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: 3, Insightful) by MrGuy on Wednesday April 23 2014, @10:59PM
Yes, something that's done democractically by a majority of voters absolutely can reduce some individuals ability to participate in government. It's called Tyrrany of the majority. [wikipedia.org] A majority group can absolutely oppress a minority group.
One of the reasons for strong constitutional democracy is to prevent this, by protecting the rights of all citizens, not just a current majority group. It's why some people (me included) are disappointed by this decision.
There are a significant group of children in America that are at a significant disadvantage in a supposedly "merit based" system of college admissions, through no fault of their own. Students who grow up in the suburbs in affulent homes, attend good schools, don't need to work to support their families, and can't afford private tutoring tend to score higher on standardized tests than students from the inner city, attending public school, who have to pitch in with the food bill and certainly can't afford tutoring. Calling the first group "more deserving" of subsidized education because they "deserve it" based on test scores is problematic.
And that's, frankly, the problem. Arguing for a "merit based" system, when "merit" can be bought perpetuates the problem. "Deserving" students get better jobs and grow up to have more "deserving" kids. "Not Deserving" students don't.
Does "poor and in the inner city" equate nicely to "race"? Not perfectly, certainly. But there's a strong correlation. It's not like U of M was letting in kids off the street with zero education just because they were black back when race was allowed to be considered in admissions. It was an admissions that, within groups of students on the edges with similar qualifications, the ones who were minorities probably had to work a little harder to get to even on the other factors. So maybe they're the ones that deserve the chance a little more, and maybe society is better off if they get it in the long run.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 23 2014, @11:13PM
I am a person that did not have many opportunities. Through my late teens and all through my twenties I had to work at two or more jobs to support my disabled father. Due to a lack of higher education my intelligence and self-taught abilities have gone to waste while many have barred me from demonstrating my worth. I have been downtrodden, ignored, and looked down upon. My life has been tough and full of struggle.
Oh yeah, I'm also white.
Because of this relenting of 'equal opportunity' mandates in Michigan I have had the ability to get through two years of school, get an associates, have two others just a couple classes away, and have set myself up for getting a double major. My gpa is a 3.987 and my IQ is higher than 97% of the world. Hard work and ability wasn't enough to give me an opportunity. The only thing was the death of 'equal opportunity'.
If you want to be racist and give disproportionate scholarships, admissions, and opportunities to your preferred race, then just say it. Don't hide behind doublespeak.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday April 23 2014, @11:20PM
Yes, it was. You can tell by how as soon as the artificial racist fuckholery stopped, you did well by yourself. Don't let a few asshats make you think that the government help is ever the answer to a problem. As specifically shown by this, they are the problem.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 24 2014, @12:39AM
I notice that your narrative doesn't include 4 centuries of oppression suffered by people of your pigmentation, practices ingrained in local laws (which Federal courts had to declare unconstitutional AFTER a constitutional amendment specifically forbidding them), establishing an ongoing pattern of prejudice in American society.
When you have been subjected to Jim Whitebird laws [wikipedia.org]--even after [wikipedia.org] they have been declared illegal--then you will have a case to make.
I suggest that you report back after you have done the Black Like Me [google.com] thing and have seen the other side of the coin.
Until "driving while white" is a common "offense", you're just a whiner.
-- gewg_
(Score: 1) by urza9814 on Thursday April 24 2014, @01:56AM
Man. Normally I specifically look for your sig, gewg_, because normally you say exactly what I would have said, but generally with a much stronger argument :) But in this case I've gotta disagree.
I mean, race can be a decent proxy for these problems, but I don't think it's the defining characteristic at least when we're talking about educational opportunities. Do you REALLY think Obama's kids need a boost more than some of the white kids living in the trailer park by my apartment?
The real problem is one of socio-economic status. Race can proxy for that, but we can better measure it more directly. I think something similar to affirmative action but based on income (or much better, wealth) would be fantastic. In fact, many colleges are going the opposite direction -- in the past few years, financial aid has been going more and more to draw wealthier students rather than to help those who truly need it. That needs to be reversed -- HARD.
If you hit that 4.0, but only after your parents hired a private tutor, you sure as shit don't deserve it as much as someone who hit that 4.0 whose single parent works minimum wage. I see no real need to bring race into this -- the truly disadvantaged minorities would already be over-represented in impoverished populations, and as they advance out of that the whole system will adjust itself automatically to whatever population happens to be most disadvantaged at the time.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 24 2014, @11:34PM
For the illiterate|incurious person|racist|whatever who modded the GP post Flamebait:
The non-fiction book "Black Like Me", [wikipedia.org] written in 1959,
is the account of a white man who turns his skin dark by taking a drug.
He also shaves off his (non-kinky) hair.
He then travels around the segregated South.
He has the same intellect and morals that he had before he started his transformation; the only difference is his outward appearance, yet now (white) people treat him like something they need to scrape off their shoe.
race[...]I don't think it's the defining characteristic
My point was that if the GGP had done the Black Like Me thing, he would have added yet another impediment to his progress in life AND IT IS *STILL* A **HUGE** IMPEDIMENT--in many places even **larger** than any of the other things working against him.
The fact that a post that points to Black Like Me got modded Flamebait clearly shows that blind racism and ignorance is still rampant--and it's WORLDWIDE. [google.com]
Obama's kids
There are numerous places in the USA where they could dress as nicely as they do and be perfectly groomed and have impeccable manners and have the most awesome curriculum vitae--and it wouldn't matter a bit; without the possibility of Federal legal sanctions, their paperwork would immediately go into the trash.
The fact that you and the down-modder don't realize that / couldn't care less is a big part of the problem.
Maybe Mae Jemison [wikipedia.org] or Clarence Thomas[1] would have achieved all they did before laws forbidding institutionalized racism, but I wouldn't bet on that.
It doesn't matter if you're a PhD college professor, [wikipedia.org] if you are black, you're still getting rousted by some white guy [wikipedia.org] who barely made it out of high school.
You have NO rights and you are guilty on sight.
How are you going to succeed with a conviction on your record?
Additionally, people think that e.g. Indiana, being a northern state, is a bastion of racial tolerance--but it's as racist as any place in the Deep South. (For starters, find demographics maps for the last few elections.)
For the illiterate down-modder, who, apparently needs video to "get" it, here's a guy (played by Eddie Murphy) who does a takeoff on Black Like Me. [google.com]
He puts on a nice suit and "goes white" and (white) people immediately start treating him like a prince.
At this point, I'm reminded of the First Nation prayer
"Great Spirit, help me never to judge another until I have walked in his moccasins"
and the anecdote, "I complained that I had no shoes until I met a man who had no feet".[2]
In summary, urza, your naivety and limited social circles are in evidence.
[1] Talk about a Sambo[3] who was the recipient of racially-based assistance, then, as soon as he had fully benefited from that, claims it is unneeded.
Clarence Thomas couldn't even hold the jock of the guy whom he succeeded. [wikipedia.org]
[2] Hmmm. I never realized I was so into feet.
[3] Most people (ignorantly) say "Uncle Tom". WRONG.
Uncle Tom allowed himself to be beaten to death rather than betray his own people.
The brutal black capo was called Sambo.
-- gewg_
(Score: 1) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 24 2014, @09:49AM
4 centuries of oppression suffered by people of your pigmentation
White guy here.
You know what?
Fuck you. For all you know, my and the previous AC's ancestors were enslaved by the Ottomans. But I guess being horribly beaten and forced to row is easystreet.
(Score: 1) by shortscreen on Thursday April 24 2014, @12:28AM
Do you think that the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative could accurately be described as tyrrany of the majority? Equating a disagreement over the effectiveness and value of affirmative action with oppressing minorities seems like quite a stretch.
Your point about disadvantaged students reminds me of the Seinfeld episode where George (successfully IIRC) argued that he had endured more hardships in life than an old man who had escaped the sinking Titanic. Anyone can be dealt a bad hand, not just poor people and minorities. If you try to account for this methodically, you will help some at the expense of others. If you handle it on a case-by-case basis then the biases of the decision makers may creep in. Maybe you have a better idea?
I am not strongly opposed to affirmative action, but I am not entirely clear on how to measure whether it has been working so far or what the goal even is. If the goal is merely to enforce certain proportions of certain groups (11% left-handed people, 5% people with red hair, 3% breast-cancer survivors, 1% guys named Joe, etc.) until the end of time, then that doesn't strike me as a worthwhile goal.