Posted on 06/23/2003 3:57:03 PM PDT by Congressman Billybob
This morning the US Supreme Court issued two decisions concerning affirmative action in the admissions policies of the University of Michigan. By a 5-4 decision, it affirmed the race-based policy of the University's law school. By a 6-3 decision, it struck down a similar policy for undergraduate admissions.
In the law school case (Grutter v. Bollinger) the Court issued six different opinions among the nine Justices. In the undergraduate case (Gratz v. Bollinger), it issued perhaps its all-time record, seven opinions in one case. Despite that large number of opinions, some of which are remarkably hostile toward one another, the bottom line conclusion of these two cases is clear – affirmative action is dead in American universities in no more than 25 years.
We start with Gratz, the undergraduate decision. The Admissions Office there awarded 20 points automatically to any applicant who was a member of a "disadvantaged minority," which meant African-Americans, Hispanics, or Native Americans. Admission to the university generally required 100 points out of a possible 150. By contrast, the rare student who achieved a perfect score on the Scholastic Aptitude Test received only 5 points for that. One racial group, Asian Americans, received no points, because historically students from that group outperform Caucasian students in academics and in qualifications for admission.
The effect of the 20-point bonus was to make "the factor of race .... decisive" for almost every minimally qualified student from those specified groups. It also meant that applicants not from those racial groups, but far better qualified academically, were refused admission.
Led by Chief Justice Rehnquist, six Justices had no difficulty concluding that this amounted to a quota system, which the Court had condemned in the Bakke decision a quarter century ago, and agreed that the undergraduate admission system – and anything like it in any other public college or university – was unconstitutional. (There were separate Dissents filed by Justices Stevens, Souter and Ginsburg.)
On the face of it, the law school case seems to be the opposite of the undergraduate one. In the Grutter case, the Admissions Office looked at every one of the 3,500 or so applicants for a freshman class of about 350 students. They looked at grade point averages, at scores on the Law School Aptitude Test, at extracurricular activities, and at "life experience." Included in the latter were the racial experiences in the students' lives, including difficulties faced and overcome. Justice O'Connor wrote the Opinion of the Court approving this system, joined by Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer.
In both cases, the University of Michigan asserted that it had a legitimate educational purpose of "diversity" in the student body. It said that students learn not only from their professors but from one another, and diversity is essential to that purpose. In both cases, the Supreme Court accepted that as a legitimate purpose – but in the undergraduate case only, the Court struck down the method chosen to accomplish that "compelling interest."
In the law school, the University said it sought a "critical mass" of minority students, not just the small numbers of minority students who qualified for admission without any special consideration. The University never defined how many students made up a "critical mass," because that would appear to be a quota, which was clearly illegal.
Chief Justice Rehnquist, in a particularly cutting dissent, used the University's own admissions figures to demonstrate that the "critical mass" for African American students was more than twice the critical mass for Hispanics and four times the critical mass for Native Americans. Both he and Justice Thomas, the Court's only black Justice, referred to the Law School admissions program as "a sham." Justices Kennedy and Scalia also filed dissents.
Both of these cases were decided under the Fourteenth Amendment, which says that no state shall "deny to any person ... the equal protection of the laws." Both cases started with the presumption that denying admission to one student as opposed to another, solely on account of the different races of the two students, denies equal protection to the student excluded. And all of the plaintiffs in both of these cases were denied admission though they had credentials which would have gotten them in for certain, had they been members of a disadvantaged minority. This factual finding was not questioned by any of the Justices in either of the cases.
What is going on here? Has the Supreme Court turned schizophrenic, approving racial discrimination in one case but rejecting it in the other?
No. There is one critical difference between the two cases. For undergraduates, the advantage for certain students was absolute and solely race-based. Every member of the target race got the advantage, without any consideration of whether it was appropriate. However, for law school applicants the advantage was individually considered. For example, a child of Cliff and Clair Huxtable (the Cosby family on TV), would get no advantage – that child of a doctor and a lawyer, attending good schools in good neighborhoods, would be expected to perform at the same level as any Caucasian or Asian American student.
Some readers might ask at this point whether this means less racial discrimination, but not an end to discrimination. Some might agree with the dissent in the law school case, that this is still a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. See for yourselves. The opinions are relatively short and written in plain English. They can be found at either of these websites: www.supremecourtus.gov and www.supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/ The alternative site at Cornell is given because the Supreme Court's official site was overrun with hits today.
There is a critical point in the law school case not mentioned in any of the press reports this writer has seen and heard. In line with prior Court decisions, Justice O'Connor's Opinion states that it should remain in effect only for "twenty-five years." Even by its own terms, this decision is deliberately temporary. That leads to the ultimate conclusion that affirmative action, even in the limited form accepted in one case today, will be abolished as unconstitutional. - 30 - About the Author: John Armor practices civil rights law in the Supreme Court, and is filing his 17th brief there this month.
- 30 -
Exactly. 100% black is a rarity in America. Archeologists tell us we all came from Mother Africa, if so then we're ALL African, right? If we're ALL African then shouldn't it stand there be no AA? Oh, I know the AA initially meant perks for "people of color" (purple, green?) from the underprivileged American black ghetto experience but that hasn't held water for years. Sandra, AA should have been pronounced dead 25 years AGO. We've successfully dumbed down public schools to the lowest common denominator and as of Monday our universities have suffered the same fate. Admittance should be based solely on the student's will to succeed not on the happenstance of whom his great great great great great grandparent chose to sleep with one night.
Justice O'Connor's Opinion states that it should remain in effect only for "twenty-five years." Even by its own terms, this decision is deliberately temporary.
I don't think that the current court can mandate the action of a future court.
Plus this is a huge defeat for conservatives. It appears to me to that the court has here decided the "living constitution" vs. "strict constructionist" debate clearly in favor of the "living constitution". Even worse, not only has the court said that the constitution is living and changing right before our eyes, but that we know exactly how it is going to change.
Right now the constitution says one thing, twenty five years from now it is going to say an entirely different thing. And, we can tell you exactly what it is going to say in twenty five years.
The main reason for the point was that it was posted on UPI. Details like that can get people to spuriously discredit you.
Not surprising.
Ummmm ... how about just letting Ted Olson have his way?
Your cheesy attempt to impugn the integrity of Bob Novak, the dean of conservative journalists, says way more about you than about Mr. Novak.
Are you unfamiliar with the sarcasm tag? Surely you can't be serious.
This is just one more example of "compassionate conservatism". May God grant you a twenty-five year toothache!
Is this close enough?
The court's offering of mush might have been avoided if the Bush administration had made a strong, principled argument instead of offering a weak and tepid defense of the constitutional notion that all Americans are held to be equal in the sight of the law, a notion often honored in the breach in years past. A president never looks good riding sidesaddle, as the master of Prairie Chapel Ranch could have told him.
This is just part of the reaction of that other "left-wing" journalist, Wes Pruden.
The question remains, is there another source for this story, or did someone give Novak an "exclusive?" On occasion Novak's sources have been wrong and he has taken a story without verification, maybe because he trusts the source, maybe because occasionally he wants to believe it.
I just find it odd that this appeared in one Novak column and as far as I know no other stories appeared except for a few quoting Novak. Perhaps it is correct, perhaps not. Asking for another source is NOT impugning someone's integrity.
I don't know if this is an accurate portrayal of what happened or not. I just want to know if someone also reported it when Novak did without quoting Novak.
What I want to know is where Novak got his information that the brief was stronger and had been watered down, and if anyone else reported this besides Novak.
Good point. We will need race verification boards ala the Nazis who required people to provide their family trees to prove they weren't Jewish. With intermarriage and mixing of the races, I can see the growing absurdity of trying to class people according to race. We will probably adopt the same system they used in South Africa.
SCOTUS and Congress have gutlessly avoided most major decisions for the past few decades. The borders, the Second Amendment, limited federal powers (the 9th and 10th Amendments), etc. It is unconscionable.
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.