Posted on 04/22/2014 7:28:04 AM PDT by cripplecreek
The U.S. Supreme Court upheld Michigan's controversial ban on affirmative action in public college admissions in a divided opinion released Tuesday morning, preserving a status quo that's contributed to dwindling minority enrollment at the state's flagship colleges.
The high court's decision is a blow to the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, which has come under fire for low minority enrollment.
Blacks comprise just 4.6 percent of undergraduates this year, compared to 8.9 percent in 1995 and 7 percent in 2006.
University of Michigan President Mary Sue Coleman and admissions director Ted Spencer have decried the affirmative action ban, saying outright that the school cannot achieve a fully diverse student body with it in place.
"It's impossible," Spencer said in a recent interview, "to achieve diversity on a regular basis if race cannot be used as one of many factors."
Fifty-eight percent of Michigan voters in 2006 passed Proposal 2, a ballot initiative that amended the state constitution and made it illegal for state entities to consider race in admissions and hiring. With the Supreme Court's ruling, the only way left to nullify Proposal 2 is to mount a long, expensive and uncertain campaign to overturn it.
(Excerpt) Read more at mlive.com ...
There is no law that mandates that the Demwits will run the U of M in perpetuity. Voters elect the Regents, who have ultimate authority over who serves in the University's administration.
Good analysis. University of Michigan leadership is whacked.
The Bakke decision didn't go that far at all. It banned strict numerical racial quotas in admissions (at state institutions), but not affirmative action. Race was permitted to be one of the determining factors in admissions.
Bakke himself was ultimately allowed admission to the UC Davis medical school.
Thanks for the post/ping back to this very good thread. HOORAY USSC!
Ironically, the plantiffs point to a violation of equal rights while preferences are nothing but violations of equal protection.
It was the start down the road. The point being that we need to do what the left is so good at.....keep at it until we win; not give up and say I don’t wanna play any more
The not-so-good news was that only the result was 6-2; there was no majority opinion, so the precedential impact of this case will be small.
The opinions broke out 3-2-1-2-1: a lead opinion by Kennedy, joined only by Roberts and Alito; an opinion by Scalia, joined only by Thomas, that would have reached the same result on a much broader ground; an opinion by Breyer, joined by no one else, that reached the same result on a third ground; a dissent by Sotomayor, joined only by Ginsburg; and a recusal by Kagan.
What the author means is that the majority was divided; there was no opinion that carried 5 votes. The majority was made up of 3 separate opinions(Kennedy's opinion was joined only by Roberts and Alito; Scalia and Thomas concurred on a different ground; and Breyer concurred on a third ground).
Yes, Justice Sotomayor, but that fact is only true when we look at the history of your political party.
I realize that now from reading other articles. This one didn't mention that fact or even give the information on how 6 of the justices voted.
Follow the money. If they can get people who would not otherwise qualify for admission in under other protocols such as "diversity", think of all the money from Federal programs, student loans, Pell Grants, etc. that can be lapped up. Otherwise, they are stuck with people who actually qualify academically as students--the type who just might question the Party Line and be troublesome...and a lot less money.
This does beg the question of why they simply do not use race neutral means(such as affirmative action based upon socioeconomic status).
If they want scholarships for those who can’t afford college, but have academic merit, let those be the criteria. Race need never enter into the picture. Keep in mind that those are meritorious awards, even if means tested, not affirmative action based on genetic roulette.
Affirmative Action is STATE-SANCTIONED racism and racial profiling.
In fact, all other anti-white drivel you hear on MSNBC et. al. is Racial Profiling too.
Additionally, the word “Liberal” has been hijacked by the Leftist Marxists.
There is nothing “liberal” about today’s Democrats. They don’t want individual freedom.
In reality, today’s “Liberals” have nothing in common with “Classical Liberalism.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism
Even the strong-on-defense JFK Democrats wouldn’t even recognize today’s fascist liberals.
As long as the “GimmeDats” get “free stuff” they don’t care how much the government spends.
Obamacare needs to be called out for what it is: “Socioeconomic Fascism!!”
It is a war of words, and so far, the liberal swine have won the battle with slick dishonest catch-phrases like:
“affirmative action”
“affordable care act”
“tolerance”
“diversity”
“inclusion”
“income inequality”
“social justice”
Who is in charge of coming up with equally convincing catch-phrases for the conservative side of the battlefield??
-—”GimmeDats” is one of the best phrases we need to start using.
-—”Socioeconomic Fascism”
-—”Greedy Liberals” (after all, they are the greedy ones, not people who want to keep their own hard-earned money)
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.