The US Supreme Court issued a split decision on two Univ. of Michigan affirmative action cases today, and upheld (6-3) a federal law requiring porn filters and public libraries. The court found the Univ. of Michigan’s Law School admissions policies to be constitutional, while striking down the school’s undergraduate admissions policies.
The Affirmative Action rulings are a little odd, as the court upheld (5-4) a system which functions (in many ways) like a quota system, but struck down (6-3) a system which gives underrepresented minorities a 20 point boost (on a 150 point scale). Michigan also gives a 20 point bonus for “Socio-economic disadvantage.” Which basically means that poor minorities (regardless of qualifications) get a 26% bump on their odds of admission.
From what I can tell based on looking at the United States’ brief of the case, the Law School admissions policies were a bit different. They seek to enroll a “critical mass” of minorities. The district court seemed to think that the admissions policies resulted in the school seeking to enroll a number of minorities comparable to the number of minority applicants (10% - 17%). The court ruled that the admissions practices failed to be “narrowly tailored” and thus constituted a violation of the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment. A key component of the US’s brief was the availability of suitable race-neutral standards to promote diversity (such as are in effect in Texas and Florida).
It should be interesting to see what the smart people have to say about this, personally I’m happy that the court struck down the point bonus system (which was just wrong), but I also tend to think the quota-like system should’ve gone too. I’ll be interested to see the majority and dissenting opinions from the court when they finally make their way to the net.
The internet filters ruling is a bit of a no-brainer, the Court ruled that the filters censored no more speech than the purchasing practices of libraries, and that adults could just ask for the filters to be disabled if they caused problems. The American Library Association challenged the law because filters do such a poor job of keeping porn out and allowing valid information through.
Interesting day in law, I’d say.
The Devil Went Down to Georgia
In order to keep an open mind, I am trying to avoid learning anything.
About
SEC Football
- Tommy Tuberville Is Still Definitely 'Not Tolerating' Dirty Blocks
- Auburn Fan Outlook Is Bleak for the Iron Bowl
- Auburn RB Brad Lester Predicts Two Wins at Amen Corner by 'A Good Number of Points'
- 'Bama Doesn't Know They Can't Win Out
- Will Fulmer's Departure Force Auburn's Hand?
June 24th, 2003 at 10:26 am
I would just like to enlighten you with my thoughts on this subject because like most middle class white kids, I feel strongly about it. Everyone should be admitted in to college based on academics, test scores, and extra curricular activities ONLY. To college admission boards e should be a number only. Hey, they should be comfortable with that… That\’s what we are for four years anyway, right? No one should be given preference in any way for race or from where they grew up or for how much money their parents make. Every one should have to meet the same requirements as everyone else. Did you know it is like four times harder for people of Asian descent to get into Ivy League since there are so many more of them that are qualified? That\’s stupid. Though I am a liberal, it\’s one of those cases when I can\’t stand liberal thinking. Okay, I\’ll get of my soapbox now… Thanks for listening!
June 24th, 2003 at 1:14 pm
I agree with what the Circuit Court said about race in their ruling, and that\’s that the link between race and educational diversity is tenuous at best.
I will say, however, that there are a lot of kids (of all races) who, by virtue of their socio-economic background, are not able to go to good schools, and aren\’t afforded the opportunity get the high \”numbers\” (ACT, SAT, GPA, etc…) and it\’s important to get those kids into college. Race, though, is a pretty silly indicator for intellectual or experiential diversity.