SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
CNN reports that the Supreme Court of the US (SCOTUS) by a vote of 6 - 2 has upheld a Michigan law banning the use of racial criteria in college admissions, finding that a lower court did not have the authority to set aside the measure approved in a 2006 referendum supported by 58% of voters. "This case is not about how the debate about racial preferences should be resolved. It is about who may resolve it," wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy. "Michigan voters used the initiative system to bypass public officials who were deemed not responsive to the concerns of a majority of the voters with respect to a policy of granting race-based preferences that raises difficult and delicate issues." Kennedy's core opinion in the Michigan case seems to exalt referenda as a kind of direct democracy that the courts should be particularly reluctant to disturb. This might be a problem for same-sex marriage opponents if a future Supreme Court challenge involves a state law or constitutional amendment enacted by voters. Justice Sonia Sotomayor reacted sharply in disagreeing with the decision in a 58 page dissent. "For members of historically marginalized groups, which rely on the federal courts to protect their constitutional rights, the decision can hardly bolster hope for a vision of democracy (PDF) that preserves for all the right to participate meaningfully and equally in self-government."
The decision was the latest step in a legal and political battle over whether state colleges can use race and gender as a factor in choosing what students to admit. Michigan has said minority enrollment at its flagship university, the University of Michigan, has not gone down since the measure was passed. Civil rights groups dispute those figures and say other states have seen fewer African-American and Hispanic students attending highly competitive schools, especially in graduate level fields like law, medicine, and science. "Today's decision turns back our nation's commitment to racial equality and equal treatment under the law by sanctioning separate and unequal political processes that put undue burdens on students," National Education Association President Dennis Van Roekel said in a statement. "The Supreme Court has made it harder to advocate and, ultimately, achieve equal educational opportunity."
(Score: 4, Informative) by velex on Wednesday April 23 2014, @10:40PM
I think what she's getting at is that ballot initiatives are ultimately 3 wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner. Disclaimer: iirc I believe I voted "yes" for this particular initiative, although my views on affirmative action have changed a little since then as I've pondered women and minorities in IT careers. In this case, if I understand what was presented in TFS without reading the entire opinion, the argument is that level of education is proportional to one's influence in self-governance.
Is it racism? Yes, absolutely. Further questions: Do the ends justify the means when the means is the same wrong as the problem and the ends is elimination of both the problem and the means? Furthermore, if the means cannot possibly achieve the ends, does that leave means that are justified by the ends unjustified? If the means merely fail to achieve the ends but had a decent chance of working, does that make them retroactively unjustified if they were previously justified by the ends?
tl;dr Can two wrongs ever possibly make a right?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday April 23 2014, @11:00PM
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Hairyfeet on Wednesday April 23 2014, @11:43PM
I would just add that it ADDS racism all the way down the line. I have dealt with many guys in IT that the first thing out of others mouths were along the lines of "if it weren't for AA he wouldn't be here" and the simple fact is I really had to wonder if that were true or not. Sure we've seen plenty in every color that are great at taking tests but suck balls in real world practice but adding AA always leaves a cloud of doubt hanging over that person.
But what ultimately turned me completely against AA was how many black coworkers HATED any form of AA, as they found it frankly insulting and demeaning, like they were being given extra treatment because they were too stupid or incapable of getting ahead without being given a free pass. When it was explained to me in that context? Yeah its more than a little, its a LOT condescending, and to leave that kind of cloud hanging over some of the guys that I have worked with who got where they are because they busted ass and really knew their fu? its wrong.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 2) by tibman on Thursday April 24 2014, @01:33AM
I agree and my experience is similar. For a time in the US Army i worked a desk and processed all kinds of things. This issue came up often so we invented a very fun fix. There is always an "other" field when selecting race. We would mark "other" and write in "Cavalry". We did this for everyone.
Didn't take but a month before the squadron commander walked in and asked why. We explained why and he laughed. He said it would screw up their statistics (and an implied quota?) but he didn't care. Sadly it did not catch on. Would have been great to see a graph with a made up race edge out an extreme minority like pacific islander or something.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.