Supreme Court casts doubt on affirmative action

Supreme Court casts doubt on affirmative action

8:42PM EST October 10. 2012 - WASHINGTON — The use of racial preferences in university admissions appears to be in jeopardy -- at least at the University of Texas, if not nationwide.

With the author of the last landmark affirmative action case, retired justice Sandra Day O'Connor, seated in the front row, the Supreme Court openly struggled Wednesday with this central question: How much racial favoritism is enough?

Programs used by university admissions offices nationwide to achieve diversity hung in the balance as the court took up the case of Fisher v. University of Texas, the latest in a long string of affirmative action cases that until now have upheld the limited use of race in college admissions.

As the justices peppered questions at lawyers for the university and for Abigail Fisher, the 22-year-old Texan who says she was denied admission to the school's flagship campus in Austin because she was white, it became clear they were searching for a bright line that does not exist.

One of their main concerns goes to the heart of the case: at what point does the court stop deferring to a university’s judgment that the consideration of race is still necessary?

“I understand my job under our precedents is to determine if your use of race is narrowly tailored to a compelling interest, “Chief Justice John Roberts said to Gregory Garre, a lawyer representing the University of Texas. “The compelling interest you identify is attaining a critical mass of minority students at the University of Texas, but you won’t tell what the critical mass is. How am I supposed to do the job that our precedents say I should do?”

Garre said that Texas had closely followed Grutter when it implemented its own program with a goal of assembling “a broadly diverse student body.”

Chief Justice John Roberts broke in: “Should someone who is one-quarter Hispanic check the Hispanic box or some different box? ”

As Garre tried to explain the various boxes that students check on their own determination, Roberts pressed on.

“What about one eighth?” Roberts was getting to the issue of race and building toward his central question and his frustration with a definition for “critical mass.”

“What is the critical mass of African Americans and Hispanics at the university that you are working toward?” Roberts asked

Garre responded that there was no hard number.

Justice Alito said, “Does critical mass vary from group to group? Does it vary from state to state?”
“How are we supposed to tell whether this plan is narrowly tailored to that goal?” Roberts asked.
None of this was a good sign for the University of Texas plan, which is being challenged by Abigail Fisher, a white Texan who was denied admission to the school in 2008. She argues that she was subject to unequal treatment in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/new...e/1624263/



so apparently the big question is what if the judges toss affirmative action out of universities all together. So do we allow universities to choose less qualified minorities over more qualified racial majorities to diversify their student body?

T
I suspect some people would be ready with bottles of champagne when and if AA is stopped.

I'm ready and waiting with mine.

So ending racial discrimination is a bad thing when the victims of said discrimination are white and asian?

Your question is not clear. If X is forbidden by the SC then universities cannot do X. That is a no-brainer.

However, there are nuances and other aspects. Here is one: can universities consider diversity when evaluating candidates and considering their "qualifications."