In a narrow but significant 4-3 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the University of Texas at Austin's affirmative action program.
We are very lucky that the racist Scalia is gone.
Trump would restore a majority of Scalias, who would make discrimination, Citizens United and ecological destruction much worse.
In solid Blue California, I can afford to vote Green, for Jill Stein. But in the few real swing states, say Ohio or Florida, I would slap myself in the face and vote for the for the Supreme Court.
"When the nine-justice panel heard oral arguments in the case last year, Scalia drew gasps and controversy when he asserted: "There are those who contend that it does not benefit African-Americans to get them into the University of Texas, where they do not do well, as opposed to having them go to a less-advanced school ... a slower-track school where they do well."
Scalia's statement embodied his inherent racism, elitism and bigotry. The "people" do not miss his presence on the Supreme Court. Were he to still occupy the seat, the recent 4-4 ruling on immigration would surely be 5-4 against President's Obama's immigration policy proposal. Once again, Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Kennedy do no fail to disappoint. (Scalia probably aligned himself on immigration with the group whose families themselves were immigrants advocated: once they were in the US, then close the door behind them to all other emigres.
In reading the decision, an interesting point was articulated,
"A university’s goals cannot be elusory or amorphous—they must be sufficiently measurable to permit judicial scrutiny of the policies adopted to reach them."
So what is the problem seeing that the same methodology is applied to Voting Rights
and measuring the discriminatory effects of their demise in recent years.
Or how about a systemic measuring of the adverse effects of Citizens United.
Ditto on the "Scalia's Gone" sentiment. I had to gasp at virtually everything this man did.
Of course Clarence's ideology is always a strong contender for his replacement.
Yup. One should never have the delusions that change can happen by voting - however, how we vote can create a political environment where the change may be easier or harder - the biggest extra-electoral work for change being reforming the election process so that elections CAN be used to create change someday - as the upcoming elections in Spain are going to do.
The only purpose of voting is to produce an outcome, not to engage in a personal catharsis, or to make a personal snub - the candidate will never be aware of the snub anyway (especially snubs from the left). Does this mean voting for a "lesser evil" if one lives in a closely contested state? Yes. But so what? I bet everyone her chooses a dozen lesser evils in their personal lives before lunch!
Affirmative action has completely alienated the white working class for one simple reason. Has a rich white girl or boy ever given up their position in Harvard for a black or latino? No, the poor whites are aced out of a chance to go to the best schools. That is how they see and why they vote Republican. AA is a good idea but has been poorly explained and executed.
At my university orientation years ago the chancellor told each of us to look to our right and to our left: one of you three people won't make it to graduation; i.e., will drop out before then. At the time of oral arguments I saw articles, from Walter Williams (black), Thomas Sowell (black) and others, and Justice Thomas on some earlier occasion too, that affirmative action, admitting disadvantaged persons with lower SATs, i.e., more of them, than other identity groups, meant that many of those students weren't ready for the course material presented in class, many struggled and many dropped out. That was what each of them, including Scalia, meant. Taking on a challenge within your abilities works better than trying to conquer the world, and failing.
At the same time I saw articles by such as Michelle Malkin, that giving an unearned hand up to the unready, for limited spaces, means that another hand pushes down, denies a place, for Asian and Jewish students who have better grades, compared to their population %, than whites or anyone else.
-- BTW, a historic factoid. In czarist Russia 120 years ago a Jew could not get into college unless he (et.al.) also paid for the college education of a Russian.
At the time of the oral argument I saw an article that pointed out that after the last Supreme Court decision on the topic, written by Anthony Kennedy, schools like U of Texas essentially ignored the decision and kept on doing what they had been doing. Thumbed their nose at Kennedy. The article urged Justice Kennedy to take note of that and hit them down.
We see in this decision that Justice Kennedy, at most, just tapped their wrists. As far as they are concerned they can keep on favoring 'disadvantaged groups' in university admissions.
It is worth considering the politics of why the colleges and universities, their state legislators, and most people on left-wing forums like this insist on assuming that the disadvantaged can do, want to do, and do do the work at the same % of their population as everyone else, and ignore evidence that they can't (or are not interested). And why these same people get themselves all twisted into a knot that disadvantaged groups are under-represented as employees of tech-companies. Can it be called racism, when a few different non-white races happen to be over-represented at those same companies?
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character"
Oh well. I guess we're not there yet.
"It's true that the university, for whatever reason, offered provisional admission to some students with lower test scores and grades than Fisher. Five of those students were black or Latino. Forty-two were white.
Neither Fisher nor Blum mentioned those 42 applicants in interviews. Nor did they acknowledge the 168 black and Latino students with grades as good as or better than Fisher's who were also denied entry into the university that year. Also left unsaid is the fact that Fisher turned down a standard UT offer under which she could have gone to the university her sophomore year if she earned a 3.2 GPA at another Texas university school in her freshman year." https://www.propublica.org/article/a-colorblind-constitution-what-abigail-fishers-affirmative-action-case-is-r
Yup, the U of T really screwed poor old Abigail, whose argument is that only black people with worse grades should be denied admission. She argues for preferential treatment solely because she is white. One article describes Fisher as "aggressively mediocre", which describes almost all of the right wing.
I have worked at a major university for close to 30 years and during those three decades, I have seen a dramatic change in the demographics of the student body wherein their are many more minority students thanks to affirmative action and it has been beneficial to ALL students, faculty, and staff. Malkin's supposition is misleading and unfounded in fact. On another note, in addition to Czarist Russia, during the Stalinist regime there were any number of minorities that were exterminated or subordinated. Factoid: A piece of inaccurate or false information that is accepted as true because of repetition in the media.
Hey, Liberal4Bernie, you seem to have missed the part of my post where I say I'll be voting for Jill Stein.
My goal is to help create a strong and united independent Left. Do you think that will be forwarded by Trump, whose announced judge picks all come from Scalia's Federalist Society? Bernie doesn't think so.
In this day we live in a nation where some authorities, for some reason perhaps guilt are giving kids who look like Dr. King more opportunities for their skin color than for the content of their characters. In a society of somewhat limited spaces for opportunity, such as college admissions, is that fair to people with better character?
In a society where dreams (or what activists think dreams should be - they themselves don't have the ability to be tech-lords in Silicon Valley...) exceed the ability to reach them, ... Society is explicitly race-based distributing who has to rethink and redirect their dreams. You can't be all that you can be.