Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    Affirmative Action Tag

    Chief Justice Roberts famously wrote that “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” That simple and correct formulation exposes how racial discrimination in the name of anti-racial discrimination perpetuates the problem. It's a problem inherent in affirmative action based on race, which, whatever the goals, is a form of racial discrimination.

    Cornell University's campus in Ithaca, NY, is in turmoil after two incidents, as I first reported in mid-September. In one incident, a student shouted “build a wall” near the Latino Living Center. At least two reports (Campus Reform and The New American) claim the student was Hispanic and said it to mock Trump. The Cornell administration has declined to confirm or deny those reports, referring me instead to prior general statements from university officials. In a second incident, one or more students who got into a fight off campus with a black student called him the “N” word.

    Just weeks until the September election, Merkel government is threatening "legal measures" against large German companies that fail to implement a 'gender quota' by putting more women on their executive boards. In what could simply be cheap antics to garner votes from women, the Merkel government is waging a war against “male-dominated” corporate boardrooms. Germany's Women's Affairs Minister Katarina Barley has “threatened legal measures if the firms fail to fix the problem within the year,” German public broadcaster Deutsche Welle reported on Wednesday. The Women's Affairs Minister presented a report on the “Corporate Gender Imbalance” to the Merkel-led cabinet this week. According to the report, large German companies had 27.3 percent of women on their supervisory boards. This still isn't good enough for the Merkel government. The State wants large companies to allocate more than 30 percent of seats on their boards to women.

    Yesterday, we noted the left's freak-out over the news that the Justice Department will be investigating race-based discrimination in college and university admissions. The freak-out was on full display on Andrea Mitchell's MSNBC show yesterday. You knew the fix was in from Mitchell's choice as guests of two critics of the initiative: the Washington Post's Jonathan Capehart, and Janai Nelson of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund.

    If a report in the NY Times is accurate, the Trump administration is getting ready to take on the most precious of liberal dogmas, the institutionalized racial discrimination in college admissions, aka affirmative action. The Times reaches the conclusion that affirmative action will be under attack, even though the documents it has obtained for its reporting don't actually say that. The Times reports, Justice Dept. to Take On Affirmative Action in College Admissions:

    Yet another exciting day for SCOTUS watchers. Thursday morning, the Court released its opinion in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, holding in a 4-3 decision (Justice Elena Kagan did not participate) that the use of race in admissions at the Texas university was constitutional. Opinion, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, is here. Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Clarence Thomas, and Justice Samuel Alito dissented. On first glance, it's clear that Texas' "Ten Percent Plan," where the top 10% of the class from every Texas high school gains automatic admission was a big factor, as a race-neutral alternative that still increased diversity.

    Two Supreme Court cases with significant public policy implications previously discussed on Legal Insurrection face very different futures in the wake of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's death on Saturday. Oral arguments in Fisher v. University of Texas and even more more so Friedrichs v. California Teachers’ Association suggested the Court would decide for the conservative position in both. Now those cases are thrown into turmoil.  The traditional response when a Justice dies after oral arguments but before a written decision has been to either affirm the lower court without setting precedent, or to order.  Either option is at least a temporary setback for conservatives.

    Fisher revisited

    I previewed the challenge to the University of Texas's affirmative action scheme in Fisher, here, and discussed the oral arguments, here.   In Fisher, the Court is reviewing UT's admission system that considers race as one factor among many for admitting applicants who did not otherwise qualify for admission for having graduated in the top-10 percent of their Texas high school class. As noted in the case preview:
    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode