The Supreme Court brokered a
compromise on affirmative action in college admissions Monday, telling courts to look more closely at the justifications for such programs but keeping alive for now the use of race to achieve diversity.The court voted 7 to 1 to send the University of Texas’s race-conscious admissions plan back for further judicial view, and told the lower court to apply strict scrutiny, the toughest judicial evaluation of whether a government’s action is allowed.“A university must make a showing that its plan is narrowly tailored to achieve the only interest that this Court has approved in this context: the benefits of a student body diversity that ‘encompasses a . . .broad array of qualifications and characteristics of which racial or ethnic origin is but a single though important element,’ ” wrote Justice Anthony M. Kennedy.The decision could spawn challenges of race-conscious admissions decisions elsewhere, but stopped short of ruling out the use of race, as affirmative action opponents had urged.
is this really about the White woman that was denied entry and cried that African American and Hispanics took the spot she obviously felt entitled to?
is there a record of her getting upset about the thousands that were denied so that one like her could get the education, did she think it wrong then?
these kinds of stories only get noticed if it's a reverse discrimination, had it been business as usual the denials would overshadow the act it's self as the story gets buried.
The court since 1978 has recognized that promoting diversity on the nation's campuses allows universities to give some consideration to an applicant's race, which normally would be unconstitutional.But the court's composition has changed considerably, even since the 2003 decision. The 5 to 4 Grutter decision was written by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who has been replaced on the court by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. Alito has proved to be a fierce opponent of race-specific government policies
i think this was a chance to take another step forward missed i don't think sending it back to states who are the reason it's before them in the first place will change anything.
look what happened when voting got sent back total advantage taken by those in charge, remember during campaigns the republican answer to everything was send it back to the states, that whole premise is dereliction of duty and dodge ball at it's worst. take a look at those red states and what they did to their populations.
further revue in this case to me means whatever thestate wants to do, i don't understan the liberal side of the court taking this stance when red state gov. have not shown a propensity to it's race diversities except punish and taking their votes.
