Posted on 06/23/2003 3:29:45 PM PDT by mhking
WASHINGTON -- Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, the only black member of the court and an opponent of affirmative action programs, disagreed with the court's decision Monday to uphold a University of Michigan law school program that seeks to boost minority enrollment.
He agreed with the court's finding that a similar undergraduate program is unconstitutional.
"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," Thomas said, dissenting, in part, from the 5-4 decision upholding the law school's program.
"The Constitution does not, however, tolerate institutional devotion to the status quo in admissions policies when such devotion ripens into racial discrimination," he said.
In its majority opinion, the high court said the Constitution "does not prohibit the law school's narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body."
But Thomas disagreed, and accused the law school of maintaining "an exclusionary admissions system that it knows produces racially disproportionate results."
"Racial discrimination is not a permissible solution to the self-inflicted wounds of this elitist admissions policy," he said.
Thomas agreed with the court's 6-3 conclusion that a similar undergraduate program at the University of Michigan is unconstitutional. He said a state's use of racial discrimination in higher education admissions is categorically prohibited by the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.
Yours really is the grassroots way to bring the permanent racial preference industry to a halt. The Achilles’ heel of preference discrimination is that there are no real written rules as to who gets to be "African American" or "Hispanic" (there are for "Native Americans").
If EVERYONE JUST CLAIMS THE PREFERENCE CATEGORY, the system will either collapse under universal participation, or the race hustlers will have to convince the government and the courts to go into the race-assignment business a la Apartheid South Africa or Nazi Germany, using skin pigment, facial shape etc to assign folks their place.
So, if ever asked, say you are an "African-American-Hispanic".
If asked why, say "Because I say so."
If ever told you're not a member of the preference groups: Explain that your lawyer will be contacting them about why they've singled you out for scrutiny and rejection from the group based on the color of your skin, hair, last name, etc.
Yes, yes, that's just it.
What "racial prejudice" is about is classifying people according to their appearance.
This includes classifying people according to some notion of a thing called race--which, I believe, has no foundation in science, unless it's weird science of the type the Nazis espoused.
So to continue classifying people according to some vague notion of "race" merely continues the original problem.
Now if a university, or an employer, wanted to discriminate between two qualified candidates by giving the slot or job to the person with lowest income, the person who most "needed" the opportunity, then I personally would have no problem with that.
This would amount to a kind of affirmative action in which blacks (being more often of lower income), would benefit disproportionately. That would be fine by me.
But for someone to move from a $40,000 job to a $45,000 job just because they're black and/or female, while an equally qualified applicant currently making $25,000, perhaps even with more dependents, is denied the job solely on the basis of race or sex, strikes me as grossly unfair.
Full agreement here.
Does anyone have the actual vote so we would know who voted which way on both issues?
Voila. Game the system.
Exactly right. It is the country club Republican influence. This influence is not sufficiency captured with the country club analogy, however. It is O'Connor who exemplifies what is wrong. She has been reined into a circle of consideration where the damned "balancing tests" rule supreme. Proof was presented in this case about how college administrations cannot be trusted to honestly exercise any discretion in the matter of race. if they have a little wiggle room, they will lie and claim they are only seeking "diversity" while wha thtey are really doing is employing thier quotas. There will not be any evidence available to prove that the administration has done this in any particular case. This is why BRIGHT LINE such as we have in the equal protection clause is what is needed to ensure that these institutional bigots [against white middle and lower class good students] will not do their evil for yet another generation. Bakke' effect has been pernicious. Now, there is supposedly a compelling interest for the state to "diversify their student body." That amounts to a joker card immunity to the quota bigots --if only they have the sense to half-heartedly cover their tracks.
But the Republicans are effete with regard to clashing on this point or any other points that require overt conflict. They are inveterately establishment types--which unfortunately reduces to usually going along with the perceived consensus.
Believe it or not, these so-called political types are afraid of political argument or dispute where there is actual dispute. They are intimidated by the liberal democrats who are true believers in the marxist -[and now feminist] faith and conceive themselves as soldiers for "change" menaing the presumptuous change that accords to the left's agenda and which gets imbued with an unexamined moral superiority. The country club set cannot argue so they are routinely eaten up when things get to the short hairs. Need I cite examples? Warner, Hatch, Dole, Kassenbaum, O'Connor, Anthony Kennedy, etc. We dont even have to mention Warren Rudman, Republican Senator who shamelessly pulled a n intentional and decietful scam on president of the united states: guaranteeing that Souter was a conservative when he knew damn well he was not. Shame on Pres. Bush 41 though for being such a mark. Just like he was after he won on Clarence Thomas, he tried to be a "nice guy" an dshow how "good" he was on race with his ties to Republican Negroes, and show his bona fides by agreeing to signing the otherwise stalled "civil rights restoration act" of Teddy Kennedy--which was an attempt to overturn by congress the 80's supreme court's kabosh on dispareate impact interpretations the 60's civil rights act. Bush 41 handed away a decade an da half of slow conservative progress on civil rights law, in a momentary feeling of being flushed with victory and wanting to be magnanimous. Maybe, it was a noble feeling; but it was magnaminity with our constitution and the whole idea of building a colorblind society.
Agreed. I have suggested something similar in the past as being a measure to "fix" the broken bicycle...
I disagree - it provides the opportunity to everyone, regardless of station, and without regard for race. No guarantees; on the contrary, it opens the door for everyone. Only those who choose to show that they belong there will remain.
The soul patrol doesn't like this, because it takes them out of the equation.
All things being honest, I agree. The problem is, if you give liberals an inch of rope, they will find a way to hang the rest of us. This decision represents a couple feet of rope.
...Only because truth and reason have been thrown out the window. We're doomed.
In fact, I'm actually kind of inspired by all this --. Think I'm going to apply for some elite law schools. I started the process about 12 years ago, but did something else instead, and never mailed in the applications. My undergrad GPA (from an "elite" school) was good, however, and I scored in the 97th percentile on the LSAT. I figure with that and self-identification as an "African-American-Hispanic", I should get some offers. If I get them via the mail, I accept with a nice photo of myself included (Mom is from Holland, Dad's ancestry is German - I look accordingly). If there's an interview first, I'll figure something else out (hidden camera?)
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.