Decision in Affirmative Action cases
 

The Supreme Court has ruled in both U. Mich cases. Upholding one policy and finding the other unconstitutional, the article below is from Yahoo News.

I did a search but did not find a thread on this CT4 and Kelli. If I missed it, please move te post!


Court Limits Race As Factor in Admissions
3 minutes ago


WASHINGTON - In two split decisions, the Supreme Court on Monday ruled that minority applicants may be given an edge when applying for admissions to universities, but limited how much a factor race can play in the selection of students.



The high court struck down a point system used by the University of Michigan, but did not go as far as opponents of affirmative action had wanted. The court approved a separate program used at the University of Michigan law school that gives race less prominence in the admissions decision-making process.


The court divided in both cases. It upheld the law school program that sought a "critical mass" of minorities by a 5-4 vote, with Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (news - web sites) siding with the court's more liberal justices to decide the case.


The court split 6-3 in finding the undergraduate program unconstitutional. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote the majority opinion in the undergraduate case, joined by O'Connor and Justices Antonin Scalia (news - web sites), Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas (news - web sites) and Stephen Breyer (news - web sites).


Justices John Paul Stevens (news - web sites), David Souter (news - web sites) and Ruth Bader Ginsburg (news - web sites) dissented

No one has anything to say?

This had the potential to affect the admissions policies of every college and univerity in the country. It is a slim victory for propoenents of affirmative action but still upholds the right of universities to consider student body diversity a reasonable and worthwhile goal.

Any thoughts at all?

I'm glad of today's outcome, but we need to keep pushing and encouraging our kids to be competitive in school, standard testing and the SATs, because I have a feeling that affirmative action will be struck down in the future.

Serious Business!!
 

I have been following this case since I am a college student and I do plan on going to graduate school. I think the decision was a double wammy of sorts. Yes it upheld affirmative action but there were comments made about how affirmative action will soon be obsolete.

Justice O'Connor wrote that "Affirmative action programs should not go on forever, O'Connor wrote. "We expect that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary."

What makes it a double wammy is that I only heard information reported about affirmative action as it pertains to race, and affirmative action includes more than that. Affirmative action includes gender, ethnic background, and any other standard that would take away ones right to live and work. I have been following this issue closely because it affects not only me but my children, grandchildren, nieces, nephews, and younger cousins as well. I definately agree with Steeltrap, we need to become more competetive because one day the right government is going to take away affirmative action. This was just a wake up call and I have a feeling this is the only one! There is so much more work to be done so I hope that alot of people take todays decision seriously. I personally am going to join more efforts and try to educate myself along with others on this subject. It stands to reason that those who sleep on this one may miss the boat the next time it sails through!

Agreed.

I'm not sure if this is correct from the article that Kimmie posted, but it seems that they are saying that Michigan's point system was flawed and placed too much weight on race. Did they say what an appropriate weight would be? How does that transend to other admissions requirements?

I expect to see many other similar lawsuits after this and if GW has his way, the court will become more conservative and AA will be a thing of the past. It will be interesting to see if this albe begins to affect things like minority set asides and AA goals in hiring.

Hey all....

Hope this helps clear a few things up....

There were two cases...one was Michigan's law school and the other the undergrad. Both used different standards. Michigan law school uses a standard used by many different college admissions offices; a standard that just takes race into a factor. There is no quantifiable actual number, percentage etc. it weighs..but they have the ability to use race as a factor. THIS WAS UPHELD...AND IS A VICTORY FOR ALL WHO SUPPORT AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AND ALL BROWN V BOARD STANDS FOR...

As for the undergrad the program had a specific numerical factor attached to race... which the court found unconstitutional. The fact that they left the door open for affirmative action is a victory...

The reason why you only heard affirmative action as it pertains to race is because the case only pertained to race...they were challenging race as a factor..."is there a compelling reason to use race in admissions decisions"
many universities no longer truly use gender as a factor...

We must still encourage our children and siblings to achieve...but we have MANY years of ground to make up..so we must support affirmative action. Lets not forget that the civil rights movement was a little more than 30 years ago which means not even a full generation has truly benefited from affirmative action...lets not let them trap us into rejecting a program that is necessary for us to progress and regain the ground we were prevented from gaining.

Your last paragraph is very true. About 30 to 50 years of civil rights aren't going to make up for 400 years of mistreatment and BS, but progress is a very slow thing. I'm not saying that we shouldn't support AA. What I'm saying is that we should be vigilant because it may go away.

Just a reminder that the challengers have not stopped coming so the proponent should not stop, either.


washingtonpost.com
U-Mich. Rulings Spur Strategic Scramble
Affirmative Action's Backers and Foes Ponder Response to High Court's Decision
By Michael A. Fletcher and Lee Hockstader
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, June 25, 2003; Page A09
Emboldened by Monday's Supreme Court decisions upholding race-conscious college
admissions, state legislators and education activists on both sides of the
debate are scrambling for a position in the legal landscape created by the
rulings.
As supporters looked for ways to expand affirmative action's reach, opponents
examined the feasibility of promoting ballot initiatives to outlaw affirmative
action in states across the country. They also said they will file new lawsuits
challenging affirmative action programs that they feel go beyond the limits the
Supreme Court set.
In California, legislators are considering ways to repeal or narrow the reach of
Proposition 209, the ballot initiative that outlawed state-run affirmative
action programs, while in Texas, higher education leaders have announced plans
to examine reviving a race-conscious admissions plan struck down by a federal
appeals court in 1996.
Fabian Nunez (D-Los Angeles), California Assembly majority whip, said he
supported a return to considering race as part of the admissions process. He
expects to raise the issue at the next meeting of the Latino Caucus in a few
weeks.
"Given the Supreme Court ruling, we have to make California law consistent with
that ruling," Nunez said. He acknowledged that a repeal would be no easy feat.
It would require a two-thirds vote in the state legislature and the governor's
signature before going before California's voters.
In Texas, officials at the state's flagship campus, the University of Texas at
Austin, said they could reinstate race-conscious admissions as soon as next
year. But even if the university returns to considering race in college
admissions, it seems unlikely that the state legislature will scrap the
"race-neutral" admission policy it enacted for public universities after
race-conscious admissions were struck down.
"This creates an opportunity to tinker with the top 10 percent rule," said state
Sen. Rodney Ellis, a Houston Democrat. "It creates an atmosphere to have a
discussion."
Under the plan, students in the top 10 percent of the graduating class at every
high school in the state are guaranteed admission to the state university of
their choice. The idea was to promote racial diversity on campus without using
explicit minority preferences.
Civil rights leaders and other critics have said the plan fosters racial
diversity in public universities only because of the segregation that is
prevalent at high schools across the state. Also, they say, the plan does
nothing to foster racial diversity at the state's graduate and professional
schools, where black and Latino enrollment has dipped in the absence of
race-conscious admissions.
Still, the 10 percent rule has helped black and Hispanic students gain admission
to public universities -- and has done at least as much to assist poor whites at
rural schools. That has made the plan a national model cited by officials
including President Bush, while it has created a political coalition that may
favor maintaining the plan in conjunction with a race-conscious affirmative
action policy.
"The top 10 percent rule was a remedy for [scrapping affirmative action] and an
imperfect one at that," said state Rep. Garnet Coleman, a Houston Democrat.
"However, it was egalitarian . . . It doesn't just help blacks and browns."
In Washington, civil rights groups were huddling with lawyers trying to develop
strategies to reach out to corporations and universities in hopes of persuading
them to strengthen their affirmative action programs.
Meanwhile, opponents were mapping strategies to limit affirmative action.
Ward Connerly, chairman of the Sacramento-based American Civil Rights Coalition,
who led referendum campaigns that ended race-conscious affirmative action in
California and Washington state, said his group will begin work within two weeks
to determine whether it can force a similar ballot initiative in Michigan.
"The pieces are all in place, and there would be no state more visible than
Michigan," Connerly said in a telephone interview. "We should have somebody on
the ground there within the next two weeks."
Many affirmative action opponents said they will have to rely on such
grass-roots efforts because of the politics that swirls around affirmative
action. Although many Americans dislike racial preferences, they also embrace
the idea of racial diversity. Through the years, that ambivalence has thwarted a
string of federal efforts to end affirmative action.
"I don't think there is any hope in terms of Congress doing anything to limit
affirmative action," said Linda Chavez, president of the Center for Equal
Opportunity, which is among a coalition of private groups working to end
race-conscious programs nationally. "The White House would be apoplectic if
Republicans in Congress decided to raise the issue."
Chavez said her organization had compiled a list of dozens of colleges and
universities that it believes go too far in considering race in admissions. She
said the group will ask the Department of Education to investigate the schools.
New lawsuits are also an option, she said.
Jack F. Kemp, the former Republican congressman who is now a director of Empower
America, a Washington research organization, called the efforts to find new ways
to oppose affirmative action in the wake of the court's ruling shortsighted.
"While I agree that ultimately a colorblind society should be our goal, we
certainly are not there yet. Blacks were removed from the mainstream economy,
denied access to education, job opportunities and access to capital and
ownership," he said. "Thus, African Americans have long been denied their full
measure of justice under the law, and while great progress has been made, we
have a long way to go."
Correspondent Kimberly Edds contributed to this report from Los Angeles.
© 2003 The Washington Post Company

How come the biggest opponents of AA are folx like Ward Connerly, Linda Chavez, Condoleeza Rice and, dare I say it, Uncle Thomas, I mean Clarence Thomas? These are people who have benefitted from AA but want to close the door to the next generation.

I am glad that the Supreme Court upheld the concept of AA, albeit by a very narrow margin.

People mistake ALL race considerations as AA when some racial considerations may be diversity initiatives. Diversity initiatives seek to promote, on the front end, variety and difference in the marketplace. AA, however, seeks to dismantle-on the back end, an existing monolithic structure. The number one benefactor of AA has been the white female. The reason why schools hardly use gender as a factor is because the existing structure has, over the years, come to accept and embrace the white female in the marketplace (be it educationally or professionally). The same phenomenon has not occurred with respect to brown skinned people in this society. So, the Sup. Ct has stated (IMO) that it will no longer recognize AA as a means of dismantling this society's existing monolithic structure of racism.