Posted on 07/03/2023 4:43:45 AM PDT by karpov
The latest Pew Research Center polling suggests that a mere one-third of Americans favor considering race and ethnicity in college admissions. Over 9.65 million California voters rejected a proposal to repeal an existing race-based affirmative-action ban in 2020. Now, with their ruling overturning race-conscious university admissions in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College and the University of North Carolina (UNC), America’s highest court has affirmed this broad national consensus against race-preferential government action.
The 237-page-long Court decision is a victory for what Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, sees as “the transcendent aims of the Equal Protection Clause … ‘that all persons, whether colored or white, shall stand equal before the laws of the States.’”
It is important to note that the Court’s opinion does not categorically overturn decades of legal precedent, set in cases like Bakke, Grutter, Gratz, and Fisher. Rather, the ruling clarifies previous decisions and reinforces the authority of the legal scrutiny given by our Constitution to the judicial branch. Specifically, the opinion strengthens the norm of equal protection under the law and formalizes the restrictions on how universities can use race in their admissions processes, as initially outlined in the previously mentioned rulings. “Eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote for Thursday’s majority.
As early as the 1950s, the Supreme Court recognized the drawbacks of “even racial distinctions that were argued to have no palpable effect.” Two decades later, in the Bakke decision (1978), Justice Powell announced the Court’s judgment that a racially diverse student body was “a constitutionally permissible goal,” yet he emphasized that “a university’s freedom was not unlimited.” Furthermore, the Court concluded that “racial and ethnic distinctions of any sort are inherently suspect.”
(Excerpt) Read more at jamesgmartin.center ...
Even better would be to handle admissions blind, no name, no sex, no race, etc., just test scores, maybe activities and all if they are independently and consistently scoreable. Private schools should still have right to give preference to legacy applicants. All schools receiving federal money directly or indirectly should give absolute preference to US citizens.
Stopping racism with more racism is racism and pretty much sums up stupid democrat party logic.
People with lousy cultures who blame others for their lack of motivation hardest hit.
“People with lousy cultures who blame others for their lack of motivation hardest hit”
And rightfully so!
There is a battle in this country between ‘Equality of Opportunity’ vs. ‘Equality of Outcome’. Equality of Outcome is exactly identical to Communism, which has always failed everywhere it has been tried. It fails because it is racist and it is corrupt. Both guarantee failure.
We won this skirmish, but the battle isn’t over. The biggest battle will be prying the education system from the Communists.
It’s always amazed me how people that benefit from affirmative action policies fail to realize its actually slap in their face.....basically what AA says is you are handicapped and can’t compete on a level playing field.
Personally I couldn’t accept a job I was just handed for no good reason and knew I wasn’t qualified for.
Fairness? American Colleges and Universities aren’t here to promote fairness. There job is to serve America by preserving and advancing our culture and our country by educating men and women about our civilization and providing them the professional skills to provide service in the best interests of their communities and country.
The Universities hate the decision because they want ALL the authority to pick whom they want, regardless of status. In other words, ALL your money belong to us and get the hell away from us. We are our own gods and you are ignorant ants.
I wonder if Dr. Ben Carson’s 400 scholarship offers were people trying to fulfill their obligation to reach cuotas. I doubt he used that ‘leverage’ that affirmative action gave to get him into Vanderbilt.
The Supreme Court giveth and the Supreme Court taketh away... Blessed be the name of the Supreme Court. It has taken decade upon decade to undo the wrong-headed decisions of previous incarnations of activist Justices who decided that it was okay for mothers to kill their children in the womb or that giving preferential treatment to one class of citizens, based solely on race or gender, does not constitute unfair and unconstitutional discrimination. It has always been thus and will be, again. Give it another 4 or 5 decades for liberal, activist Justices to once more be in the majority to undo these decisions we celebrate today. There are no immutable truths that spring from the Supreme Court. The whole concept of precedent or strict adherence to the rule of laws embodied in our Constitution is a transitory vapor. It has always been and will always be.
The next cases that need to be teed up are:
1. Reynolds v. Sims - Knocking it down would restore republican (Not the political party!) government to the states,
2. Wickard v. Filburn - Once and for all gut the ability of the federal government to regulate commerce within the states,
3. NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., - Reversing would strengthen national right-to-work laws.
Any remaining decisions done under the FDR regime.
Cases #1 & #2 are key!
ping
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.