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: 1) by Daiv on Thursday April 24 2014, @01:36PM
Please tell me WHY the demographics of the people picked HAS to match the population at large. According to that logic, whichever demographic reproduces the most SHOULD be the most picked. That's quite the slippery slope you're setting up.
(Score: 1) by RobotLove on Thursday April 24 2014, @02:54PM
Because it's the simplest way to reduce subconscious discrimination. There may be other, more accurate, ways of reducing this bias, but a simple rule of "We will ensure our employee demographic matches the cultural demographic" is the easiest to follow, the simplest to implement, the one everyone can understand.
I (and the rule) don't care who reproduces the fastest. I (and the rule) only care about what the current demographics are.
(Score: 1) by Daiv on Thursday April 24 2014, @08:38PM
Your explanation in no way makes sense. It doesn't appeal to any sort of correctness. You seem to have the most shallow thoughts on the subject and can't possibly understand the real-world implications of what you're spewing. You haven't established at ALL _why_ what you're selling is the right answer. How is your answer the best one? And best for WHO?
As someone who has a degree in Ethics, I could probably go on for paragraphs on how absurd your answer appears to be, but I'll leave it at this:
I reject your explanation completely.
(Score: 1) by RobotLove on Thursday April 24 2014, @11:11PM
Let's go back to the problem. We have subconscious cognitive biases that discriminate against certain demographics within our society. So when we think that we are selecting on merit alone, we are not. This is fact.
What is a simple, cost-effective, measurable way to combat this?
Smarter people than I, whose reasoning I (think I) understand have suggested Affirmative Action as a solution. It accomplishes the goals we set for ourselves (eliminate the subconscious bias against certain demographics) in a simple, cost-effective and measurable way.
If you know a better one, I'm sure there's a ton of people who would be very interested in your solution.