Showing posts with label affirmative action. Show all posts
Showing posts with label affirmative action. Show all posts

Tuesday, April 22, 2014

SCOTUS Upholds Michigan's Affirmative Action Ban 6-2, Sotomayor Vociferously Dissents


On Tuesday, the United States Supreme Court issued a curious 6-2 ruling upholding the constitutionality of a Michigan ballot measure which precludes the use of "race-based preferences" in public education. The majority opinion by Anthony Kennedy went out of its way to say that it was not ruling on the constitutionality of race-based affirmative action policies but on whether voters had the power to ban affirmative action policies.

New York Times reports:
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s controlling opinion for three justices took pains to say that the decision was a modest one. 
“This case is not about how the debate about racial preferences should be resolved,” he wrote, in an opinion joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. “It is about who may resolve it. There is no authority in the Constitution of the United States or in this court’s precedents for the judiciary to set aside Michigan laws that commit this policy determination to the voters.” 
His announcement of the decision from the bench was businesslike. Then Justice Sotomayor summarized her dissent, an unusual move signaling deep displeasure. She said the initiative put minorities to a burden not faced by other college applicants and so violated the Constitution’s equal protection clause. 
“The Constitution does not protect racial minorities from political defeat,” she wrote. “But neither does it give the majority free rein to erect selective barriers against racial minorities.” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined the dissent. Justice Sotomayor seemed to mock one of Chief Justice Roberts’s most memorable lines. In a 2007 decision that limited the use of race in public school systems, he wrote, “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” 
Justice Sotomayor recast the line. “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race,” she wrote, “is to speak openly and candidly on the subject of race, and to apply the Constitution with eyes open to the unfortunate effects of centuries of racial discrimination.”
The result is significant for California, because the Golden State is one of 7 where voters have passed ballot measures banning affirmative action based on race (or gender) in public education. California's measure is called Proposition 209 and an attempt to place a repeal on the November 2014 ballot was abandoned earlier this year after Asian constituents expressed their displeasure with the idea of allowing UCLA and UC Berkeley to be allowed to take race into account when deciding who gets admitted to California's top state universities.

This is not surprising, because figures that came out this week show that Asians are a plurality (36.2%) of all admitted students from California to the University of California, with Latinos (28.8%) surpassing Whites (26.8) for the first time this year. Black students made up a paltry 4.2% of the total number of admitted California students.

SCOTUS blog reports on how strongly Justice Sonia Sotomayor attempted to convince her colleagues that what they were doing in allowing the majority to ban policies intended to help minorities was wrong:
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who recited orally from the bench a lengthy version of her dissenting opinion, said the ruling would make it much harder for racial minorities to defend affirmative action programs.  What had happened in Michigan, she protested, was “the last chapter of discrimination” — changing “the basic rules of the political process in that state in a manner that uniquely disadvantaged racial minorities.” 
The Sotomayor opinion, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, ran to fifty-eight pages – surpassing by more than three times the length of the lead opinion by Justice Kennedy and even exceeding the forty-four pages that all of her colleagues had written.
Viva Sonia!

Wednesday, March 19, 2014

CA State Senate Abandons Attempt To Restore Race-Conscious College Admissions


Bad news today out of the Democratic state senate, where a state constitutional amendment that would place a partial repeal of Proposition 209 on the November 2014 ballot has been tabled. Proposition 209 passed in 1996 and banned the use of race, ethnicity or gender in public education, public contracts or public employment. The state senate had passed SCA 5 by a vote of 27 to 9 on January 30, 2014.

Speaker John Perez (and State Controller candidate) announced today that the Assembly would not consider the measure. According to the San Jose Mercury-News Asian-American state senators switched from support to opposition due to pressure from the community.
Last week, saying they had received thousands of calls and emails from constituents, senators Leland Yee, D-San Francisco; Ted Lieu, D-Torrance; and Carol Liu, D-La Cañada/Flintridge asked Assembly Speaker John Perez to stop the bill. 
"As lifelong advocates for the Asian-American and other communities, we would never support a policy that we believed would negatively impact our children," they wrote in a letter to Perez. 
In 1996, California became the first state to outlaw affirmative action in public university admissions and state hiring, a policy that took effect in 1998. The amendment would have allowed voters to lift that ban, either this fall or in 2016. 
Hernandez and others have said that misinformation about what affirmative action would mean -- such as racial quotas for new freshmen -- spread quickly, stoking parents' fears about their children's chances of getting into UC, the state's public research university system. 
Using racial quotas in admissions would be unconstitutional; recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions have strictly limited consideration of race in public university admissions. UC officials last week said any suggestion of quotas is irresponsible: "We have never done that, and we never would," said Nina Robinson, UC's associate president and chief policy adviser.
 Hopefully the legislature will realize that it is important to be able to use race as a factor in college admissions.

Tuesday, October 15, 2013

SCOTUS Considers Voter Ban On Affirmative Action Today


Today there will be an important oral argument before the United States Supreme Court that could determine whether race-conscious remedies of past discrimination conducted by public and private entities (i.e. also known as affirmative action) will have a future in the United States.

The High Court will consider Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, 12-682. SCOTUS blog summarizes the issue as: "Whether a state violates the Equal Protection Clause by amending its constitution to prohibit race- and sex-based discrimination or preferential treatment in public-university admissions decisions."

The Los Angeles Times reports that we in California have an interest in this legal skirmish over Michigan's voter-approved ban on affirmative action because California has a similar measure in its state constitution thanks to the 1996 passage of Proposition 209. In fact voters in Michigan, California, Arizona and Washington have all passes similar ballot measures banning "preferential treatment" based on race or sex in public education.
[Mark] Rosenbaum and the American Civil Liberties Union sued in 1996 to block the California ban from taking effect, but the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the challenge, and the Supreme Court refused to hear the case. 
Now, in the Michigan case, Rosenbaum gets a chance to make a constitutional argument against state bans on affirmative action that would apply in California as well. He does not contend that race-based policies are required. Instead, he relies on what lawyers call the "political restructuring doctrine." Under it, Rosenbaum argues, Michigan unfairly "rigged" the political process by taking away from university officials the power to set admissions policy and instead writing it into the state constitution. 
By adopting the state ban, the voters — most of whom were white — deprived minority students of a right to press state officials to adopt affirmative action policies. This is "changing the political process along racial lines to prevent the state from taking constitutionally permissible race-conscious action," he said. 
A Michigan-based group called the Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action goes further and describes the state's policy as a "new Jim Crow" system akin to the "separate but equal" doctrine that the high court established in Plessy vs. Ferguson in 1896.
It is not a good sign that Justice Elena Kagan has recused herself from considering the case so that there will only be 8 voting members participating in the decision. However if by some miracle there is a 4-4 split, the lower court's 6th Circuit en banc 8-7 decision that struck down the ballot measure would go into effect.

Monday, June 24, 2013

No LGBT SCOTUS Rulings Today, Tuesday Possible

Gaytterdämmerung delayed! The Supreme Court usually issues its decisions on Mondays and Thursdays so there was wide expectation at least one of the four major cases remaining (Fisher, Shelby County, Hollingsworth or Windsor) would be released today.

The only case that was released was Fisher, in which the court ruled 7-1 that it was vacating a 5th Circuit Court of Appeals upholding the University of Texas' affirmative action program. It remanded the case back to reconsider its analysis of strict scrutiny involving racial classifications in view of the Court's previous decisions in Grutter and Bakke. Basically, the Court decided to give itself more time to issue a final ruling on the question of whether race can play a role in university admissions (and whether "diversity" in a student body can be a compelling state interest). So the first of the four "blockbuster cases" ended up being a dud! Since a decision that could have made affirmative action illegal anywhere in the United States was a distinct possibility from the conservative majority, today's ruling must be considered a "surprising win" for progressives and good people who support civil rights and equality.

More importantly, the Court announced that it will issue decisions tomorrow (there are 6 decisions left), which means that the plaintiffs in the Proposition 8 case will have to wait a bit longer to discover when they can get legally married in California.


I still expect that the marriage cases will not be announced until Thursday June 27th. Stay tuned!

LinkWithin

Blog Widget by LinkWithin