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: 2) by starcraftsicko on Wednesday April 23 2014, @11:25PM
Technically, [citation needed]. But I'll agree anyway.
Depends on how you do it. If you don't see the student until the admission decision, it'd be hard for skin color to be a factor. Other key identifiers could be covered until the initial decision is made. The opportunity for 'ism's creep in when we try to 'take everything into account'.
I fixed that for you. And once corrected, I can't help but to agree. ;)
I don't know what merit is... but once I define it as something other than "proper demographic ratio", affirmative action and other demography based programs start to look suspect.
There. Helped again. Obligatory xkcd [xkcd.com].
This post was created with recycled electrons.
(Score: 1, Troll) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday April 23 2014, @11:32PM
My rights don't end where your fear begins.