<p>I REALLY do not want to get into a discussion of the pros and cons of affirmative action. I just think this is major news .
<a href=“http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/22/justice/scotus-michigan-affirmative-action/”>Michigan's ban on affirmative action upheld by Supreme Court - CNN;
<p>Inevitable ruling, sort of. The people are allowed to legislate (but not discriminate) by referendum. The 51% of the people of Michigan (and California, and Washington) have spoken, whether we at home agree or not.</p>
<p>This case was not simply about the standard or the policy, but rather it was about WHO gets to set the policy. No need for vitriol from either side.</p>
<p>It’s something that will be tested again and again. There is no specific standard in these cases. It’s not because of the people speaking, by the way, but because the courts are interpreting laws and precedents. Doesn’t matter if 90% of the people don’ t agree, it’s down to the courts. </p>
<p>Today the Supreme Court upheld a Michigan voter initiative that banned racial preferences in admissions to the state’s public universities, according to a NY Times news alert. </p>
<p>No one honestly thought it was going to turn out any differently. </p>
<p>I don’t buy U of M’s assertion that they can’t get a diverse student body without race. Michigan is a very segregated state. They can use proxy factors like zip code and high school like many other schools do. </p>
<p>With that said, the 4.6% black enrollment is also misleading. A few years ago, U of M allowed “multiracial” which also saw a decrease in the % of “black”. Yes, it’s still way under where it should be. They also are terrible at recruiting lower SES students despite their meets-full-needs promise. </p>
<p>Well, my post apparently didn’t get “merged” from the other thread. This comes as no surprise to anyone, but it does explain the obnoxious amount of news vans outside the union right now… </p>
<p>I was told discussion on this topic is only allowed in the AA forum.</p>
<p>Just like attitudes towards marijuana are changing over time, court’s attitudes towards AA are changing. The “swing” period of the policy/attitude “pendulum” could be quite long though. The court led by the judge Roberts is perceived by many to be on the conservative side, unlike it was 1 to 2 generations ago. </p>
<p>Still remember the kids would be bused across the town for schooling and all the mandates by the federal government? It is hard to imagine this happens today. More likely than not, banning a “gated community” or “asking rich kids and poor kids to attend different kinds of schools” may be at the risk of being labeled as the infringement of individual’s right: Federal government, get out of my way as you have no business here!</p>
<p>I guess people’s values change over time, so do the “values” of the courts.</p>
<p>So wondering how this plays out with the private universities? My understanding is that they get federal funds as well, so one would think to continue to qualify for these funds, they would have to be in compliance with federal law.</p>
<p>^^^^Not a lawyer and don’t pretend to be, but how does one interpret this to be federal law which requires “compliance” by any other institution in other states. My understanding is that the Supreme Court upheld Michigan’s ban on AA for their state schools. There is no federal law requiring all states to ban AA in the admissions policies of their state institutions. </p>
<p>Any constitutional law experts around?</p>
<p>One lady said it right on one show. She said, finally, we, blacks, who worked hard and achieve would not be pointed out as the ones who got there because of affirmative action, we, finally, will get a full credit for our hard work and determination. And there are many impressive individuals who make a real positive difference. And there are those who admitted that they slacked in HS, did drugs and then somehow ended up in Columbia and Harvard Law. And how that happened…at schools who denied so many valedictorians?
While it sets prcedence, it is applicable only in Michigan as of now. </p>
<p>This case is about whether Michigan’s state law violated any federal law. The Supreme Court ruled that it did not. This means that other states can pass similar laws. On its face, it has no impact at all on private colleges. I suppose states could pass laws designed to try to restrict AA at private colleges in the state, perhaps by withholding state scholarships (if there are any). But I’m not aware of any state having tried to do any such thing.</p>
<p>yes, the Michigan (and California) laws only apply to public colleges/Unis. </p>
<p>The case was about process; not about the merits of Affirmative Action. Yes, Sotomayor’s dissent was premised on the substance of arguments that Affirmative Action, but hey, even Breyer didn’t agree with her. While I know that Kagan supported the opponents as the government’s attorney in an prior case, it’s interesting to wonder if she would have joined the majority here, or sided with Sotomayor.</p>
<p>There are many perspectives within the opinions. On the one hand, we have the guys who want to make a “bright” line test where you need “intent”. I thought that concept was fully developed in law already but they want to revisit it! That is, the Court has already gone through the equivalents of intent, ranging from decisions made by City Councils to disproportionate impacts, meaning ways you examine whether there is intent or not. I thought the opinions in this case about “intent” were naive. </p>
<p>I thought the dissents were largely arguing with law that doesn’t exist: the Court has never upheld remedial discrimination or, rather, it has but in the guise of doing the right thing for all, meaning better educational (and social) outcomes that flow from a decision to include factors like wealth and race in admissions. I thought the dissenting opinions were similarly naive to make a larger argument than the Court has accepted before.</p>
<p>I thought the point of the decision is that if states can set up affirmative programs that consider factors to aid educational and social outcomes, then they can also not set them up. The rest is window dressing because the actual litigation history of “affirmative action” is that it either directly addresses a specific wrong or is OK if the state wants to advance those goals. In that light, saying the state can not advance these goals is rather obvious.</p>
This discussion has been merged.
<p>Once again, the media gets it wrong - or at least they try to spin it with saying the ban is upheld. </p>
<p>As others have mentioned, but I think it is worth repeating, the case was not about affirmative action.</p>
<p>The case was about whether or not the court could set aside a voter approved measure that does not violate any constitutional rights.
(e.g. if the measure was “men are not allowed to vote in state elections”, even if it is approved, the courts could say it is an invalid measure and could set aside the vote). </p>
<p>But I guess the news gets more views and clicks if they spin it to be about affirmative action instead of voter’s rights.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>For the majority that is true, but for racists like Sotomayor it is all about losing affirmative action for her race. </p>
<p>I don’t like the Michigan law, because while I am not uniformly thrilled with the way AA seems to be applied, it seems unfair to say that you can look at literally anything else in the student’s background, including other factors that have nothing to do with individual merit, but not this one particular thing. However, as others have said, this case wasn’t about that; it was about whether or not voters have the right to pass such a law, and I think they probably do. While it may have a negative effect on certain minority groups, the law doesn’t take away any kind of fundamental right, and so it makes sense to me that the court permitted the democratic process to take its course. </p>
<p>I haven’t been following the case that closely, so forgive me if this is an ignorant question, but does the Michigan law also prohibit consideration of gender and religion, or is it just race, and if it is just race, did that come up in arguments? Because it does seem to me that while a state can vote to eliminate AA, if it eliminates racial preference and still allows consideration of other qualities that would fall under strict-scrutiny review, there might be a case to be made that the law is no longer neutral, but motivated by animus toward a particular group. Any constitutional lawyers around?</p>