Supreme Court may halt college affirmative action

COMMENTARY Is it possible that affirmative action at public colleges and universities is on its way out? The practice could very well be doomed.

In a highly anticipated move, the U.S. Supreme Court said Tuesday that it would accept a case to consider whether the University of Texas at Austin has the right to take ethnicity and race into consideration when making admission decisions.

Supreme Court takes new affirmative action case

The last time the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed affirmative action policies on college campuses was in 2003 in a landmark case involving the University of Michigan's law school (Grutter v. Bollinger). With a fairly murky decision, the court upheld the continuation of racial preferences at public universities by a 5-to-4 vote. Since that time, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who provided the swing vote and wrote the opinion, retired, and the court has grown much more conservative. Samuel A. Alito Jr., her replacement, is on record as opposing "racial balancing" practices.

The case's origin

The current affirmative action litigation can be traced back to 2008 when the University of Texas rejected Abigail Fisher, a young white woman. She claimed that the school rejected her because of the color of her skin. Her lawyers claim the University of Texas exceeded what the 2003 court decision allowed.

Recently, Edward Blum, the director of the Project on Fair Representation, a nonprofit legal defense fund that supports litigation that challenges ethnic and racial preferences, had this to say about the anticipated Supreme Court affirmative action case:

This case presents the court with an opportunity to clarify the boundaries of race preferences in higher education, or even reconsider whether race should be permitted at all under the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection.

The University of Texas relies on an admission policy that automatically accepts the students in the top 10 percent of their high school classes. This practice boosts diversity because many high schools in Texas are predominantly comprised of minority students. The University of Texas goes further by also using race as an admission hook when considering applicants who aren't in the top 10 percent of their classes. Fisher was applying for admission in that pool.

How big will be the case be?

While the court could narrowly rule on this case, its recent track record suggests that it is going to make a bigger splash. Just look what the court did with its highly controversial Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision that could have been decided quite narrowly. The justices, in a 5-to-4 vote, trashed most campaign finance regulations and unleashed Super PACs on our elections.

The justices will hear arguments in the case in the fall.

[Oceanliner]

Good riddance. I'm tired of having to fill out the "race" section on every government form I encounter.

[noloyalisti]

What do you expect from a an illegitimate court that was appointed to represent right wing corporate interests above the needs of the 99%.

All 5 conservatives should be impeached. They think than money is "free" speech. How's THAT for an oxymoron. It is corrupt and wrong on so many levels.

[jose_z1]

How is it that poor Asian immigrants get their kids to be top 1% GRADUATES right away.... yet blacks and hispanics, that have been in the U.S. for generations, still can't get their kids to pass simple math test???
.
We have hispanics that have been in Texas since before it was Texas and their kids are still taking "English-as-a-Second-Language" courses!!
.
Look in the mirror people !!!!
.
.
.
.

[Fabuladico]

Afiirmative action is discriminatory. Anytime anyone is judged by race, creed, sex, and so on, whether for preferential treatment for education, employment, or anything else or for denial of those things, it is simply wrong. To deny a white admission to a college because of race is just as wrong as denying a person of color because of race. Denying a job to a white person simply because he/she is white is just as wrong as denying it to any other race because of color. This woman should have been judged based on her academic qualifications, not the color of her skin. Dismantling of Affirmative Action should cover all areas of Affirmative Action.

[djseavy]

All AA accomplished was a deeper wedge driven between races. Some very qualified potential students were turned down so that quotas and "racial balance" could be achieved. I couldn't care less what color anybody's skin is. If you're willing to put in the hard work to obtain a college degree, then you should be given the opportunity to do so. If you're admitted simply because of quotas, or your family donates large sums of money, etc., not only does it cheapen the school, it also makes your degree suspect.

[jumkey]

The purpose of affirmative action is to offset years of officially sanctioned racism that is still affecting minorities and opportunities in our supposedly colorblind society. It was less than 50 years ago that whites were fighting against admitting minorities FOR ANY REASON to American universities, or did everyone forget that?

Currently colleges regularly and routinely grant preferential admissions to students HAVING NOTING TO DO WITH THEIR RACE, and somehow this is perfectly OK with most people even though it discriminates against everyone not in the preferred group. No one is going to court for this "unfair" advantage to white people. Where's the court case over that? Where's the outrage when the dominate class benefits? Oh, I think I just answered my own question.

Colleges take all kinds of things into account in granting admissions, including income level, life experience, athletic ability, other family members who attended, grants given by wealthy patrons, etc, etc. - and none of this is related at all to academic ability. All of this blatant favoritism and affirmative action for non-minorities doesn't raise any concerns whatsoever apparently.

And admission doesn't mean graduation - you still have to earn your degree, and if you do so then YOU WERE QUALIFIED TO ATTEND AND EARNED IT regardless of skin color. Where is the acknowledgement that repealing AA will keep qualified candidates (who had to work harder just to get to be considered viable candidates) from attending college at all?

Sorry, this whole sorry issue is about reserving privileges for white people, regardless of ability and regardless of potential. If we lived in a colorblind AND truly equal society where everyone gets the same start in life then we can talk about how "unfair" AA is, but since we already have institutionalized AA for non-minorities a redress of grievances for the underclass is fair and just.

Finally this doesn't affect anyone who isn't a rich white legacy to a college or university, and that's most of us. The only logical reasons that can be given for opposing AA is racism or maintaining class privilege and if you aren't a racist or upperclass then you are simply a tool who is being used to maintain the status quo.

[ckp016c]

"We want to be treated as equals, we want to be treated as equals" well, do what it takes to be equal, earn your way!

[darkhorseky]

Wow
After all these years finally this can stop. I have lived along time. Wild thing. Now is that alot and i mean alot of special intrest gtoups make so much more money , which is good. But a strange thing is happing. Thier giving to thier collages and univeristies are not recieving dollar gifts from those groups. Since there is not a in balance in population as before. It is time to do away with all programs that gives one group over anorther based on special group status . Let the best grades and hard workers win out. Is any groups afriad of compitition??? Since we are all equal?????

[rainbowroosie]

Good, affirmative action is discrimination.

[bmallen3]

It is time for all Americans to be treated equally without regard to race. Discrimination against qualified applicants because of their race was just another unintended consequence of government interference.