# 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:** 5
**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 24, 2014, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-states-can-ban-race-based-aa/686760/81 "2014-04-24T15:24:58Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > 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. The arguement is that in the 1980s the Supreme Court decided that switching political processes to make it harder for minorities to achieve political victories was unconstitutional. Here the process of deciding who got special treatment in university admission was changed from university administrators to referendum. Sotomayor said that this made it harder for minorities to get what they wanted so it is unconstitutional. This shows how many of the crazy decisions and opinions are created. A judge wants a particular outcome to a case so they twist the law to justify it, then another judge makes a leap from that opinion, and then another judge makes a leap from that opinion, until you get someone arguing that a law that bans racial discrimination by states means that states must discriminate by race. ---
**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, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-states-can-ban-race-based-aa/686760/82 "2014-04-24T17:37:32Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > 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. I don’t supposed you’d have any interest in telling us what this “more compelling case” is? > [@](#): > > No, it’s not. This has been debated numerous times, and the evidence that it harms AA is far from conclusive. I’ve linked to three articles in explaining in detail why affirmative action harms blacks and Hispanics. If you read those three articles, you’ll find links to plenty of studies documenting the fact in great detail. Can you link us to any serious study showing that affirmative action doesn’t hurt blacks? ---
**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, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-states-can-ban-race-based-aa/686760/83 "2014-04-24T17:49:27Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > That isn’t hard to find. In post #42 you went on the attack against them: Wrong. Nowhere in what you quoted did I say ballot initiatives were illicit. So either point out where you think I said that, or retract your statement. > [@ITR\_champion](#): > > But for the purposes of this thread, we’re discussing a Supreme Court case where the plaintiffs were clearly anti-democratic. That is clearly a matter of opinion. > [@bump](#): > > How do we know the same left-wing group wouldn’t have sued again, demanding that the democratic process be nullified a second time? How do you know some right-wing group wouldn’t sue to stop racial preference based on some other case? You don’t, and speculating serves no purpose. > [@ITR\_champion](#): > > (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).) This is just not correct. The reality is most serious academics would agree with your contention. Look no further than the founding documents in this country. ---
**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, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-states-can-ban-race-based-aa/686760/84 "2014-04-24T17:53:06Z")
Still lots of “I never said X.” OK. What ARE you saying, Brickbacon? ---
**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, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-states-can-ban-race-based-aa/686760/85 "2014-04-24T18:03:12Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > I don’t supposed you’d have any interest in telling us what this “more compelling case” is? Do you really need me to link to studies and accounts of AA helping women and URMs? > [@ITR\_champion](#): > > I’ve linked to three articles in explaining in detail why affirmative action harms blacks and Hispanics. If you read those three articles, you’ll find links to plenty of studies documenting the fact in great detail. Can you link us to any serious study showing that affirmative action doesn’t hurt blacks? I have. We just did this like 3 months ago. [Here](http://soe.sagepub.com/content/78/4/294.abstract) is one paper that argues against the mismatch hypothesis upon which your AA critique is based. Besides, even if the mismatch theory is correct, it doesn’t speak to whether we are collectively better off even if it is bad for some individuals (eg. are 10 Harvard degrees more valuable than 14 Arizona State degrees), or whether the mismatching that supposedly occurs because of racial preference is worse than any other policy that results in mismatching (eg. geographic discrimination, legacies). ---
**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, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-states-can-ban-race-based-aa/686760/86 "2014-04-24T18:07:29Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Still lots of “I never said X.” > > OK. What ARE you saying, Brickbacon? Read my posts if you care. Given that I, “won’t be persuaded no matter what”, I don’t know what you are harassing me to get at what I have already outlined numerous times in this thread. ---
**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, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-states-can-ban-race-based-aa/686760/87 "2014-04-24T18:17:46Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > Read my posts if you care. Given that I, “won’t be persuaded no matter what”, I don’t know what you are harassing me to get at what I have already outlined numerous times in this thread. I have read your posts. They consist of vague attacks, and then indignant denials when your opponents characterize any of your assertions. You excoriate the process of direct ballot initiatives but insist that you never said they were illicit. So can you state your argument clearly? ---
**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, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-states-can-ban-race-based-aa/686760/88 "2014-04-24T18:40:14Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I have read your posts. They consist of vague attacks, and then indignant denials when your opponents characterize any of your assertions. You excoriate the process of direct ballot initiatives but insist that you never said they were illicit. > > So can you state your argument clearly? If you see no value in my posts, then ignore them. If you think I won’t be persuaded, then stop trying to engage me. I grew bored of your act and your arrogant posts a long time ago. I really don’t feel a need to play your games, and since you apparently see no value in what I have written, feel free to occupy your time bothering someone else. ---
**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, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-states-can-ban-race-based-aa/686760/89 "2014-04-24T19:19:13Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > I have. We just did this like 3 months ago. [Here](http://soe.sagepub.com/content/78/4/294.abstract) is one paper that argues against the mismatch hypothesis upon which your AA critique is based. I believe that I pointed out in the previous thread that that article did not study the results of affirmative action. Hence, for you to claim once again that the exact same article has something to do with affirmative action does nothing to make your case look any more honest or firmly grounded. > [@](#): > > Besides, even if the mismatch theory is correct, it doesn’t speak to whether we are collectively better off even if it is bad for some individuals (eg. are 10 Harvard degrees more valuable than 14 Arizona State degrees), So you’re basically saying that even though affirmative action leads to fewer blacks graduating, that’s not necessarily a bad thing? That’s a pretty lame defense of affirmative action. ---
**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, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-states-can-ban-race-based-aa/686760/90 "2014-04-24T19:27:31Z")
> [@ITR Champion](#): > > (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).) > [@brickbacon](#): > > This is just not correct. So now you’re claiming that when the dictionary defines a word one way and you define it a different way, the dictionary is wrong and you’re right? > [@brickbacon](#): > > The reality is most serious academics would agree with your contention. Look no further than the founding documents in this country. Why yes, they would. ---
**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, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-states-can-ban-race-based-aa/686760/91 "2014-04-24T19:52:00Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > I believe that I pointed out in the previous thread that that article did not study the results of affirmative action. Hence, for you to claim once again that the exact same article has something to do with affirmative action does nothing to make your case look any more honest or firmly grounded. And again, I pointed out that your critique is nonsensical. If you think AA is a problem because it results in mismatching, and mismatching is bad, it doesn’t matter why the mismatching happened unless you think the mismatching that occurs as a result of AA is unique in some way. Once again, you have failed to grasp this very basic point. This is just another conservative attempt to muddy the waters by blithely asserting the opposite is true, then paying some hack to misuse data and information and torture logic in order to give some scholarly patina to hackery. Add it to the list of things like: [Abortion is bad for women](http://www.frc.org/issuebrief/how-abortion-affects-womens-health) [Climate Change is good](http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/apr/09/climate-change-report-heartland-institute-debunk-ipcc) [Blacks were better off being slaves](http://www.politicususa.com/2011/07/28/black-families-gop-slavery.html) [The North started the Civil War](http://www.searavenpress.com/EVERYTHING%20YOU%20WERE%20TAUGHT%20ABOUT%20THE%20CIVIL%20WAR%20IS%20WRONG.htm) [Japanese Internment was justifiable](http://www.amazon.com/In-Defense-Internment-Racial-Profiling/dp/0895260514) Just to name a few. > [@ITR\_champion](#): > > So you’re basically saying that even though affirmative action leads to fewer blacks graduating, that’s not necessarily a bad thing? That’s a pretty lame defense of affirmative action. I am saying that even IF the theory was correct, it doesn’t speak to the wisdom of the entire policy at all, particularly since mismatching in both directions occurs no matter what. Additionally, there are arguably benefits gained by others, and qualitative benefits we all enjoy that mismatching doesn’t address (nor does it attempt to). Besides, if every policy a college pursued were only evaluated based on graduation rates, then colleges would look much different than they currently do. > [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Why yes, they would. You caught a clear typo in my part. Congratulations, you win the internet. ---
**Author:** ![yellowjacketcoder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/4bbf92/32.png) [@yellowjacketcoder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yellowjacketcoder)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2014, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-states-can-ban-race-based-aa/686760/92 "2014-04-24T20:00:11Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > And again, I pointed out that your critique is nonsensical. If you think AA is a problem because it results in mismatching, and mismatching is bad, it doesn’t matter why the mismatching happened unless you think the mismatching that occurs as a result of AA is unique in some way. Once again, you have failed to grasp this very basic point. Is your argument that: Given Process X, Given Process Y, Where X causes some about of Z, Where Y causes some about of Z, and Z is a bad thing, Eliminating X to reduce Z is not a good outcome because Y still causes some Z? Because that makes no sense. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2014, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-states-can-ban-race-based-aa/686760/93 "2014-04-24T20:03:10Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Leftist groups sued to have the law overturned. If they won, it would mean, more or less, that affirmative action is now required, even when the people don’t want it. The result of the dissent’s argument would be even more bizarre than that. It would seem that Michigan public colleges would not be required to have affirmative action, so long as the college admissions boards didn’t approve it. And if no admission board had approved it, it would be permissible to remove that authority from the boards and place it in the hands of the legislature, the governor, or the people in an initiative process. But as soon as ONE single board decided to implement AA, then that decision would forever have to be made by the board. ANY change to the approval process for AA would have to be done by that board. Scalia has a good paragraph about the absurdity of such a rule. I think that the “political process doctrine” needs scrapped. Unless the law infringes on a fundamental right, it can disadvantage groups all day long. Any democratically passed law disadvantages those people who are opposed to its passage. Sotomayor might as well say that it is unconstitutional not to pass the entire Democratic platform because: 1. Those laws favor minorities (its assumed, just like its assumed that AA benefits minorities) 2. If left to an open vote, the majority whites would outvote the minority population and no “good” laws would be passed. 3. ?? 4. Profit by having laws which favor minorities. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2014, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-states-can-ban-race-based-aa/686760/94 "2014-04-24T20:05:58Z")
Just like when the SCOTUS gutted the Voting Rights Act, I predict that a lot of southern and midwest racists will use this opportunity to “correct” AA by being more racist than ever. ---
**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 24, 2014, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-states-can-ban-race-based-aa/686760/95 "2014-04-24T20:52:34Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > Just like when the SCOTUS gutted the Voting Rights Act, I predict that a lot of southern and midwest racists will use this opportunity to “correct” AA by being more racist than ever. Nonsense. People have been fighting AA since it started. There is no “opportunity” being used here. And I’m not sure how you become more racist when you stop using race as a determining factor in admissions. ---
**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, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-states-can-ban-race-based-aa/686760/96 "2014-04-24T21:11:54Z")
> [@yellowjacketcoder](#): > > Is your argument that: > > Given Process X, > Given Process Y, > Where X causes some about of Z, > Where Y causes some about of Z, > and Z is a bad thing, > Eliminating X to reduce Z is not a good outcome because Y still causes some Z? > > Because that makes no sense. No. Here is the quick summation of this argument. A: Affirmative action is bad. B: Why? A: Because AA causes mismatching, meaning unqualified people end up in colleges where they cannot compete, so they drop out of school, resulting in fewer graduates. B: But this study says mismatching is not bad for students and doesn’t result in what you allege it does. A: Yes, but the study doesn’t look at AA, just mismatching. B: Correct, but if you state AA is bad because mismatching is bad, if it turns out mismatching is in fact not bad, then your justification for AA being bad is incorrect. Now, that doesn’t mean AA can’t be bad for other reasons, or that the mismatching that occurs from AA cannot somehow be different from mismatching as we see generally, but there is no reason to think it is at the moment. Even the general idea of a mismatch is problematic because the “match” is randomly based on a changing norm, and is thus a floating target from year to year whereas the instruction level and environment are likely not as mutable. ---
**Author:** ![even\_sven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2014, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-states-can-ban-race-based-aa/686760/97 "2014-04-24T21:29:04Z")
AA in university admissions is not primarily about righting past wrongs, and has not been for a long time. It is about universities crafting diverse, interesting, dynamic classes that represent all of the communities that university is chartered to serve. Diversity fosters innovation. It brings different perspectives and experiences, and combats groupthink. It is inherently good for learning. ---
**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, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-states-can-ban-race-based-aa/686760/98 "2014-04-24T21:33:19Z")
I should add that the paper specifically addresses the controversy regarding mismatching via AA, and lists results separated by race as well. What it does not do is attempt to ascertain who was admitted via AA (generally impossible to know), but rather it utilized quantitative metrics to justify the academic mismatch using the same metrics across racial categories. Either way, the critique is baseless. ---
**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, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-states-can-ban-race-based-aa/686760/99 "2014-04-24T22:27:47Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > Just like when the SCOTUS gutted the Voting Rights Act, I predict that a lot of southern and midwest racists will use this opportunity to “correct” AA by being more racist than ever. The Supreme Court has never “gutted the Voting Rights Act”. The Voting Rights Act is still in effect. ---
**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, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-states-can-ban-race-based-aa/686760/100 "2014-04-24T22:36:55Z")
> [@even\_sven](#): > > AA in university admissions is not primarily about righting past wrongs, and has not been for a long time. > > It is about universities crafting diverse, interesting, dynamic classes that represent all of the communities that university is chartered to serve. > > Diversity fosters innovation. It brings different perspectives and experiences, and combats groupthink. It is inherently good for learning. As has been pointed out copious times in this thread and others, this isn’t true. Affirmative action does not lead to more diverse college classes. All human beings are unique, so any group of thousands of freshmen entering a college will be diverse. But suppose we’re to focus on certain types of diversity. Do affirmative action policies create more of this type of diversity? Do they make sure that all groups are represented at colleges and universities? As we’ve seen: no. The students who get admitted because of affirmative action tend to be upper middle class, children of college-educated professionals. They do not usually represent the poor or other groups that actually are underrepresented at top colleges and universities. If affirmative action is intended to “foster diversity”, it fails on its own terms. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-states-can-ban-race-based-aa/686760.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-states-can-ban-race-based-aa/686760.md?page=6)