Oral arguments for and against Affirmative Action were heard by the Supreme Court this week. Affirmative Action is in danger if one considers the Justices comments during oral arguments which lean towards declaring it unconstitutional.
The Constitution is color blind, but the looney leftist rag Salon is out demeaning the woman who brought the case to the Supreme Court. Abigail Fisher is challenging the use of race in college admissions and Salon says she gets an “F” for her “race-baiting case” which they say aims at “boosting subpar whites” over “talented African-Americans”.
It’s not only white students who are opposed to racial quotas, it’s Asians.
Fisher finished in the top 12% of her class, but Salon thinks she is academically subpar.
Fisher’s lawyers are arguing that diversity itself is an illegitimate goal for schools.
“Rigorous judicial review,” the petition argues, “would have revealed that UT’s ‘qualitative’ diversity interest is in fact illegitimate. It depends on the assumption that, as a group, minorities admitted through the Top Ten Percent Law are inherently limited in their ability to contribute to the university’s vision of a diverse student body, merely because many come from majority-minority communities.”
In other words, they are pointing out that it assumes minorities aren’t capable on their own and need Affirmative Action to compete with whites.
Samuel Alito argued this week that as long as you have some black students, then you don’t need to work to make sure that the student body’s diversity is reflexive of the country at large.
John Roberts asked ““What ‘unique perspective’ does a minority student bring to a physics class?”
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who holds the crucial vote and has never voted to uphold an affirmative action plan, spent almost all of his time exploring whether the university should be allowed to submit more evidence to justify its use of race in accepting students.
But it’s Justice Antonin Scalia’s comments that really left Civil Rights groups gasping and leftist papers reviling the plaintiff and the premise.
Justice Antonin Scalia on Wednesday questioned whether some blacks and Hispanics are academically ready for the University of Texas at Austin.
Scalia said “there are those who contend that it does not benefit African Americans,” and some minorities might be better suited to “less advanced” or “slower track” schools.
He is not allowed to say that – it’s not PC.
The left has redefined the word “racist” and Scalia’s statements fits their new characterization of a racist. What the left has done is convince people it is bigotry to discriminate against blacks but it’s not bigotry to discriminate by favoring them, even if they don’t meet the qualifications.
Justice Thomas, the only black Justice, wrote in a 2013 opinion the last time the justices took up the University of Texas case, that blacks and Hispanics admitted under the university’s program that considers race among other characteristics are “far less prepared than their white and Asian classmates.”
He said some minorities would be better off at “less selective colleges where they would have been more evenly matched.”
“Setting aside the damage wreaked upon the self-confidence of these overmatched students, there is no evidence that they learn more at the university than they would have learned at other schools for which they were better prepared. Indeed, they may learn less,” Thomas wrote.
Thomas joined the court in 1991.
He has not asked a question from the bench since February 2006.
Those statements were harshly criticized but it’s true of anyone who is put in a position beyond their current ability level.
University of San Diego law professor Gail Heriot wrote in one brief that “the nation now has fewer African-American physicians, scientists and engineers than it would have had using race-neutral methods” because of the minority student drop-out rate in some demanding science programs.
University of Texas entrants are mostly chosen from the top 10 percent of high school graduating classes, but they also pick students based on race.
Greg Garre, the university’s lawyer, countered Scalia by saying students admitted through the supplemental program “fare better” over time than those entering through the “top 10” policy.
“And, frankly,” Garre said, “I don’t think the solution to the problems with student body diversity can be to set up a system in which not only are minorities going to separate schools, they’re going to inferior schools.”
Should we have the most qualified of all races or the most qualified blacks, even if they are subpar?