Posted on 06/29/2018 5:50:50 AM PDT by reaganaut1
Last year, the University of Texas won the case over its use of racial preferences (Fisher v. Texas), but the Supreme Court did not rule that all racial preference plans were legal. A new suit against Harvard may prove to be successful.
Here’s the background.
In its affirmative action cases, starting with the Bakke case in 1978, the Supreme Court has justified race-conscious admissions while also emphasizing that they should be “temporary.” Indeed, writing for the Court in the Grutter case in 2003, which upheld race-based admissions to the Michigan Law School, Justice O’Connor described as a “requirement” that “all [such] programs have a termination point.”
Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College is a newly filed case in the federal district court in Boston. SFFA is a nonprofit whose members are students, each of whom was turned down by Harvard, notwithstanding superior academic credentials. Racial preferences, meanwhile, were used to boost the chances of admission for some students, mainly blacks and Hispanics.
You can read SFFA’s Statement of Facts here.
Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, recipients of federal funds may not discriminate on the basis of race in its programs. Harvard is a recipient, and SFFA contends that Harvard’s admissions program has racially discriminated against Asian-American applicants. The trial is scheduled for October 15, and the case will likely reach the Supreme Court—where Harvard’s preferential admissions policies will reach “a termination point.” At least we can hope so.
Under the Court’s decisions, racial classifications by the government must undergo a test for their legality known as “strict scrutiny” and are permitted only if they are “narrowly tailored” to advance a “compelling interest.” In the Bakke case, Justice Powell promoted “diversity” as just such a compelling interest.
(Excerpt) Read more at jamesgmartin.center ...
I say it’s a form of Jim Crow. Democrats love that stuff.
“Diversity” as a “compelling interest”.
Judicial fiction What a crock.
Get rid of all “affirmative action” BS
If one won’t compete, he/she doesn’t belong.
NO PERSON means just that. NO PERSON
Where does it say in the Constitution that the government can give special benefits to a favored group?
This is a legal contradiction. The law says it is illegal to discriminate based upon race or color (amongst other things) but then does a 180 and says it is legal to discriminate based upon color (when hiring).
The Justices have failed to reconcile this paradox.
As with everything else democrats do, this is all about money. All those black people that get in without credentials all come with free money from the government. Most of the people in that category will not finish school, but the government will have already paid the bill. In the meantime, they get put in remedial classes or fake majors, and even their own dorm buildings to ensure they don’t cause problems for the real students.
I feel sorry for real black students, that have to prove they were real students to future employers, though for the most part it only takes about 30 seconds talking to them to tell the difference.
Some day maybe a court will ask how many generations of affirmative action should there be. Should the children of AA beneficiaries also receive AA preferences? What about grandchildren of parents and grandparents who both received AA preferences?
We are now into the 3rd generation of AA and those questions need to be asked.
“Diversity” as a “compelling interest”.
Boy, you got that RIGHT!! For the Rats, it’s anything that will promote voters for their corrupt and illegal purposes.
It was a “temporary” fix to apparent discrimination that had long been occurring in this country. However, it now has taken on a life of its own. It needs to be overturned.
Racial preferences are illegal and unconstitutional. Any law that ‘allows’ them is invalid and not binding.
Racial preferences actually harm those that it intends to help. It may provide access, but at what price. Before racial preferences, if a black, etc. made it in college or the workplace, it was a real resume’ enhancer. People knew you were good. With racial preferences, the assumption is that you were and are not good enough to hack the program without the preference. Not hired for the kind of job that they might be really qualified for and despised by the coworkers if they move up ahead of them. It must not have been for merit. Making it harder for them to lead.
If affirmative action is such a good thing, the diplomas of all those who benefit from it should be stamped as such in big bold letters.
It is the perfect scenario of the Peter Principle
People are “promoted” to the level of their incompetence (or beyond)
And we have all seen it in practice. No matter how low they drop the standards, the failures will far outnumber the “successes”
And in the meantime, Whites and Asians get screwed, esp young one who had nothing to do with any “past discrimination” Their parents have to pay the full bill, to make room for those “diversity scholarships” Which are nothing more than free rides based solely on race
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.