# 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:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2014, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-states-can-ban-race-based-aa/686760/41 "2014-04-23T16:47:16Z")
Was she really attacking the idea of a referendum itself? Sheesh, I’m not a fan of them, but that is no business of the SCOTUS unless they find something unconstitutional about them. Which I can’t imagine… ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2014, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-states-can-ban-race-based-aa/686760/42 "2014-04-23T16:49:53Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > The law says that public universities and other state government institutions cannot use affirmative action. No, it didn’t. Read my previous post or the decision being discussed. > [@ITR\_champion](#): > > If they won, it would mean, more or less, that affirmative action is now required, even when the people don’t want it. No, it would have meant that the decision would be left to the legislature as to whether the board of regents should use race, sex, etc. as a criterion. If the SC ruled the other way, MI would not HAVE to have AA or racial preference. > [@ITR\_champion](#): > > This was the right decision for several reasons. First, the USA is a democracy. No, the US is not a democracy. It is at best a _representative_ democracy. Direct democracy was intentionally avoided in part because the majority can easily trample on the rights of people in the minority. > [@ITR\_champion](#): > > When the people make a law, judges should not arbitrarily overrule it unless it clearly violates the Constitution. That is part of the issue: When is it permissible for PEOPLE to make laws rather than the legislature. The people have their chance to speak when the elect representatives. Why should any interest group have multiple bites out of the apple via legislature and referenda? > [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Second, affirmative action is a type of racial discrimination. Racial discrimination is against the law in the United States. No, racial discrimination is NOT against the law in the US. Even granting that calling AA racial discrimination is highly misleading, racial discrimination is not against the law. > [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Third, the reasoning used by Sotomayor seems utterly crazy. I can’t find the text of her dissenting opinion online, but the press quotes her as saying “a majority of the Michigan electorate changed the basic rules of the political process in that State in a manner that uniquely disadvantaged racial minorities”. Obviously this did not happen. She obviously disagrees, and given that we see the results such policies have had in other states, a more compelling case can be made for her side than yours. Besides, that is only part of the issue. Why should the state be allowed to discriminate based on 100 other reasons, but not race or gender? > [@ITR\_champion](#): > > In fact, it’s fairly frightening that all the liberal justices in Michigan and two of those on the Supreme Court would vote in favor of overturning the people’s will in this case. Should the people be allowed to vote to ban interracial or gay marriage? Should they be allowed to vote to not require disabled access to buildings? Should people be able to make immigration violations subject to the death penalty? In short, why do you think the people’s will is so important on any specific issue? > [@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. Or, we can eliminate all preferences and see nearly every top public university filled with foreign-born Indians and Chinese. > [@ITR\_champion](#): > > No. This decision is good for higher education and good for black Americans. It’s an established fact that affirmative action hurts black Americans: No, it’s not. This has been debated numerous times, and the evidence that it harms AA is far from conclusive. > [@ITR\_champion](#): > > If the Supreme Court had ruled that the people of Michigan can’t eliminate affirmative action from their state government, that would seem to be the same thing as saying that they are required to have affirmative action. Did this make sense to you when you typed it? Did you even read the opinions, or what the case was about? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2014, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-states-can-ban-race-based-aa/686760/43 "2014-04-23T17:00:38Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > Should the people be allowed to vote to ban interracial or gay marriage? Should they be allowed to vote to not require disabled access to buildings? Should people be able to make immigration violations subject to the death penalty? In short, why do you think the people’s will is so important on any specific issue? Because that is where the sovereignty of the government ultimately rests. Besides: where else? What other source, what other will, is your proposed substitute? King Brickbacon I, Protector of the Downtrodden? ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2014, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-states-can-ban-race-based-aa/686760/44 "2014-04-23T17:04:42Z")
> [@ThisUsernameIsForbidden](#): > > In her dissenting opinion, Sotomayor argued that the ban was an ad hoc device that infringes on individual rights because it excludes race and sex as criteria for admissions. Not sure how to make sense of that, except for the fact that the State excluding something takes the decision out of the hands of individuals? She’s apparently arguing that the Civil Rights Act should be abolished, and that infringing on a college’s right to discriminate on the basis of race and sex is a bad thing. Either that, or she’s just a dumbass hypocrite. ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2014, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-states-can-ban-race-based-aa/686760/45 "2014-04-23T17:06:44Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > The issues are one and the same, States that have allowed for a referendum process have simply extended legislative power directly to the people. Anything it is constitutionally acceptable for the legislature to legislate on, it is constitutionally acceptable for the public to vote for via referendum. That is not entirely clear. > [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > They are the same in all ways that matter. No, they are not. AA can be something like a campaign to get women into the STEM fields, or a job fair specifically held in a Latino community. Racial preference, the kind that was outlawed, is typically meant to apply to extra points or preference being given at the point at which admission or employment decisions are made. > [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > No, I do not think the color of ones skin affects their ability to take tests. Your parents not having money affects ones ability to takes tests though? Clearly, the issue is that being Black, or not having money, or being a women typically affects a host of things that in turn can affect one’s ability to take tests. > [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > You weren’t responding to me specifically here, but her dissent was actually a fit of poor jurisprudence and demonstrates Obama has put a race-obsessed person on the bench who sees fit to overturn referendum results not at all based on the constitution but based on her desire as to how the law should be, which is precisely what is not supposed to be the role of the judicial branch. Why? First, do you agree the referendum would have been deemed unconstitutional if it had been determined to disadvantage minorities? If so, why do you think enacting a policy that had quantitatively proven to result in fewer minorities getting into certain schools from which our future leaders dis-proportionally attend, and qualitatively in terms of reduced diversity, does not disadvantage minorities? > [@John\_Mace](#): > > Was she really attacking the idea of a referendum itself? Sheesh, I’m not a fan of them, but that is no business of the SCOTUS unless they find something unconstitutional about them. Which I can’t imagine… I suppose in part she was. The issue is that where do you draw the line with regard to mob rule via direct voting? As long as you muddy the waters enough to make plausible arguments that the outcomes from said policies do not disadvantage minorities (eg. mismatching college theory), then there is little impediment to mob rule. I think her dissent was in part because of that, but also the court’s reluctance to speak to the role race plays in society as she and others see it. ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2014, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-states-can-ban-race-based-aa/686760/46 "2014-04-23T17:17:38Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Because that is where the sovereignty of the government ultimately rests. Which ignore the question. The question wasn’t from whence the government gets it’s power. It’s why the poster held direct voting in such high esteem given the problems that often arise from it. > [@Bricker](#): > > Besides: where else? What other source, what other will, is your proposed substitute? King Brickbacon I, Protector of the Downtrodden? No, from the elected representatives we vote for. You ignored the question Bricker, do you think the public should be able to amend a state constitution to exclude or allow ANY behavior regardless of whether it tramples on minority rights? ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2014, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-states-can-ban-race-based-aa/686760/47 "2014-04-23T17:37:09Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Because that is where the sovereignty of the government ultimately rests. Really? So SCOTUS has never overturned a law? One of the basic purposes of a judiciary is to protect voters against the consequences of their own ineptitude (and that of their legislators) by enforcing both the letter and the spirit of constitutional principles, as has happened every time SCOTUS has ever overturned a law. Conservatives had no problem at all trying to use SCOTUS to overturn duly legislated health care reform, did they? In this case, the notable case in point is Washington v Seattle School District, in which SCOTUS in 1982 overturned a local ballot initiative against school busing, wherein those danged darkies were being bussed to white schools and the voters didn’t like it – indeed they hated it a lot more than they hate affirmative action today. But the Supreme Court wrote that “the initiative removes the authority to address a racial problem—and only a racial problem—from the existing decision making body, in such a way as to burden minority interests”, thus violating the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment – and thus invalidating the voters’ racist preferences. > [@John\_Mace](#): > > However, I have to agree with what Chief Justice Roberts said several yeas ago regarding this subject: The best way to stop discriminating by race is to stop discriminating by race. Yeah, that would be the same guy who also said that he couldn’t see how money could possibly be a corrupting influence in politics. :rolleyes: Sotomayor [rephrased that quite eloquently](http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2014/04/another-bad-day-for-affirmative-action.html), and John Cassidy ends that particular article thusly – after noting both the irrationality and inconsistency of this latest decision: > [@](#): > > As the Supreme Court is currently constituted, Sotomayor’s words, however eloquent, carry no weight. In the past ten months alone, the conservatives on the Court have gutted the Voting Rights Act, cast aside some of the few remaining limits on campaign donations, and sounded the death knell for affirmative action. Who knows, by the time they are finished, they might have figured out how to turn the calendar back to 1950, or even earlier. ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2014, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-states-can-ban-race-based-aa/686760/48 "2014-04-23T17:38:05Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > After all, it’s economic disadvantages we are trying to address anyway, so why not attack that attribute dead on. That is part of what I am trying to address, but also the racial disparities and discriminatory practices that exist in part based on ignorance and a lack of access. I will give you a real world example of what I mean. Back before digital film was used for movies, the celluloid they used was not sensitive enough to dynamically capture darker skin by [design](http://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/movies/12-years-a-slave-mother-of-george-and-the-aesthetic-politics-of-filming-black-skin/2013/10/17/282af868-35cd-11e3-80c6-7e6dd8d22d8f_story.html). > [@](#): > > The fact that audiences are seeing such a varied, nuanced spectrum of black faces isn’t just a matter of poetics, but politics — and the advent of digital filmmaking. For the first hundred years of cinema, when images were captured on celluloid and processed photochemically, disregard for black skin and its subtle shadings was inscribed in the technology itself, from how film-stock emulsions and light meters were calibrated, to the models used as standards for adjusting color and tone. > > That embedded racism extended into the aesthetics of the medium itself, which from its very beginnings was predicated on the denigration and erasure of the black body. As far back as “The Birth of a Nation” — in which white actors wearing blackface depicted Reconstruction-era blacks as wild-eyed rapists and corrupt politicians — the technology and grammar of cinema and photography have been centered on the unspoken assumption that their rightful subjects would be white. > > The result was that, if black people were visible at all, their images would often be painfully caricatured (see Hattie McDaniel in “Gone With the Wind”) or otherwise distorted, either ashy and washed-out or featureless points of contrast within the frame. As “12 Years a Slave” director Steve McQueen said in Toronto after the film’s premiere there, “I remember growing up and seeing Sidney Poitier sweating next to Rod Steiger in ‘In the Heat of the Night,’ and obviously [that was because] it’s very hot in the South. But also he was sweating because he had tons of light thrown on him, because the film stock wasn’t sensitive enough for black skin.” Those people probably didn’t do that because they were racist, or by design, nor did they question their assumptions or the technology. They just did what “worked”, and it “worked” because there where no consequences for their oversight because there were no Black people around. What does that have to do with affirmative action? A lot of these little injustices occur in part because there are not colored people around. We need to have a diverse set of people in colleges, in board rooms, and in politics because just their mere presence often reminds people that their perspectives are not the only valid perspectives. Now if that means adopting a metric of evaluation that accounts for the negative effects those small and large injustices have on the quantitative metrics we have chosen as a proxy for the qualitative ones we desire, then so be it. I think we are better off in the long run, and it’s certainly no worse than preference based on geography, legacy, or income. I just don’t buy this notion that primarily White people should be telling society we can’t consider this one thing we know has an effect today because other White people in the past used it negatively. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2014, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-states-can-ban-race-based-aa/686760/49 "2014-04-23T17:50:45Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > One of the southern states (Florida or Texas, maybe) had a policy that the top 10% (or some figure) from each high school was automatically admitted to the state university system. This also seems like a workable plan mitigate the effects of income on scholastic achievement. It’s Texas, and the scheme sucks, if only because it doesn’t account for the relative disparities between schools. For example, the top 30% at a big Houston high school like Fort Bend Clements is very likely to outperform the entire top 10% at some dump like HISD Kashmere or Stephen F. Austin. Over the last decade and a half since it was implemented, something like 80% of all students admitted to UT and A&M are because of this program. So for the kids in the 11% through 30% at Clements, they’re thrown in with all the other kids in the state to fight for the remaining 20% of spots at A&M and UT. It’s hardly fair; under the older admissions methods, probably any of them who applied would be accepted, but that’s not the case anymore. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2014, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-states-can-ban-race-based-aa/686760/50 "2014-04-23T17:55:45Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > That is part of what I am trying to address, but also the racial disparities and discriminatory practices that exist in part based on ignorance and a lack of access. I will give you a real world example of what I mean. I don’t think you can claim racism based on the sensitivity of film stock; that’s a technological issue, not a political one. Photography was probably similarly limited if you look into it; the film was predominantly the same. The issue is that camera meters (and by extension, films) are trying to meter to an average light level of an 18% gray. In other words, they take the entire potential photograph and adjust the aperture and exposure time so that overall, the same amount of light enters the camera as if it was looking at a uniform 18% gray wall. White skin isn’t too far off in brightness- hispanic skin is actually closer. Black people are more in the realm of being in the shadows when metered like that. Film’s always been intended to optimally capture that well-metered shot, so it’s not surprising that skin tones outside that middle range aren’t captured well on film- I bet albinos have the same problem in reverse. Digital photography and cinema lets us change the pictures after the fact- that’s probably more of what you’re seeing in terms of the skin tones. ---
**Author:** ![Vercingetorix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/848f3c/32.png) [@Vercingetorix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Vercingetorix)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2014, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-states-can-ban-race-based-aa/686760/51 "2014-04-23T18:01:42Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > It might not produce the exact same result, but a switch to poverty\* based Affirmative Action should mitigate this effect. To the extent that minorities are more represented in the higher income groups, then Affirmative Action should not be needed. This is what I’ve always said about Affirmative Action. Race-based AA in education in the present day doesn’t treat the problem, it treats the metric used to measure the problem. The reason African Americans would be underrepresented isn’t because of racism in college admissions departments (which some form of AA would be able to mitigate), but because black students from lower-income areas have really, really shitty school systems. If we as a society made a concerted effort to fix primary and secondary education, the racial disparity at the college level would correct itself. Meanwhile, we need some way to correct for the fact that it is hard to compare the performance of someone from a poor school with the performance of someone from a more affluent school. A mediocre student from an affluent school will have an application/resume full of clubs and AP classes and SAT prepping, etc, while a quite smart student from a school that can’t afford all of that won’t. Applications from better schools will look better than applications from poor schools, but that doesn’t necessarily reflect the relative merit of the students at those schools. Until we can achieve education equality, we need a method to read merit in college applications. Race-based AA is a blunt instrument\*, trying to solve the above problem but failing. It may make sense to impose quotas when there is actual racial discrimination going on, but that’s hardly the case here. This problem is structural, and needs a structural solution. ---
**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:** [April 23, 2014, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-states-can-ban-race-based-aa/686760/52 "2014-04-23T18:08:56Z")
> [@bump](#): > > I don’t think you can claim racism based on the sensitivity of film stock; that’s a technological issue, not a political one. He said specifically that he wasn’t doing that. ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2014, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-states-can-ban-race-based-aa/686760/53 "2014-04-23T18:09:10Z")
> [@bump](#): > > I don’t think you can claim racism based on the sensitivity of film stock; that’s a technological issue, not a political one. Photography was probably similarly limited if you look into it; the film was predominantly the same. First, I specifically said it was not likely racism. Second, much of what you wrote is discussed in the article, and the experts they spoke to came to an opposite conclusion. Either way, the reality is that if more people of color had been film production early on, then film would not be the way it is. Additionally, some of your objections are just false. Some film (Fuji, IIRC) are much better at capturing darker skin. Clearly, there is not solely a technological reason film can’t be better at capturing darker skin than it is. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2014, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-states-can-ban-race-based-aa/686760/54 "2014-04-23T18:25:22Z")
I’m in favor of affirmative action in most areas where it is currently practiced, but I don’t understand why this case ever made it to SCOTUS. The challengers’ position would basically have had the courts _mandate_ that legislatures (or universities) adopt some form of race-conscious admissions policy. That’s an awful idea. > [@John\_Mace](#): > > One of the southern states (Florida or Texas, maybe) had a policy that the top 10% (or some figure) from each high school was automatically admitted to the state university system. This also seems like a workable plan mitigate the effects of income on scholastic achievement. It has its appeal but it’s not really any better targeted than race-conscious admissions policies. The top 10% of almost any high school - even the worst- are generally offered places at better colleges than this state or Texas can offer. More worryingly, the scheme also places a heavy emphasis on secondary-level grades, which are a poor predictor of future academic performance. ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2014, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-states-can-ban-race-based-aa/686760/55 "2014-04-23T18:42:51Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > I’m in favor of affirmative action in most areas where it is currently practiced, but I don’t understand why this case ever made it to SCOTUS. The challengers’ position would basically have had the courts _mandate_ that legislatures (or universities) adopt some form of race-conscious admissions policy. That’s an awful idea. This is incorrect, and has already been discussed. See [here](https://www.aclu.org/blog/racial-justice/were-all-losers-after-supreme-courts-decision-schuette) for part of the explanation: > [@](#): > > Schuette is widely misunderstood as being a case about affirmative action. It is not. In fact, it leaves in place Supreme Court law recognizing diversity as a compelling governmental interest and permitting carefully constructed affirmative action programs. Today’s decision has no effect on states that want to adopt or maintain affirmative action plans. > > The policies banned by Proposal 2, a 2006 Michigan ballot initiative that led to a state constitutional ban on race-conscious college admissions policies, were all constitutionally permissible. None involved quotas or singling out race over other factors contributing to a diverse student body. Rather, this case is about civic participation for all. The question is not whether universities in the state must implement race-conscious admissions policies. Only whether those who want to take policies that promote racial diversity into consideration along with other diversity factors – that benefit everyone – can compete on the same playing field as other groups advocating for admissions policies that matter to them. > [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > More worryingly, the scheme also places a heavy emphasis on secondary-level grades, which are a poor predictor of future academic performance. Actually they are the best quantitative measure we have of predicting future academic performance. ---
**Author:** ![Belowjob2.0](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Belowjob2.0](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Belowjob2.0)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2014, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-states-can-ban-race-based-aa/686760/56 "2014-04-23T19:49:32Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > No. This decision is good for higher education and good for black Americans. It’s an established fact that affirmative action hurts black Americans: > > [The Painful Truth about Affirmative Action](http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/10/the-painful-truth-about-affirmative-action/263122/) > > The single biggest problem in this system – a problem documented by a vast and growing array of research – is the tendency of large preferences to boomerang and harm their intended beneficiaries. Large preferences often place students in environments where they can neither learn nor compete effectively – even though these same students would thrive had they gone to less competitive but still quite good schools. > > We refer to this problem as “mismatch,” a word that largely explains why, even though blacks are more likely to enter college than are whites with similar backgrounds, they will usually get much lower grades, rank toward the bottom of the class, and far more often drop out. Because of mismatch, racial preference policies often stigmatize minorities, reinforce pernicious stereotypes, and undermine the self-confidence of beneficiaries, rather than creating the diverse racial utopias so often advertised in college campus brochures. > > The mismatch effect happens when a school extends to a student such a large admissions preference – sometimes because of a student’s athletic prowess or legacy connection to the school, but usually because of the student’s race – that the student finds himself in a class where he has weaker academic preparation than nearly all of his classmates. The student who would flourish at, say, Wake Forest or the University of Richmond, instead finds himself at Duke, where the professors are not teaching at a pace designed for him – they are teaching to the “middle” of the class, introducing terms and concepts at a speed that is unnerving even to the best-prepared student. > > The student who is underprepared relative to others in that class falls behind from the start and becomes increasingly lost as the professor and his classmates race ahead. His grades on his first exams or papers put him at the bottom of the class. Worse, the experience may well induce panic and self-doubt, making learning even harder. > > [Affirmative Action Doesn’t Work. It Never Did.](http://www.slate.com/articles/life/history/features/2014/the_liberal_failure_on_race/affirmative_action_it_s_time_for_liberals_to_admit_it_isn_t_working.html) > > [A Systematic Analysis of Affirmative Action in American Law Schools](http://www2.law.ucla.edu/sander/Systemic/final/SanderFINAL.pdf) As much as it pains me to admit, I have to acknowledge that most of this is true. Aff Am as a whole isn’t a failure, but aff am in determining admission to elite state & private colleges is usually a bad idea. Not because white folks are suffering injustice through aff am - generally speaking, they aren’t - but because of the mismatch effect ITRC refers to. Here in Cali, black students who can no longer get into Berkley are now going to other UC schools. They haven’t lost anything, and their graduation rates may be improving. When it comes to schools like Harvard, most of the “black slots” are taken up by African and Caribbean immigrants, along with the biracial children of black fathers and white college educated mothers. Having a white, college educated mother appears to be a huge advantage, whatever color the children happen to be. ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2014, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-states-can-ban-race-based-aa/686760/57 "2014-04-23T20:29:15Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > I’m in favor of affirmative action in most areas where it is currently practiced, but I don’t understand why this case ever made it to SCOTUS. The challengers’ position would basically have had the courts _mandate_ that legislatures (or universities) adopt some form of race-conscious admissions policy. That’s an awful idea. > > It has its appeal but it’s not really any better targeted than race-conscious admissions policies. The top 10% of almost any high school - even the worst- are generally offered places at better colleges than this state or Texas can offer. > > More worryingly, the scheme also places a heavy emphasis on secondary-level grades, which are a poor predictor of future academic performance. What it would have done is say not that affirmative action is mandatory, just that it can not be changed via referendum. What the lower court said was having to pass another referendum that authorized affirmative action was so hard it was an unconstitutional burden for affirmattive action supporters. This ignored that the people who did not want affirmative action had the exact same burden and met it. They attempted to say that because they did not like the results that the policy should be placed outside of the referendum process. It shows the naked contempt that the Michigan Supreme court and the liberals on this court have for their fellow citizens. The judges become like Iran’s Guardian Council where it doesn’t matter what the people say if they don’t like the law, then the law gets overturned. There is no pretense of interpreting the constitution, there is just the idea that the people’s vote only matters if they vote the right way. If the vote the wrong way the court decides. ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2014, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-states-can-ban-race-based-aa/686760/58 "2014-04-23T20:47:41Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > What it would have done is say not that affirmative action is mandatory, just that it can not be changed via referendum. What the lower court said was having to pass another referendum that authorized affirmative action was so hard it was an unconstitutional burden for affirmattive action supporters. > This ignored that the people who did not want affirmative action had the exact same burden and met it. Aside from the fact that there were a lot of issues with how the signatures for that referendum were obtained, the broader problem is that majority rule via direct voting is always a more uphill battle for minorities. For example, I have no doubt a bill mandating strip searches of Arab-Americans flying after 9/11 could have easily passed in many areas. There are places today where an interracial marriage ban would pass. Gay marriage bans have been passed in many places. Now obviously not everyone will vote so nakedly in their own self-interest, but the gradient skews toward the majority in a way that disenfranchises lots of people in the minority. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2014, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-states-can-ban-race-based-aa/686760/59 "2014-04-23T21:20:09Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > Aside from the fact that there were a lot of issues with how the signatures for that referendum were obtained, the broader problem is that majority rule via direct voting is always a more uphill battle for minorities. For example, I have no doubt a bill mandating strip searches of Arab-Americans flying after 9/11 could have easily passed in many areas. And that would have been declared unconstitutional by the courts, so I that’s a red herring. > [@](#): > > There are places today where an interracial marriage ban would pass. Gay marriage bans have been passed in many places. Now obviously not everyone will vote so nakedly in their own self-interest, but the gradient skews toward the majority in a way that disenfranchises lots of people in the minority. Democracy “skews towards the majority”. That’s a feature, not a bug. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2014, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-states-can-ban-race-based-aa/686760/60 "2014-04-23T21:29:47Z")
Originally I thought this was about Alcoholics Anonymous (also AA), and thought who the F— would deny anyone on the basis of race and why was this brought before the SCOTUS. But reading this about Affirmative Action, I have to consider my above as in Affirmative Action is also discrimination based on race, although it’s a attempt to correct a past and arguably a persistent injustice, but do we, can we correct a injustice by being unjust? there is also the issue that testings may be skewed to a particular race. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-states-can-ban-race-based-aa/686760.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-states-can-ban-race-based-aa/686760.md?page=4)