Did they explain how it “burdens minorities”?
>>>Did they explain how it “burdens minorities”?<<<
Yep. Unqualified minorities can’t get preference over qualified whites and Asians so that’s a problem.
has to be that they have to achieve as much as the next guy?
That’s a good question because the implications of the court’s statement are very racist. “It burdens minorities..... because they can’t compete in a fair admissions process.”
They have the burden of actually having to work just as hard to get into college as white people.
They don't have to explain it, just the claim is enough. For you to question that is racist. /s
“Did they explain how it “burdens minorities”?”
By making them grow up and demonstrate that they’re not genetically inferior.
Presumably, we have Sandra Day O'Connor to thank for this decision. See her majority opinion on Grutter vs Bollinger where she explained how "affirmative action" (i.e., racial discrimination) was a "compelling public interest" for at least "the next 25 years".
O'Connor had a mother's tendency to adjudicate legal arguments as if she were resolving a dispute between two children. I.e., the Constitution had no role; instead, it was up to her to make everything "fair".
No, because they couldn't tactfully state, 'if we didn't help them they'd actually have to study; learn and compete with other students. By removing this burden they are free to party, listen to rap music, and have unconscionable; unlimited sex'.
Silly you. Black minorities are burdoned because now they must compete on a level playing field. Surely you understand this is difficult for people who are dependent on the new plantation system (government) and who have little or no respect for education.
So, you see, it’s all quite logical.