Y’all are in here acting like the world is ending. The Supreme Court just said “No, the Constitution makes clear that you can’t use that specific tool. Use another”.
It did NOT say, for instance: “you can never implement any policy whose outcome is a student body whose racial diversity reflects that of the society”. Just that the policy can’t achieve that outcome by approving or denying students based on their race. You think there’s not room to move within that?
I support the intention behind affirmative action, and I want to live in a world where race predicts as little as possible about your life, but I can’t disagree with Roberts when he says AA is discrimination on the basis of race. And I can’t argue with anyone who says this kind of discrimination is not constitutional (when federal authority OR funding is involved).
And you’ll find me on the left side of most SCOTUS decisions, but I don’t buy the arguments from the dissenting justices, specifically that the court is obliged to keep allowing an unconstitutional practice in order to (my paraphrasing) keep the racial mix of our future leaders balanced. I understand what they mean when they say that, and I agree diversity is important in leaders. It is not the job of the Supreme Court to make this happen.
Unpopular(?) left-center opinion incoming:
Y’all are in here acting like the world is ending. The Supreme Court just said “No, the Constitution makes clear that you can’t use that specific tool. Use another”.
It did NOT say, for instance: “you can never implement any policy whose outcome is a student body whose racial diversity reflects that of the society”. Just that the policy can’t achieve that outcome by approving or denying students based on their race. You think there’s not room to move within that?
I support the intention behind affirmative action, and I want to live in a world where race predicts as little as possible about your life, but I can’t disagree with Roberts when he says AA is discrimination on the basis of race. And I can’t argue with anyone who says this kind of discrimination is not constitutional (when federal authority OR funding is involved).
And you’ll find me on the left side of most SCOTUS decisions, but I don’t buy the arguments from the dissenting justices, specifically that the court is obliged to keep allowing an unconstitutional practice in order to (my paraphrasing) keep the racial mix of our future leaders balanced. I understand what they mean when they say that, and I agree diversity is important in leaders. It is not the job of the Supreme Court to make this happen.