T**********e
发帖数: 29576 | 1 加州的SCA5短期属于逆潮流而动，应该没戏了。
Supreme Court upholds ban on affirmative action in college admissions
By: Stephanie Simon and Josh Gerstein
April 22, 2014 10:17 AM EDT
The Supreme Court delivered another setback to affirmative action Tuesday,
easing the way for states to bar public colleges from considering race in
admissions.
The 6-2 decision upheld a Michigan constitutional amendment that bans
preferential treatment based on race, gender, ethnicity or national origin.
The ban on affirmative action applies not only to admissions decisions at
public colleges, but also to state hiring and contracting practices.
Eight states, including Michigan, now ban affirmative action. California
lawmakers briefly considered a measure that would turned back its ban on
using affirmative action in public university admissions, but the proposal
was dropped. The court’s decision is likely to embolden opponents of racial
preferences, who have already outlined plans to put Michigan-style
constitutional amendments on the ballot in states including Ohio, Missouri
and Utah.
(Also on POLITICO: Abortion at heart of Ohio speech case)
Justice Elena Kagan recused herself from the case. It’s unknown precisely
why she stepped aside, but she may have had dealings with the case while
serving as solicitor general in the Obama administration or earlier in her
career, as dean of Harvard Law School. Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth
Bader Ginsburg voted in the minority.
The case, Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, grew out of a
2006 ballot measure that enshrined a ban on affirmative action in the
Michigan state constitution. Some 58 percent of voters backed the amendment,
known as the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative or Proposal 2.
Opponents argued that the ban imposed an unfair and unreasonable burden on
minorities. When it came to college admissions, for instance, other interest
groups — rural students, say, or low-income students — could petition
public universities to grant them special consideration. But women, African-
Americans and others covered by the ban could not ask for similar treatment
without first amending the state constitution.
Supporters, led by Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette, argued that
banning discrimination by race could not possibly be considered a
discriminatory act.
A parade of education and civil rights organizations, including the National
Education Association, the American Council on Education and the National
School Boards Association — as well as chancellors of the University of
California system — have publicly opposed the affirmative action ban. The
Obama administration also urged that the ban be overturned.
(PHOTOS: 21 landmark SCOTUS rulings)
In November 2012, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 8-7 that Michigan
’s amendment was unconstitutional because it violated the equal protection
clause of the U.S. Constitution.
The Supreme Court did not take on the merits of affirmative action directly.
Rather, the arguments revolved around a longstanding legal principle that
the court first articulated in 1969, when it overturned a change to the city
charter in Akron, Ohio, that required all measures relating to racial or
religious discrimination be put to a referendum. The court found the change
unconstitutional because it placed a special and unfair burden on racial and
religious minorities seeking to assert their interests in the political
process. The justices reaffirmed that principle in 1982, throwing out a ban
on the use of busing to ease racial imbalances in Washington state public
schools.
At oral arguments in the Schuette case last October, Justice Anthony Kennedy
suggested that the same principle — and legal precedent — clearly applied
in the Michigan case as well.
(PHOTOS: Who’s who on the Supreme Court)
The court’s last major ruling on affirmative action came in 2003. In a pair
of decisions, the justices found that a public university could not give
minority applicants an automatic edge in admissions. However, colleges could
consider race as a factor in admissions — as long as those affirmative
action programs were narrowly tailored and diversity goals could not be met
by other means.
The justices had a chance to make another big statement on affirmative
action last June, in Fisher v. University of Texas. Instead, the justices
punted, voting 7-1 to return the case to the lower courts for a closer
examination of whether a minority preference program at the University of
Texas was narrowly tailored and whether there were other ways to promote
diversity.
Kennedy wrote the court’s decision in the Texas case and still appears to
be the justice most likely to shape the future of affirmative action
programs.
After Fisher was sent back to the lower court, the U.S. Departments of
Education and Justice issued guidance affirming past advice for higher
education: If other approaches besides considering race are ineffective at
promoting diversity, then colleges may factor in students’ race. |
|
