Supreme Court hears case on affirmative action

(CBS News) WASHINGTON, D.C. - A long line of people waited overnight for a chance to be inside the Supreme Court Wednesday for the most controversial case of this term. At stake is admission to college for millions of Americans for generations to come. The Court heard a challenge to its longstanding ruling that race may be considered as a factor when considering a candidate for admission.

This challenge to affirmative action began when Abigail Fisher was denied admission to the University of Texas, she says, because of admission policies that favor less-qualified minorities. Her simple argument is to stop using skin color in college admissions.

"I hope the court rules that a student's race and ethnicity should not be considered when applying to the University of Texas," said Fisher.

Supreme Court scrutinizes university's use of race in admissions

Supreme Court takes up affirmative action

This year's entering class at UT is among the most diverse anywhere. Roughly half of the incoming students are white and the other half are minorities. The school is required by law to admit the top ten percent of every high school class regardless of race. But UT also has what it calls a holistic review, where race is separately considered along with other factors such as leadership and family income.

The University argued that its admission plan was legal under a 2003 Supreme Court ruling. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote the majority opinion in 2003 which allowed universities to use race as a factor only to find a "critical mass of underrepresented minority students."

Today, the Courts' conservative justices repeatedly asked when will that be enough.

"What's the logical end point," asked Chief Justice John Roberts. "When will I know you've reached a critical mass?"

Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor seemed to defend the policy with her questions.

"At what point does a university know it doesn't have to do any more to equalize the desegregation that's happened in that particular state," asked Justice Sotomayor.

UT's lawyer, Greg Garre, said the University doesn't have a number for achieving diversity. He said that was a judgment call.

"The University is looking foremost to whether or not it has an environment in which African Americans and Hispanic students don't feel like spokespersons or there's cross racial understanding at the student body," said Garre.

Abigail Fisher's lawyer, Bert Rein, says college diversity is important, but not if it discriminates against others.

"The absence of equal protection was a sin in this country for a long, long time," said Rein. "We are simply trying to say those rights belong to everybody."

Some of the Justices seemed conflicted with the 2003 ruling allowing the use of race to achieve diversity. The future use of race as a factor in college admissions will be determined by the outcome of this case.

[ugacrew]

Black people, the fate of equal opportunity as it pertains to educational opportunities in this nation do not rest with this US Supreme Court. It rests with your realization that you hold the power in your hands. It rests in your realization that it is your talent, most often visible on their athletic fields, that fuels their educational power houses. It rests with your realization, that by providing your talents on their athletic fields you are enabling them to sell millions of dollars worth of sponsorships to radios and television stations all over the world, and those sponsorships fuels the wealth of their institutions, that subsequently resort to "exclusionary" practices, the affect of which is inequitable admissions policies that result in the exclusion of your children. Consider that admitting the children of wealthy donors, is not considered "affirmative action." Consider that readily admitting children of alumni is not considered "affirmative action." "Affirmative action" only becomes an issue of legality when it involves the admissions of people of color.

If you would come to this realization, and realize that if you opted to dedicate yourselves to attending historically Black institutions, you would thus empower them to garner millions through the sell of sponsorships. You would empower them to hire the most qualified and best of professors. You would empower them to expand their campuses. You would empower them to hold the reins of "decisionmaking" that could readily provide your children with the opportunities so often denied them today, under the guise of "affirmative action," currently being argued as illegal in our US Supreme Court.

Affirmative action need not be an issue. Read and study about the National League of Colored Baseball players who established themselves as a powerhouse. They were not admitted into regular baseball because people cared about them, nor were they admitted because it was the right thing to do. They were admitted because they established themselves as a moneymaking tool and others sought them because of their ability to draw the crowds.

What we need is a Black athlete, i.e. first round draft pick to be the Rosa Parks for Black colleges and universities that asks other equally talented and recruited Black athletes to take a firm stand and make a firm commitment to attend and support a historically Black educational institution. It only takes one. A tall oak tree begins as an acorn.
You need not begg these so called "elite" institutions to prohibit discrimination. You need not beg them to provide your children with equal opportunities. You have enough Beounces and Jay-Zees and Oprah Winfreys and Tyler Perrys and Puf Daddys and Rapping Nellies and this list ges on, to stand up for your children and stand firm.

Realize that people may discriminate, but God does not. He may not have given Africa ample wheat supplies, but he compensated by giving them diamonds to trade for that wheat. He may not have given the middle east wheat and other food staples, but he compensated by giving them fuel, one of our major necessities.

Let this court as well as these institutions argue against what is right under the Law of God, but then utilize the talents that God gave you and leave that debate in the wind. You don't need permission. You only need "realization" of the power that lies within you.

[ugacrew]

The real truth is that "affirmative action," is a gross misnomer.
It gives critics something they can legitamitely criticize. The real problem is the systemic and institutionalized "preferential treatment," that is based on race, that has been and continues to permeate the very fabric of this nation and primarily and routinely exclude nonwhites from receiving equitable treatment and fair consideration for available opportunities and other resources including housing and education.

The institutionalization of these "exclusive practices that were supported by policies put in place for enforcement of such practices, is the result of a prolonged perpetuation of stereotypes and prejudices that became normalized throughout America. They were embraced, supported, and strictly enforced by this nation's legal system.

While it is relatively easy to argue the legality of affirmative action in principle, especially in a court of law, it is practically impossible to argue against such institutionalization, because it is immeasurable in that it is the result of subjective decisionmaking and thought processes.

When you have hired "4" blacks, it is all but impossible to argue, from the legal standpoint, that you "could have hired" an equal number of blacks but simply did not, when the decision was based on subjectivity and not objectivity, i.e. test scores or other physical data. It is all but impossible to argue that a particular decision was affected by the existence of personal prejudices, and systemic beliefs, in the absence of objective and or physical discriminators. Subjectivity is what it is, subjectivity, and subjectivity is based on personal preferences.

Institutions in this nation elect to include a subjective evaluation as part of their evaluation process in addition to any objective requirements, i.e. test scores. That allows them to retain the "final say" in the selection process that will inevitably be based on their "preferences." Unfortunately, and all too often, that "final say," resorts back to the usual practice of exclusion.

The purpose of "affirmation action," was to establish a means of countering that practice, bu again, because of its gross misnomer, it gives critics a legitimate means to protest it. The misnomer readily makes what was intended as a means of enforcing impartiality as it relates to this practice of exclusion of nonwhites, illegal.

The courts may find it difficult to defend this misnomer, but its "spirit," that of terminating the prolonged practice of "exclusion" of nonwites, is an end that more than justifies the means.

[ugacrew]

For branii and others who don't know this nation's history:

We dismantled the de jure structures of Jim Crow over 40 years ago. Yet we still live in a society that is deeply racist. Most of the racism that occurs on a daily basis is embedded in the structural fabric of our society. It has been created through out the history of the country. It appears in the constitution in the way that native Americans are pushed out into fictitiously separate nations and the slaves counted as 3/5 of a person. It appeared in the first immigration act of 1790 when naturalized citizenship was restricted to free white men.

There has been a long history of both formal and informal approaches to erecting legal, political and economic structures to support systematic racism. There have been two notable periods in which there were reactions against some of these structures. The passage of the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments were outcomes of the civil war. The only one that fully took was the 13th. We did abolish formal legal slavery. Conservative courts readily assured the nation that we need not be inconvenienced by the 14th and the 15th was roundly ignored as all the southern states instituted Jim Crow regimes that in practical terms returned the former slaves to conditions of bondage.

The civil rights movement that reached its zenith in the 1960s reopened the issues of racial justice that had been kept on the back burner. The marches and the murders did result in legislation and court decisions that dismantled the institutional structures of southern Jim Crow regimes. Openly enforced segregation became illegal. The courts revisited the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment and suddenly discovered that separate really wasn't all that equal. As a college student I participated on the fringe of that movement. At the time I believed along with many others that a new dawn had arrived. In the years that have followed it has become apparent that far more of the structures that buttress racism were left in place than those that were changed.

Racism is embedded in most of the institutional structures of our society. It is difficult to see patterns that have always been before our eyes, especially if they are eyes that have enjoyed the benefits of white privilege. Tracing the history of how these institutional structures developed not only helps to make their present reality more visible, it also makes it clear that they exist not by accident, but by purpose and design. Our present state of affairs is the result of almost a century of government and economic policy. Much of it has its genesis in the politics of the New Deal and the role played by the congressional delegations of the solid south.

I would like to invite you to a blog which I recently started, The Racist States of America.

It is exploring the history of racism in American society.








Follow Richard Lyon on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Richard Lyon

[ugacrew]

This article was previously posted by Huffpost writer and contributor, Dr. Richard Lyon, who has invited the public to comment on he new blog discussing racism in America.

[yepo1234]

Socioeconomic status and life experience should be accounted for in admissions processes. Life experiences are shaped by outward exteriors, among other factors. I was accepted to the University of Michigan engineering on a full ride for undergrad. Much of my high school career I maintained a 4/3.9 gpa with all A.P and advanced courses - i let it slide my senior year into the 3.89 area. I was on student council and a leader in more than 4 other clubs. I played violin in a Grammy award winning orchestra, mostly self taught. I danced, spoke other languages, worked several jobs and came from a large family. I'm black, I was poor and I am unique - not because of race, but because of what it means to wear different skin in a society dominated by another. In stores I'm followed, in classes my opinions are dismissed, on jobs bosses tell me they thought I'd be white, and in society I'm deemed "less than". It's different. Wherever I go, I must dispel myths attached to my exterior before I can build bonds of unity. It bothers me that those ladies assumed they would get in because of their scores. Even with my background I made no assumption of admittance because it's not guaranteed. Living with minority skin gives that- it provides those elements of knowing that your place/your footing is uncertain. I didn't go to U of M for undergrad;I went to an Ivy League. After graduating with two majors, experience working with HIV patients in Africa, several jobs and a Fulbright scholarship overseas, I applied to a graduate school at U of M. I was denied. Yes, being denied hurts the ego but it is a part of life and I relish the fact that maybe someone with a more unique experience than mine is providing an education for women just like those in the affirmative action case. Perhaps they were denied because their experience was too generic and their position too entitled. They could have asked why they weren't admitted instead of assuming it was race - most schools will explain when asked. The world owes nothing, much less acceptance to a competitive institution.

[ugacrew]

Dear Scholar:

You stated: "Socioeconomic status and life experience should be accounted for in admissions processes.".........one of the major problems is that the socioeconomic status and life experiences of the "evaluator" involved in the admissions process comes into play.
Most often, subjectivity influenced by personal biases, prejudicial attitudes and bigotry, coupled with the embracement of widely held stereotypes inevitably and adversely impacts the integrity of the evaluation process.

[GossamerWings]

Change the law and stop checking boxes. Let a person in because of their grades and what they have done for the community.I agree with the following statement: "Bert Rein, says college diversity is important, but not if it discriminates against others".

I'm a minority and I don't see this country going in the correct path if everything is about race and not about abilities.

[bignard12]

What I can say on this is that in 1988 I took the Civil Service test to be an Air Traffic Controller. I scored a 93% and was never hired through that process. When I finally was hired by the FAA through a direct hire program I later found out some minorities were hired with an 80%. That is not a way to get the best qualified personal and is truly unfair. If affirmative action is working why do we have the same minority problems that we had 30 years ago?

[GossamerWings]

I agree and as a minority want to say sorry this happened.

My two boys test upper 5% of the states in all subjects. They are really smart but I always tell them not to check the race box. I hate that we still but people into categories.

[ugacrew]

GossamerWings,

You have no clue as to what you are expressing sorrow for. Test scores never tell definitively all there is to know about any applicants. There are many people who are gifted with book knowledge but are completely lacking in basic common sense. Further, there is no one box or any combination of boxes that can tell all there is to know about any applicant.

As for you expressing yourself "as a minority," what is your point?
What, praytell, does your declaration of your race have to do with your apology? Can you elaborate on that. What are we, as readers, or the person to whom you are commenting to, supposed to understand by that declaration?

[hayseedbears]

I hope that those in power will finally realize that just because you are classified as "white" does not mean you should be a a disadvantage. Those who are classified as caucasians are a race also. Any many, such as in my case, were disadvantaged too. It is well past the time for the "white" race to be burdened with all the guilt in this world. I truly believe EVERYONE regardless of RACE, RELIGION, OR PLACE OF ORIGIN should be treated the same. The first step is to realize that many "whites" are from backgrounds as oppressive as any other.
In my own case, while I am classified as caucasion, I am slavik. My family came to America to get away from being "bond servants" which is the equivalent to slaves. Where is my understanding. Where is my justice.
The time has come, is well past coming, that ALL RACES need to accept each other.

[eroteme2]

But do Swedish-Americans need to accept Norwegian-Americans?

[ugacrew]

If you are white and happen to be oppressed, it will not be because of a legal system that put in place laws that barred you from equal housing, education and employment and simple opportunities to walk the streets anywhere in this country.

There will always be poor of ever race and color, but in the absence of such legal barriers, you have opportunities to achieve even if it requires a great personal struggle.

[branii]

To ugarew, actually the legal system does oppress those of caucasian origin when the courts can see an opportunity to flagellate and find in favor of a baseless suit brought by a member of an African race against a member of the caucasian race