Scalia: Abortion Rights Not Constitutional

Supreme Court Justice Defends Positions In TV Debate With ACLU

(AP)  Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia defended some of the opinions he has rendered while on the top U.S. court, arguing that nothing in the Constitution supports abortion rights or the use of race in school admissions.

Scalia, a leading conservative voice on the court, sparred in a one-hour televised debate Sunday with American Civil Liberties Union president Nadine Strossen. He said unelected judges have no place deciding politically charged questions when the Constitution is silent on those issues.

Arguing that liberal judges in the past improperly established new political rights such as abortion, Scalia warned, "Someday, you're going to get a very conservative Supreme Court and regret that approach."

"On controversial issues on stuff like homosexual rights, abortion, we debate with each other and persuade each other and vote on it either through representatives or a constitutional amendment," the Reagan appointee said.

"Whether it's good or bad is not my job. My job is simply to say if those things you find desirable are contained in the Constitution," he said.

Strossen countered that such a legal approach would have barred the landmark 1954 ruling in Brown v. Board of Education, a unanimous decision outlawing racial segregation in public schools.

"There are some rights that are so fundamental that no majority can take them away from any minority, no matter how small or unpopular that minority might be," she said. "And who is better positioned to represent and defend and be the ultimate backstop for rights of individuals and minorities than those who are not directly accountable in the electoral process — namely federal judges?"

Scalia's comments come as the Supreme Court this term will hear closely divided issues involving partial-birth abortion and school integration. They are expected to test the conservative impact of the court's two newest members, Chief Justice John Roberts and Samuel Alito.

Scalia, 70, has consistently voted to limit the use of race in school admissions and has called for the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision establishing a woman's right to abortion to be overruled. But his influence was often limited by moderate Sandra Day O'Connor, who cast deciding votes on those issues against him.

With O'Connor now retired and Alito succeeding her, Scalia — whom President George W. Bush passed up for chief justice — will have new opportunities to sway his new colleagues and centrist Anthony Kennedy closer to his viewpoints.

During Sunday's debate, Scalia outlined his judicial philosophy of interpreting the Constitution according to its text, as understood at the time it was adopted. He reiterated that race has no place in school admissions, a viewpoint that put him on the losing side in 2003.

"The Constitution very clearly forbids discrimination on the basis of race," Scalia said in response to a question by moderator Pete Williams of NBC. "It doesn't seem to me to allow Michigan to say we think it's good to discriminate on the basis of race when you want to make sure everyone is exposed to different backgrounds. We cannot use race as the test of diversity."

Scalia, who marked his 20th anniversary on the court last month, generally finds himself taking the opposite position to the ACLU. Most notably, he wrote a majority 5-4 opinion last term giving police more leeway to enter private homes.

He also unsuccessfully sided with the government in cases where the court struck down Ten Commandments displays in Kentucky courthouses and declared that the military commissions President Bush established to try suspected al Qaeda members were unconstitutional.

But during Sunday's debate, Scalia noted there were cases in which he and the ACLU agreed. They included rulings upholding flag burning and a 2004 opinion arguing that a U.S. citizen seized in Afghanistan in wartime could challenge his detention as an enemy combatant in U.S. courts.

[oleander8]

If men were the ones to get pregnant abortions would be available at the grocery store.

[cathaleen]

Mr. Scalia is entitled to his opinion.

Before abortion became legal, people like Mr. Scalia and other self-righteous hippocrits would ship their pregnant daughters or girlfriends out of the country for an abortions. Poor and middle class woman were subjugated to back rooms with poor medical care.

There's no more to say.

[mkbjon]

It would almost be worth making abortion illegal to see the panic the anti abortionists and religious fanatics would experience when their mistresses and daughters get pregnant.

[adventurepa]

Lets hope his decisions will not take away more rights.
Let us also hope his religious views will not dictate his decision making.
Those feelings and views need to be checked at the door.
That way they are unbiased decisions..

[grumpas]

Life begins at conception is strictly a religious point of view! It is not supported by any facts except religious dogma! If that's what they choose to believe that is fine with me! But, I really object to someone's religious belief's being rammed down my throat under the guise of laws meant to enslave and control people! If this bunch of wacko's have their way any form of birth control will be illegal! Which is irresponsible and insane! In a world that is populating itself into oblivion it's down right criminal! They should be held responsibile for the mess they are creating!

[blazercoach1]

It is a tragedy that we have not done enough for women that some feel that the best option is to kill their unborn child.

More must be done to help women and children in difficult circumstances.

That said, I have never met or even heard of a woman who years after giving birth to her child...looking him or her in the eye...holding the child.... said that she wished she had killed her baby in her womb.

[blazercoach1]

Grumpa, if you found a liver on the side of the road....would you assume that it didn't belong to anyone? Can a bone exist without belonging to someone?

How would we determine who the owner of the bone or liver is? We would run a DNA test! Why? DNA identifies not only species, but specific membership within a species.

DNA is present at the moment of conception. The DNA is unique from the mother and the father. If you can't have a liver or bone without personal ownership, whose DNA is it?

Taking something as dogma often means you haven't bothered to ask an intelligent question. It doesn't mean that there isn't an answer or explanation readily available.

[getcentered]

Scalia is the epitome of "out of touch with society", just like most of the "conservative" movement.

Saying, life begins at conception is a philosophical conversation.
Where are our philosophers?
No where in the conservative movement, because they already know everything.

"Life begins at conception, and ends at birth%u201D Right?

[cathaleen]

It's not a question of when life begins, it's a question of the right to choose. Woman have been given the right to choose - to elect to have the child or not. No one has the right to take that option away (whenever they believe life begins).

[getcentered]

A philosophical question.

Humans are different in more ways than DNA.
We think, and communicate, and philosophize with language.

If we have yet to learn a language as an unborn child has yet to learn, are we human? When do we become human?

When is it truly necessary to save a life?

[spiel1958]

My wife and I have been happily married for 22 years. We have 9 beautiful children.
We don%u2019t use contraception and we%u2019ve managed to live on a single income all this time.
There is a very high probability our children will want a life like their parents. *** is a gift, to be given and hence, received within the confines of a committed and married relationship. Within such a union, children are welcomed and expected, and never seen as burdensome or unwanted. There is no need to get rid of them. Does marriage work?
Yes it does!! Through faith, hard work, patience, sacrifice, suffering, humility, responsibility, obedience, and other willing acts of love, married life and its creative effects, children, make up a truly civilized society.

[blazercoach1]

I like how one person says there is no scientific arguement (that it's all religious dogma) for the pro-life position...then I provide one...then getcentered begs for a philosophical argument.

Which would you folks like?

Cathleen, do you have the right to kill a 1 year old child? How about the right to have a slave?

I am CERTAIN you are not implying that these things are ok....but do you understand that the position AS YOU STATED IT could apply to those situations as well?

Please, DEFEND the position that you have the right to kill a child...your own child...(as you said) regardless of when the child is "alive".

You said that "woman have been given the right to choose". By whom? Remember that once our laws gave white folks the right to own black folks. Is that a sufficient justification for doing so? Do you believe tha ALL of our laws are morally sound...or just this one?

[drlou1]

That the Constitution may 'forbid discrimination on the basis of race' ignores the fact that it countenanced and was quiet on slavery. Would this infer that there is a basis for slavery under the Constitution?

Constitutional Constructionists like Scalia are little more than political fundamentalists whose own political and philosophical agenda hold full sway. Supreme Court Justices are appointed based on knowledge, understanding, and judgement. Scalia could apparently be easily replaced by an algorithm and a computer.

So, no, abortion rights might not have been written directly into the Constitution. But individual rights and pursuits were in a very clear way. These are the constructs under which women and families have a 'right' to make their own decisions based on professionl medical input and their own, individual, value systems.

[drlou1]

Constitutional Constructionists like Scalia are little more than political fundamentalists whose own political and philosophical agenda hold full sway. Supreme Court Justices are appointed based on knowledge, understanding, and judgement. Scalia could apparently be easily replaced by an algorithm and a computer.

So, no, abortion rights might not have been written directly into the Constitution. But individual rights and pursuits were in a very clear way. These are the constructs under which women and families have a 'right' to make their own decisions based on professionl medical input and their own, individual, value systems.

[blazercoach1]

Dr. Lou,

You are right on the money. Rights of the individual are guaranteed in the constitution. The discussion we are having is one regarding WHEN the individual can assume those rights.

From the Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Note the first of the three unalienable Rights.

[mjv2944]

With all the available help and information on birth control, this shouldn't be an issue except in the case of rape or incest. We even have the day after pill, which is a form of abortion. Education and mandatory birth control is the answer. Start making the fathers of these kids financially responsible for them.

[blazercoach1]

Dr. Lou,

Regarding your reference to a person's own "value system". Can a person who does not believe in personal posession (for religious reasons, perhaps.. or otherwise) simply hop into your car and drive away? If you say no...are you not, in fact, infringing on his religious freedom? Where in the Constitution is there a right to posession or ownership?

Be careful when you imply that ALL points of view are valid and deserve legal protection. Some points of view contradict that very statement! Certainly we don't allow the KKK to practice their beliefs as they see fit!

[blazercoach1]

jh6379....

Please read my scientific argument below.

Also, let's NOT agree to disagree....let's dialogue and defend our positions...and perhaps learn from each other. Please, explain to me why you think a child is NOT present. Unless you take that as "dogma"....

If you found a liver on the side of the road....would you assume that it didn't belong to anyone? Can a bone exist without belonging to someone?
How would we determine who the owner of the bone or liver is? We would run a DNA test! Why? DNA identifies not only species, but specific membership within a species.
DNA is present at the moment of conception. The DNA is unique from the mother and the father. If you can't have a liver or bone without personal ownership, whose DNA is it?
Taking something as dogma often means you haven't bothered to ask an intelligent question. It doesn't mean that there isn't an answer or explanation readily available.

[smasterb]

cathaleen

I agree 100%. Women have the right to choose. you can choose to have *** OR choose not too. However, when we make any choice there are always consequences and we are responsible for those consequences. Any time we try to avoid our responsibility for our choices we are not free, we are irresponsible.
The most important concept of freedom is responsibility NOT Selfishness. Those who believe freedom is about individuals miss the whole point of freedom. Freedom is about doing for others, and that includes the life we create in the act of ***. You can play irresponsible games over when life starts to avoid feelings of guilt, but how life starts is obvious and that%u2019s what matters in this debate. All the rest is about self-centered emotion.

[garyws1]

i,of course, don't always agree with the opinions that get posted here but i love the fact that we discuss them with as much intelligence and passion as we do...

[blazercoach1]

mjv2944

"Mandatory birth control"!!!! I thought we were all in agreement that forced abortions would be a bad thing?! Are you advocating them? (You do realize that MANY folks think birth control and abortion are the same thing, don't you?)

But you advocate mandatory birth control...for whom? Everyone? Or just the poor? The dumb? The folks you disagree with? Please give us the criteria that you would set down for "mandatory birth control."

[blazercoach1]

MJV2944..

We do agree with your last point. Start holding the fathers more accountable.

My original statement that has long since scrolled away stated:

As a society, we have not done enough for women and children..that is the great tragedy that has helped create this horrible situation.

[usawatchman]

These people (Judges)are corrupt as the day is long...I was denied DUE PROCESS because I failed one of the courts LITERARY TESTS.. so much for a country of the people, more a country of the BIG BUCKS AND CORRUPT POLITICIANS..!

SEC = SELLING GOVERNMENT JOBS
That's right, the SEC is selling INFLUENCE
(print before it disappears)

The Markets and the Courts are RIGGED
and the politicians are CORRUPT, and are SELLING this Country (USA) out

The SEC got caught SELLING and/or GIVING AWAY GOVERNMENT JOBS
to a REGULATORY AGENCY and
the US SUPREME COURT Not only allowed them,
it allowed these GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES (SEC, EEOC, DOL)
to COMMIT CRIMES against the PEOPLE...

and the COURTS then helped them COVER IT UP..

EVERYONE, the USA is heading for a DICTATORSHIP
AMERICANS LOST THEIR RIGHTS

[thebeachbum]

The right to choose! What? To end a life? Fla Courts already said a fetus (first trimester) is a human being , when a drunk driver was charged with manslaughter after causing a miscarriage. New york said the fetus is a Human being with rights when a child was able to sue the police after Police killed his dad when he was a fetus. A person was Charged with Murder after hitting a fetus ( the womans Abdomen) and causing the death of a Fetus. Another was charged with Murder after shooting and killing a fetus in South Carolina, Accross The Nation You see the courts sideing with the fetus , When ever a fetus is killed,as being a Human with rights. The only exception is when A mother decides to kill the fetus. call it what you want (A rose is a Rose). Murder is Murder. Manslaughter is Manslaughter.
If it is wrong for the Father to kill the fetus, under equal rights It must also be wrong for the mother. Our supreme Courts Must uphold the Rights for All, All equally applied. ;If it is Murder for the Father to kill the fetus, It then must be Murder for the Mother to kill the Fetus, or the Doctor. Now the Doctor!
As with Siamese Twins , Some times a Doctor Must Choose whom life he will save with immunity. Same with The Fetus and the Woman

[optimas2]

Dr. Lou,

Indeed, certain individual rights WERE written into the Constitution--specific, textual rights, such as free speech or right to petition the government or a right to a jury trial, for instance.

Scalia's point is that abortion isn't one of those rights. So then, if you still think it's a right protected by the document, who decides which rights belong as those protected by the Constitution--and which don't? Should it be judges, acting as a quasi-House of Lords, or should it be the citizenry? Scalia advocates for the latter. If the public agrees that abortion should be protected as a constitutional right, have the debate and amend the constitution. What's so hard about that?

[cathaleen]

I have one question for the righteous?

If your daughter came home pregnant as a result of rape or got pregnant maybe by a overzealous relative. Or let's say she had an affair with a person of a different race?
She's underage. What would you do? Make her have that child?

[usawatchman]

For those who want the case number, and remember at this point (U.S. Supreme Court)
these CROOKS are DEEP into the COVER-UP of their CRIMES
(example: Perjury, Obstruction of Justice, Mail / Wire Fraud, Tampering with evidence..etc)


UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
James B. Veasaw v. Cari M. Domingues,et al.
No: 05-1467

The Petition for Writ of Certiorari was denied

The court RULED by NONFEASANCE
that the POLITICIANS and BUREAUCRATS are IMMUNE to
COMMIT CRIMES against the People
without the fear of RETRIBUTION in the COURTS

FYI = The Questions presented to the Court

1) Are State and Federal Employees IMMUNE to commit CRIMES against the PEOPLE in order to GAIN the upper hand in a Court Case or
Administrative investigation and/or Process , without any fear of RETRIBUTION in the COURTS?
2) Are FEDERALLY FUNDED PROGRAMS accessible by All Citizen for whom the programs were designed for, or are they just really WORK
PROGRAMS designed to give CRONIES and BUREAUCRATS high paying Jobs?
3) Must the citizens of this country PASS LITERARY TESTS in order to receive PROTECTION in the COURTS
(i.e. say the "MAGIC WORDS" for justice)
(i.e. put the "MAGIC WORDS" on " MAGIC PAPER ")?
4) Are theses laws CONSTITUTIONAL, If these laws are not EQUALLY apply to ALL (STATE, FEDERAL, CORPORATE)?
5) I think (are) ALL of you ARE CORRUPT ?
6) CAN THE PETITIONER GET MORE JUSTICE WITH A $10 BOX OF AMMO, THAN WHAT CAN EVER BE FOUND IN ALL THE CORRUPT UNITED STATES COURT
ROOMS.?

[usawatchman]

PEOPLE EVERYTHING ELSE IS MOOT...

THESE JUDGES ARE NOT WORTHY TO REVIEW AND LAWS
THAT WE MAY "" CONSENT "" to be GOVERNED BY..

[Rhoda Meier]

I rarely agree with Justice Scalia. But I have to agree with him that race has no place in deciding who goes to a school. As an indicator of diversity, it is very poor. Why should a black lawyer's child be admitted over a white bus driver's child? Would the student body be more diverse because of that choice?

Abortion is a very bad thing. But the alternatives are so much worse. I am old enough to remember when women were dying frequently because of botched abortions. I remember that my high school friends who had means took sudden vacations to Florida, where abortions were legal, and my friends who did not have that choice dropped out and became unwed mothers. One, a petite 16-year-old, died in childbirth. One was emprisoned for abuse of her unwanted child.

Most abortions are not chosen lightly. Anyone who has had one knows the physical and emotional trauma they cause. But our society has decided that limited access to abortion is preferable to the death and destruction caused by lack of a legal path to abortion. Scalia must honor that.

[usawatchman]

(corrected)
PEOPLE EVERYTHING ELSE IS MOOT...

THESE JUDGES ARE NOT WORTHY TO REVIEW ANY LAWS
THAT WE MAY "" CONSENT "" to be GOVERNED BY..

[mjv2944]

blazercoach1

blazer, we have not done enough for women and children, but we have to stop the cycle of 1 to 4 children with no father to support them. But do you believe that the people who wrote the constitution had to deal with abortion or gay rights? I think not. Mandatory birth control through birth control pills or real education on prevention is not abortion in my book. Day after pill probably is, but I cannot judge.

[passerby2]

blasercoach1,

in response to your philosophical situation where the guy hops into another persons car and just drive off because he does not believe in personal possessions, the guy can believe in whatever he wants, but once he infringes on another persons rights then he has passed the line. He can give away all his things for all I care, but he can't take another person's belonging or rights.

[zeke423]

If a person doesn't have the right to make their own decisions, based on their own beliefs and faith, and moral compass, then what gives my fellow person the right to tell me how to live my life? Better yet, what gives me the right, as a man, to tell my wife/daughter/random woman how to live their life. Is not blasphemy a sin? If we can't govern ourselves and live by our own set of rules, how can that be expected of someone else?

[optimas2]

Keybord,

You stated that our society has decided that limited access to abortion is preferrable . . .

But that's precisely Scalia's point: our society HASN'T decided that; rather, the Supreme Court has decided it, regardless of what society wants or does not want. Scalia says only that we should let society decide--let each state choose for itself whether it wants to allow or disallow abortion.

If we really want society to decide the issue of abortion, what's wrong with throwing it back to the states and letting each state decide for itself whether or not to legalize abortion?

[passerby2]

smasterb,

Freedom to you isn't freedom to someone else, why is ones definition of something so vast be more correct than anothers. It's irresponsible when one person trys to force his/her beliefs onto another person. In a world as big as this one, a persons experience is vey limited, don't pass judgement so hastely, a person cannot truly understand until he/she has experienced.
No one is dragging Scalia's wife out to have an obortion just because it's legal. People decide to have an abortion because they have decided there situation dictates it, not because it's legal.

[oleander8]

Abortion is never going away - it has just become regulated and safer. If you think life begins at conception, don't have an abortion. You cannot legislate morality.

[thebeachbum]

To Cathaleen
Yes, def Yes , I had a friend in the military that was a conception by rape , she was glad her mother did not Murder her. Ask those whom were conceived by incest or rape if they think their mother should have Murdred them.
get the point.

[newsjeff-2009]

I agree with the ACLU, but I have a stronger statement: Is America going to be the "Land of the free, home of the brave", or the "Land of the oppressed people, home of the weak-minded, and governed by political dictators". I miss the old Ronald Regan years, when we had Ronald Regan with real backbone, but minded his own business and focuses on running the country properly. The new republican party that has came into power since Bush became president in 2001, has not only suppressed abortion rights, which are a form of women's rights, the entire GOP has voted for and passed several things in the past few years that have taken lots of rights away from Americans, people just need to open their eyes and see it. The democrats like John F.Kennedy,Lyndon Johnson, and many others pushed for the civil right and women's rights changed of the 1960s, but here in election year 2006, the GOP has the nerve to say that the democrats were the main organizers of the KKK. Senator Byrd was at one time, but I read how he has denounced his membership and appologized for this mistake. The GOP party is a party that bottom line is: a party that looks out for rich people's interests,religious interests,and big business, big corporate interests, not the interest of everyday working-class Americans, plain and simple. Truth hurts doesn't it, too bad GOP political ads don't tell the truth!!!

[blazercoach1]

passerby,
I'm glad to hear that we agree on the premise of my scenario. That person CANNOT, in fact, practice what he believes because it infringes on the rights of another person.
The argument against abortion is one that argues on behalf of the unborn child and recognizes him or her as a person.
Again, I offer the scientific argument for those who would call my views dogmatic:
If you found a liver on the side of the road....would you assume that it didn't belong to anyone? Can a bone exist without belonging to someone?
How would we determine who the owner of the bone or liver is? We would run a DNA test! Why? DNA identifies not only species, but specific membership within a species.
DNA is present at the moment of conception. The DNA is unique from the mother and the father. If you can't have a liver or bone without personal ownership, whose DNA is it?
Taking something as dogma often means you haven't bothered to ask an intelligent question. It doesn't mean that there isn't an answer or explanation readily available.

[thebeachbum]

, The courts are repeatingly affirming the fetus is a Human and have rights given to All Americans under the Protection of our Constitution. The Right To Life ,Liberty and The right T
To the Pursuit of Happiness.
The right to choose! What? To end a life? Fla Courts already said a fetus (first trimester) is a human being , when a drunk driver was charged with manslaughter after causing a miscarriage. New york said the fetus is a Human being with rights when a child was able to sue the police after Police killed his dad when he was a fetus. A person was Charged with Murder after hitting a fetus ( the womans Abdomen) and causing the death of a Fetus. Another was charged with Murder after shooting and killing a fetus in South Carolina, Accross The Nation You see the courts sideing with the fetus , When ever a fetus is killed,as being a Human with rights. The only exception is when A mother decides to kill the fetus. call it what you want (A rose is a Rose). Murder is Murder. Manslaughter is Manslaughter.
If it is wrong for the Father to kill the fetus, under equal rights It must also be wrong for the mother. Our supreme Courts Must uphold the Rights for All, All equally applied. ;If it is Murder for the Father to kill the fetus, It then must be Murder for the Mother to kill the Fetus, or the Doctor. Now the Doctor!
As with Siamese Twins , Some times a Doctor Must Choose whom life he will save with immunity. Same with The Fetus and the Woman .

[kpdkpd1]

Murder is a moral issue and is regulated.

[blazercoach1]

keybordfrm,

You state that "our society has decided that limited access to abortion is preferable to the death and destruction caused by lack of a legal path to abortion."

But that's exactly what our society HASN'T done! Roe v Wade is a legal interpretation...NOT A LAW. You are making an argument that the pro-life side makes! This legal interpretation was made by by a non-unianimous group of un-elected judges! The only laws on the books regarding abortion are ones that protect access to the facilities...which ARE guaranteed under the Constitution.

Our society has NOT "decided" in the legal sense to make abortion legal.

[smasterb]

passerby2

I did not pass judgement on anyone. A rational assessment is not passing judgment. (My opinion) I did imply selfishness but that includes every living organism we are all focused on self. FEEL better?
Abortion is force, violent force. That is the point of my comments.

If other people%u2019s opinions about freedom are not relevant then the Constitution is non-relevant since its just opinions.


Great human facts: The world is flat Humans can%u2019t fly We%u2019ll never go to the moon FACT: fact is just opinion backed up by what you believe.

[snowbrd7]

Scalia makes a good point. Roe v Wade has tangled us up in division since its inception. A male contraceptive may be the answer.

[smasterb]

oleander8

Murder rape assault et al. not going away. Do yo suggest they not be against the law of man?

[snowbrd7]

Oleander8, Abortion will go away once sci/tech comes up with a viable solution. Abortion is barbaric and it's inconceivable to me that the Democrats have squandered so much power defending it particularly partial birth abortion. What idiot Democrat made that a supported issue.

[passerby2]

Laws are written by people, not the god that some people believe in. There seems to be a notion that laws cannot be changed because it is written down. Those laws were written by people to deal with the situations they were presented with. The LAWS are not some cosmic truths, but interpretations and agreed on by society to help keep society and it's people safe and liberated.

[passerby2]

smasterb,

you clearly state that " Those who believe freedom is about individuals miss the whole point of freedom." You are basically saying that they are ignorant. If that's not passing judgement then my definition of passing judgement is definitely different from others.

[snowbrd7]

There are good laws and bad laws. The argument that Roe v. Wade is unconstitional explains how divisive it is.

There are some things that I think ring true in what Scalia said. Namely, that race based admissions are not constitutional. I am an American black woman who is a senior at a prominet midwestern Liberal Arts College. I have worked very hard to get to this point in my educational career and my goal is to obtain a PhD from a midwestern university. Unfortunately, there are those on my campus who, after some conversing, assumed that I got in merely becauase I was black. It was necessary in the 1960's and 1970's when discrimination was at its highest. Now, when you've got black billionaires and many black millionares, the time has come to realize that black people are able to get into any college they want, if only they apply themselves. W.E.B. Dubois got into Harvard pre 1920, when people were still being lynched, there's none of that now, and black people will only be seen as incompetent if affirmative action continues.