutely were. But no. This cannot be understood in the fact that a college can consider legacy status, or athletic ability, or the lure of having a celebrity's child on campus. None of those things implicate the Constitutional prohibition on the government taking an action "on the basis of race." (which colleges who take money from the government are bound by). Taking those other things into account are not Unconstitutional because there is no prohibition in the Constitution in taking athletic ability or the glitz of star power into account. End of story there. But as Justice Sotomayor pointed out (I URGE you to read her decision) the prohibition on taking an action on the "basis of race" is NOT absolute. A "compelling" interest in doing so is one of the exceptions. And as she so eloquently explained there is very mucha compelling interest in diversity and in taking race into account in college admissions and the majority's ignoring the facts that support this is disingenuous and wrong.
A sad day indeed and worse to come, with the majority on this Court.
ReplyDeleteOne fascist justice to another: “Ha ha.. What else can we do to show off what assholes we are.”
ReplyDeleteIf I have this right, yesterday the Supreme Court ruled that race can not be used in college admissions because “all men are created equal”, but today ruled that if you’re LGBTQ+ you can be discriminated against. What happened to “all men are created equal”?
ReplyDeleteArthur
I hate the Supreme Court. If that makes me un-American, so be it. It is what it is.
ReplyDelete