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.
Lemme 'splain. In European Communist countries the governments instituted admission policies at the universities (which were all state run) to correct past injustices and admit previously disadvantaged classes. The advantaged classes whose children were denied those extra points and often the admission were the sons and daughters of the despised "intelligentsia" and former aristocracy. These were in a manner perfect self-perpetuating policies - only a voiceless minority was against them, and those admitted and graduated from universities, that is the countries' new elites, would never admit to others or to themselves that they benefitted from discrimination. But in the end, many lives were broken. Somebody please explain to me the difference between then there and here now!
Like (Frederick) Douglass, I believe blacks can achieve in every avenue of American life without the meddling of university administrators. Because I wish to see all students succeed whatever their color, I share, in some respect, the sympathies of those who sponsor the type of discrimination advanced by the University of Michigan Law School (Law School). The Constitution does not, however, tolerate institutional devotion to the status quo in admissions policies when such devotion ripens into racial discrimination. Nor does the Constitution countenance the unprecedented deference the Court gives to the Law School, an approach inconsistent with the very concept of strict scrutiny.
A close reading of the Court's opinion reveals that all of its legal work is done through one conclusory statement: The Law School has a compelling interest in securing the educational benefits of a diverse student body. Ante, at 21. No serious effort is made to explain how these benefits fit with the state interests the Court has recognized (or rejected) as compelling, see Part I, supra, or to place any theoretical constraints on an enterprising court's desire to discover still more justifications for racial discrimination. In the absence of any explanation, one might expect the Court to fall back on the judicial policy of stare decisis. But the Court eschews even this weak defense of its holding, shunning an analysis of the extent to which Justice Powell s opinion in Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke, 438 U. S. 265 (1978), is binding, ante, at 13, in favor of an unfounded wholesale adoption of it.Justice Powell's opinion in Bakke and the Court's decision today rest on the fundamentally flawed proposition that racial discrimination can be contextualized so that a goal, such as classroom aesthetics, can be compelling in one context but not in another. This we know it when we see it approach to evaluating state interests is not capable of judicial application. Today, the Court insists on radically expanding the range of permissible uses of race to something as trivial (by comparison) as the assembling of a law school class. I can only presume that the majority s failure to justify its decision by reference to any principle arises from the absence of any such principle. See Part VI, infra.
B
Under the proper standard, there is no pressing public necessity in maintaining a public law school at all and, it follows, certainly not an elite law school. Likewise, marginal improvements in legal education do not qualify as a compelling state interest.
What a mess this will create- Lower courts will be interpreting this all over the place.
The thing I've always asked my liberal friends who support affirmative action is "where's the stopping point ... will there ever be a time when it can end?"
They're usually silent, but I got my answer years ago when I saw the late (and not so lamented) William Kunstler on a panel show and he was asked the same question ... "Can there ever be a stopping point to affirmative action?" ... and he said no, never because, "Whites can never, to the end of time, atone for the evil of slavery."
So that's the bottom line, at the core it's not about advancement or opportunities but about payback and revenge for stuff that happened 150 years ago.
Statement by the President
I applaud the Supreme Court for recognizing the value of diversity on our Nation's campuses. Diversity is one of America's greatest strengths. Today's decisions seek a careful balance between the goal of campus diversity and the fundamental principle of equal treatment under the law.
My Administration will continue to promote policies that expand educational opportunities for Americans from all racial, ethnic, and economic backgrounds. There are innovative and proven ways for colleges and universities to reflect our diversity without using racial quotas. The Court has made clear that colleges and universities must engage in a serious, good faith consideration of workable race-neutral alternatives. I agree that we must look first to these race-neutral approaches to make campuses more welcoming for all students.
Race is a reality in American life. Yet like the Court, I look forward to the day when America will truly be a color-blind society. My Administration will continue to work toward this important goal.
From the Opinion of Justice Thomas:
"Justice Powell's opinion of Bakke and the Court's decision today rest on the fundamentally flawed proposition that racial discrimination can be contextualized so that a goal, such as classroom aesthetics, can be compelling in one context but not in another. This "we know it when we see it" approach to evaluating state interests is not capable of judicial application. Today, the Court insists on radically expanding the range of permissible uses of race to something as trivial (by comparison) as the assembling of a law school class. I can only presume that the majority's failure to justify its decision by reference to any principle arises from the absence of any such principle. See Part VI, infra."
Actually this is not accurate.
It was a split decision..striking down one admissions policy and supporting another.