14th amendment ignored. supreme court rules

[rainstorm]

Supreme Court Split on Colleges' Racial Discrimination
Chuck Noe, NewsMax.com
Monday, June 23, 2003
The Supreme Court today upheld a law school's racially discriminatory admissions policy but struck down a more blatantly biased undergraduate admissions policy.

Race can be one of many factors that colleges consider when selecting students, said the first, 5-4 decision, written by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

However, the court struck down the University of Michigan's undergraduate policy that discriminated against white, Oriental and Arab students by automatically awarding 20 extra points to blacks, Latinos and American Indians just for existing. Top students who earned perfect scores on admissions tests received only 12 of 100 points needed for entry.

The school has even "flagged" applications from favored minorities to enable an applicant to stay in the pool even if he failed an initial review.

The White House had weighed filed legal briefs opposing the undergraduate policy. Many leftist groups had filed briefs supporting the racial discrimination.

The first ruling concerned UM's law school, whose admission policy is engineered to ensure a "critical mass" of minority students. The program is not an illegal quota, the high court's narrow majority insisted.

Government has a compelling interest in promoting racial diversity on campus, and the law school's plan is narrowly focused on that goal, the 5-4 majority said.

"The Equal Protection Clause does not prohibit the law school's narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body," O'Connor wrote.

Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer joined O'Connor.

Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas dissented.

Although the Constitution guarantees equal protection under the law, the ruling allows taxpayer-supported schools to continue subtly discriminatory policies. The decision is expected to have a profound effect as well in private schools, government, business and other institutions.

More blatantly prejudiced policies, however, such as the undergraduate system at UM, are a different matter. A 6-3 decision written by Rehnquist recognized this system as an unconstitutional racial quota.

"The university's policy, which automatically distributes 20 points, or one-fifth of the points needed to guarantee admission, to every single underrepresented minority applicant solely because of race, is not narrowly tailored to achieve the interest in educational diversity," Rehnquist wrote.

O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas and Breyer agreed. Stevens, Souter and Ginsburg dissented.

The two rulings follow the lead set by the Supreme Court in the 1970s, when it outlawed quotas but said schools could show favoritism to underrepresented racial minorities.

The law school case is Grutter v. Bollinger, 02-241. The undergraduate case is Gratz v. Bollinger, 02-516.

Democrats Vow to Defy Court, Continue Racial Bias

The Democrats vying for the 2004 presidential nomination have vowed to support racial quotas regardless of the Supreme Court's decisions.

"When I'm president, we'll do executive orders to overcome any wrong thing the Supreme Court does tomorrow or any other day," Rep. Dick Gephardt, D-Mo., said Sunday in Chicago at a Democrat forum sponsored by Jesse Jackson's Rainbow/PUSH Coalition.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, threatened that if elected he would put racial quotas into federal law.

"The president has divided us. He's divided us by race by using the word 'quotas.' There's no such thing as a quota at the University of Michigan, never has been," claimed former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean.

Democrats should talk not about getting more blacks into high places, but about getting "the right blacks," according to Al Shaprton. "Clarence Thomas is my color, but he's not my kind," Sharpton complained.



its scary that the dems will put quotas in effect no matter what the court rules. do democrats really want diversity? al sharpton only wants the right kind of blacks in high places.

[wx247]

I am divided in my feelings on this issue. I am not really for sure how I feel. I am interested in other's thoughts and opinions.

[blizzard]

Any discrimintion is unjust. Affirmative action is unjust and should be done away with. It had its place in its day, but if the minorities want equal treatment, then it should be done away with. Any and all types of discrimination that is.

Ability should be the only deciding factor in this case.

In my opinion, Sharpton is keeping the racial discrimination alive and well in this country. if they would let it go, so would the rest of the population.

[j]

I am 100% against affirmative action programs. If you want to get into a particular college, (assuming you can even afford it), then you best be busting your butt through high school and earn your way in based on your grades...NOT the color of your skin!

[hunter84]

This reminds me of a story I read a few years ago about the NYFD lowering entance exams requirements for minorities because they weren't scoring high enough.

[rainstorm]

this decision cements unequal treatment under the law.

[firefighter16]

I think Blizzard had a good point. affirmitive action did have a place at one time. That time was when civil rights were a very big issue. I belive We, as a country, have grown past those very important times for civil rights and have opened our minds. affirmitive action today stands for nothing but reverse discrimination.

[coriolis]

Someone said that for liberals, diversity is people of all colors and backgrounds thinking and talking the same way.