Earlier this week, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a Michigan ban on affirmative action in public institutions of higher education. The decision is likely to set the stage for further battles over affirmative action in the political arena, in the courts, and on college campuses nationwide.
Currently the ruling does not have implications for Wake Forest’s admissions processes because the state of North Carolina does not have a similar ban.
Regardless, the attached Q&A seeks to answer some questions you may have or receive.
Did anyone else get the "Wake Forest and the Michigan Affirmative Action Case" this afternoon?
Text:
For those who have paid more attention to this than I have - the Michigan ban on using AA was only with respect to public schools, right? So even if NC did have a similar ban, it would not impact Wake? Would a state (even by constitutional amendment) even have the authority to ban private schools from using AA in their admission processes? My gut would say no, but I'd be curious to hear what others think.
It's not just about being parochial and caring about Wake. It's about how this myopic, totally unfair and stupid ruling impacts our nation as a whole. It's the next logical step in creating Jim Crow 21st Century. ..
States voting to not allow affirmative action in public universities is not remotely close to creating any Jim Crow laws.
What do you think about the role of race in university recruiting efforts?
AA doesn't just impact universities. It has to do with hiring in the state and local government. It will also impact set asides in government contracts. Writing laws that kill AA can effectively turn back forty plus years of progress and kill any hopes of further progress.
Their intention is the same as Jim Crow laws. The purpose of killing AA laws is to relegate women and minorities to being second class citizens once again.
There was a pretty thoughtful discussion on the Michigan case last night on the PBS News Hour. Both David Brooks and Mark Shields agreed that the path forward on AA is reform with a move toward economic/education disadvantaged applicants and away from race-based applicants. Both argued that universities should recruit more aggressively in low income schools and regions.
Mark Shields is liberal and he said, "the clock has run out on race based admissions". He cited 2 to 1 polling advantages favoring economic disadvantages over race. Brooks pointed out that the best public universities can recruit economically disadvantaged students in-state and balance budget cuts by charging out of state and international students at higher tuition rates.
Kagan abstained, so there are at most 3 votes on the current Supreme Court for maintaining AA as is. A bill to revisit AA in CA was killed in committee recently because Asians figured their slots at UCs would be cut. If the votes aren't there in CA or the Supreme Court and public opinion now significantly favors economic disadvantage rather than race, aggressive recruiting by colleges is the only card left to play.
If you can prove the intention is the same as the Jim Crow laws, you can get it struck down in court.
It's like I said earlier on the thread, it would make far more sense for the test JUST to be disparate impact, but in America you need invidious intent as well and you have to be able to show it. I don't even know how you can prove there's invidious intent behind a constitutional amendment that's voted on by the state. I mean there's not even a legislative record to check for the most part.
The problem is the Dems have no balls.
The problem is Dems are pussies. They are afraid of their own shadows and getting yelled at by the Koch brothers and other RWers even when the people are on their side of an issue.
A first year law student could argue about the express intent not being to harm, but the reality is that is its purpose. It's unlikely anyone will give a smoking gun like the one shown by the Speaker of the PA House did RE:voter suppression laws.
The RW is too savvy to leave the smoking gun. If you can't see the invidious intent, it's because you don't want to rather than it's not there.