Supreme Court

Supreme Court Upholds Constitutionality of Affirmative Action in University of Texas Case

SCOTUS rules 4-3 in closely watched case of Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin.

|

U.S. Supreme Court

Today the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 4-3 in favor of affirmative action in the closely watched case of Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin. Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy held that the school's race conscious admissions policy did not run afoul of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. "The University," Kennedy declared, has "met its burden of showing that the admissions policy it used at the time it rejected petitioner's application was narrowly tailored."

The case first arose in 2008 when Abigail Fisher, a white applicant, was denied undergraduate admission to the University of Texas at Austin (UT). Claiming that UT's affirmative action policy denied her the right to equal treatment under the law, Fisher sued in federal court, charging UT with violating the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. But Fisher lost in U.S. District Court in 2009 and then lost again before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit in 2011. In 2013 the U.S. Supreme Court ordered the 5th Circuit to rehear Fisher's case. That court then ruled against Fisher again. Today the Supreme Court affirmed the 5th Circuit's 2014 ruling in favor of the school's affirmative action program.

"A university is in large part defined by those intangible 'qualities which are incapable of objective measurement but which make for greatness,'" Justice Kennedy wrote today. "Considerable deference is owed to a university in defining those intangible characteristics, like student body diversity, that are central to its identity and educational mission."

Writing in dissent, Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Clarence Thomas, accused Kennedy's majority opinion of turning the Equal Protection Clause on its head. "Even though UT has never provided any coherent explanation for its asserted need to discriminate on the basis of race, and even though UT's position relies on a series of unsupported and noxious racial assumptions," Alito wrote, "the majority concludes that UT has met its heavy burden. This conclusion is remarkable—and remarkably wrong."

In addition to joining Justice Alito's dissent, Justice Thomas also filed a short dissent of his own. "The Court's decision today," Thomas wrote, "is irreconcilable with strict scrutiny, rests on pernicious assumptions about race, and departs from many of our precedents."

The Supreme Court's opinion in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin in available here.

Advertisement

NEXT: Race-conscious university admissions policies survive Supreme Court review

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Discrimination enshrined in law upheld.

    Stay classy SCOTUS

    1. Because treating people unequally under the law does not violate the guarantee of equal protection under the law. Because FYTW.

    2. UTA presumably doesn’t have the space or the resources to admit literally anybody who applies. So they have to discriminate.

      1. In the old days they used to discriminate by gauging things like SAT scores and un-inflated high school grades. You know, proxies for intelligence.

        1. Under none of their criteria was Abigail Fisher a guaranteed acceptance.

          1. So, if the standard is that your rights aren’t violated unless you are guaranteed acceptance, I suppose there’s no violation of rights on an all white campus if minorities aren’t guaranteed acceptance?

            1. As a businessman I make no guarantees to do business with you. How’s that going to work out for me?

          2. So, using that logic Tony, I can operate on you, and if you happen to croak under anaesthesia, your estate can’t do jack shit because my operative consent form doesn’t guarantee you will survive the surgery, correct?

            Or for that matter you croak three days later, since you aren’t guaranteed a full recovery, right? (spoiler alert: you aren’t). Or you simply survive, but you’re practically a vegetable (more than now, anyway); as long you you sign the dotted line, you give up any pretense to damages and guarantees, your standing went out the window.

            BTW, still living in downtown Tulsa?

          3. If you have time to lean, you have time to clean. BACK TO WORK, TONY!

          4. Legitimate question Tony, how do you know that? No sarc.

        2. I wouldn’t say that mindless rote memorization is a good proxy for intelligence, but discriminating based on grades and test scores is still better than doing so based on race.

      2. doesn’t have the space or the resources to admit literally anybody who applies

        That’s an interesting point. Both the states I’ve taught in have “open admission” in that anyone from inside the state who graduates from high school must be admitted to a state college if they apply. At some point, presumably, space is going to become a problem.

          1. Nebraska & Kansas. I think Kansas has since changed the rules but I’m not totally sure on that.

            1. Low population density states. I doubt that NY or CA have policies that broad. And presumably those policies are put in place with the knowledge that a significant portion of the college-bound are going out of state. If space ever does become an issue in NE and KS schools, I bet those open admissions policies would be revised real fast.

              1. In this case UT and TAMU are two of the largest colleges in the US, and space is at a premium for them.

                1. I went to K-State in state; admitted in 2002. I want to say the admission requirements were you had to meet a least one of the following; at least at 21 on the ACT, 980 on the SAT, a 2.0 GPA in high school, or rank in the top 1/3 of your class. Not exactly hard to do.

                  1. KSU has a 99% acceptance rate, IIRC.

              2. Agree

              3. A college can accept everyone academically. (Fulfilling academic requirements for graduation is another subject.) The next step is proving the ability to pay. High-density states can alleviate that with supply-demand pricing.

                That would put the poor at a disadvantage. Of course the residents of the state could vote for expansion of the universities or at least deny out-of-state applicants while the in-state demand outstrips the supply. At the very least the state could come up with financial aid scams to favor the in-state poor.

                But we all know the state university systems have devolved into pushing political agendas. Which is fine for privately-funded universities, but an abomination for taxpayer-supported ones.

        1. With the Treasury backstopping tuition financing, they can just build another hall.

        2. Actually, in this case Texas already has a 10% rule. So anybody who graduates from the top 10% of their school gets automatically admitted to the state college system, no matter how shitty the school, as a sort of pre-emptive affirmative action.

          1. Meh, I see that 10% rule as more a protection against bad schools than race-based affirmative action. SLDs about public schools, but it’s not the student’s fault he happens to live in a town with shitty schools.

            1. Here’s the crux Tonio: Are those shitty schools populated with majorities of ethnic minorities, meaning, was Abigail’s grades and CV higher than any of the guaranteed 10%ers of the shitty schools, keeping in mind UT’s racial preference policies.

              I would also like to know how racial diversity is mathematically determined and was a copy of that matrix distribution made known to applicants before they applied?

              Would doing so confirm an actual, discrete, quota system then?

            2. “Bad schools” meaning schools with low IQ students?

              1. Whatever “bad schools” means, the top 10% of graduates of them probably aren’t low IQ.

                1. I teach at a “bad school.” Trust me… our top 10% are only slightly higher on the IQ spectrum than a dead fish. And that’s only when the sun, moon, and stars align. I wouldn’t hire these kids to clip my toe nails.

                  Not sure how that impacts the argument about the top 10% being a boon for minorities or not… but let’s not pretend that these kids are going to be the next Mr. Wizard. Sure,there are some really great kids…. but that’s more like 3-5%.

              2. You mean Wesleyan?

            3. You can see or not see whatever you want. That’s what denial is for.

              But the rule was consciously designed to boost acceptance of certain minorities.

        3. That is true but it does not justify a state institution using race as a qualifier.

        4. most states guarantee acceptance, but don’t guarantee a spot at the main campus. suck it up at UT-Permian Basin.

    3. SCOTUS just wanted to make sure minorities knew they could not get anywhere in life but for the compassion of Uncle Sugar.

      1. I suppose it’s always nice to have White Supremacy confirmed by a SCOTUS ruling.

  2. “A university is in large part defined by those intangible ‘qualities which are incapable of objective measurement but which make for greatness,'” Justice Kennedy wrote today

    Yes, intangible qualities like the color of your skin.

    1. Judging people by the content of their character is racist.

      1. Careful. While we’re supposed to revere MLK as a person, everything he did or said has been memory-holed.

        1. See, I thought his comment was a clear example of cultural appropriation.

    2. A government-owned school can deny you admission based on the color of your skin, but a privately-owned hotel cannot.

      Kennedy just pulled up his robe and shat all over the Constitution.

      1. It’s what he does.

        1. And, oddly enough, he dissented in that case. But I suppose he’s now constrained by precedent. And convenience.

          1. No justice is really constrained by precedence, unless they choose to be.

      2. UT has invented lies (the Bevo legend, to distance itself from Texas ku-klux prohibitionism) and is smarting from having to rename buildings named in honor of dry Grand Goblins of the Invisible Empire under the gaze of a Chief Executive who would not have qualified for membership in the local klavern. No mystery here. The Senile Court is a child of former decades and a tool protecting “both” looter parties from competition.
        Raise your hand if you really expect their decisions to do anything other than benefit the unproductive hands that hand them other people’s money.

    3. That’s code for “we have too many asians.”

      1. “we have too many asians.”

        The first time through, I read that as “raisins”

        1. Racist.

      2. Too many Whites. Too many Asians. Too many Joos. Never forget Da Jooooss.

  3. The case first arose in 2008 when Abigail Fisher, a white applicant, was denied undergraduate admission to the University of Texas at Austin (UT).

    As long as no one was harmed by the skin color-based screening policy, all is good.

    1. Yes, that’s right, a woman attempting to break through the law school glass ceiling. Sorry Abigail, not this time.

      Two notes: I read a lefty website a few weeks back which basically trashed her saying academically she should not have been admitted. And, it’s all good because she got into another law school (LSU maybe?).

      I think there should be some kind of priority chart given out to applicants for jobs, law school, etc. that shows priorities so that someone like Abigail would know that being a white female is better than being a white male but not as good as being black.

      1. She was denied undergraduate admission and there are more women than men in law school in any case.

        1. Thank you for the correction. I did not RTA in detail and clearly confused this with another case. Apologies all around.

          1. I’d also point out that she actually was a shitty test case. UT-A has a 10% rule (you automatically get in if you are in the top 10% of your high school class) and this takes up the vast majority of the admissions (around 70%). When you consider that another 10% are out of state/international there are very few spots left where affirmative action would even be applied. Fisher wasn’t in the top 10% and her SAT scores didn’t even reach the 25th percentile. She was a marginal applicant at best.

            Doesn’t mean that affirmative action in government schools should be legal but a stronger test case might have helped.

            1. Fisher wasn’t in the top 10% and her SAT scores didn’t even reach the 25th percentile. She was a marginal applicant at best.

              Did you mean 75th? Because not even making the 25th percentile isn’t mediocre, it’s dismal.

              1. Ok, for some reason I read “mediocre” and not “marginal”.

                Although the question might remain, was someone admitted with similar or lower scores?

            2. So, question, given that she was a bad test case, how hard does that make it for another case to be brought in the foreseeable future? I know SC cases are fairly binding but they can obviously be challenged. How would it work in this case?

            3. This.

              This was a terrible case to bring forward because she was a mediocre student. She’d have to prove that the school admitted various minorities with similar or lower scores/grades because they’re minority students, while rejecting her because she is not.

              And you can’t prove a “wink-wink” system.

              Affirmative Action is horrible, but also nearly impossible to prove. You’d literally need an internal document stating “X wasn’t admitted/promoted/hired because he’s white. Instead, in order to be more diverse, we admitted/promoted/hired Y instead.”

              You need more than a stated policy (unless stated policy is “Always hire a minority over someone white.”). You’d need to prove active discrimination.

              1. This was a terrible case to bring forward because she was a mediocre student.

                This quality of the student might matter if the Court wasn’t in high-horse mode. As it stands, they decided to pontificate on the glory of UT’s admission policy rather than the merits of the case. It’s doubtful a “better” case would have resulted in a different outcome, except perhaps by never working its way up to SCOTUS.

              2. IIRC, because of the universities admissions process they actually did have a fair amount of evidence.

                I think the numbers were something like… something like 200 students got in over her that had better academic scores. Something around 50 got in over her that had worse academic scores. Of those that had worse scores, one was black.

                Further, I think it was shown that even if she had scored the top marks in the holistic review section that included race, she still wouldn’t have beat out any of the people that got in.

                So yeah, this is one of the few cases where it was pretty well-documented just what held her back. And it wasn’t her race. Which is why the policy as a whole was the topic, and not whether her getting in was the problem.

                Probably the only reason it got to court is that Scalia thought with Kagan recusing herself it would be an easier win. And then, of course, he died.

                1. Stupid Scalia…. had to go and muck it all up.

            4. Seems like in that case, the court should have ruled less broadly (disclaimer, I haven’t read much about the specifics of the decision) or it shouldn’t have gone to the SC. Just say that there is no evidence that she was treated unfairly and leave the affirmative action question for another day.

              1. But that would mean missing a chance to wield the majority power on the court and codify racism in the name of equality. Can’t let that opportunity pass you by.

            5. Ummm – you automatically get in if you are in the top 10% of your high school class.

              That’s your affirmative action right there. I live in Houston. How many schools are non-white huh?
              So if they are in the top 10% because they are in a crappy school but only have average SAT’s compared to someone that is 12% but the school is excellent, and that person has excellent SAT’s, it’s ok to exclude that person?

              No, I’m not saying Fisher but just saying “we take the top 10%” is not helping the case of the best and brightest in the state.

  4. Some protections are more equal than others.

    1. Dark skins good, light skins bad!

      1. Kennedy = self-hating Irish

        1. He’s old Irish. He still thinks he’s black.

  5. OT: To the surprise of no one, Officer Caesar Goodson has been acquitted of all charged in Freddie Gray’s death.

    1. ‘Caesar Goodson’?

      That’s one of the most fake sounding names I’ve heard in a long time.

  6. “The Court’s decision today,” Thomas wrote, “is irreconcilable with strict scrutiny, rests on pernicious assumptions about race, and departs from many of our precedents.”

    Just wait until Hillary appoints a couple of justices. Then you’re really gonna see something!

    1. Yes. We can finally get rid of that outmoded “Constitution” thingy written over a hundred years ago. SCOTUS can then finally ascend to it’s true calling: High Priests of the Nation.

      1. We’ll never get rid of the Constitution.

        We’ll just reinterpret the Living Constitution daylights out of it.

  7. “A university is in large part defined by those intangible ‘qualities which are incapable of objective measurement but which make for greatness,'” Justice Kennedy wrote today. “Considerable deference is owed to a university in defining those intangible characteristics, like student body diversity, that are central to its identity and educational mission.”

    Oh okay, so if a university wants an all-white student body, I’m sure Kennedy would grant the university “deference” to that university’s understanding of student body diversity? Something tells me… no.

    1. Yeah, or if, say, they were bakers, and didn’t want to bake a gay wedding cake.

      Is it still called “deference” when you have to agree with them to get it?

  8. How do progs justify this very clearly racist policy? Is it okay because government?

    1. White men are evil and need to be “corrected”.

    2. It’s okay because it benefits the correct groups and hurts white people.

      1. So racism is okay as long as it benefits a progressive-approved victim group.

        Got it.

        1. This is what proggies actually believe.

          1. Not quite. They believe that it isn’t racism if it benefits a progressive-approved victim group because racism requires that the discriminating party have power and the progressive-approved victim groups don’t have power.

            1. Not 30 minutes ago a college buddy said that same thing on our groupme chat.

              It was almost a carbon copy.

            2. That’s just a more roundabout way of saying it.

            3. Because wielding the gun-toting power of the state isn’t enough power to classify prog-approved classes as racist.

              This girls whiteness granted her so much power, and the minorities were so powerless, that she didn’t get in while they did based on their race because… they didn’t have power and therefore it wasn’t racism.

        2. Funny, since mismatches because of Affirmative Action hurts minority students by derailing their academic careers.

          1. Funny, since mismatches because of Affirmative Action hurts minority students by derailing their academic careers.

            It’s all about the FEELZ. You know this.

        3. Dude, that’s like 75% of the democratic party’s official platform.

        4. Well, yeah. Government as an almighty righter of wrongs. That the consequences of such an approach to gov’t might scare you (and it definitely scares me), that doesn’t mean that it scares everyone.

        5. Do you live under a rock?

        6. Progressives view society as different identity groups instead of as individuals. This means grievances and restitution for such can last generations. However, while refusing to identify any point where these grievances can end, they are eager to identify hard starting points where events prior to this are considered irrelevant (unless they are useful). This is convenient and, yes, very hypocritical.

    3. BFYTW.

      Sure, they’ll rationalize some drivel. But they don’t believe their own rationalizations. They do it because they can. Because it’s fun to fuck with people.

      George Orwell – 1984

      We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power.

      Power is in inflicting pain and humiliation. Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing. Do you begin to see, then, what kind of world we are creating?

      Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face ? forever.

  9. given the widely held view by many that the “intangibles” that justice kennedy seems to think are so important, are actually a constant and necessary consideration far beyond college, it stands to reason that this decision will be expanded upon. at least so long as it’s just young white chicks getting screwed over and not someone important.

    1. “blacks may not have some of the necessities”

      They’re intangibles, not necessities, Mr Campanis.

      1. Campanis’ problem was that we worked in the private sector.

        1. If only he were more buoyant!

  10. OT: Maybe this has already been covered by reason, or in the AM Links comments, but I haven’t seen it. Apologies if this is a re-hash:

    Brian Pagliano invokes the 5th 125 times. I’m sure it’s nothing…

    1. Not even a whiff of corruption!

      1. She’s a “good kid”.

      2. Not even a smidgen of corruption!

        The cupboard is bare!

    2. A federal judge granted discovery, in turn allowing the depositions, which is highly unusual in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. The judge cited “reasonable suspicion” Clinton and her aides were trying to avoid federal records law.

      Well, that’s heartening.

    3. He already struck an immunity deal. He can’t take the 5th.

      Sit him down, ask the questions again, and if he doesn’t answer, lock him him.

      1. It was a deposition in a civil action, so his immunity deal didn’t apply.

        1. I don’t know if that’s the way it works IRL, but if so it makes no sense.

          An immunity deal means your testimony can’t be used against you, regardless of who you give it to. So it shouldn’t matter who you give the testimony to – a civil court/depo, or a criminal court/interrogation.

          1. IANAL, but that was the explanation I heard. Not sure how accurate it is.

    4. As part of his deal he is not tipping the hand of the prosecution.

  11. Where’s that “narrowly tailored” bit in the Constitution?

    1. It’s right next to the “FYTW” clause. And the “legitimate government interest” clause.

      1. I’ve always assumed it was in the “common sensible” preamble somewhere.

    2. it’s contained in the “special section” that you need special glasses to see. it’s sort of like that nick cage movie.

  12. “The University,” Kennedy declared, has “met its burden of showing that the admissions policy it used at the time it rejected petitioner’s application was narrowly tailored.”

    The jurisprudence of accepting something or making an exception to a general rule just because it’s narrowly tailored defies logic. It’s like making 2+2=5 in some special cases. Discrimination on the basis of race is not ok. Except when we do it in this case. See? Narrowly tailored.

  13. I’m not clear why people think that Affirmative Action is such a BFD. Is it because it’s a state school? Is it a problem if Vassar or USC includes race as a criterion for admission?

    1. Some of us here believe that discriminating against people based on the color of their skin is immoral per se. It shows how eccentric we are.

    2. Yea, it’s puzzling why people object to discrimination based on race from what are tax-payer funded schools.

    3. The Bill of Rights sort of, you know, prohibits discrimination based on race. Fought a war to get there.

      1. Actually, that would be one of the later amendments.

      2. You’re confusing the 14th Amendment with laws and statutes that followed from the 1960s.

    4. I think we can all agree that affirmative action at least began with good intentions and even necessary. But today it is an excuse to discriminate but more importantly it is extremely damaging to minorities over long periods of time.

      What affirmative action says to the recipient is you are inferior and need big brother to place you in the booster seat. Intended message or not that is what it is. It is the definition of racist.

      Also, we are a republic and our laws are suppose to protect minorities. Of course this has not always been the case. And gov these days like to use protection of the extreme minorities to further gov power.

      So the question should be, what level of gov interference is acceptable considering the erosive nature affirmative action and other gov programs that have a similar underlying message. Gov will always tell you more is better simply because it increases their power at the expense of the minorities. Yet the numbers of the majority against the minorities could become lopsided without anyone being racist. Hence the best argument for affirmative action.

      Personally, I think affirmative action as a legal issue should fade away. But colleges should take steps in enrollment to counter lopsided student body. I think our laws are strong enough that we don’t need to imply that minorities are inferior.

      1. And yes, affirmative action does conflict with the civil rights act.

      2. I think we can all agree that affirmative action at least began with good intentions and even necessary.

        No!

        A thousand times, No!

        This is why freedom fails. When Big Government thugs rationalize their power, nitwits say “they have good intentions”. No, the desire to rule their neighbors by force is not a good intention.

        Orwell properly accurately identified their intentions.

        George Orwell – 1984

        We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power.

        Power is in inflicting pain and humiliation. Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing. Do you begin to see, then, what kind of world we are creating?

        Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face ? forever.

  14. They’re not going to upset the apple cart.

    Now or ever.

    If you want to upset the apple cart, you need to do it and then ask for forgiveness rather than permission.

    Once state schools start getting rid of their own affirmative action policies and Congress acts to protect them for doing so, then maybe supporting affirmative action will be upsetting the apple cart.

    Until then, it’ll be all “Fuck you, that’s why”.

    1. Some state schools have gotten rid of their own affirmative action policies. They don’t need any protections from congress to do so.

  15. Hopefully this will be what finally drives Asians away from the Democrats.

    1. It could be if the Republicans weren’t completely incompetent.

    2. I see signs that that is already starting to happen.

      1. Like what? Asians having been consistently moving away from the Republican Party to the Democrats the past couple decades. Clinton lost the Asian vote to Bush decisively in 1992, and Obama won it in 2012 by a larger margin than he won among Latinos.

        1. According to some of the stuff published at Reason, that is largely due to the Republicans immigration policy. Even though ostensibly aimed at Latinos, it makes Asians feel nervous (I wonder why, duh). With Trump as the candidate, it’s hard to see a lot of Asians voting R this time around. Might they vote 3rd party? Who knows?

          1. I know, and that’s what I meant by calling them incompetent above. Though that’s probably not a sufficient word in this case.

    3. Asians can be just as obtuse and hidebound as members of any other ethnic group.

      1. “Ethnic group” is not really accurate. I should have just said “group”.

  16. I wonder – can we have quotas against or for people based on religion? I say there’s too many Jews in schools. We need some sort of Jew quota to level the playing field.

    1. Well, diversity of religious philosophy could certainly be argued to enhance the college intellectual experience, at least as much as diversity of skin hue, so why not?

    2. I can only think of one religion currently on the progressive victim stack.

      1. Check your Buddhist privilege?

        1. LOL except all the Buddhists I know are white or Asian.

      2. That’s because it’s the only religion of peace, and is the only religion horribly discriminated against, being blamed for violence and murder when the problem is clearly guns.

  17. I have a question about how the SCOTUS decides a case like this – do they look just at the law/policy and determine its constitutionality at this point, or do they take into account the merits of the plaintiff’s claim?

    I ask because I recall reading somewhere that her grades and test scores were pretty mediocre and that it was far from obvious that she was denied admission due to affirmative action. So I’m curious to know if legally that plays into things at this point.

    1. The SCOTUS ruling is supposed to be about the law, not the plaintiff’s claim.

      They can always send it back to district court to decide on the facts.

      1. I believe appeals court appeal only the law, and not the facts determined by the original court.

        Of course, that’s in theory. In practice, the Supreme Star Chamber does whatever it damn well pleases, and the peasants will take it and like it!

    2. They didn’t rule on whether she shouldn’t have been admitted based on academics. They ruled that it was okay to deny her a place and give preference to a minority based on race.

    3. i’ve read that too, but wouldn’t the case have been dismissed at a lower level if her basic claim was groundless?

      1. Well she has consistently lost her cases. It might be that it’s tough for judges to play pretend admissions officer (especially when they probably couldn’t look at her application in its entirety anyways, let alone everyone else she was competing against) and thus just focus on her claim about the law. Perhaps if they found the law invalid, they then would analyze the merit of her claim.

        1. Consistently losing the cases would usually mean the SCOTUS wouldn’t take the case. They took the case because they thought it had merit. Or because it offered the SCOTUS a grandstanding opportunity.

          1. I’d like to point out that the case was accepted when Scalia was still alive. Admittedly, it would have been a 4-4 decision then, but they may have hoped they could sway Kennedy.

    4. Well, Calidissident, they thoughtfully listen to facts of the case, and then ask themselves how they feel about these facts and whether there is a legal-sounding basis for their feelings about these facts.

      If, in the two-hundred years of case law and hundreds of thousands of laws and academic papers and public opinion, they find some point that agrees with them, then clearly this feels is onto something. *pounds gavel*

      1. And if they don’t find anything… they look at foreign law. And if they still don’t find anything, they say, “Screw it… FYTW.”

        See. They are the last defense of your rights in a representative system. Government works!

  18. When my kids were born I made sure that their birth certificates did not list them as “white.” If this bullshit racial preferences thing is still going on and they want to apply to colleges they can have the choice of listing themselves as “other” and have the paperwork to back it up. I hold no hope that the legislatures or courts will get rid of racial preferences anytime soon, so I think the only real way of fighting back is to subvert it.

    1. The problem is people who never cared about society’s strong de facto racial preferences until those preferences started favoring nonwhites.

      1. This is what Tony actually believes. He really is that stupid and dishonest.

        1. So there were no black people in colleges for hundreds of years because…

          1. Government policy. At least in the South.

            1. Also, historically black Tuskegee University was founded in 1888. In Alabama. Now fuck off.

            2. The evil tyrannical Southern governments imposing their racist policies on the white majority completely against the will of their pure hearts, I’m sure. One wonders why white people were so dumb they kept voting in politicians who didn’t share their totally nonracist worldview.

              1. If government force wasn’t necessary to uniformly enforce discrimination, then why did they need to pass laws to do it?

                HERPA DERPA DERP!

          2. of white affirmative action and diversity quotas?

        2. He’s like a real live straw man.

          There’s so much we can say about progressives around here, that would have been dismissed as a straw man argument without Tony around.

          You can say almost anything about how stupid progressives are on any issue, and there’s a Tony quote somewhere to back it up.

          It’s ingenious really. If some evil genius had stayed up all night trying to think of new ways to discredit the left in the minds of libertarians, he couldn’t have come up with anything better than Tony.

          He’s a never ending source of stupid shit.

          1. The only possible refutation of my claim is that racism in this country never existed, at least until affirmative action came into being.

            1. Since racism has also existed in the past against the Irish, as well as slavery, I, too, am entitled to benefit from affirmative action discrimination, by Tony’s idiotic thinking.

              1. Actually being Irish you should well understand that total integration and thus the end of any need for equality movements or programs is actually achievable, since the Irish are in no way disadvantaged in this country any longer. Which obviously isn’t the case for blacks.

                1. Blacks are actually advantaged by law in this country, idiot.

                2. since the Irish are in no way disadvantaged in this country any longer

                  Bullshit. The BAC for DUI keeps dropping.

                  1. Bullshit. The BAC for DUI keeps dropping.

                    Nicely played.

              2. Nationality has been included in the CRA (1964) since it was first signed, and is a criteria schools can consider in their admissions process.

                So sure. You just have to play it up in your admissions essay like everyone else.

            2. Nope. See above.

        3. Tony has a point. It’s called backlash.

          Power imbalances, and the favored status quo behaves badly because they can. Such imbalances are not generally self-sustaining, and often escalate in nature. And then the imbalance becomes severe enough that people start to notice what complete arsenuggets the favored status quo is. And they fall from favor. The power vacuum is mildly chaotic, and then a new favored group emerges.

          Men were the favored status quo. Now women are, and are behaving very badly, but currently no one cares enough to stop them because the memory of what arsenuggets men were is too fresh in memory.

          Whites were the favored status quo. Now it’s “minorities”. And aren’t they just a pack of arsenuggets themselves. But no one cares, because the memory of those other cunt drippings is still recent.

          Christians. Then gays.

          We’re too busy squabbling over who gets to be the favored demographic to recognize the pattern.

          1. White straight men haven’t stopped being the overwhelmingly favored demographic. I’ll let you know if that changes.

            1. Note to self: There’s no future in throwing a life preserver to someone who slaps it away as not good enough. Let the tit drown.

            2. White straight men haven’t stopped being the overwhelmingly favored demographic. I’ll let you know if that changes.

              Sexual oriention doesn’t appear on the application for [I know where you attended undergrad. I graduated from the same university. Assuming you are the same Tony who has posted here for a number of years, SD.], and you benefited from the same or similar policies.

              Or, did you give up your spot to someone who is not ethnic demography as your progressive religions demand. Nope, you kept you puny, white arsed, skinny boy little spot, instead of giving it up to an ethnic minority.

              Why didn’t you give up your spot at that moderately selective, private uni, hmmmm? One that (erroneously) prides itself on “hate whitey” diversity – yet the vast student body is still majority white.

              1. Edit: “…not your ethnic demography…”

              2. Because like everyone else, I’m a selfish cunt who couldn’t give a shit if someone else succeeds, and in fact would prefer if they didn’t so that I could step over them and take their place, why do you think?

                But if a university wants to consider the racial diversity of their student body when considering two otherwise equally qualified applicants, seems like as good a reason as any to pick the black one over the white one. They’ve been throwing the black applications in the trash for centuries, and I’d be a real cunt if I only started caring about racial selectiveness once it started hypothetically affecting my people.

                1. Then you should give back your worthless degree, since you conceivably deprived another student, like say, from Booker T Wash, a spot at [allegedly diverse, white majority uni].

                  You’re a real cunt, Tony, because, I told you this years ago, you will not hold *YOURSELF* to the same standards you hold others.

                  You should find the nearest ethnic minority and give your Grievance Studies degree, with interest, since I doubt you’ll give up your marginally swanky apartment for someone else’s 40 acres and mule.

                  You truly disgust me, with your petulant smugness. I hope you smart off to the wrong person in Blue Dome whilst partying away… shame if you kissed the concrete or something equally unpleasant because you were clumsy and didn’t watch where you were going.

                  1. you will not hold *YOURSELF* to the same standards you hold others.

                    That’s the first requirement of all authoritarians.

                  2. Reread my post and stop being so emotional. Nobody, not even the most insufferable preening liberal, should be expected to sacrifice his own self-interest for an abstract value like diversity. That’s why we have policies. Nobody’s entitled to a spot at a university. If there’s only room for one of two equally qualified applicants, their only difference being race, how do you propose admissions people decide between them? And no cop-out rules changing like “they wouldn’t really be equally qualified.” Is the school not entitled to consider racial diversity as a virtue in admissions? Should government dictate to it that it must not do so?

                    BTW unlike you I don’t have strong feelings on this matter. I’m just arguing the case. Why don’t you have a drink before you hurt your face in a fit of irrational rage. It’s noon somewhere.

                    1. Nobody, not even the most insufferable preening liberal, should be expected to sacrifice his own self-interest for an abstract value like diversity.

                      This is *precisely* what you have argued for years for every other group *except* for insufferable preening [progressives] (sorry, you’re not a liberal).

                      I’m not the least bit emotional with you. I escaped, and the only ones who control my fate are the Medical Board, IRS/FATCA, and my VISA status, and of course me.

                      If there’s only room for one of two equally qualified applicants, their only difference being race, how do you propose admissions people decide between them?

                      Ah, this is a good question, and I’ll accept the it on good faith (for the first time in years). The answer is either accept both (approved course overloads are done all the time) or simply accept neither for the current semester application, and hold them over, guaranteed, for the next semester. Since they applied first, and were accepted, that’s two slots down for the next admissions class. Or, one student agrees to be accepted for the applied semester, and the other agrees to later, but guaranteed admission next semester.

                      Or, if you’re feeling like Solomon, a tie breaking exam of some sort, and see how that baby is cut.

                    2. We must all submit to rules and laws that may not coincide with our immediate personal self-interest. That’s not the special domain of progressives. Do you get all puffed up over policies that encourage legacy admissions? Or is that kind of affirmative action somehow not an affront to your sensibilities?

                      Except for the ones that change the rules I set down, your solutions aren’t bad. The problem with not considering race is that it is scientifically known that race is considered regardless. In the absence of AA, the white kid would most likely get picked. It’s fallacious not to realize that pro-white affirmative action has been the overwhelming norm in this country, not just in college admissions, but in every institution everywhere, for its entire existence. Ignoring it doesn’t make it go away, an because it’s the status quo doesn’t make it just.

                    3. The problem with not considering race is that it is scientifically known that race is considered regardless. In the absence of AA, the white kid would most likely get picked.

                      So, Tony is saying two things here:
                      1. Tony has no idea what science actually is; and
                      2. University admissions offices, dominated by progressives like himself, are so overtly racist they will always pick a white kid over anybody else.

                      What an idiot. And I would like to see some of these pro-white affirmative action policies you claim are so prevalent. Actual policies, nit just your usual unsupported hysterical lies.

                    4. Is the school not entitled to consider racial diversity as a virtue in admissions? Should government dictate to it that it must not do so?

                      So you would have no problem with the school choosing the white man in that case in order to promote the traditional values of Western civilization and culture, if that was what the goals of the school were? Or are the schools only “entitled” to push in one (progtard) direction?

                2. good enough for me but not for thee?

                3. I’m a selfish cunt who couldn’t give a shit if someone else succeeds, and in fact would prefer if they didn’t so that I could step over them and take their place,

                  Tony actually believes that for him to succeed, someone else has to fail.. He actually thinks life is a zero-sum game. What a fucktard.

            3. White straight men haven’t stopped being the overwhelmingly favored demographic.

              Legally, of course, white straight men are uniquely disadvantaged. That is about the only group left that doesn’t enjoy legal privileges based on their race or sex.

              Somehow, the uniquely disadvantaged group on our legal system is the group that is overwhelmingly favored.

              1. Not only do they not enjoy legal privileges based on their race or sex, they are the only group where it is legal and, in some cases such as government contracting required, to be discriminated against.

                But according to idiots like Tony that’s privilege.

              2. That’s true only if you ignore the fact that the entirety of society and almost all of its institutions were built to serve the interests of white straight men. Give me a break for once, dude.

                1. That’s true only if you ignore the fact that the entirety of society and almost all of its institutions were built to serve the interests of white straight men.

                  You really need to learn the difference between “fact” and your idiot opinion. Christ, you are a dishonest shit.

      2. Those people are dead.

        1. You inherited their privilege and there’s nothing you can do to change that, don’t you get it?

        2. I just commented to one.

          1. This person would have to be at least 70 years old now to have been able to vote in 1964 and if he were that age and voting then, he almost certainly was in favor of civil rights. Not many 90-year-olds commenting here.

          2. Idiot, you are one.

      3. *Need cite showing that ‘society’ has any preferences at all, let alone towards race

          1. Yes. Really.

            1. The fact that the slaves were all black was just a huge coincidence, I suppose.

              1. What the fuck kind of idiocy is that? No, of course it wasn’t a coincidence. Because even the most enlightened people of the time thought that all non-whites (and even some whites) were inferior.

                1. And even in the year 2016 there are lasting effects of that worldview. Or do you explain the differing social metrics of whites and blacks some other way?

                  1. Or do you explain the differing social metrics of whites and blacks some other way?

                    Then why do modern black immigrants from places like Kenya and Nigeria do much better than American blacks? Even better on average than whites? It can’t be skin color in that case, can it? Maybe it’s the social pathologies inflicted on blacks by progressive policies of government dependency? Combined with the soft bigotry of low expectations? Nah, that couldn’t be it.

                    “I’ll have the niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years”
                    – LBJ regarding the Great Society programs

                    1. Um, recent black immigrants doing better than native-born black descendants of slaves proves my point, not yours. People who choose to immigrate here often do well, as a self-selected group crossing oceans. And progressive policies do not single out native blacks for special treatment.

                    2. Idiot, it proves that being black in color does not result in being discriminated against and is not a disadvantage. Try thinking for a change instead of emoting.

                    3. It’s not just about being actively discriminated against, it’s about the collection of disadvantages that come from many generations of your ancestors being discriminated against as well. Despite capitalist myths, almost everybody will grow up in roughly the same social class as their parents. What does that tell you about the prospects of a racial underclass that still suffers from the overt discrimination it always has?

                    4. Idiot, at the end of the 19th century, Irish and Italians were no considered ‘white’ and were heavily discriminated against and lived in grinding poverty. After a few generations that was no longer the case. Your lie that almost everybody will grow up in roughly the same social class as their forbears is easily disproved by historical fact, shit for brains. Stop locking in poverty by creating and perpetuating a permanent underclass of dependency with your progressive Great Society policies designed to keep the party of government dependency in power. Racist evil fucktard.

              2. All slaves were not all black. Throughout history, there were more white slaves than black slaves. Moron. Yes, even Irish slaves.

                1. The Irish slaves? Are you fucking serious? I’m going to be generous and assume you’re a victim of white supremacist bullshit propaganda and not knowingly spreading it.

                2. Curiously, black slave owners never seem to make it into these discussions.

                  “…all of the slaves were black…”

                  *facepalm*

                  1. The ejit does not realize that there were a substantial number of white slaves in the colonies as well as a large slave trade in European slaves going on at the same time in North Africa.

                    1. Any other libertarians care to endorse this facebook meme that white supremacists have taken for history and a convenient equivalency to the African slave trade?

                  2. Tony also believes white people trapped Africans like wild animals and brought them to America to be enslaved.

                    1. Libertarians are never going to get anywhere as long as they keep tolerating the tired bullshit babbling of white nationalists.

                    2. Yes, the only way to get anywhere is to deny reality and promote racial discrimination, like Tony and the rest of the left.

      4. The problem is people who never cared about society’s strong de facto racial preferences until those preferences started favoring nonwhites.

        RRRRRRETARD.

    2. Just tell them to self-identify as black. Because self-identifying as something you biologically are not is accepted by the government now.

      1. I should be able to self-identify into the tax bracket of my choosing.

    3. I am at the most 1/32nd Mexican with a bit of Spanish Basque, so I checked the Hispanic box on all my applications. If they want to perpetuate racism, I will use it to my ends, and if they think I am lying, Fuck them too.

      1. Well, Hispanic isn’t actually a race anyway, so I don’t see how they could show you were lying. Fuck, you’re more Hispanic than Lieawatha is Indian.

        1. Aren’t we all of African descent?

          They get around that with some weasel words, however.

      2. I’m 128th black. It’s enough for the KKK but is that enough for proggies??

    4. WTF do birth certificates list race anyhow? I don’t think mine does. Just parents name, address, their birthplaces, time and location of birth and the attending physician.

    1. Hmm, I seem to have misplaced my shocked face.

      1. You can borrow mine 😐

  19. So to be clear, universities can discriminate but bakers can’t.

    1. Exactly. Because, fairness.

    2. There are some laws meant to discourage overt discrimination, but the SCOTUS gave the nod to “holistic” admissions processes that include race while banning quotas (the distinction between Affirmative Actions and quotas is important) years ago.

      At the same time, the SCOTUS considered it’s first public accomodation case in 1964, the same year the CRA (1964) was signed into law. At that time, they refused to strike it down, and have similarly refrained from doing so in the decades since.

      Why do people act like this stuff is new?

      1. Who is complaining that it’s new? The problem is not that it’s new or old, the problem is that it’s wrong.

        1. If you say “to be clear”, that presupposes that it wasn’t previously clear.

          That said, this comment section is full of people confused on the differences between affirmative action and quotas, why public accommodations laws don’t apply, and what the limits the SCOTUS has placed on school admissions policies are.

  20. We have to let universities define “the intangible characteristics” of their applicants. You know like making sure they are not Asian or some white trash evangelical. Like that.

    1. It’s a fucking state school. It’s not a social experiment.

      1. That is what I thought. But I am not some fucking Supreme Court top man. So what do I know?

        1. The left’s goalpost shifting is never ending. First, we have to set up state schools because the mean Old Money won’t let otherwise qualified individuals into the uppity schools. Ok, whatever, sure. Then we have to have affirmative action because the mean Old Racists running the schools won’t let otherwise qualified non-whites into the state schools. Ok, whatever, sure.

          Now we have to maintain affirmative action 50+ years later because if we don’t, then unqualified individuals won’t be able to hold poetry slams and conduct protests and that lack of “diversity” would make the liberals in their lily-white enclaves feel bad. WTF

          1. Their position boils down to claiming that the admissions officials at these schools are so racist that they can’t be trusted to give minorities a fair chance without mandating they admit a set number of minorities. Really?

      2. “I’m a doctor, not a diesel mechanic, Jim!”

        /McCoy

      3. It’s a fucking state school. It’s not a social experiment.

        FTFY

    2. You want government to mandate that universities can’t consider diversity in their admissions. Anything else you think government should be dictating to universities?

      1. Just apply the wedding cake test to them. You seem to like that one.

      2. Only government schools. Private schools can consider anything they want.

      3. The state sponsored universities are theoreticslly mandated not to use a quality like race in admissions. Kennedy just trashed equal protection, but in a progressive fashion, unprincipled.

  21. “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” George Orwell

  22. Can I just declare myself black like I can declare myself a women?

    1. Are you a white man?

      If so, no. You may identify as a white woman, but not as a black man.

      1. Why not? Shaun did, and he’s whiter than I am.

        1. Identify as a Native American.

          You’ll get a position at Harvard and a seat in the Senate.

    2. Shaun King does, and Rico quotes him as an authority on race relations. Have at, I say.

    3. “[…] like I can declare myself a women?”
      Sure, why not?

      Transwomen and transmen are very aware of the longterm consequences of their choices to transition, and often have years of therapy starting to transition full time. By the time they seek legal recognition (be it on birth certificate, driver’s license, whatever) they often are quite versed in the social and economic consequences.

      If you’re willing to put that degree of effort into your transition into a black person, I say go for it. But like transwomen, you should do so with your eyes wide open and knowing the social scorn you’re likely to receive, and the likliy economic harms that will come to you as well.

      Or, to put it in other words: you reap what you sow. Trans folk, to a one, decide that it’s worth the cost. Will you?

      1. There is no legal or even administrative requirement for any amount of effort at all to be documented in deciding you are trans. So why should there be for anything else?

        1. There is no legal or even administrative requirement for any amount of effort at all to be documented in deciding you are trans.
          At the federal level, sure.
          At the state level? It’s a pretty big mess that often requires judges, doctors and DMVs (oh my!).

      2. But I just need to do it when applying for college, after that I will have a relapse. Who is to say that is not the real me?

        1. Who is to say that is not the real me?
          Looking at trans folk, as you suggested we do… lots of people.

          So go for it, if you think it’s worth it. But you should have realistic expectations to what people will expect of you before they accept your identity, and realistic expectations of how you’ll be treated differently.

      3. I’m gender and race fluid, baby.

        When I want to check out women in the gym showers, I’m a woman. A non-op trans lesbian woman.

        When I want to get into law school, I’m black. Maybe that trans lesbian woman stuff too. That might be good for a few more points.

  23. All we need to see is the results – unqualified students struggling to keep up, trying to change the grading systems when they fail, dumb down the curriculum, screeching out on the commons about some asinine issue boiled up their heads, and – ultimately – the now “qualified” people who have a scrap of paper to join the ranks of the bureaucracies and NGO’s to further their asinine causes. The whole result of affirmative action as NOT to raise up and to give opportunities, it was sow into the corridors of power those who are radicalized and unqualified – to inject into positions of power they otherwise would not have had. And, as always, it HARMS actual minorities who are qualified on their own merits.

    1. It does harm actual minorities. And there is a minority on the court, Clearance Thomas, who experienced first hand how it harms minorities. His problem wasn’t that he wasn’t qualified. It was that everyone assumed he wasn’t thanks to affirmative action.

      So, here we have people who claim that there is value in having people of different races in an institution because they bring their experiences and perspectives which otherwise wouldn’t be heard, ignoring the experiences and perspectives of the lone black member of the court. It is almost as if they don’t actually believe anything they say.

      1. Clarence Thomas isn’t a Democrat so he’s not a real black. If he were a Democrat he’d be a real black.

      2. This is exactly correct. When the criteria for admissions are different based on race, your own actual qualifications as a minority applicant don’t matter, only the difference in minimum qualifications between race. Every single step of the way up from that appoint is assumed to be a paternal gift from your racial betters. There is nothing more do condescendingly racist than affirmative action- I much prefer the honesty of those who are vocally racist than the smug asshat progressives that only want to help.

        1. I hate autocorrect.

      3. Clarence Thomas is the world’s most successful beneficiary of affirmative action, wtf are you talking about?

        1. Look, I’m sure this talking point served you well for 20 years but Sonia Sotomayor has been on the Court for 7 years now.

          1. She’s up there too, but Thomas got Republican-style AA, meaning qualification for the job was secondary. Much like Sarah Palin. I’ve always said they do this in order to prove themselves right about the perils of AA.

            1. There is no metric that puts Sotomayor ahead of Thomas except for experience in criminal court, by which metric she alone is the only qualified Justice on the Court. And that’s not a very good metric, since the SCOTUS also deals with civil cases.

              1. All right, qualified on paper. But he doesn’t seem to take the job seriously.

                1. Thomas does not take the job seriously?

                  Are you kidding?

                  He seems to be perhaps the most thoughtful justice that has been on the court during his tenure.

                2. But he doesn’t seem to take the job seriously.

                  He’s written numerous Opinions of the Court and numerous Dissents. To say he doesn’t take the job seriously would be to say none of them do.

                3. “Qualified on paper” means qualified you dolt.

                  But, come on, come right out and say it – he doesn’t vote the way he “should” because of his skin color. You really are a piece of shit, Tony.

                  1. It was wrong of me to compare Clarence Thomas to Sarah Palin. I’ve seen Thomas in the social sphere, and he’s certainly no idiot, at least for a right-wing radical.

        2. No, He has been the victim of affirmative action because racists like you assume that any successful black man is only that way because of affirmative action.

          If we could trust people like you to not be such racists, affirmative action might not be so harmful. But sadly, there will always be racists like you out there and affirmative action will always been harmful to successful black people as a result.

          1. Is that how I think? People like me are the ones who call Barack Obama an affirmative action president, despite the fact that he was, you know, elected?

            I simply can’t wrap my head around the claim that Clarence Thomas, a supreme court justice, one of the most powerful people on earth, was negatively affected by affirmative action. I don’t mean to sound like a conservative asshat when I say that he wouldn’t be in that job if he were white, and I think we can all agree on that.

            1. Holy shit, you really are a racist fuck.

            2. That is exactly how you think, otherwise you wouldn’t think of a person as successful as Thomas as “an affirmative action beneficiary”.

              1. That’s just an obvious fact. Would he have been appointed if he were not black? Be honest.

                1. Because other than being black you think he is unqualified? In spite of all evidence to the contrary? You really are a racist shit, aren’t you?

                  1. I’m just saying he got pretty far in life because he was black, at least the last time he was up for a job. He could choose not to have a giant chip on his shoulder about it. I’m sure Justice Sotomayor knows her race was a factor too, but she doesn’t seem to mind.

                    1. This is why progressives think their ideological opponents are racist, it’s because progressives are racists. It really is projection with these idiots.

        3. You sound like are asserting Thomas would not be where he is if it weren’t for Affirmative Action. Anyone who is able to take advantage of AA to displace a competitor is just not capable enough to get where they are otherwise.

        4. Point proven. Smug, condescending, racist assbags like you absolutely need affirmative action to stand, because otherwise you may be forced to admit that some blacks and Hispanics might just be smarter than you. As long as it exists, you can live in that shallow little cesspool in your head where, in your heart of hearts, you just know “those people” would never make it without your benevolent help.

          1. Just because George Bush (R) appointed Thomas using obvious race-based affirmative action doesn’t mean you have to abandon your critique of affirmative action.

            1. Nothing you just said has even the remotest relevance in response to my post. Also, you seem to be making assumptions without actual fact, which is a common symptom of progressivitis. Unfortunately, the only cure for what ails you is a serious case of the deadsies.

            2. Because we know dem darkies could nebbah be on de Supremes courts widout da affirmatib actions, right Tony? you racist little shit.

              1. It is a matter of historical fact that Thomas was selected because he is black, as he was replacing Justice Marshall. This is not controversial. It is funny to watch you guys turn into anti-racist bleeding hearts once the subject is a conservative Republican, though.

                1. And by historical “fact” Tony means his retarded opinion. What an asshole.

        5. Wow, the rent-boy drops the mask and reveals his racism!

          -jcr

        6. Actually Thomas is the only Justice who has demonstrated that he can read the Constitution without hallucinating.

  24. Bumblefuck is on the teevee responding to the SCOTUS rulings. I don’t think the man has ever given a speech that didn’t have me yelling at the television. Sure as shit, inside the first half minute I was yelling at the television.

    1. When the Court does what he demands, it is all about the majesty of the courts and how only a fascist racist would ever question its judgement.

      1. “majesty of the courts”

        That reminds me of an old joke:

        Layman – “What is the hardest part of being a lawyer?”

        Lawyer – “Forcing myself to say ‘Your Honor’.”

    2. Barack “tony” Oabama

  25. Kevin D. Williamson ?@KevinNR 2h2 hours ago
    “Libertarians for Presidential Rule-by-Decree.” It is a smallish caucus.

    Kevin D. Williamson added,
    Robby Soave @robbysoave
    As a libertarian, I’m one of very few ppl who wanted the Supreme Court to strike down affirmative action but uphold the immigration plan
    7 retweets 21 likes

    1. Ends. Means. Justification.

      1. Or as the kids say these days “give me my pony!!”

    2. As a libertarian I believe our government has a duty (one of few duties) to secure our border and tightly regulate immigration.

      1. The government is a gun. Any who votes gets to point that gun at you head.

        I have yet to see any Reason writer make the argument that the US will be more free by importing Big Government voters.

        Both Hispanics and Muslims want bigger government by over 3 to 1 margins. See PEW Research.

  26. “A university is in large part defined by those intangible ‘qualities which are incapable of objective measurement but which make for greatness,'” Justice Kennedy wrote today.
    The constitution is clearly a threat to intangible greatness. This shall not stand.

    1. Because intangible qualities.

      BIQ

      That might catch on. Easier to type than BFYTW.

  27. The whole point will be moot before too long. Universities are pricing themselves out of the reach of all but the elites and those that do manage to graduate become less useful every year. As more and more businesses focus on in house training and certifications/licenses, I think that higher education will revert to its pre-modern concept of being a path to “enlightenment” for the wealthy. It will be interesting to see how the more intense professions, such as doctors or lawyers, adjust to the shift.

    1. Universities are pricing themselves out of the reach of all but the elites and those that do manage to graduate become less useful every year.

      Doesn’t matter how useful they are, it matters whether you can get a job without them.

  28. I quit my 9 to 5 job and now I am getting paid 100usd hourly. How? I work-over internet! My old work was making me miserable, so I was forced to try-something NEW. After two years, I can say my life is changed-completely for the better! Learn More From This Site..

    ======> http://www.Today70.com

  29. So, the SCOTUS rules that racism is still legal.

    1. They said Race is one of the criteria. Not the only criteria.

      I doubt the plaintiff in this case was denied entry because she is white.

      If she could argue that all of the black/latino kids that got in are dumber than her, perhaps she would have a case.

      1. Race should not be even one criteria. A little racism is better than a lot, but it’s still not acceptable, especially in a government/taxpayer funded institution.

      2. If she could argue that all of the black/latino kids that got in are dumber than her, perhaps she would have a case.

        Seems to me that giving just one person your place in line because of race is racism.

    2. They said Race is one of the criteria. Not the only criteria.

      I doubt the plaintiff in this case was denied entry because she is white.

      If she could argue that all of the black/latino kids that got in are dumber than her, perhaps she would have a case.

      1. If she could argue that all of the black/latino kids that got in are dumber than her, perhaps she would have a case.

        One, not all. But that still assumes that “not being dumb” is the sole or at least primary criterion. Given how multifaceted their admissions process is, it seems that they could argue that the black/Latino kids “dumber” than her (if there were any) who were admitted were chosen on the basis of other criteria that she doesn’t exceed them on. Although a serious judge would at least make them demonstrate those facts.

        The real question is why should a state university be engaged in this bullshit, and the answer ultimately is because that’s what the voters want, or at least, will allow.

    3. The *right kind* of racism is not only still legal, it is often mandatory.

  30. I’m sick and tired of the Affirmative Action argument. No law is going to make a bunch of racist white people like black people. PERIOD.

    Public Colleges should have no other criteria than academic merit. Private Colleges should be able to admit and deny whomever.

    For Public Colleges, only use the SAT scores. And, if there are 100 seats for Freshman year, the top 100 grades get in. Fuck the chess club and sports.

    1. I wouldn’t get too married to SAT scores. The College Board can be gamed just like UT’s admissions office. Not that it hasn’t been already.

    2. I’m sick and tired of the Affirmative Action argument. No law is going to make a bunch of racist white people like black people. PERIOD.

      Why are only whites racist? Actually, if any group has most standing to be angry, I would say all those Asian kids who make the grade, but are denied admission under these same arcane laws, should bitch the most. I imagine many Latino folks might be a little ticked, too. And every one of those groups have the capacity (and quite a few are) to be just as racist as you contend whites are.

      I hope you don’t subcribe to the, “Only whites are racist, every one else is pure, oppressed, and shits gold,” mantra that Hazel “Rachel Dolezal” Meade is always spouting.

      1. That’s not what I said Maximus.

        I’m sick and tired of the Affirmative Action argument. No law is going to make a bunch of racist white people like black people. PERIOD.

        I’m referring to racist white people. Not all whites. Nor did I make claims that whites are the only racists people in the world.

        Racist white people do exists. So do racist black people. I think after a few hundred years of the shit black people have gone through, I’m not the least bit surprised that they are racist.

  31. Affirmative action is not a situation in which a school picks the brights white kids and the dumbest black kids you know.

    When you take the State Bar, the Medical Certification tests, CPA, CFA, etc., there is no grade for black people.

    So, if a black kid was able to get through college and pass one of these tests, he may not be that dumb.

    1. First, the bar and CPA passage rate among black students is much lower than among white students. So, clearly they are picking some people who are not qualified.

      Beyond that, you are in one sense correct. They don’t choose really unqualified minorities. That, however, doesn’t mean what you think it does. What it means is that the people who benefit from affirmative action are not as a general rule the people who need a leg up. The kids living in East St. Louis and Anacostia, Maryland are not getting into the University of Texas as a general rule even with affirmative action. The kids who benefit from affirmative action are middle and upper middle class blacks. And it doesn’t allow them to go to college where they otherwise would not have. It allows them to get into a better college than they otherwise would have under an objective system.

      So what is really going on here is disguised classism. Liberals do not support this because of any concern for black people. They support this because they don’t want their little snowflakes to have to go to college with too many Asians or middle class white kids and would prefer they go to school with black kids who are of their class. They create this system so the rich black kids can get into the same schools as their class peers and no one is stuck having to go to school with too many Asians and whites from the wrong class.

      1. I’d love to see the citation on the CPA and BAR results.

        1. While more than 95 percent of whites passed the bar exam on the first try, only 61.4 percent of African-American students did so, according to a 1998 study by the Law School Admissions Council.

          http://www.nationaljurist.com/…..-challenge

          gooogle is your friend.

      2. You started strong, John, but it’s comforting to see you descend into your usual conspiracy theorizing so incoherent it doesn’t even try to explain anything actually happening (yeah, white parents are really angling for their kids to be surrounded by black people). But you’re onto something important when you talk about how the really disadvantaged black kids start that way at birth and have extreme difficulty getting out of the cycle by the time they graduate high school. That’s why progressives favor a litany of programs to boost the welfare of poor blacks long before college admissions age.

        1. Tony you are a typical white person who has likely never known any actual disadvantaged black person. If you had, you would realize the absurdity of thinking they will somehow benefit from affirmative action at top universities. There is a very large black middle and upper class in this country. Poor black students are just as disadvantage competing against rich black students as poor white students are competing against rich white students. So if you set aside so many admission slots to black students, the middle and upper class black students are going to be far more likely to take advantage of that than poor blacks.

          So what affirmative action does, is eliminate the slots that middle and poor Asian students would get and gives them to mostly upper class black students. And that is by design.

          1. It’s not by design, as liberal AA proponents recognize and are dealing with that very issue. But it’s scientifically known that all else being equal a black person fares worse in things like college admissions and getting hired for a job. (Women also are disadvantaged on the latter, so says science.)

            There is a conundrum here. We could take off people’s names and photos from admissions papers. But then the university is not considering actual human beings, but a collection of factoids about them. It’s not automatically best for universities to be limited to an anonymous set of test scores and club memberships that may be inherently flawed as a metric for achieving the universities’ goals.

            I appreciate the John Roberts line about how we should end racial discrimination by not discriminating based on race, but obviously that’s a naive view. We wouldn’t need to go to the trouble of considering racial diversity as a virtue and coming up with programs to promote it if your ideological forebears hadn’t spent such an absurd amount of effort trying to keep the races separate and black people an underclass.

            1. it’s scientifically known

              If you define “scientifically” to mean “having no connection whatsoever to the scientific method”, then sure.

              1. Tony fucking loves “science”. Which has no connection whatsoever to actual science.

            2. if your ideological forebears hadn’t spent such an absurd amount of effort trying to keep the races separate and black people an underclass.

              That’s rich coming from someone who supports the Democratic party which makes a living off of fomenting racial separatism and animosity and keeping black people an underclass.

            3. So because of historic racism, rich black kids should get into the best schools over more qualified middle class and poor Asian and white kids.

              Yeah tony that makes a lot of sense. Nothing says justice like the politics of senseless and irrational revenge.

              1. When did I say that economic class shouldn’t also be considered?

        2. yeah, white parents are really angling for their kids to be surrounded by black people

          Let me summarize John’s point in a way even you can understand:

          You would rather spend time around someone like Barack Obama than around the family from Duck Dynasty.

          1. Well that’s certainly true but it has nothing to do with race.

            1. Well that’s certainly true but it has nothing to do with race.

              WHOOSH

              1. Tony really is that stupid.

        3. That’s why progressives favor a litany of programs to boost the welfare of poor blacks long before college admissions age.

          No, progressives favor a litany of programs which keep poor blacks in a state of dependency and failure in order to benefit the party of government dependence and keep that party in power.

          1. And what is it about black people that makes them so susceptible to this victimization? It’s not like social welfare programs are only there for black people. In fact, the only reason we have social welfare programs at all is because white people were originally assured that black people wouldn’t get in on any of them!

            1. “I’ll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years.” Lyndon Baines Johnson about the Great Society

              Why do you think he said that, Tony?

              1. So that white nationalists could have a partisan talking point, surely.

                1. And also, LBJ never said that.

  32. That’s why progressives favor a litany of programs to boost the welfare of poor blacks long before college admissions age.

    And have failed miserably, that’s why they are still pushing affirmative action.

    1. The programs haven’t failed their real purpose, which is to create a state of perpetual dependency on government in order to ensure the power of the party of government dependency. The stated purpose of those programs is obvious bullshit.

  33. The liberal assumption behind affirmative action reminds me of their ideas about rape and college campus. They assume college admissions are too racist to voluntarily allow qualified minorities into the college. So government must step in to expose more minorities to the rampant racism in secondary education. Just like we need taxpayers to pay for more women to attend college so 1 in 5 can be raped.

  34. So, to sum up –

    (a) Affirmative action is absolutely essential and without it universities would have no minorities (unless you could icky Asians and Jews)

    but

    (b) Affirmative action has little actual effect, and really it’s only one small part of a big picture, and Fisher might have been rejected even *without* affirmative action.

    Have I got that right?

  35. i’m told by supporters of the decision that if she were black, she wouldn’t have sued in the first place. in fact, if she were black, she would’ve been mocked for even wanting to go to college in the first place.

    i’m going to take my white privilege and go to starbucks now…and i don’t even like coffee.

  36. Just got an email from UVA’s president crowing about the decision.

  37. And sure enough, the exact same justices who ruled (in the gay marriage case) that everyone should be treated equally, turned right around and ruled (in this affirmative action case) that…well…we didn’t really mean EQUAL equal. Some can be a little “more equal” than others.

  38. “The University,” Kennedy declared, has “met its burden of showing that the admissions policy it used at the time it rejected petitioner’s application was narrowly tailored.”

    The University’s racism was narrowly tailored to target whites. Probably Asians too. And Jews. Because they all deserve it.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.