Heather Mac Donald: The Supreme Court’s Schuette Decision Exposes the Absurdity of Racial-Preferences Jurisprudence

20140506-hm

Photo by Pete Souza

For City Journal, Heather Mac Donald writes: In a victory for common sense, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in late April that voters could require colorblind admissions to their state’s public universities without running afoul of the Constitution. Several of the justices arrived at this seemingly self-evident conclusion via tortured routes, however, and Justices Sotomayor and Ginsburg rejected it. Their opinions reveal the counterfactual condition of race jurisprudence today, while also unwittingly providing a rationale for knocking down academic racial preferences entirely. Sotomayor’s long, impassioned dissent opens a disturbing window into her racialized worldview and offers an example of what might be called the black-studies-ification of elite discourse.

[See Heather Mac Donald’s book: The Burden of Bad Ideas: How Modern Intellectuals Misshape Our Society at Amazon.com]

The roots of the recent decision, Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration and Immigrant Rights . . . By Any Means Necessary (BAMN), were planted in 2003, when the Court upheld the use of racial admissions preferences by the University of Michigan’s law school. Preference opponents responded with a ballot initiative to amend the state constitution, prohibiting Michigan’s government from discriminating against, or according preferential treatment to, any individual or group based on race, gender, or national origin. The campaign over the initiative, Proposal 2, was highly visible and hard-fought, focusing primarily on the measure’s effect on admissions to the state’s public universities. Proponents of preferences, led by BAMN, argued that Proposal 2 would drastically reduce minority enrollment at the University of Michigan and that it was a thinly veiled excuse for racism. Voters rejected those arguments and passed the initiative with 58 percent of the vote in 2006. BAMN then sued to overturn Proposal 2 as unconstitutional. The group lost in federal district court but won in the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. Proposal 2’s backers appealed to the Supreme Court. Read the rest of this entry »


Pro-affirmative Action Side Mocked by Conservative AND Liberal Supremes

Buh-heeheheehee! Muh-huhuhuhahahahahha. Lemme catch my breath, whew..mm..buhuhuHAHAHAHAheheheee!

Hahahaha….B-b-b-b-b-Buh-heeheheehee! Muh-huhuhuhahahahahha. Lemme catch my breath,  whew..mm..buhuhuHAHAHAHAheheheee! I need a glass of water, give me a minute hahahhahaHAHAHA

Robby Soave reports: Proponents of race-based admissions had a rough time during oral arguments at the Supreme Court this week, as both the conservative and liberal wings of the court humiliated an attorney for the Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action for her faulty reasoning.

Shanta Driver, an attorney for the coalition, got off to a bad start when she said that the purpose of the 14th Amendment was “to protect minority rights against a white majority.”

Associate Justice Antonin Scalia immediately interrupted her.

“My goodness, I thought we’ve — we’ve held that the Fourteenth Amendment protects all races,” he said.

Read the rest of this entry »