The Supreme Court’s sensitivity to affirmative action cases is perhaps best exemplified by the fact that its decision last week to uphold a Michigan ban on the use of racial considerations in admissions to state-run colleges and universities is the first time in 11 years it has addressed directly that issue.
In 2003, the court ruled that public institutions of higher learning could not give minorities an automatic edge in admissions.
In Tuesday’s ruling, Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the 6-2 majority (Justice Elena Kagan recused herself) in the case — in which the five justices writing opinions went five different ways — was careful to stress that this particular case was not about the constitutionality or merits of the race-conscious admissions policies of colleges and universities, but instead hinged on whether voters in the state may choose to prohibit consideration of such preferences.
“Here, the principle that the consideration of race in admissions is permissible when certain conditions are met is not being challenged,” Kennedy wrote.
In all deference to the justice, most of the groups with an interest in the case — education associations, minority rights groups and opponents of affirmative action — took the decision to be a major, if not decisive, step in that direction. And the ruling should give a boost to similar bans on the ballot in other states.
Instead, the justice wrote, this case is not “about how the debate over racial preferences should be resolved. It is about who may resolve it.”
The court intentionally, and perhaps wisely given the lack of public consensus, has not proposed possible solutions to the problem of racial, ethnic, gender and income inequality in public institutions of higher learning.
As far as the court majority was concerned, the question of “who may resolve it” was settled in 2006 when Michigan voters approved a ban on preferential treatment in college admissions based on race, gender, ethnicity or national origin, 58 percent to 42 percent.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who read her dissent from the bench, noted that “without checks, democratically approved legislation can oppress minority groups.
“For that reason, our Constitution places limits on what a majority of the people may do,” she said. “This case implicates one such limit: the guarantee of equal protection of the laws.”
Justice Stephen Breyer said the referendum and the court’s decision took power from the university faculty and administration and gave it to the electorate, “from an unelected administrative body to a politically responsive one.”
The court has not always shown such deference to the will of the people as expressed at the ballot box.
In 1996, Justice Kennedy authored a ruling striking down a constitutional amendment that banned any policies giving protections on the basis of sexual orientation.
Not to be unduly cynical about it, but one can’t help but wonder if Michigan voters will feel the same way when their Wolverines take the field against their unfettered Big Ten rivals with a Michigan roster loaded with perfect SATs and ACTs and 4.0-plus grade-point averages.
Read more: http://www.vcstar.com/news/2014/apr/28/editorial-supreme-court-ruling-offers-no-to/#ixzz30U9jcbfB
- vcstar.com
No comments:
Post a Comment