The unofficial online home for fans of the Western Michigan University Broncos. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/supre...s/25599200

WASHINGTON -

The Supreme Court has upheld Michigan's ban on using race as a factor in college admissions.

The justices said in a 6-2 ruling Tuesday that Michigan voters had the right to change their state constitution to prohibit public colleges and universities from taking account of race in admissions decisions.

Justice Anthony Kennedy said voters chose to eliminate racial preferences because they deemed them unwise.

Kennedy said nothing in the Constitution or the court's prior cases gives judges the authority to undermine the election results.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor read her dissent aloud in the courtroom Tuesday. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg sided with Sotomayor in dissent.

Attorney General Bill Schuette had been fighting to uphold the ban after the appeals court invalidated it last year.

Jennifer Gratz became the face of the battle against affirmative action after she sued the University of Michigan over racial preferences 16 years ago. She won at the Supreme Court in 2003.

Earlier in the process, I recall the discussion included the idea of preferential treatment. UM used a points system, and you could get extra points for a variety of characteristics. As I recall, those included things like legacy (a parent graduated from UM), and geographical location (extra points if you were from the UP).

So, the question was, how did discrimination fit into that point system. How can you ban extra points for racial diversity, but allow points for geographical diversity.

I understand this opinion decided on the question of a voted ban, but does the question of discrimination still apply?

Very complicated arguments here.

UM law school operated on a points system. If you were African American you received additional points. In some cases applicants with higher academic scores were passed over because they lost out on the overall scoring system which included those bonus points.

Strangely Asians, whom are a minority, we're not given points for being a minority.

Asians a minority? They make up more than half of the world's population.

Quote:They make up more than half of the world's population.

That makes every other race a "minority", right?

(04-22-2014 06:55 PM)chipfan Wrote:  Asians a minority? They make up more than half of the world's population.

We're talking U.S., not the world.

Quote: Kennedy said nothing in the Constitution or the court's prior cases gives judges the authority to undermine the election results.

Know I'm really puzzled. Isn't this exactly what judges are doing in throwing out the bans in various states against gay marriage?

Can't have it two ways. Or is this an indication of how SCOTUS will rule on the issue when they take it up next year?

Hypothetical.

What if Michigan voters approve a ban on inter-racial marriage.

Would the Supreme Court uphold that?

(04-23-2014 06:23 PM)bronco47 Wrote:  Hypothetical.

What if Michigan voters approve a ban on inter-racial marriage.

Would the Supreme Court uphold that?

Not thinking that initiative could ever get on the ballot. Requires a huge number of signatures, and I dont think they could get them. The UM law school case showed some clear bias and the issue crossed party lines. Not nearly as hard to garner the needed support to get it on the ballot.

The decision bothers me because of the principle, not so much the specifics of it.

It seems they are emphasizing states rights as being superior over federal case law. Such that if voters in a particular state approve some ban or some viewpoint, that becomes the determining factor more than the "rightness" of it.

I can see state voters approving all kinds of Wierd stuff. Burn adulterers at the stake? If that passes in Missisippi will it fly?

There has to be more to it than a vote. Think about it.

Quote:The decision bothers me because of the principle, not so much the specifics of it.

I get that, but you have to dumb it down around here....

(04-23-2014 08:44 PM)bronco47 Wrote:  The decision bothers me because of the principle, not so much the specifics of it.

It seems they are emphasizing states rights as being superior over federal case law. Such that if voters in a particular state approve some ban or some viewpoint, that becomes the determining factor more than the "rightness" of it.

I can see state voters approving all kinds of Wierd stuff. Burn adulterers at the stake? If that passes in Missisippi will it fly?

There has to be more to it than a vote. Think about it.

The Supreme Court's job is not to decide what is right or wrong, it is to decide if a law is constitutional/legal or not. The SCOTUS does not make laws or decide if they should be enforced, only if they are legal.

In the case of affirmative action - Michigan deciding to ban discrimination in admissions based on race, sex, etc. does not violate the constitution, thus the state is allowed to vote on it.

In your example of burning adulterers at the stake - that would clearly violate the constitution and thus be ruled so by the Supreme Court.

As for gay marriage - we will see what they find. It could go either way I feel.

But there is a circular arguement here. First the State allows the vote assuming affirmative action doesn't involve the constitution, and when the voters approve it, the court says hey look, the voters approved it, who are we to interfere?

Having said that, it is what it is and the rule is set.

Fortunately, there will be little effect as affirmative action has been a joke for a long time now anyway.

(04-24-2014 08:00 AM)bronco47 Wrote:  But there is a circular arguement here. First the State allows the vote assuming affirmative action doesn't involve the constitution, and when the voters approve it, the court says hey look, the voters approved it, who are we to interfere?

Having said that, it is what it is and the rule is set.

Fortunately, there will be little effect as affirmative action has been a joke for a long time now anyway.

Not really. The supreme court hears challenges to current laws. The state wouldn't be able to go to the SCOTUS and say "hey, can we hold a vote on this?". 100% of what they do is hear challenges to existing laws. That's the way it has always worked.

They aren't saying "Hey look, voters approved it, who are we to interfere?" they are saying "We conclude that the ban on discrimination in college admissions based on race, gender, etc. does not violate the US Constitution/law, therefore we affirm the vote of the people of the state of Michigan, allowing the ban" they are two wholly separate things

(04-23-2014 08:44 PM)bronco47 Wrote:  I can see state voters approving all kinds of Wierd stuff. Burn adulterers at the stake? If that passes in Missisippi will it fly?

That would be epic!! (In a Game of Thrones sort of way)

That would be a big loss for Jesus down there though.

So now we can justify discrimination by means of a ban on discrimination.

Perfect.

Actually Michigan colleges are now not allowed to practice Reverse Discrimination.

The next question could be "Are Special Admission programs allowed for college athletes?"

https://sites.psu.edu/hedgesrclblog/2013...-athletes/

An older article reported

Quote:At Texas, the average SAT score for a freshman football player from 2003 to 2005 was 945 -- or 320 points lower than the typical first-year student's score on the entrance exam.

Quote:Actually Michigan colleges are now not allowed to practice Reverse Discrimination.

There is no such thing as "reverse discrimination".

(04-24-2014 02:35 PM)ESSSS Wrote:  

Quote:Actually Michigan colleges are now not allowed to practice Reverse Discrimination.

There is no such thing as "reverse discrimination".

Near miss.

Experts say this is interesting because Michigan taken as a whole is liberal and Democratic.

Nationally, 56% of adults surveyed can support the term affirmative action.

However when the terms "preferential treatment" or "reverse discrimination" are used, the percentage swaps, Americans don't like either of those.

Classically, affirmative action refers to trying to normalize admissions to accurately reflect constituent populations. If your State has 18% African American, but your college has 5% African American admissions, you'd say, something is wrong with this picture, and try to normalize the process.

Colleges have used SAT scores, class rank, and then a kind of subjective segment like "participating in extra-curricular activities", writing an essay, getting letters of recommendation, legacy, athletic participation, etc. in deciding about admission. SAT scores are really biased to whites (and Asians, who are good at acting white). Class rank is a pretty good way to go, in fact in Texas, the top 10% of every school are automatically qualified, even though some schools better prepare students than others. Diversity has been thought to fit into that last "subjective" portion of the admission process.

But when diversity and affirmative action are reframed as preferential treatment or reverse discrimination, people tend to oppose it, and that is what happened in the Michigan vote.