Can Harvard Discriminate by Race Forever? – WSJ
If you believe America is fundamentally racist, then you believe that discriminating by race will be justified forever. Justice Sonia Sotomayor came close to saying this explicitly because she said de jure segregation continues in the U.S. Her evidence is that segregation continues in neighborhoods and schools. By her logic, discrimination will be justified as long as any segregation exists, no matter the cause.
Mr. Waxman tried to justify Harvard s use of race by saying it is merely one of many tips that the school uses in making judgments about whom to admit like whether a student is the child of an alumnus, or an athlete.
Doesn t that mean race will be determinative in some cases, Chief Justice Roberts asked. I do concede that, Mr. Waxman said. The Chief replied, so we re talking about race as a determining factor in admission to Harvard. Mr. Waxman said yes just as being, you know, an oboe player in a year when the school orchestra needs an oboe player will be the tip.
The Chief then uttered lines likely to be remembered: We did not fight a Civil War about oboe players. We did fight a Civil War to eliminate racial discrimination.
It also became clear during the four hours that diversity is an all purpose word intended to skirt the strict scrutiny that courts must use when assessing racial preferences. Diversity seems to be whatever the schools say it is for their purposes, and in many cases it is a subterfuge for race. If the diversity standard is allowed to continue to justify discrimination, as a practical matter the lower courts will be obliged to defer to colleges nearly all the time. This will essentially put schools beyond the reach of judicial review on race in admissions.
Oral arguments aren t perfect clues to how the Court will decide cases, but the skepticism toward racial preferences by a majority of the Justices was clear. Their doubts are well placed. Discrimination by race is uniquely pernicious, as American history shows.
via www.wsj.com
If SCOTUS does decide this case rightly, no one will be more astonished than I. Who woulda thunk it? Affirmative action seemed like one of those things, in spite of its many obvious injustices, that was just baked into the American pie. In fact, why wasn’t more made of the argument that it may be wrong, but it’s *precedent*? Affirmative action has been around about as long as Roe, hasn’t it?
The Ivies, the near Ivies, and the wanna be Ivies, not to mention the obviously not-Ivies are in truth the biggest and fattest violation of antitrust law and policy ever conceived by persons. Where else are you forced to reveal your income before they decide what to charge you? Where else does everybody get together to cook up their common applications, their deadlines, and all their other agreements? Could it be we’re about to enter a new era of — gasp! — competition of all against all? I hope so, which makes me think it will never happen. But I would have bet the ranch against the Asian-Americans on a case like this one, so what do I know. Who do these people think they are, anyway, coming to this country with their study habits, and their working on weekends, and their not going out for football or the cheerleading squad and learning advanced calculus instead? Do they have that holistic je ne sais quoi? That well cut jib? They wouldn’t like the food at Harvard, that’s for sure. But in truth, this will be good for Harvard, UNC and the rest of our decaying educational institutions, depending of what the Court does. I especially look forward to the dissents.