# SCOTUS rules States can ban race-based AA **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 23, 2014, 11:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-states-can-ban-race-based-aa/686760 "2014-04-23T11:59:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2016, 12:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-states-can-ban-race-based-aa/686760/241 "2016-06-24T12:03:01Z")
Seems strange then that the case would go that far, since apparently it wasn’t actually about affirmative action. Shouldn’t that have been established before it went to the Supreme Court? Didn’t the courts and the university acknowledge that she was denied admission because of her race, with the university defending the practice? ---
**Author:** ![Uncle\_Jocko](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/uncle_jocko/32/2932_2.png) [@Uncle\_Jocko](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uncle_Jocko)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2016, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-states-can-ban-race-based-aa/686760/242 "2016-06-24T13:22:19Z")
One would think, wouldn’t one. Admittedly I am no expert on this case - all I know is bits and pieces I’ve read about it - so there’s undoubtedly more involved. I do seem to recall the defense of racial diversity _was_ a primary focus of UT’s case, whether or not that was actually the main reason Fisher was denied admission. I dunno. Perhaps both sides were using this particular instance as an example to define whether or not racial diversity is a valid element in determining university student makeup, regardless of Fisher’s particular strength/weakness in this regard (ya think?). It does appear, from a distance and without any kind of legal background or expertise in either affirmative action or university enrollment policies in general, that there could have been reasons other than race to explain why Fisher didn’t get into UT. if UT said it was because of race, they’d certainly have more of a reason to say that than I would the opposite. ---
**Author:** ![GunnarFranz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/da6949/32.png) [@GunnarFranz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GunnarFranz)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2016, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-states-can-ban-race-based-aa/686760/243 "2016-06-24T13:57:33Z")
> [@Belowjob2.0](#): > > True. > > And if we define merit by grades- a common approach - state u classes nationwide will skew 60/40 female. Brave new world and all that. Hope everyone’s ready. Meritocracy all the way (race/sex/age blind, etc.) if people were rational but yeah, this will just make the disenfranchised, well, more disenfranchised. I hate the idea of affirmative action, but pragmatically, like universal healthcare, it may be required to address the failings of individual logic. ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2016, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-states-can-ban-race-based-aa/686760/244 "2016-06-24T14:59:41Z")
> [@Uncle\_Jocko](#): > > Perhaps both sides were using this particular instance as an example to define whether or not racial diversity is a valid element in determining university student makeup, regardless of Fisher’s particular strength/weakness in this regard (ya think?). It does appear, from a distance and without any kind of legal background or expertise in either affirmative action or university enrollment policies in general, that there could have been reasons other than race to explain why Fisher didn’t get into UT. if UT said it was because of race, they’d certainly have more of a reason to say that than I would the opposite. UT did not say it was because of race. If UT had said that, it’s settled law that they’d be fucked. What UT said was that it has two ways of admitting students: first, students in the top 10% of their class at any high school in the state are offered admission, and that makes up 75% of the incoming class at UT. For the remaining 25%, there’s a “holistic” process for admission that includes lots of factors, one of which is racial diversity on campus. That process resulted in Ms. Fisher’s not being offered a spot. The question is whether that particular use of race as part of the process was constitutional. The case was actually in front of the Supreme Court already, but it was remanded back because the court below hadn’t made enough findings about what the “holistic” process was exactly, and how it used race. This time around, there was more evidence about how that process worked, and it was held that the way that race was a factor in admissions determinations was constitutional. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2016, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-states-can-ban-race-based-aa/686760/245 "2016-06-24T15:11:35Z")
> [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](#): > > Today the Supreme Court upheld the Affirmative Action Program at University of Texas. Or as Wonkette succinctly and snarkily put it, [Mediocre White Girl Fails To Take Down Affirmative Action](http://wonkette.com/603311/mediocre-white-girl-fails-to-take-down-affirmative-action):So it seems that despite the [50-page dissent](http://www.forbes.com/sites/maureensullivan/2016/06/23/supreme-court-minority-rips-majority-for-remarkably-wrong-decision-on-affirmative-action-in-texas/#7a83c80f103b) that Alito penned in which called it “affirmative action gone wild” and he called the idea that a diverse student body would produce “educational benefits” to be a “faddish theory.” > > Wonkette concludes and I concur:Until we can show that white people are not gaining from Affirmative Action, we should be hesitant to dismantle the attempt to even the playing field for everyone. > > Today the court stated that not only are rules that assist in promoting a diverse atmosphere in state schools constitutional, but that it is beneficial and necessary. I agree that your wording was not clear until you explained it. White people gain with or without the existence of affirmative action. Affirmative action probably needs to be dialed back a bit at some private institutions but the Texas plan of admitting the top 10 percent of every school into the UT system with very modest bonuses for underrepresented minorities does not offend. Doesn’t this deserve its own thread? ---
**Author:** ![Uncle\_Jocko](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/uncle_jocko/32/2932_2.png) [@Uncle\_Jocko](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uncle_Jocko)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2016, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-states-can-ban-race-based-aa/686760/246 "2016-06-24T15:47:49Z")
> [@Uncle\_Jocko](#): > > A couple of interesting things about this particular case: apparently the Supreme Court said Fisher had an opportunity for automatic admission to UT by simply graduating in the top 10 percent of her high school class, a path open to every Texas high school student. Also, approximately 150 minority students with better grades than her were also denied admission, while approximately 150 white students with lower grades were admitted, indicating there were certainly factors other than race (activities, community involvement, other achievements) involved in her denial. > > The anti-affirmative action crowd probably should have picked a better standard bearer than Abigail Fisher. IN the interest of accuracy, and because I went by (faulty) memory with these numbers, let me correct myself. There were 42 white applicants with grades/test scores lower than Fisher’s who were granted provisional admittance to UT in Fisher’s class. There were 168 black/Latino students with grades/scores _higher_ than Fisher who were also denied admission. I regret the error. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-states-can-ban-race-based-aa/686760.md?page=12)