SCOTUS ruling on affirmative action a detrimental step


The Supreme Court has the double-edged task of preventing the tyranny of both the majority and the minority from infringing on the Constitutional principles enshrined in law for more than 200 years. When the Court places too much faith in either of these bodies, democracy runs afoul of its true purpose at best and has the potential to destroy human liberty at worst.

In the latest affirmative action decision handed down Tuesday, the Supreme Court bordered dangerously close to the latter. The lesson society will learn the hard way due to that decision is that sometimes it’s not enough to trust the majority to protect the rights of the minority. In some cases, the Court has to protect those rights actively, and not passively, and affirmative action is one of those situations.

In a decision handed down on Tuesday in Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, the Supreme Court upheld the state of Michigan’s ban on affirmative action.

To understand why this decision veers in a dangerous direction, it’s important to know what happened to place the Court at this juncture. In the 1977 landmark affirmative action case Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, a divided Supreme Court held that it was constitutionally permissible to use race as a factor in admissions decisions.

The Court limited this decision in later cases, notably in the 2002 decision of Grutter v. Bollinger, which held that the University of Michigan’s affirmative action policy that awarded 20 points to the application of an underrepresented person violated the Constitution’s equal protection clause. A year later, the Court upheld the University of Michigan Law School’s affirmative action policies on the grounds that it was narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest in maintaining diversity.

In 2006, Michigan voters banned affirmative action altogether via Proposal 2, an initiative on the November ballot that amended the state constitution to end sex- and race-based preferences in public education, employment, and contracting. The ballot measure was challenged in federal court the day after it passed and, not surprisingly, an exit poll that year revealed that two-thirds of white voters supported ending affirmative action. Only one in seven black voters agreed.

The case eventually made its way to the Supreme Court. Though previous affirmative action cases asked the court to decide on the constitutionality of a particular affirmative action policy, Schuette presented the opposite problem; whether or not a law that bans the practice all together should remain on the books.

For a clear example of the preposterous nature of laws that ban consideration of race entirely, consider that most schools are allowed to ask if a student is a legacy (has family ties to the university) and consider that information in their decisions. If a black student (whose race carries more weight than a legacy connection ever could) wants to have that considered, they have to amend the state constitution first.

As long as the majority is implicitly (and usually explicitly) biased toward traditionally racist structures, the Court has a duty to intervene. In many cases, it is the last resort for the minority. Brown v. Board of Education was not decided on the basis that southern states could be trusted to integrate their schools. We should hold the same line with affirmative action.
Nathaniel Haas is a sophomore majoring in economics and political science. His column, “State of the Union,” runs Thursdays.

5 replies
  1. Liberty Minded
    Liberty Minded says:

    Individuals have inalienable rights. Groups only have a subset of rights delegated by
    the individuals that make up the group. While one may be born to a racial group, it does not prevent one from adopting alternative cultural values.

    Affirmative action should be a school’s decision, not a third party’s decision. Admission standards change over time – and rightfully so.

  2. Thekatman
    Thekatman says:

    There once was a place for AA, but it has been abused over the decades. Back in the 90’s men were passed over for promotions or new jobs in fsvor of less experienced women, who’ve eventually performed atca substandard level.

    In the case of women, they want equal pay for equal work, but in some jobs that can’t be, and that holds true with physical jobs.

    The entire equally position is not going to be perfect. You only hope that it is reasonable.

    At USC gor example, you can have a 4.0+ GPA and not be accepted as a freshman. This is because the University is marketing the school to Asian countries and fullly paid students. SCions arent even being accepted as freshman and are told to come back as Sophomores or juniors.

    Hyde other day or was announced on LA radio that for the first time, the UC system is anything more Latinos than any other student profile. Why? Affirmative Action.

    That’s wrong. AA needs to be abolished.

  3. rogerclegg
    rogerclegg says:

    It makes sense to ban the use of racial preferences in university admissions, because such discrimination is uniquely ugly. The dubious “diversity” justification (that students will be enlightened by random interracial conversations) is overwhelmed by the many, heavy, and undeniable costs of using race in admissions: It is personally unfair, passes over better qualified students, and sets a disturbing legal, political, and moral precedent in allowing racial discrimination; it creates resentment; it stigmatizes the so-called beneficiaries in the eyes of their classmates, teachers, and themselves, as well as future employers, clients, and patients; it mismatches African Americans and Latinos with institutions, setting them up for failure; it fosters a victim mindset, removes the incentive for academic excellence, and encourages separatism; it compromises the academic mission of the university and lowers the overall academic quality of the student body; it creates pressure to discriminate in grading and graduation; it breeds hypocrisy within the school and encourages a scofflaw attitude among college officials; it papers over the real social problem of why so many African Americans and Latinos are academically uncompetitive; and it gets states and schools involved in unsavory activities like deciding which racial and ethnic minorities will be favored and which ones not, and how much blood is needed to establish group membership – an untenable legal regime as America becomes an increasingly multiracial, multiethnic society and as individual Americans are themselves more and more likely to be multiracial and multiethnic (starting with our president).

  4. Blaidd Mathúin
    Blaidd Mathúin says:

    The real question is are they selecting students based upon race or based upon ability. Yes, I understand that in some circumstances some people are given the ability to have a better education than others, and this can be seen in racial divides. However, there is another group that gets put out in the cold with affirmative action and that is the student who scored better on tests and worked very hard to get into college but can not get the better college to look at them because there are too many of their race…and a minority is allowed in who worked less hard. We have become a nation that not only discriminates against race but now discriminates against ability as well. How about this, give everyone a number…dont allow anyone to place sex or race on a college entrance exam and then judge only on scores…no legacy…no minority…no gender…just plain ability. Take all the money used to keep affirmative action in place or fight it in courts and send it to free public colleges where everyone else who WANTS the education gets one as long as they keep grades up. Too socialist I am sure for most people…free education…what horrible thing will someone think up next?

Comments are closed.