Posted on 06/29/2023 10:28:33 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
The decision in Students for Fair Admissions vs. Harvard will go down as a landmark in the battle over affirmative action.
As Ed Morrisey pointed out in his analysis, it was somewhat surprising to see Justice Roberts stake out such a strong position on the case, given his propensity to write narrow decisions that make only incremental changes to the status quo.
On its face the decision makes clear that affirmative action policies as generally practiced are unconstitutional. Decisions made on the basis of race are facially discriminatory, and should be prohibited.
Prior Supreme Court decisions had carved out some room for racial balancing, but as Roberts pointed out such remediative policies could not go on forever. The idea that people decades (or longer) removed should benefit from policies designed to remediate harms done to people in the past is a fool’s errand, and incompatible with the idea that the constitution is designed to protect the rights of individuals.
Three of the Supreme Court Justices disagreed with the decision, but Roberts correctly and succinctly eviscerates their arguments. He concedes that they may have a policy argument with which some could agree and others disagree, but demonstrates that as a matter of law their arguments fall flat and contradict both the constitution and every Supreme Court precedent.
Why?
Two reasons: 1) as Ed Morrisey pointed out in his explainer, Roberts provided a workaround in his decision, making clear that artfully designed policies based upon proxies for race may be legal; and 2) pretty much every institution that wants to will simply break the law by changing the language and not the practices employed.
An obvious though often ignored fact is that the force of law is not what makes societies more or less law abiding; the reality is that laws are only effective when the vast majority of people voluntarily, even unconsciously obey the law. It is norms more than coercion that keep a society running smoothly and generally within the bounds of legal behavior.
Culture, not legal coercion, defines practice in most cases.
The cultural biases of most institutions in our society lead them to distribute the spoils based upon racial categories, and that cultural bias is not going to change. It’s not only Harvard that uses racial preferences in admissions–it is almost every institution in the country. All of these institutions will scramble to find a new way to describe practices that will remain pretty much the same as before.
Yes, people will sue, and occasionally they may win. But lawsuits are expensive, and large institutions like corporations and universities have very deep pockets, while college students and employees do not.
There have been lots of videos popping up of public school teachers and administrators discussing how to get around Red state laws banning CRT in the classrooms, and they all amount to the same thing: continue the practice, but call it by another name. Presto! They are not teaching CRT!
We will see the same thing here.
Students for Fair Admissions won an important decision, and we shouldn’t diminish the import of the victory.
But as a practical matter the institutions that are committed to racist practices will continue their racist practices, while finding a new justification for their actions.
It’s a long game. The Left loves the long game, and they won’t be deterred by what they will see as a temporary setback, and we shouldn’t rest on our laurels because we won a victory this round.
There are many more rounds left to come.
“They” have already said as much. For example one has already said they’ll have applicants write an essay on “how they’ve suffered because of their race” and grade that with points counted toward admission.
Remember, we’re dealing with the “BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY” crew.
This is exactly what a third of us said as soon as the decision was announced. Nothing will change. Whites and Asians will continue to be moved to the back of the bus. Meritocracy is dead. Our massive, advanced, interconnected systems will begin to fail and nobody will know how to fix them.
After all, “50 year old white males are not inspiring.”
This is all about the offspring of the wealthy competing against lesser.
It will continue.
Right now, it’s about impossible for a white male to get into med school.
____________________
That’s pretty shocking. Even now, many of the physicians I see are not white males. They are East Indian, Chinese, and some kind of Arab and/or female. White males are becoming an endangered species.
The racial quota system will persist until college presidents and admission officers are perp walked off campus in cuffs for violating the civil rights of Americans.
-PJ
“Remember, we’re dealing with the “BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY” crew.”
Yep, this is just a little bump on the road for them.
The only thing that will stop them is a big dose of their own medicine, but our side just seem incapable of delivering it.
I have already posted the Left will simply ignore the Supreme Court ruling. The law means nothing in America anymore.
Constitution AND Laws must be upheld by the courts, when the courts are Marxist there is no longer a constitution or law!! WITHOUT the judiciary ENFORCING the constitution or law there is NOTHING making it more than a piece of worthless paper!!
Best the universities have the buildings torn down,the rubble burned, and the ground plowed and salted.
Isn’t that the goal of these racists?
Wrong, the USSC gave them a loophole they could drive a semi through sideways. The essay loophole that Harvard is using.
Degrees from Ivy League schools are pretty much suspect anymore. Most people being thrown off of flights are college professors.
...and just like biden and hillary, they will get away with breaking the law...forever. This is just another form of lawfare by the criminal democrats.
I just posted this on “Joe’s” Tweet about the AA decision: “You know what the REAL issue is? The fact that public schools in this country are an utter failure. In some cities NO STUDENT can pass basic proficiency in math or reading, despite paying $25,000 and more per pupil per year! THAT IS OUTRAGEOUS, eh Randi?” (Randi Weingarten)
Let them break the law. Nice big endowments.
Any white or Asian male with stellar scores and abilities would be a fool not to apply.
If rejected they would sue both the university and the admissions individuals remember they have liability insurance and big homes in expensive areas.
That is how culture wars are won and funded.
Yup.
And Deep State will allow them to break the law.
Because this ruling wasn’t about righting an unconstitutional wrong.
If was about provoking people of color into going back to voting ‘Rat.
It’s easier to hide election fraud when you don’t have to steal a landslide.
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.