Posted on 06/25/2013 7:10:01 AM PDT by NotYourAverageDhimmi
THE Supreme Court has again upheld the principles behind race-conscious affirmative action, no small feat for the cause of diversity in higher education. But in framing the issue very technically, it has, wittingly or not, continued its drift away from the ideals it advanced in the civil rights era, beginning with Brown v. Board of Education.
In its decision on Monday, in Fisher v. University of Texas, the court ordered a federal appellate court to take a fresh look — under the demanding standard of “strict scrutiny” — at whether Texas’ public universities were properly using race as one factor (among many) in admitting a diverse student body. The appellate court will have to examine “how the process works in practice,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote in the decision for the majority.
As a law professor, and as the named defendant in the last two major affirmative action cases decided by the Supreme Court (in my capacity as president of the University of Michigan at the time), in 2003, I breathed a slight sigh of relief on Monday. But I worry that the new ruling will empower lower courts and, no doubt, litigants to challenge benign considerations of race — those that seek to advance legitimate goals of diversity in education — more easily than ever.
The court is as much an educator, a moral instructor, as an interpreter of the fundamental law of the land. In construing the constitutional issues so narrowly, the decision can be read as taking a reluctant, even begrudging, stance toward affirmative action.
Part of this hesitance is, no doubt, a product of judicial compromise. But for ordinary Americans, the linkage between race-conscious college admissions and the larger project of social justice is at risk of being lost amid the minutiae.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Not surprising that the pinkos at the NYT think that opposing race based policies is somehow racist!
Jim Crow just won't leave. The Democrats like him too much.
Really...does anyone actually read and believe the “logic” in the NYT?
Sooner or later we just just admit that the vast majority of those in the “journalism” profession are not dealing with a full deck.
If they do not go away, we should lock them up and force them to listen to rap music and look at pictures of Helen Thomas until they commit seppuku.
If it wasn’t for race, ut Austin wouldn’t have a football team.
Lee, what you really mean is that the Supreme Court has begun that long, slow drift away from BS reverse racism that you and your liberal dogs have tried to maintain for so long.
You feel white racism is so prevalent and so destructive you ceased long ago realizing that it is actually quite the contrary. Blacks have prevailed tremendously - to the point that it is commonplace for Mexican and Black comedians to REGULARLY demean white men, as long as it is funny to you.
You think it is okay for 12-15% of the racial makeup of this country to perpetually control our voting rights and to receive perpetual voter pandering from our government in the form of over 85+ different handout programs.
You and your bleeding heart racists control our media, our entertainment and our government - and you don’t want to get to equality unless it is of the kind that favors black people for eternity.
Affirmative action = liberal wordsmith term for, you’re too genetically inferior to compete so the government will discriminate against those who can.
So wear that Affirmative Action label with pride as the rest of us know you must be inferior.
Any person, like Bollinger, who equates a bogus term like “social justice” with actual justice is an enemy of the constitution.
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.