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 Angry Jesus on Thursday April 24 2014, @03:51PM
> Depressed not oppressed
Really? You want to try that dictionary pedant shit again?
> Anyone still oppressing is breaking the law and can be dealt with.
That's more five year old thinking. If it isn't single-hop, point-A to point-B, then it isn't happening despite the end result being very clear.
> Yes, though they mostly just exterminated us, and damned poor to boot.
ooooh you have a secret and are so special because of it.
> You seem to think I'm white
I think you are not a member of a social group that is particularly oppressed in the USA and thus enjoy the privileges of not being any of those groups. But even if you are an uncle tom type that wouldn't make your argument any more true.
> You asked why it was bad, not bad for society. Be specific
Hah. Oh yeah, lets try to direct the discussion away from the point and that you can't dispute. Run away from facing your own illogic again. Tell you what, just leave the word "society" out of the answer, it is still just as true.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday April 24 2014, @04:03PM
Oh you did not just call me an Uncle Tom. We're done, you just lost your favorite playmate, racist boy.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Thursday April 24 2014, @04:35PM
> Oh you did not just call me an Uncle Tom. We're done, you just lost your favorite playmate, racist boy.
Oooh, fauxrage FTL! You don't get to claim secret membership of an oppressed group as giving you authority on the topic and then argue that oppression doesn't exist without being called out for hypocrisy.
What you are is running away from the arguments that you can't dispute. As is usual for you.
Let's recap from the beginning:
TPM> Jailing people for acts of racism is the way to correct racism in the USA.
ME> Gives example of how college legacies legally perpetuate racial privilege
TPM> That doesn't count because it doesn't directly effect enough people.
TPM> Being born into a socially oppressed group is just "the luck of the draw" like being born to a poor family.
ME> That would only be true if poverty were not so strongly correlated with oppressed groups.
TPM> You can't use the word "privilege" because the dictionary says it only means "legal" privilege
ME> OED says your definition is ridiculously incomplete, that "privilege" is the correct term.
TPM> Racism is bad because people used to being on the winning side get all hateful when they don't get that benefit anymore.
I don't think you are consciously racist, but hardly anyone ever is. I think you just choose to be willfully ignorant as to how modern racism works. Your "luck of the draw" comment really makes that clear. That is naked privilege talking or the shallow thinking of a five year old.