Split Decision: Supreme court upholds grad policy, strikes Undergrad

MSNBC Live | 06-23-03

[Brian S]

Supreme Court rules in favor of U. of Michigan Admissions Policy

[Inspectorette]

Howlin, thanks for the ping.

[Mo1]

In their amicus briefs. They did so in footnotes

I obviously don't understand your point ..

Could you post or give a link to explain further your point? .. maybe quote a line in the brief/footnotes?

[TLBSHOW]

White House Brief Stops Short of Bush Speech

January 17, 2003

Folks, I really don't relish the next words, sentences, and paragraphs, which you will read on this page or hear from my mouth in the audio links below.


snip

After hearing the president speak, and from that reaction from the left, the press, pundits and all the rest of us concluded that Bush was challenging racial preferences in college admissions. But his administration's brief - I'm sorry to say, folks - doesn't do that.


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/824701/posts?page=

[aristeides]

I do not have the briefs handy. Why don't you read them yourself?

[arasina]

My take on this is they feel the pool of candidates for undergrad school should be wide open for admission and that higher education institutions like the law school may be more, well...discriminating in their selection. Those who have graduated and apply for grad school have already made the first "cut", more or less, and would have to have a certain level of grades in order to qualify for entrance. I don't really have a problem with that. (I just don't know if I'm correct in my conclusions.)

[MJY1288]

The SCOTUS released the tapes of the arguments and Ted Olsen vigorously argued against both the Undergraduate and Law School admittance policies of the Univ. of Michigan.

Are you sure you get your info from TLBSHOW?

[bigeasy_70118]

Just read Gutter v. Bollinger, all the justices agree that Powell's opinion in Bakke, strict scrutiny should apply to racial classifications in university admissions policies and the classifications should be upheld only when it is met to serve a compelling state interest. Furthermore, Rhenquist, Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy agree with Powell that diversity is a compelling state interest.

This is important as the Bakke decision was splintered and narrow, as Powell's opinion was one of four but not technically the majority opinion. Strict Scrutiny is now the law of the land for university admissions policies. So it appears that even the most conservative of judges were not willing to go as far as many in this forum would like and outright ban all racial classifications in university admissions.

O'Connor's majority applies the test and says UM's policy survives the test. Scalia and Thomas dissent saying that she misapplied the test and that majority simply takes UM's assurances that this is not quota system, rather than looking at the objective data and look at how the admissions policy is applied. Scalia, Thomas and Rhenquist all conclude that UM's prgram does not survive strict scrutiny and that strict scrutiny requires more than taking the university's assurances that this is narrowly tailored program to ensure diversity.

[Kryptonite]

If the states have a compelling interest in achieving the undefined goal of racially-diverse student body, how can historically-black colleges get away with being so predominantly undiverse?

The law school ruling really gets under my skin. It's ok to discriminate against whites as long as it's not too obvious. How ridiculous.

[aristeides]

I read the briefs myself. I'm a lawyer. I understood what the issues in the briefs were.

[Straight Vermonter]

Do you think these Carribbean blacks sprang out of the Earth? They are all of African origin. Nearly all blacks in the Western Hemisphere are descendants of slaves. The Carribbean had a larger slave population than it ever had of whites.

[justshe]

"I'm not going to spend the time hunting for proof."

---

That's fine if you choose not to support your assertion. You stated it as fact. I simply asked for proof that President Bush had ORDERED Olson.

It is NOT a matter of disbelief...but rather 'YOUR Opinion' vs. 'ACTUAL Fact'.

I will read your ASSERTION as mere opinion.

Thanks.

[sweetliberty]

"When is affirmative action supposed to end?"

At the same time as highway construction. :-)

[Bogolyubski]

The court apparently ruled just the way the Bush administration wanted it to. While Bush talked tough on racial preferences, the brief filed by the Justice Dept. advocated that the 1978 Bakke decision - that "diversity" was a compelling state interest that justified using race as a factor - be upheld, while at the same time stating that overt quota and preference systems (like the undergrad admissions policy) should be rejected.

This issue will continue to be litigated until the nation either repents and comes to its senses or we split into another civil war. The decision today was really a form of continuing with the status quo. In terms of practical effect, the myriad forms of discrimination against asians and whites will continue in both the academic and corporate worlds. The entire corporate and legal infrastructure of the country has been set up to uphold the racial spoils system in place. The court was simply afraid to take on the multi-billion dollar diversity industry with the large number of civil rights lawyers and consultants who are busy making a living off the whole issue. Maybe things would change if a true conservative majority were appointed to the court. However, with an overall record of waffling and moral failure, it would be unrealistic to expect the Bush administration to appoint anyone of the caliber of Scalia or Thomas. I hope I'm wrong about that, but Bush has been a profoud disappointment. The only thing one can say is that he is marginally better than Gore.

[armydoc]

A preference is a preference, and it makes little difference if the preference takes the form of a formal "points system" or an informal preference system. In fact, an informal, subjective system is more dangerous, because there is no way to really regulate it. How do you analyze an informal, subjective system to see if it is tailored "narrowly enough"? At least with a points system the court could have defined what is narrow enough ("you can only give 5 points to a racial minority"). But this is really splitting hairs; SCOTUS has officially sanctioned government racism.

[wizzler]

This is no longer a free country.

This is a country where lip service is paid to "freedom," but where actually, in practice, "equality" is upheld as the more important ideal.

Today is a sad day.

[aristeides]

And other posters on this forum know that I don't make things up.

[Puppage]

Thanks for set'n this Flatlander straight.

[MJY1288]

Did you hear Olsen Argue the case?, being a lawyer an all, you should know that their is a big difference between briefs and arguing the case

[Uncle Miltie]

"race can be one of many factors that colleges consider when selecting their students."

Racism is the law of the land.

[utahagen]

I concur. The point-based admissions system on a practical basis benefits only black people and favors them to an outrageous degree. It is a victory for conservatives that this sytem was ruled unconstitutional. While I would like both decisions to have gone against affirmative action, there is a small benefit to the decisions' being split as well as to the spin's being that 'affirmative action has been upheld': there would have been a big sobfest later today by self-appointed black leaders and now that won't happen. Today, liberals are claiming victory, making it tougher for them to whine about disrimination at the same time. The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step and a step towards ending the outrageous advantage blacks have over everyone else was just taken today.