There is much to be said for this argument, although benignity is in the eye of the beholder.
There is much to be said for this argument, although benignity is in the eye of the beholder.Tags: Thesis Literary TermWriting The Perfect Book ReportChildhood Memories With Friends EssayThesis Statement SCritical Thinking StandardsAutism Research Paper OutlineDead Poet Society Essay QuestionsEthnographic Essay Topics
n affirmative-action cases, the Supreme Court never seems to learn the obvious lesson, or perhaps it is determined to finesse it.
The lesson is that universities that are keen to implement race-based affirmative action (and it is hard to find a highly or even moderately selective school that isn't) will figure out a way to do so unless the Court emphatically and clearly prohibits it.
In a case decided in April, the Court upheld Michigan voters' power to ban affirmative action — indeed, to ban the same affirmative-action program at the University of Michigan that the Supreme Court had upheld in 2003 — through a constitutional amendment adopted by voter referendum.
But while Americans consistently voice a firm opposition to affirmative action in university admissions, the public debate surrounding the issue has been clouded by both weakly reasoned Supreme Court jurisprudence and incoherent factual claims by supporters of race-conscious admissions.
Policies justified under that rationale thus could not survive if the "strict scrutiny" standard were seriously applied.
The Court applies strict scrutiny when assessing race-based policies like affirmative action, whether in higher education, government hiring, or government contracts.
The Court's superficial treatment of these questions reveals the profound weakness of its affirmative-action analysis.
DIVERSITY AND REMEDIATION First, the plurality had imposed for validating them.
Racial classifications epitomize this kind of risk.
Many academic advocates of preferences, to be sure, maintain that the Court's strict-scrutiny standard, as elaborated in earlier decisions, was strict, even procrustean, and that a "benign" preference adopted by self-abnegating ethnic majorities should be judged less rigorously.