Posted on 12/18/2011 11:19:03 AM PST by WilliamIII
WHEN THE Supreme Court, in the 2003 case of Grutter v. Bollinger , narrowly upheld the use of racial preferences at the University of Michigan Law School, it emphasized that such preferences were barely tolerable under the Constitution. They could be used only as a last resort, the court ruled, they must not unduly harm non-minorities, and public universities had to start finding ways to phase them out.
“We are mindful that ‘[a] core purpose of the 14th Amendment was to do away with all governmentally imposed discrimination based on race,’ ’’ Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote for a 5-4 majority . “Accordingly, race-conscious admissions policies must be limited in time. We see no reason to exempt race-conscious admissions programs from the requirement that all governmental use of race must have a logical end point. We expect that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today.’’
But eight years later, race-based admissions show no sign of moving toward “a logical end point.’’ If anything they are more entrenched than ever.
(Excerpt) Read more at bostonglobe.com ...
Thanks Obama! You've changed America!
This decision was an excellent example of appointed judges making law. The intellectually challenged O’Connor actually said that twenty five years was all that was needed and the courts current interpretation of the constitution would change again. Gives the people a lot of confidence in the courts.
Reagan was stampeded into picking O’Connor because of the clamor for a female justice. If only he had picked Robert Bork then, Bork might have been confirmed.
This has not happened.
For liberals, to examine the validity of their assumptions is blasphemy, with the blasphemer to be burned at the stake.
All affirmative discrimination does is tell “minorities” that they don’t have to be as good as other prospective students. They don’t have to try very hard. That’s the worst thing you can tell anyone. It’s unfair, and it’s unfair to both students with superior scores who get turned down because they’re not the right ethnicity, and it’s unfair to minority students who grow up thinking the world owes them something...even if they’re not qualified.
Why?
Because like all effective satire, it was based on truth.
Whites pay more for college so that blacks pay next to nothing in comparison. Whites have to outscore blacks and other races just to be accepted.
This isn't "leveling the playing field." It is blatant, hateful discrimination.
Simple—any college who uses race as a base for admissions—should get no Government funding. Newt could do it—Obama or Mitten will not.
“The justification for affirmative action rests upon the assumption that there is no difference in intelligence, energy, and general ability between different races.”
Actually it is based upon the assumption of genetic inferiority for some ethnic minorities and females. It is a public admission by the state that they cannot compete on their own merits.
Until the state eliminates those preferences, I’ll take their word for it on the inferiority.
“All affirmative discrimination does is tell “minorities” that they don’t have to be as good as other prospective students.”
It tells them that they aren’t as good as other students, period. When they hear other students speak, using English words they’ve only (maybe) seen on TV, they know they’re not “real” students. It has a very negative impact on how they view themselves, and “the system”.
Those bake sales were attacked because they made the affirmative action students have to face the charade they were engaged in; they were very well done. I don’t know that I would have discounted for the Asians; they’re being punished for their hard work by being demonized for it.
“the more bogus diplomas that are meted out on undeserving “graduates”, the less all the other degrees mean.”
I give a lot more weight to a degree for a white or Asian guy than I do for a “preferred” minority or woman; it is the logical thing to do as long as affirmative action is legal. White/Asian guys have to work twice as hard, and that isn’t lost on employers; in good times they could window-dress with tokens, and now they’re being slashed as the useless waste they are. Hopefully soon only the wheat will remain (whatever race or gender), while the chaff is discarded.
A lot of the layoffs by municipalities in the last few years were useless AA tokens; no loss there.
Yeah remember the Time cover story: JUSTICE AT LAST !!
Like it had been so unfair in the past and now this judicial heavyweight finally gets her time on the bench.
Turns out this affirmative action justice was the decisive reverse discrimination vote. Talk about a conflict of interest.
There are two rationales for affirmative action--either that the people who benefit from it can't make it on their own and need the help, or else that the people hiring or admitting are so prejudiced that they will never give a black/Hispanic/woman (or other "protected group" member) a fair shake. Of course the supporters of affirmative action assume the latter.
And I'd hire an English person before I'd ever hire any Irish person.
YOU SHOULD IMEDIATLY FILE A STRONGLY WORDED PROTEST WITH A MODERATOR!!
“Simple—any college who uses race as a base for admissions——should get no government funding.”
How about no college receiving government funding period.
I’m Irish, and I’d hire an English person before an Irish person too.
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.