Right. It is the court's role to strike down discriminatory laws and the do have the power of remedy.
They're not implementing a program. The University of Texas implemented the program (as well as various other universities, to differing extents). The Court is called upon to decide whether the University of Texas is allowed to do it, whether it's constitutional. That is their job.
That would be a fair statement. And this one by Sotomayor has a few too many words in it. I should end with Constitution. "and to apply the Constitution with eyes open to the unfortunate effects of centuries of racial discrimination." The case in Texas appear to have been done with eyes open, replacing past discrimination with a new preferred version. later--- After researching the subject, I find that they are now indeed ignoring the equal protection clause for the greater good. Another case of modifying the Constitution without using the amendment process. Hell, they have been doing it since 78. So it is not just Sotomayor, other judges before her and the process is advocated by the most Universities. Word smithed the objective now, equity is not the goal, integrated diversity is better and trumps equal protection. Well like I said, we have seen this now, in one form or another for 40 years. It's been 45 years since we have had an amendment of consequences, the 27th passed 27 years ago but it doesn't amount to much. Funny the courts and the Universities are off on this course and I read that 59% of the population does not agree. I guess they have learned to just skip the amendment process and push the people along.
The reality is that the Constitution isn't, and never was, a perfectly precisely worded document that will tell us exactly what to do in every situation, including ones that the Founders could never have predicted. If it were that inhumanly precise, we wouldn't need courts at all, we could just write a computer program to tell us what the Constitution says. We do this with the tax code (TurboTax, etc) because the tax code is reams and reams of rules and regulations (whether that's good or bad is not what I'm arguing). The Constitution is not so dense with directions...it provides broad guidelines, not what exactly to do in every possible situation. The Supreme Court isn't modifying the Constitution, it's using its experience with the law to figure out how those broad guidelines bear on the specific situation before them. It's usually pretty complicated.
The results are not complicated. Did the White girl in Texas receive equal protection under the law? The answer is no but that is ok since integrated diversity is more desirable than equity. The last part is not in the constitution or and amendment. Adding nuance for the greater good is not part of the courts job. The amendment process was put in place to allow correction to a imprecisely worded document. It was used 26 times up to 1971. Progressives no long bother. Justices (about half) no longer care. This is what the next election is about. Actually it is pretty precise but it may not allow wiggle room.
According to the Supreme Court, yes. Or, more precisely, that considering diversity (or race, if you prefer) as one of a number factors didn't violate her right to equal protection. All Supreme Court rulings are about nuance because, as mentioned earlier, the Constitution is a set of broad guidelines, not a list of exact prescriptions for every situation that could crop up in US history.
Minstrel likes it! Why I don't know. But what we have now is a system beyond the people where the powers that decide which groups, ethnicity, race need to catch up can be given different diversity target for admission. Blacks only need to compete against other blacks for the allocated slots needed for their diversity group. Other targeted diversity groups also only compete within their group. After the diversity groups are filled, the rest of the applicants compete for the remaining seats in the class. So yes, the white girl receive equal protection within the remaining population after the targeted diversity is met. The question I asked earlier about, How long will this go on? The answer appears to be, it is now entrenched and codified by the court. We have allow the admission department in the Universities to decide which segments of society will receive higher education as they see fitting, not by the abilities of the applicants as a whole. It seems to me that the people should have voted on this at some level. This is Equal Protection within race, ethnicity, location or whatever, but for individuals only within their assigned group as seen by those that know best. Has any of you experienced this affecting your children or grand children? I have and I think you will, but you probably aren't going to like it. I read a presentation by a past President of the U of Michigan on this subject. Hes says this hardly effects white people, because there are so many! If you look at the slots they lose, it is a small percentage. Of the white people that apply for admission, it changes their chances from 26.x% to 25.x%, a very small change with no effect on the white population as a whole. WTF? The idea that diversity makes a better learning environment is weird to me too. I think back over the times I was in this or that school, NROTC, Balistics, Computer Science, Psychology, Oceanography, the diversity of the class wouldn't mean a damn thing to me. But I suspect it does to the minorities to have a bigger presents. So it is not to provide a better environment in general, but to provide a more comfortable environment for the targeted groups. It only cost white kid a few percentage point, not enough to effect the standing of the race. This is not right. It is social engineering by protected elite, not the elected.
You're describing racial quotas. I don't think any university currently uses those and the courts have generally not allowed those. That's certainly not what this case was about.
No, they don't use "racial quotas" anymore. That is illegal. Diversity goals is the accepted language. Stanford was ahead of the cure on this, they began using it 39 years ago.
It's also completely different. There aren't "slots" reserved for specific racial identities. Minority status is simply one factor that goes into admissions, like extra curriculars. Saying that's the same as racial quotas is like saying that "band members compete only against other band members, debate team members compete only against other debate team members."
Ok excuse me for using the word. But they do meet diversity goals by targeted races. You describe the niche one person fills.
Nope, that's not how the system in the case works. If they did, it would have been struck down, as the Supreme Court (including Anthony Kennedy) has never been friendly to quotas, slots or targeted racial goals.
"The court concluded that UT's limited race-conscious holistic review process reflected a necessary step in achieving its particular diversity goals" http://www.nacacnet.org/issues-action/LegislativeNews/Documents/Fisher-guidance.pdf https://admissions.utexas.edu/apply/decisions The following items are considered during holistic review: Class rank Strength of academic background SAT Reasoning Test or ACT scores Record of achievements, honors, and awards Special accomplishments, work, and service both in and out of school Essays Special circumstances that put the applicant’s academic achievements into context, including his or her socioeconomic status, experience in a single parent home, family responsibilities, experience overcoming adversity, cultural background, race and ethnicity, the language spoken in the applicant’s home, and other information in the applicant’s file Recommendations (although not required) Competitiveness of the major to which the student applies No specific class rank, test score, or other qualification by itself—other than automatic admission based on section 51.803 of the Texas Education Code—ensures admission. >>>In other words, 7. can rule. We don't know what the diversity goals are, I don't imagine they are going to tell us.
