USSC Strikes Down Affirmative Action?

[Thunder]

So did the supreme court's ruling today now make it illegal to use race as a factor on whether or not a child can attend a public school?

Im all for racial preferences to fix cases of clear and pure discrimination, but where there is no proof that one race has been favored over another, it is not right to use undemocratic measures to heal a non-problem.

[shuize]

Im all for racial preferences to fix cases of clear and pure discrimination, but where there is no proof that one race has been favored over another, it is not right to use undemocratic measures to heal a non-problem.

After a quick skim, that's apparently what the majority seemed to be stating: Absent a showing of specific past discrimination, "racial balancing" is unconstitutional.

The previous Michigan law school case which accepted "diversity as a compelling interest" (Grutter) was apparently limited in two respects: First, the Court said, the "diversity" argument applies in the unique context of higher education. Second, "diversity", as the law school asserted in that case, meant more than just race. Shuffling kids around based on the color of their skin to achieve a vague notion of "racial balance" -- which, as the Court pointed out, varied by district -- is unconstitutional.

I'll comment again once I've had time to read the decision more carefully.

[Miss Anthrope]

I know about this from a local angle, as Seattle was directly related to the case. From what I remember, students are allowed to transfer out of neighborhood schools and basically attend any school they want. The admissions were being weighted by race.

[WildCat]

I'm all for using race to place children in public schools, just as soon as politicians and judges are required to enroll their children in public schools. That's not too much of a condition, is it?

[BPSCG]

I've seen some comments that somehow this rulling strikes at Brown vs. Board of Education. I have to admit I don't see how. Brown said that government could not discriminate by setting up so-called "separate but equal" schools. I don't believe it said schools schools couldn't end up being segregated if that was the way the demographics played out; it said simply that government couldn't impose segregation.

At least that's my understanding. Can anyone elucidate more? If an area has no history of past discrimination (or at least no recent history), but people live in enclaves whose makeup is determined as much by financial status as race (admittedly, there's a tremendous overlap), what is the justification for "race balancing"?

[Beerina]

The previous Michigan law school case which accepted "diversity as a compelling interest"

It's rather interesting. "Diversity" isn't any kind of interest. It's an invention to continue affirmative action in the face of rulings that affirmative action is largely unconstitutional.

Yet we're all being trained to think of Diversity with a capital D. Some holy grail we strive to achieve.

But that's not what it's about whatsoever, is it?

Any studies showing diverse groups out-performing groups selected for pure competence? Anybody? Bueller? Bueller? Anybody?

[slingblade]

Any studies showing diverse groups out-performing groups selected for pure competence? Anybody? Bueller? Bueller? Anybody?

In such a competition, would the "pure competence" group be uniform? That is to say, "not diverse?"

[Ziggurat]

In such a competition, would the "pure competence" group be uniform? That is to say, "not diverse?"

Of course: they'd be below quota on incompetent people.

[shuize]

It's rather interesting. "Diversity" isn't any kind of interest. It's an invention to continue affirmative action in the face of rulings that affirmative action is largely unconstitutional.

Yet we're all being trained to think of Diversity with a capital D. Some holy grail we strive to achieve.

But that's not what it's about whatsoever, is it?

Any studies showing diverse groups out-performing groups selected for pure competence? Anybody? Bueller? Bueller? Anybody?
I agree that "diversity" as a compelling interest is retarded. Especially considering the extremely limited number of justifications which the court accepted as compelling enough to allow the government to classify based on race in the past: national security, reducing violence in prisons and remedying specific past state discrimination. That was it. In fact, prior to Grutter, the Court specifically stated that acting to remedy general social discrimination was not a compelling government interest which could justify government race-based classifications.

The reason this matters is that traditionally the government needed to satisfy a higher standard ("strict scrutiny") when it classified on the basis of race. This involved showing a "compelling" government interest that was also narrowly tailored to the law's purpose. But, as I believe Justice Scalia sarcastically noted in Grutter, if such a vague notion as "diversity" is a compelling government interest, then really anything is -- and the bar against government passing laws which classify based on race just got a whole lot lower.

What I think people should ask themselves is whether they want the government to treat citizens as individuals or as a member of a racial category? If the latter, then ask themselves how well the government has done when it has classified along racial lines in the past? Justice Thomas summed up my opinion with this line from the Seattle case, "Beware of elites bearing racial theories" which he noted before reminding the reader to recall the Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson and, if I might add, U.S. v. Korematsu decisions.

[Thunder]

From what I understand, schools may have been using racial preferences not as a means to fix past or present discrimination and intentional segregation, but simply to attain a disired sense of diversity and racial balance. I.E., school A is in a somewhat racialy homogenous community and the school had decided that they want their racial background to not reflect the homogeneity of its surroundings and set a certain percentage goal for whites and minorities. If that goal was set, then a student who would disturb that racial balance would be rejected. If this is indeed what has been going on, that is soooo not fair and not democratic.

As Ive said before. If a school was in a racial mixed area but was creatly going out of their way not to have their school represent the community around them, that is discrimination and should be redressed by affirmative action, which is positive discrimination. This is the only case where discrimination should utilized, most of the American people agree with this, and if this is what the court has accepted, then good for them.

[TragicMonkey]

What about other diversities? What about gender, and sexual orientation, and physical disabilities? Religion, nationality, politics? Economic background? Social class? If you have thirty people in each class, what percentage should be white, what percentage should be black, what percentage should be Greek Orthodox, what percentage should be in wheelchairs, and what percentage should have sickle cell anemia? Does it throw off the numbers if the Russian kid is in a wheelchair? What if the black kid is also a dwarf, but her parents are filthy rich? Is she more diverse-making than a poor white kid? Do Catholics count for anything? What about disfiguring birthmarks or asthma?

[Ziggurat]

Roberts had a real nice line towards the end of the judgment:
The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.

[shuize]

Roberts had a real nice line towards the end of the judgment:The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.

This case involved kids being refused admission to certain schools because they were the wrong color.

I don't really understand how those claiming the mantle of Brown can justify that sort of thing. But then again, I'm in complete agreement with Chief Justice Robert's quote. I never quite understood the contradictory mindset of those who argue that in order to end discrimination based on race the government needed to be allowed to discriminate based on race or that "it's only discrimination when white people do it."

[BPSCG]

What about other diversities? What about gender, and sexual orientation, and physical disabilities? Religion, nationality, politics? Economic background? Social class? If you have thirty people in each class, what percentage should be white, what percentage should be black, what percentage should be Greek Orthodox, what percentage should be in wheelchairs, and what percentage should have sickle cell anemia? Does it throw off the numbers if the Russian kid is in a wheelchair? What if the black kid is also a dwarf, but her parents are filthy rich? Is she more diverse-making than a poor white kid? Do Catholics count for anything? What about disfiguring birthmarks or asthma?:clap: (I recognize that the realization that I agree 100% with the above will probably induce TM into an immediate cerebral hemorrhage. Sorry about that, TM...)

[WildCat]

[nit]
Every time I see this thread I think that the University of Southern California struck down affirmative action. SCOTUS is the proper term for the Supreme Court of the United States.
[pick]

[fishbob]

[nit]
The Society to Stomp Out Annoying Acronyms (don't, just don't) disagrees.
The proper term for the Supreme Court of the United States is 'Supreme Court of the United States', which may be abbreviated as 'Supreme Court'.
[pick]

[WildCat]

The Society to Stomp Out Annoying Acronyms
You mean the STSOAA? :boxedin:

[fishbob]

Aaarrrgh!

[TragicMonkey]

I can't see "SCOTUS" without thinking "SCROTUMS".

[David Swidler]

I can't see "SCOTUS" without thinking "SCROTUMS".

Is it the shape of the robes?

[Oakheart]

It would be the best thing for public school if private schools we outlawed. I know of the personal benefits to students who are home or privately schooled but the harm to the public school system is tremendous! SOme to the brightest students, some of the most involved parents and certainly the people who have a bit of money to ensure the quailty of the education all gone. ??

Racial balancing is something that has been going on in KC for a long time. At the same time they created magnet and commercially run schools. As usual it was three good ideas ruined by government involvement.

[Art Vandelay]

[nit]
The Society to Stomp Out Annoying Acronyms (don't, just don't) disagrees.
The proper term for the Supreme Court of the United States is 'Supreme Court of the United States', which may be abbreviated as 'Supreme Court'.
[pick]Assuming, of course, that the context is clear (many states refer to their highest court as "Supreme Court", plus it can be confused with "Superior Court"). If the context is clear, then merely "Court" can be used as an abbreviation.

It would be the best thing for public school if private schools we outlawed. I know of the personal benefits to students who are home or privately schooled but the harm to the public school system is tremendous! SOme to the brightest students, some of the most involved parents and certainly the people who have a bit of money to ensure the quailty of the education all gone. ??What benefits do schools derive from having smart students? Private schools mean that the rich subsidize the poor even more than they would otherwise. They pay more property tax than poor people, yet they don't take up public resources sending their kids to public school.

[MelBrooksfan]

what is the justification for "race balancing"?

The justification seems to be, more or less, white guilt. The 'beneficiaries' (I tend to think they got in because of performance and not my university's efforts to balance the races) of admissions affirmative action think that it's the only way to make up for past wrongs.

Another justification I've heard of is that minorities by race tend to live in lower-income communities and, thusly, attend lower-income schools and need a boost to make up for it.

[Beerina]

In such a competition, would the "pure competence" group be uniform? That is to say, "not diverse?"

What I mean by that is, say, applicants were selected without any racially identifying characteristics being made available.

Or, if you prefer, just no attempts at "diversity" were made. The managers selected those they thought would do best for the task at hand.

[Beerina]

Is it the shape of the robes?

Nah.

It's all the wrinkly skin.

[Beerina]

What benefits do schools derive from having smart students? Private schools mean that the rich subsidize the poor even more than they would otherwise. They pay more property tax than poor people, yet they don't take up public resources sending their kids to public school.

Indeed, this leads to the absolutely stunning observation that students who "take their voucher" with them, in fact, only take half their public school share with them. The other half stays with the school, for nothing at all.

How many private businesses would love to get half what the average person paid for that class of product, in return for doing nothing at all? Yet public school unions and operations are so grotesquely bloated and malformed that even this inconceivably granting of largesse is distasteful to them.

[casebro]

The best rule I ever heard for acronyms was that "more than three letters ought to form a pronounceable word". Like SCOTUS. USSC could only be "you suck". Not like STSOOA. Or would "satsua" count?

[casebro]

.... but was creatly going out of their way.... .

Typo, or a new word, formed by combining "greatly creative" into one word??