# 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:** 4
**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, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-states-can-ban-race-based-aa/686760/61 "2014-04-23T21:35:52Z")
We should be clear that Affirmative Action encompasses a lot of stuff that falls outside the scope of this decision. Stuff like recruiting or advertising to target minority students are not the kinds of things the Michigan law was meant to stop. What is under consideration here is using race as part of the admission process itself. One can be in favor of AA without supporting race based admission processes. ---
**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, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-states-can-ban-race-based-aa/686760/62 "2014-04-23T21:39:37Z")
Recruiting and advertising are [different from affirmative action](http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/race-color.html#VIC). ---
**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, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-states-can-ban-race-based-aa/686760/63 "2014-04-23T22:00:04Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > And that would have been declared unconstitutional by the courts, so I that’s a red herring. The point was to give a hypothetical showing why just having the same standard for every group is not real equality. > [@John\_Mace](#): > > Democracy “skews towards the majority”. That’s a feature, not a bug. We don’t live in a direct democracy. Majority rule WITH MINORITY RIGHTS. That doesn’t exist as readily when the people can vote directly for discrimination because of sheer numbers. > [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](#): > > Recruiting and advertising are [different from affirmative action](http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/race-color.html#VIC). Not in this context. If the above are being used to redress “past or present practices, policies, or other barriers to equal employment opportunity”, then if could and should be considered AA. See [here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action_in_the_United_States): > [@](#): > > Examples of affirmative action offered by the United States Department of Labor include outreach campaigns, targeted recruitment, employee and management development, and employee support programs. ---
**Author:** ![Algher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Algher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Algher)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2014, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-states-can-ban-race-based-aa/686760/64 "2014-04-23T22:04:23Z")
> [@bump](#): > > 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. California does a combo package of top 9% at your school, or top 9% in the state gets you into one of the UCs I believe. You end up in Riverside or Merced, but you can get into a UC (no offense to anyone from those areas, but they are the least popular of the UC system). > [@](#): > > Reflecting demographic trends, 28.8% of those admitted to at least one UC campus were Latino, compared with 26.8% white. At 36.2%, Asian Americans again made up the largest ethnic group among admitted students from California. Blacks from California were just 4.2%, a number that officials said was disturbingly low. > **[California Latinos surpass whites in freshman UC admission offers](https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-uc-california-latinos-surpass-whites-20140421-story.html)** > > For the first time, the number of Latinos from California offered freshman admission to the University of California was larger than that for whites. ---
**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, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-states-can-ban-race-based-aa/686760/65 "2014-04-23T22:30:02Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > In short, why do you think the people’s will is so important on any specific issue? [quote=“Bricker, post:43, topic:686760”] Because that is where the sovereignty of the government ultimately rests. [/QUOTE > [@wolfpup](#): > > Really? So SCOTUS has never overturned a law? Of course they have: by referring to the Constitution. But from whence comes the Constitution? Answer: the people’s will. The people can vote into office representatives that will amend the constitution. Any provision of the constitution can be amended. The constitution protects against certain majority rules, but is utterly powerless against the supermajority of two-thirds of each house of Congress and three-fourths of the states. The people’s will is important because the people’s will is the ultimate source of all government power. ---
**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, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-states-can-ban-race-based-aa/686760/66 "2014-04-23T22:35:44Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > 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. According to commentary here on the SDMB, voter ID laws are illicit even though they arise from the legislature. You argue that direct-ballot initiatives are illicit. How, exactly, should the people express their will? And what system do you propose in lieu of the current one? > [@](#): > > 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? No. But I believe that any measure that does not violate the federal constitution should be permitted. And I believe that the Supreme Court gets the ultimate decision on the question of what the federal constitution permits. ---
**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, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-states-can-ban-race-based-aa/686760/67 "2014-04-23T22:43:01Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > Not in this context. If the above are being used to redress “past or present practices, policies, or other barriers to equal employment opportunity”, then if could and should be considered AA. See [here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action_in_the_United_States): In this context meaning what? The University of Michigan can and I presume is recruiting and advertising to minority students, but they’re not doing so as part of an affirmative action plan. It’s true that targeted recruiting can be a part of an affirmative action plan. That doesn’t mean recruiting minorities is affirmative action. The language you’ve quoted is from the EEOC, whose policies regarding this distinction are what I cited. ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2014, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-states-can-ban-race-based-aa/686760/68 "2014-04-24T00:47:31Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > According to commentary here on the SDMB, voter ID laws are illicit even though they arise from the legislature. You argue that direct-ballot initiatives are illicit. Please point out where I said direct-ballot initiatives are illicit? > [@Bricker](#): > > How, exactly, should the people express their will? By voting. > [@Bricker](#): > > No. But I believe that any measure that does not violate the federal constitution should be permitted. That’s the crux of the matter though. I and some SC justices think it does violate the Coonstituion and generally defies common sense. A > [@Bricker](#): > > nd I believe that the Supreme Court gets the ultimate decision on the question of what the federal constitution permits. They do, and they ruled. Doesn’t mean their interpretation or reasoning was sound. > [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](#): > > In this context meaning what? The University of Michigan can and I presume is recruiting and advertising to minority students, but they’re not doing so as part of an affirmative action plan. It’s true that targeted recruiting can be a part of an affirmative action plan. That doesn’t mean recruiting minorities is affirmative action. > > The language you’ve quoted is from the EEOC, whose policies regarding this distinction are what I cited. And my link was from the Dept. of Labor. Either way, the court didn’t say anything about AA, but rather racial preferences… If your point is that discussion about AA should not include outreach under that umbrella, I think you have not demonstrated that that should not be the case wrt to underrepresented minorities as we are typically discussing in these issues. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2014, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-states-can-ban-race-based-aa/686760/69 "2014-04-24T01:25:52Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > They do, and they ruled. Doesn’t mean their interpretation or reasoning was sound. Don’t care: you won’t be persuaded no matter what. I just care about the ultimate effect. You may not agree the majority reasoning was sound; you must agree that regardless, the decision has the effect of setting the meaning of the Constitution for the whole country. I think Roe v. Wade was poorly reasoned. But I accept it as the law. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2014, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-states-can-ban-race-based-aa/686760/70 "2014-04-24T01:43:39Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > …They do, and they ruled. Doesn’t mean their interpretation or reasoning was sound. (post shortened) The SCOTUS isn’t last because they are right, they are right because they are last. The state of Michigan has the option of having another public vote or the state legislature can chose to reestablish affirmative action as a college admission consideration. ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2014, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-states-can-ban-race-based-aa/686760/71 "2014-04-24T01:55:12Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Don’t care: you won’t be persuaded no matter what. > > I just care about the ultimate effect. You may not agree the majority reasoning was sound; you must agree that regardless, the decision has the effect of setting the meaning of the Constitution for the whole country. > > I think Roe v. Wade was poorly reasoned. But I accept it as the law. Please don’t presume to tell me what I will and will not be persuaded by. I also never said I didn’t accept it as law. > [@doorhinge](#): > > (post shortened) > > The SCOTUS isn’t last because they are right, they are right because they are last. Nice phrase but it is nonsensical. Them being last has nothing to do with them being right or vice versa. Just the fact that the court has reversed its stance on many issues undermines the idea that they are right in every case. > [@doorhinge](#): > > The state of Michigan has the option of having another public vote or the state legislature can chose to reestablish affirmative action as a college admission consideration. And? What point are you tying to make? I think everyone here is aware that laws and amendments can generally be reversed. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2014, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-states-can-ban-race-based-aa/686760/72 "2014-04-24T02:56:53Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > 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. The article strongly implied that it was almost a racist conspiracy, at least the way I read it. Let’s face it; with about 15% of the population, and about the poorest 15%, it’s was probably a hard sell to make photographic/cinematic film reproduce black skin better, especially if it reproduced white skin worse, independent of any actual racism. It was likely just a pragmatic business decision- if you had a product where 85% of your market was one way, and 15% was another, would you spend your effort trying to please the 85% or the 15%? ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2014, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-states-can-ban-race-based-aa/686760/73 "2014-04-24T03:25:02Z")
> [@bump](#): > > The article strongly implied that it was almost a racist conspiracy, at least the way I read it. There is nothing in the article that I saw that implied it was a conspiracy of any kind. > [@bump](#): > > Let’s face it; with about 15% of the population, **and about the poorest 15%** What are you trying to say with the last part there? > [@bump](#): > > it’s was probably a hard sell to make photographic/cinematic film reproduce black skin better, especially if it reproduced white skin worse, independent of any actual racism. It was likely just a pragmatic business decision- if you had a product where 85% of your market was one way, and 15% was another, would you spend your effort trying to please the 85% or the 15%? I doubt it was even discussed. That is the point. I seriously doubt people in the 60’s were worried about the film not showing dark skin well. You missed the entire point of the post. I guess i should just assume you didn’t read it properly given you already accused me of saying exactly the opposite of what I said. Again, the issue is that people back then just assumed White skin was the correct norm, and were only anchored to that norm because they themselves were White and because they mostly dealt with White people. Such biases creep in more readily in homogeneous environments which is why it is important to have diversity in those places to prevent unconscious biases from taking hold. ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2014, 9:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-states-can-ban-race-based-aa/686760/74 "2014-04-24T09:51:10Z")
> [@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. I think people are being short sighted if they think the only way to help poor and/or minority students is to profile them by race and the accord them some advantage in the process. After all, it’s economic disadvantages we are trying to address anyway, so why not attack that attribute dead on. You may be thinking about Texas and the recent [U Texas v Fisher](http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/fisher-v-university-of-texas-at-austin/)case SCOTUS bounced back down. In my view, the disaster for higher education occurs when Universities are not free to take the highest scoring candidates from groups they want to preferentially admit. At Texas the two groups were blacks and hispanics. When you have a 10% top of class policy, what happens in practice is that the 10% from majority black schools get into University, woefully underperform in already weak classes and generally promote a stereotype that black kids are weak students. Much better black students whose parents have made it out of the ratty schools need not apply if race cannot be considered. Their background opportunity is on par with other students, but their performance/score gaps are well below their economic peers. The best students from all race/ethnic groups come from higher-income families, but at all levels of income asians are always at the top and blacks always at the bottom. So you will never be able drive color diversity into any academically rigorous fields without using race. This is a particular problem in STEM fields (along with medicine and law). The default assumption has been that equal background opportunity will yield equally-performing students, but this has not panned out. So, for example, if U Texas wants the best black/hispanic students it can get, it cannot get them without race-based preference. It has to take its 10% from a class of overall (relatively) weak students at a given high school, but cannot get better black/hispanic students who come from better neighborhoods and have better scores without assigning a race-only weight to pull them up in the admissions process above non-black/hispanics who have outcompeted the black/hispanic students academically. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2014, 10:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-states-can-ban-race-based-aa/686760/75 "2014-04-24T10:48:15Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > Please don’t presume to tell me what I will and will not be persuaded by. I also never said I didn’t accept it as law. > > Nice phrase but it is nonsensical. Them being last has nothing to do with them being right or vice versa. Just the fact that the court has reversed its stance on many issues undermines the idea that they are right in every case. > > And? What point are you tying to make? I think everyone here is aware that laws and amendments can generally be reversed. You’ve spent several posts rejecting the characterizations of your arguments by others. Why don’t you restate whatever your argument actually is? ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2014, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-states-can-ban-race-based-aa/686760/76 "2014-04-24T14:29:19Z")
I’d like to hear a convincing argument as to how a law enacted by referendum that prohibits using race in university admissions criteria is unconstitutional. Keep in mind that many of the discrimination protections we have under law are actually the result of Congressional statute like the Civil Rights Act and its associated ancillary acts that have expanded protections to more groups. So there’s actually a lot of objectionable behavior that, sans legislation (which we have) would be perfectly constitutional and in fact was prior to the 1960s widely practiced. The 14th Amendment requires equal rights and protections for citizens in regard to how the government treats them, in the laws the government enacts and in the rights and privileges conferred by government. It does not guarantee minorities “protection” from otherwise perfectly constitutional referendums just because “minorities were on the losing end of the vote.” That’s what appears to be the argument, and maybe I’m wrong (in fact I know that no one would agree they were making such a foolish argument.) But at the end of the day Michigan has a referendum process and we know that referendums in general are perfectly constitutional and are an unfortunate but common part of State government. We also know, by being logical and literate humans that a bill _prohibiting_ admitting persons to university while using their self-identified race as a criteria in said admissions could never violate the 14th Amendment. There is no equal protection claim, in fact there is actually a much stronger claim that the practice itself runs afoul of the 14th Amendment and I think over the years the SCOTUS has nibbled around the edges of that question. They’ve already struck down things like strict quotas, for example. I think that there is an interest in promoting lower class minority (but also lower class persons of any race) advancement into the college system, and I think the SCOTUS recognizes that too–which is why they have been very restrained in how they approach the issue as they recognize that part of this business is a matter of public policy and should be left to laws and not the courts. Sotomayor on the other hand basically seems to have disliked the law because Republicans supported it and made a frankly disgraceful and embarrassing dissent statement in which she referenced irrelevant things like Jim Crow laws to try and associate her political enemies with racists from the 1950s. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2014, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-states-can-ban-race-based-aa/686760/77 "2014-04-24T14:37:27Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > Please point out where I said direct-ballot initiatives are illicit? That isn’t hard to find. In post #42 you went on the attack against them: > [@brickbacon](#): > > the US is not a democracy. … Direct democracy was intentionally avoided in part because the majority can easily trample on the rights of people in the minority. … The people have their chance to speak when the [sic] elect representatives. Why should any interest group have multiple bites out of the apple via legislature and referenda? … 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? It’s quite understandable that you’d want to backtrack away from your previous attack on democracy. But for the purposes of this thread, we’re discussing a Supreme Court case where the plaintiffs were clearly anti-democratic. The people of Michigan voted to eliminate affirmative action in their state government. A left-wing group turned to the courts, hoping that the courts would overrule that democratic decision. The Supreme Court said no. You try to claim that the left-wing group was not trying to mandate affirmative action by getting a court decree. According to you, the State Legislature could still abolish affirmative action; you’re only opposed to the people doing so directly. But suppose that the left-wingers had won in the Supreme Court, and then the Michigan legislature had chosen to eliminate affirmative action. How do we know the same left-wing group wouldn’t have sued again, demanding that the democratic process be nullified a second time? The left has made clear that they don’t respect democracy, regardless of whether it’s expressed through direct voting or through elected leaders. (Incidentally your understanding of the word “democracy” is incorrect. Government by elected leaders _is_ democracy. [Look it up](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/democracy?s=t).) ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2014, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-states-can-ban-race-based-aa/686760/78 "2014-04-24T14:42:20Z")
The Republic/democracy dichotomy is one that is for some reason promoted by primary schools in the United States and leads to a lot of Americans asserting that since we don’t practice “Athenian style” democracy we’re not a “technical” democracy. Something I would be interested in (and haven’t found through google) is the Michigan Supreme Court’s decision on this. My understanding is they struck down the referendum. I would normally give deference on issues of State law to Sate Supreme Courts. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2014, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-states-can-ban-race-based-aa/686760/79 "2014-04-24T14:52:25Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > …Nice phrase but it is nonsensical. Them being last has nothing to do with them being right or vice versa. Just the fact that the court has reversed its stance on many issues undermines the idea that they are right in every case. > > And? What point are you tying to make? I think everyone here is aware that laws and amendments can generally be reversed. (post shortened) When the SCOTUS has reversed itself, it’s latest decision would then be considered what is legally right. My point is that sometimes, just sometimes, it’s a good idea to readdress the obvious. And it certainly doesn’t hurt the ongoing conversation. \*WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday morning upheld Michigan’s ban on using race as a factor in college admissions. In a 6-2 ruling, the justices said the state did not violate the U.S. Constitution when its voters banned affirmative action. The justices say that a lower federal court was wrong to set aside the change as discriminatory. …In 2006, 58 percent of Michigan voters approved Proposal Two, amending their state constitution to ban affirmative action. The state justified the vote as an effort to put an end to racial preferences. …On Tuesday, the justices in the majority stressed that the ruling says nothing about the merits of affirmative action itself, only the process by which a state can ban it. …Seven other states have banned affirmative action — Arizona, California, Florida, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Oklahoma and Washington\*. > **[Supreme Court Upholds Michigan Affirmative Action Ban](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/supreme-court-upholds-michigan-affirmative-action-ban-n86626)** > > The Supreme Court on Tuesday morning upheld Michigan's ban on using race a factor in college admissions. Prior to the passage of Proposal 2 in 2006, which lead to the amending of the Michigan Constitution, which lead to this latest ruling, the SCOTUS, in 2003, had ruled 5–4 in Grutter v. Bollinger that race could be used as one of several factors in professional school admissions without necessarily violating the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. _Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003), was a landmark case in which the United States Supreme Court upheld the affirmative action admissions policy of the University of Michigan Law School. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, writing for the majority in a 5-4 decision and joined by Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, ruled that the University of Michigan Law School had a compelling interest in promoting class diversity. The court held that a race-conscious admissions process that may favor “underrepresented minority groups,” but that also took into account many other factors evaluated on an individual basis for every applicant, did not amount to a quota system that would have been unconstitutional under Regents of the University of California v. Bakke_. > **[Grutter v. Bollinger](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grutter_v._Bollinger)** > > Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003), was a landmark case of the Supreme Court of the United States concerning affirmative action in student admissions. The Court held that a student admissions process that favors "underrepresented minority groups" did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause so long as it took into account other factors evaluated on an individual basis for every applicant. The decision largely upheld the Court's decision in Regents of the University ... What had changed? In Michigan, race-based admission decisions had been acceptable UNTIL the Michigan Constitution had been changed. The SCOTUS ruling was right in both cases but the situation had been changed by a popular vote. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2014, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-states-can-ban-race-based-aa/686760/80 "2014-04-24T14:56:25Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > The Republic/democracy dichotomy is one that is for some reason promoted by primary schools in the United States and leads to a lot of Americans asserting that since we don’t practice “Athenian style” democracy we’re not a “technical” democracy. > > Something I would be interested in (and haven’t found through google) is the Michigan Supreme Court’s decision on this. My understanding is they struck down the referendum. > > I would normally give deference on issues of State law to Sate Supreme Courts. The instant case began life in federal court. The federal district court in Michigan upheld the referendum. The Sixth Circuit reversed. The US Supreme. Court reversed the Sixth Circuit. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-states-can-ban-race-based-aa/686760.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-states-can-ban-race-based-aa/686760.md?page=5)