Academia, Constitutional Law, Politics, Society

Supreme Court Declares States Can Bar Racial And Other Preferences In University Admissions

Supreme CourtI was just on CNN discussing the decision in Schuette v. BAMN, reversing the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and declaring that the citizens of Michigan have the constitutional authority to prohibit racial and other preferences in university admissions. We addressed this case this term in my Supreme Court class and the students voted not only in the same way as the majority today but predicted this result. What was surprising was the vote — 6-2. Only Justice Sotomayor and Ginsberg voted to upheld the Sixth Circuit.

This is clearly a breakthrough decision for those who have opposed racial and other preferences in admissions. In the past, these issues have inevitably ended up in the courts as the final arbiter of the constitutionality of affirmative action programs. Now, the Supreme Court is saying overwhelmingly that citizens can make these decisions for themselves. It creates a clear avenue by which affirmative action could be curtailed by direct action of the voters — bringing clarity that many have sought for decades of conflicted judicial rulings. Seven states have similar rules but this decision is likely to encourage others to follow suit.

Justice Kennedy wrote the main decision, which limited the political-process line of cases represented by Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District. Kennedy stressed that “This case is not about how the debate about racial preferences should be resolved. It is about who may resolve it.” In the view of the majority “[t]here is no authority in the Constitution of the United States or in this court’s precedents for the judiciary to set aside Michigan laws that commit this policy determination to the voters. . . Democracy does not presume that some subjects are either too divisive or too profound for public debate.”

Justice Scalia wanted to go even further and get rid of much of that jurisprudence. However, this decision is potentially sweeping enough for most of the justices. Chief Justice Roberts and Alito joined Kennedy though Roberts filed a concurring opinion. Thomas joined with Scalia in his concurrence in arguing to go all the way in gutting the political-process line of cases. Justice Breyer concurred in the judgment while Justices Sotomayor and Ginsburg dissented. Justice Kagan probably would have joined in that dissent but recused herself. Even with Kagan however the vote would still have been lopsided at 6-3. Instead, it stands at 6-2. That is a sharp departure from the historically razor thin margins in cases like Grutter, Gratz, and others.

Sotomayor wrote a 58 page dissent (longer than all of the other opinions combined) and objected that the Court needed to limit voters because “without checks, democratically approved legislation can oppress minority groups.”

At 58 pages, Sotomayor’s dissent was longer than the combined length of the four opinions in support of the outcome.

In our vote, the Supreme Court seminar voted 11-4 in favor of reversing the Sixth Circuit and 11-4 in predicting that that “other Supreme Court” would also reverse. The United States Supreme Court (while producing multiple opinions) proved less ideologically divided in the outcome than the Sixth Circuit. On the lower court decision upholding the dismissal of the action, the eight judges in the majority were nominees by Democratic presidents while the seven judges in dissent were appointed by Republican presidents.

Here is the opinion.

689 thoughts on “Supreme Court Declares States Can Bar Racial And Other Preferences In University Admissions”

  2. Is Mr. Bundy a racist? I’m aghast that Paul would support such a person, and to think he claims to have taught our youth. Was this for the Aryan Nations?

  3. Feynman – I haven’t looked at Fox yet. I’ll check it out. They usually cover the good, the bad, and the ugly. And Megyn is an equal-opportunity griller. 🙂 (Plus it’s completely unfair that she looks that wonderful 8 minutes after having her last child. When teased about that, she said her family raised kids with the value of pretty is as pretty does, and it’s what’s inside that counts.)

  4. Well Paul, to be honest with you, “teaching” is something that is talked about here a great deal. And often in the most unflattering terms. I’m of the opinion that public schooling is one of the things that made this country great. Like most of us, I suppose, I remember so many terrific teachers and can still picture them perfectly and recall all their names. It’s a damn shame I can’t conjure them up and thank them for the job they did and that they are well remembered.

    Unfortunately. this is not universal. I suppose that’s to be expected. But the criticism is sweeping, bitter, and ever so emphatic. IIRC, it is never prefaced with “I think” “It’s my opinion”, not even “Most”. “No, by god, this is the Received Word. But to be fair, the most blistering appraisal is directed at the unions.

    Anyway, since I am very grateful for my education at the hands of these men and women, I am left muttering at my computer and composing marvelous, but silent, defenses of the profession.

    And then, along came ………………………..

    1. At my 40th high school reunion, the two teachers who meant the most to me were there and I was able to talk to them at length and thank them for what they had done for me. Another was there that I still would have shot if I had been armed. 🙂

  9. Mr. Schulte,

    How has Mr Keebler added to your misinformation, contradictions and sometimes outright lies?

    That is interesting that you state you you take responsibility, yet, as soon as you get called on it, you try and shift or share the guilt. I’m not catholic so, I don’t do guilt.

    1. keebler – I have made my feelings known early on about Bundy. BTW, didn’t Annie just tell you it was bad form to harass another commentor for what they do/did for a living. That did not last long.

      I am always bothered by people who talk about themselves in the third person. Makes me think they are someone they say they are not. BTW, you need to read my material closer or keep up. I have been on here for 13 hours as of this point today. Commented on a lot of things. Yesterday RTC responded to something I had written probably 8 hours before. Most things I respond to are in context since I am currently responding on about 10 active threads. Plus watching a movie, getting the toilet fixed, feeding the dog, running errands and trying to track down lost relatives.

  10. It’s bad form harassing another commenter about what he did or does for a living.

  12. If it makes you feel better, I did have some unreliable teachers that I supervised. They rarely turned their paper work in on time.

  13. I cleaned my own boards and made sure that there were additional pencils and paper for kids who could not afford it or forgot to bring it. I did not assign homework.

  14. Well I suppose two out of three isn’t bad.

    Odd though, that “unreliable” didn’t come up in a conversation with a child who neglected to return a book or promised homework, or clean the chalkboards, or come prepared with pencils and notepaper, or finish his science project …

  15. My history seems to be your issue, so we should see what yours is to see what you have to offer

  16. Never told the students fables. Tried to always tell them the truth. And speaking of truth, what is it you do/did?

  18. I would never have called a student unreliable, mistaken is part of the process, misinformed is something we deal with from time to time. I was always very careful how I phrased it.

  19. Paul,

    Did you ever tell the kids the famous fable – the one about the sour grapes? Upon finishing, did you close the book, smile and tell the children…

    You see what’s that about? The tree grew too high!

    1. Feynman,

      I am pleased that I now know that the issues that exist with certain posters is not of my creation. I have read 7 complaints on this thread alone about 2 posters, whom need not be named.

      1. Keebler – you have added to some of the problems if that makes you feel any better. 😉

  20. Paul,

    I believe I questioned the value of your information. To say someone is misinformed, mistaken, unreliable is not name calling.

    If you said a student was mistaken, would you expect to be cited for calling a child a name? Likewise, if you said a child was misinformed?….or unreliable? And my dismay increases that someone who taught children and must have had countless conversations incorporating those words while talking with children or their parents characterizes them as “name calling”.

Comments are closed.