Affirmative Action at US Supreme

[Timber Loftis]

For those of you who think affirmative action is alive and well - it's not. Quotas are outlawed in the US, as is the notion of saving a certain number of seats for minorities. As well, "race" cannot be the primary reason for a decision. All affirmative action is basically wrong, according to the US Supreme, unless it's based on one single overpowering justification: to protect a historical wrong committed by the person/entity utilizing affirmative action.

Well, the latest challenge comes in the form of a Michigan formula which added evaluation points to minority students when evaluating them for admission. You know, in the history of Con Law, Michigan has created more Supreme Court cases than any other state. They just... cant... get it right.

Anyway, read on.
Here's the link, FYI: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/nati...ve-Action.html

Supreme Court Takes Case on Race and School Admissions
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Filed at 12:45 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court re-entered the debate over affirmative action Monday, agreeing to decide if minorities can be given a boost to get into universities.

The court will decide by next June if race can be used in college admissions, an issue that the justices have dealt with only once before, in a cloudy 1978 ruling that led to more confusion.

The justices will consider whether white applicants to the University of Michigan and its law school were unconstitutionally turned down because of their race.

The cases give the court an opportunity to ban affirmative action in higher education or say how much weight universities may assign to an applicant's race. The stakes are high because many public and private colleges have race-conscious admissions policies.

Affirmative action supporters argue that without policies that encourage diverse student bodies, the top public colleges in the country would not be representative.

Opponents contend that those policies discriminate against white students, giving slots to less qualified minorities.

``We come to this with a great deal of trepidation because affirmative action has been under assault,'' said Theodore Shaw, counsel for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, which urged the court to review the cases. ``Confusion isn't going to go away until the Supreme Court resolves this question.''

Curt Levey, a lawyer with the Center for Individual Rights which is representing the white students, said black enrollment initially fell when race considerations were outlawed in public colleges in California, Florida, Texas and Washington state. But he said the numbers are increasing, proof that race does not have to be a factor in admissions.

A divided appeals court upheld the law school's practices in May, saying the Constitution allows colleges and graduate schools to seek ``a meaningful number'' of minority students, so long as the school avoids a fixed quota system.

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati has not ruled in a companion case addressing the school's undergraduate policy, which was argued on the same day as the law school case.

Justices took the unusual step of taking the case anyway, without awaiting a ruling.

University attorney Jonathan Alger said the school wasn't surprised that the Supreme Court decided to hear the cases. He said the university believes affirmative action has worked well and ``we're ready to defend our policies in front of the court.''

The high court has passed up other well-known cases that presented similar questions about the role of race in higher education.

There was pressure from both sides of the debate for the court to intervene now.

``It is hardly an exaggeration to say that the court's decision in these cases will directly affect the lives not only of this generation of students but of generations of students to follow,'' Shaw told justices in a filing on behalf of black and Hispanic students.

The last college higher education case at the high court involved Allan Bakke, a white man rejected for admission to a California medical school while minorities with lower test scores got in through a special program. The court on a 5-4 vote outlawed racial quotas. Justice Lewis F. Powell wrote separately that schools could still consider race, so long as they did not use quotas. Courts around the country have set contradictory rules.

Only two of the justices who considered that 1978 case still sit on the court -- Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justice John Paul Stevens.

``Many questions cry out for clarification,'' lawyers for white law school applicant Barbara Grutter told justices in a filing.

Grutter was a 43-year-old businesswoman and mother when she applied to the law school in 1996 but was not accepted. She said that she suspected reverse discrimination after seeing statistics about the racial makeup and qualifications of recent Michigan law classes.

Her appeal, and the other one by two would-be undergraduate students, center on the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection for all under the law.

Maureen E. Mahoney, a lawyer for the university, told the court in a filing that if the 1978 ruling is overturned, it ``would produce the immediate resegregation of many -- and perhaps most -- of this nation's finest and most selective institutions.''

She said colleges are trying to improve learning with a diverse environment.

About 15 percent of the first year Michigan law students are minorities. The Supreme Court was told that without diversity considerations, the number of minorities in a freshman class could plunge to less than .04 percent.

The cases are Grutter v. Bollinger, 02-241, and Gratz v. Bollinger, 02-516

In other action Monday the court:

-- Said it will consider a Texas case over whether states can punish homosexuals for having sex, a case that tests the constitutionality of sodomy laws in 13 states.

-- Agreed to decide if inmates have constitutional rights to jailhouse visits from young relatives and others, in a case that could have far-reaching implications for prisons around the country.

--Turned down an effort to block specialty car license plates in Louisiana with the slogan ``Choose Life.'

--Said it will consider whether California prosecutors can get around time limits on child molestation cases, agreeing to hear an appeal from a grandfather charged with sexually abusing two family members decades earlier.

[Attalus]

*Sighs* What is the old saw about tossing Nature out with a pitchfork? Getting Academia to abandon affirmative action is like trying to get a crackhead off cocaine. I won't even ask why can't they see that you cannot, and IMHO should not, factor race into admission policies, because I already know the answer: they are bound and determined to increase the presence of one particular minority at all levels. Asians, for this purpose, may not be considered minorities.

T.L. I am curious, you really didn't post an opinion
So lets hear what you think.

I will oblige (naturally) by saying, that I disagree with any policy that would make it possible for a lesser qualified student to take a seat from a more qualified student. Wether that bias is due to race, gender or sexual orientation. I also do not like to see companies forced to hire less qualified personnel to meet quota's wether they are "Official" or under the guise of EEOC.

I am against rules that mandate that fire department hire women firefighters who are not up to the same exact physical standards as the males. I am against rules that mandate female warriors that do not have to meet the same exact physical requirements as the males.

To me, it is all about doing the particular job or filling the particular role with the best possible person for each role. So shoot me for acknowledging the difference between the sexes. I still do not see why the NFL has not had a single female punter or kicker yet

Edit: I also find it amazing how Asians suddenly become a non-minority when it comes to school seats.

[ 12-02-2002, 02:10 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

[Timber Loftis]

Well, gotta run to court, and I'll post more later. But, for now let me toss out the opinion that my academic experience was certainly benefited by meeting people from different countries, religions, and races. We certainly can't grow and mature if we limit ourselves to those opinions we already have. So, in short, and subject to other more detailed opinions I will opine, *diversity* is a good thing, be it racial, ethnic, religious, or whatever.

Good luck in Court Dude, waiting for your return

I don't recall this being about diversity. I recall this being about mandating lesser qualified people for positions. Diversity doesnt make up for a lack of quality. I see this in my work environment every single day...trust me..diversity is nice on a social level, but if it hinders the work effort of an organization, then it hurts everyone. I am not saying keep any group out, just make sure that all groups compete at the same level.

[Timber Loftis]

Well, as for asians, many asian groups such as APALSA (Asian Pacific-American Law Student Assoc.) hate being regarded as the "model minority."

MagiK, mandated quotas are right out, as J. Cleese would say. As for the Army/Warrior rules you mention, well I stay out of it. Like I said regarding gays in the military, the military is allowed to make its own rules as it sees fit.

Further, I myself have been the victim of affirmative action, as have I'm sure many folks out there who are melanin-challenged. But, I have also seen instances - many of them - where you simply could not tell a difference between the candidates. I have seen hiring situations where 500 applicants were weeded down to 5, and there was no really definitive way at that point to split hairs regarding the final cut. At that point, I am okay with making a decision to hire someone based on race. Hell, you have to use an arbitrary classification at that point. So, be it whether they are Nicks fans, from South Carolina, Sienfeld fans, or black or asian, you are making an arbitrary decision - any one of which is as justified as the other.

Well in your final paragraph I have to agree, at some point it may come down to that. Unfortunately I am in a field that seems to magnify the "must hire less competant because of EEOC" issue Altho I have to admit I have been out of the hiring loop for the last 3 years.

Edit: The only time I have ever been hurt by the EEOC thing is when I thought about a Government job. It turns out I was the wrong sex and the wrong color. In the end it was actually to my benefit since the job I did get was much better in the compensation field. (if not the pension plan and gaurenteed no-fire me clause).

[ 12-02-2002, 03:32 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

[Bardan the Slayer]

There is no such thing as "Affirmitive Action" - it's a euphemism. What it really is is legalised, institutionalised discrimination. The sooner quotas and 'affirmitive action' are wiped off the face of the Earth, the better.

[ 12-02-2002, 03:43 PM: Message edited by: Bardan the Slayer ]

[Timber Loftis]

Well, the government advocates "correcting the historical wrong" in a big way. I guess it's okay - if the government is going to knock down every dividing line (basically) dreamed up to keep races apart, at least it practices what it preaches. But, you don't have to run to court too terribly often to realize that the vast majority of lower-echelon jobs are heavily minority-held these days. Of course time passes slowly, and the majority of judges, governors, leaders, etc. are still white and male. It will obviously take time before employment ranks start to look like our national makeup.

On that note, I am glad that Affirmative Action is and has been dying. It irked me that no one ever cited an NBA team for having too few white folks on the team. I'm alright with it when the office looks like the country - which is still 70% (or thereabouts) white. But, when 90% of the jobs start to go to 28% of the population, something is amiss.

I have read some opinions that affirmative action only set minorities up to fail, and read the statistics regarding minorities that were let into places like Harvard. Ultimately, because they were less qualified, a higher percentage dropped out or flunked out. But, as one minority friend put it - "at least let me on the bus through the door [to Harvard] and give me the chance." Two sides to the issue, certainly.

In the end, I'd like to point out the obvious: sooner or later on this planet we will f** each other enough that racial lines will blur to a degree that makes races inseperable. Maybe then we can get over this bullshit concerning race and look at each other based solely on aptitude and ability.

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: In the end, I'd like to point out the obvious: sooner or later on this planet we will f** each other enough that racial lines will blur to a degree that makes races inseperable. Maybe then we can get over this bullshit concerning race and look at each other based solely on aptitude and ability.

LLAO, I sure hope it doesn't take that extreme to bring it about. While I see a lot of under qualified people in my business I also see as close to a colorblind society in the IT field as I can imagine. It is (at least in my preasence) all about WHO can do the Job when it comes to the interviews, then HR gets involved....thats where color comes into play