US Supreme Courts Upholds Michigan’s Affirmative Action Ban

[bonnie]

US Supreme Courts Upholds Michigan’s Affirmative Action Ban

Michigan Affirmative Action banBy a 6-2 vote, the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld a voter-approved Michigan law that banned the use of racial preferences to admit students to state universities.

The court emphasized that it wasn’t deciding the larger and more divisive question of whether affirmative action policies can be lawful. However, the decision made it clear that voter-approved bans on this practice can withstand legal challenges. It could encourage other states to pass similar bans, and deter challenges to existing bans in seven other states.

Civil rights groups have argued that the 2006 Michigan constitutional amendment – passed as a ballot initiative – imposed burdens on racial minorities which violated the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection.

In November 2012, a divided 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati ruled Michigan’s ban unconstitutional. This prompted the state to appeal this decision to the Supreme Court.

Michigan’s Republican Attorney General, Bill Schuette, said in an interview that the Supreme Court provided other states a “constitutional road map” if they wish to enact similar laws. He added the Justices with their decision had “heard the voices of voters who overwhelmingly voted to require equal treatment in admissions.”

Not surprisingly, the ruling was criticized by civil rights activists and Democrats. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote the sole dissenting opinion and read excerpts from the bench. She called the decision a blow to “historically marginalized groups, which rely on the federal courts to protect their constitutional rights.”

The opinions issued by four justices in the majority revealed differences in the legal rationale to reject civil rights’ groups challenges to the ban. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote an opinion and was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, which said that the lower court which struck down the ban lacked the authority to do so.

“This case is not about how the debate about racial preferences should be resolved,” Kennedy wrote. “It is about who should resolve it.”

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote another opinion and was joined by Justice Clarence Thomas. He wrote that challenges to laws that rest on equal protection claims must show that the law reflects a discriminatory purpose, and the voter-approved Michigan law did not.

[LifeHiscost]

I'm of the opinion, Bonnie, your selections for posting and your comments addressing others re: the same, probably reflect a similarity to Sarah Palin's ideology. No offense meant.

http://news.yahoo.com/palin-waterboarding-nra-speech-205827272.html

"If I were in charge," Palin said Saturday during a Stand And Fight rally at Lucas Oil Stadium, "[our enemies] would know that waterboarding is how we'd baptize terrorists."

God cares! Jesus saves!

[bonnie]

I'm of the opinion, Bonnie, your selections for posting and your comments addressing others re: the same, probably reflect a similarity to Sarah Palin's ideology. No offense meant.

http://news.yahoo.com/palin-waterboarding-nra-speech-205827272.html

"If I were in charge," Palin said Saturday during a Stand And Fight rally at Lucas Oil Stadium, "[our enemies] would know that waterboarding is how we'd baptize terrorists."

God cares! Jesus saves!

I have absolutely no idea where Palin stands on this issue and don't really care. Not sure what waterboarding has to do with affirmative action but I am sure you can tell me.

I don't see any reason to give preferential treatment to anyone regardless of the language they speak,the color of their skin or their economic status.

If you are the best qualified for a job,you should have it.If you have what it takes to be accepted into a college or anywhere else,language,skin color,race should not have a bearing.

You of course are free to have your own opinion on that

[lazarus]

I have a proposal:

Keep Affirmative Action for minorities going for 75% of the time period that white folks had it. After that we can call it evens. Then we can move on. That's a good deal I think.

[bonnie]

I have a proposal:

Keep Affirmative Action for minorities going for 75% of the time period that white folks had it. After that we can call it evens. Then we can move on. That's a good deal I think.

Affirmative action concerns more than people of color.I assume that is what you are referring to with the "white folks" comment.

There are those that wish to keep the racial war alive and thriving. Your suggestion would go a long way in ensuring that.

Those most qualified for a position etc should be the ones that receive it. Not based on gender/color/ethnic background. Nor do I think passing laws as you suggest is the role of the government

For me,if I am in a position to be rescued that requires strength,send me someone like one of my sons.Not one of my DIL's.

If I am being attacked by someone much larger than I am,don't send the 110 lb woman I know that is a PO.Many times a woman probably can handle the situation,more so than a man,but when push comes to shove and strength is required,I would rather not depend on a affirmative action hire.

Don't subject my children to a lesser qualified teacher because of skin color,hire the best qualified.The best may be someone of color,it may be a man or woman,but provide the best educators possible.

My husband has a black oncologist,highly respected and considered one of the best in his field. Hopefully he was hired by the clinic because of his credentials and ability,not because of his skin color.

My nephew is career Marine. If women can compete without lowering the bar in what has been required of him,no problem.

Affirmative actions marines don't cut it.

[Aliensanctuary]

Those immersed in a culture of underachievement have a long road to travel to achieve educational equality.

Then again, just because one doesn't know all of the answers to the trivia questions on standardized tests doesn't mean one is less competent, just that he just wasn't exposed to the trivia in the test.

It would likely take some hard work for the underachievers to reach parity, but they might tend to appreciate what they have accomplished, and encourage others to do the same.

[lazarus]

My point was that affirmative action used to be solely for white people. Affirmative action for minorities is to redress that imbalance.

I don't see any war going on. Where is it?

Quote:

Affirmative actions marines don't cut it

Yes they do. For the vast majority of its history the composition of the marine corp has been as a result of Affirmative Action.

Quote:

Those immersed in a culture of underachievement have a long road to travel to achieve educational equality.

The culture of underachievement is a direct result policies and laws that were designed to give whites economic and educational advantages for generations. In fact forever.

[bonnie]

Yes they do. For the vast majority of its history the composition of the marine corp has been as a result of Affirmative Action.

[bonnie]

Standards should not be lowered to admit Affirmative Action applicants,

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=693

. Fully 100 percent of blacks who scored between 189 and 192 in the school’s academic rating system were admitted, as compared to just 6 percent of whites.

It should also be noted that affirmative action has occasionally been applied to favor whites over blacks. In 1995, for example, a federal judge ordered Alabama State University (ASU), which was virtually all black, to spend $1 million per year on scholarships for white applicants only so as to attract students whose presence would "diversify" the ASU campus. Consequently, in the 1996-1997 school year ASU gave out 671 scholarships to white students -- one for almost every white who enrolled. As a general rule, affirmative action tends to lower standards for its beneficiaries, and ASU was no exception. To be eligible for many of these white scholarships, students needed only a C average, and in some cases were not even required to have earned a high-school diploma.

[lazarus]

That is the culture of victim hood.Under achievement is a personal failure,not the result of "those other guys"

Starts in the home.

To remove the cognitive dissonance this is what you have to believe.

[lazarus]

It should also be noted that affirmative action has occasionally been applied to favor whites over blacks.

Affirmative action has 99% of the time been applied to whites.

[bonnie]

Affirmative action has 99% of the time been applied to whites.

No that was not affirmative action,nor were standards lowered to admit,employ or achieve.

When you cater to the lowest level requirements it is not even in the best interests of those that do not have to push and push hard to excel.Regardless of the skin color or economic status.

When physical strength is required for a position and that bar gets lowered,or certain academic knowledge is required and that is waved because of who is applying it has consequences.

No skin color,gender,nationality has a lock on intelligence. Instead of expecting less because of a minority status,the same standards should be applied

[lazarus]

Originally Posted By: lazarus

Affirmative action has 99% of the time been applied to whites.

No that was not affirmative action,nor were standards lowered to admit,employ or achieve.

Of course it was.

Blacks were prohibited from applying, competing etc. and therefore less qualified whites secured jobs, positions and training because they didn't have to complete with black and other minorities. Action was taken to give white people advantages. It hard to grasp but what do think jim crow was? It was affirmative action for whites.

[bonnie]

Of course it was.

Blacks were prohibited from applying, competing etc. and therefore less qualified whites secured jobs, positions and training because they didn't have to complete with black and other minorities. Action was taken to give white people advantages. It hard to grasp but what do think jim crow was? It was affirmative action for whites.

I know exactly what Jim Crow was.

The standards were not lowered to employ whites. Yes, there were undoubtedly minorities qualified. It wasn't a debate between a highly qualified minority and a white they lowered the standards for. Minorities were not considered so there wasn't any competition.

You seem to think that we are still back there with Jim Crow.

Is there still racism,of course,there will always be.It is far from one sided. Don't tell me that minorities can't succeed.Many poor whites sing the same song. Many minorities and whites succeed,not because someone lowered the standards for them so they could compete. They raised their own expectations and standards

[lazarus]

. Minorities were not considered so there wasn't any competition.

Exactly!! You got it.

That action was Affirmative in favor of white people. Why do think it was done? For the benefit of white folks.

[bonnie]

Affirmative Action as this SC decision is dealing with is not dealing with the very wrong when minorities weren't even really considered.

It is banning preferential treatment for anyone. You of course have stated your desire to make sure that you get even with those that were not part of the past wrong actions.

Not on this earth will this ever end. Those wanting to hang onto that and make sure no one ever forgets they were victims will see to that. Just as there are white people that will hold onto old prejudices. Sad for them

The claim that minorities can't achieve is baloney. Far to many do,without claiming victim status.The claim that a segment of poor whites can't achieve is just as much baloney.

I don't think our area is unique, it is pretty typical.

We have many minorities in our small town and the surrounding small towns.Their children go to the same schools as the "privileged whites" and receive the same education. They apply for jobs and are employed as frequently as the "privileged whites".Somehow they must have stumbled on a secret. They live in the same modest but nice homes that the "privileged whites" do.They didn't inherit or have things handed to them.Amazing that,altho no richer than anyone else,they have nice comfortable homes,decent vehicles,children go to college.If I go to the cities,of course the situation can be different.

When my husband contracted with HUD the problem and the solution was obvious. He spent several years in and out of the homes of people that lived in HUD housing.

Usually he would go back and redecorate the same homes on a yearly basis. Under achievers,all of them.Not a small isolated number over the years.

Father swilling beer on the couch for most of the day,children running wild,mother out working. That the nasty white man can't fix.

There is a reason for both white and minority that don't achieve. Loud and clear,they have others to blame.

Lowering standards to accommodate them is not the answer.

[lazarus]

Ok. Bonnie.

[fccool]

Quote:

Affirmative action concerns more than people of color.I assume that is what you are referring to with the "white folks" comment.

There are those that wish to keep the racial war alive and thriving. Your suggestion would go a long way in ensuring that.

Those most qualified for a position etc should be the ones that receive it. Not based on gender/color/ethnic background. Nor do I think passing laws as you suggest is the role of the government

For me,if I am in a position to be rescued that requires strength,send me someone like one of my sons.Not one of my DIL's.

If I am being attacked by someone much larger than I am,don't send the 110 lb woman I know that is a PO.Many times a woman probably can handle the situation,more so than a man,but when push comes to shove and strength is required,I would rather not depend on a affirmative action hire.

Don't subject my children to a lesser qualified teacher because of skin color,hire the best qualified.The best may be someone of color,it may be a man or woman,but provide the best educators possible.

My husband has a black oncologist,highly respected and considered one of the best in his field. Hopefully he was hired by the clinic because of his credentials and ability,not because of his skin color.

Um... I think you are confused about affirmative action.

1) It's only applicable to government contractors who are paid taxpayer money for projects. The idea here is that this money flows equally based on the taxpayer representation in that particular area.

2) It has nothing to do with giving lesser qualified people to take advantage over the qualified ones, and it's not merely applicable to blacks, but to women and minorities too... mainly because of historical context of these groups having lesser representation in workforce outside of their racial or gender majority. It merely seeks fair representation given similar qualification.

You may cite individual cases where such favoritism breaks down, but it has little to do with mandate, and more to do with with given Company's desire to fulfill the government requirements so they receive that government contract check that doesn't have to be there, in which case they are free to hire whoever they want.

If you have problems with company's actions in such context, government mandates are hardly to blame.

You can surely complain about admissions and teachers, but these have more to do with societal representation rather than unfair treatment. In case of education, it's important to level the field of opportunity, and in terms of education, it's important for certain minority perspective to have a voice in that setting. There are plentiful private schools that can hire all-white, if that just happens to be where the employment happens to fall.

Either way, it seems like you are barking up the wrong tree with this, and following common misconceptions formed by conservative groups about this issue.

[bonnie]

l

Um... I think you are confused about affirmative action.

1) It's only applicable to government contractors who are paid taxpayer money for projects. The idea here is that this money flows equally based on the taxpayer representation in that particular area.

[fccool]

Quote:

Again,if a situation requires physical strength,I would much rather see a man than a small woman,government or not.The rather small female police officer we have here would not be my choice if I were being attacked.

So, that's your complaint? You realize that there are plenty of white male police officers who are small? That's why they carry a gun and a tazer.

Likewise, it's not a matter of public decision who they get to pick and choose in this instance.

Quote:

A lot of companies work around that by hiring the token number,regardless of their qualifications. When my husband worked bridge construction it was common,not isolated,to simply make sure the token minorities were on the job site. It was very common just to leave them be and not require much from them.Their salaries were factored into the bid. Other workers simply ignored them. With the dangers of the jobs it was better just to write it off instead unqualified help that could create a hazard for the other workers.

Yes, and I've mention that, and the fact that it's not Government problem, it's the contractor problem. There are plenty of qualified minorities... and hiring the token ones is exactly what creates the misconception and the moral problem among the rest of the workers, who then create misconception against the minorities based on their lack of the performance, because they are made to sit on the job.

All in all, your problems with affirmative action issue seem to be rather ambiguous.

[bonnie]

So, that's your complaint? You realize that there are plenty of white male police officers who are small? That's why they carry a gun and a tazer.

[Gregory Matthews]

Bonnie said:

Quote:

It should be a matter of qualifications Period.

A major issue is what should be the qualifications?

I am going to respond from a perspective that I gained from 20 years on active duty in the Army.

1) The qualifications should be related to the required job.

The Army has learned that some of the qualifications that it had were not related to any specific job requirements.

2) The qualifications should be fairly enforced.

In the Army qualifications were adjusted downward for males based upon age. In my 50s I could not physically perform at the same level as a 20 year-old male.

3) Qualifications should not be gender specific.

What do I mean by this? All military services have requirements that members of the military be able to wear specific sizes of clothing. E.G. If someone cannot wear a boot that fits the range of approved boot sizes, they are not allowed to enlist. That is reasonable as the military should not be required to custom build a boot whenever someone needs a new boot.

However, if the approved boot sizes fit 80% of the male population, they should also fit 80% of the female population.

One more: Pregnant females should have uniforms that fit a pregnant female figure. They should not be required to wear oversize male uniforms.

In the early stages of the integration of women into the Army it was widely believed by both males and by females that women required to wear the male exercise uniform were less than modest. The women objected to doing so. The men were distracted.

These are some examples, there are others, of uniforms, and qualification standards that had to be changed to accommodate females.

NOTE: There always have been very specific qualification standards related to the requirements to wear uniforms of specific sizes and designs. These qualification standards have had to be modified to accommodate women.

4) The military has basic qualification standards as to dress and appearance that are based upon what is subjectively considered to be appropriate dress in a Caucasian, U.S. society.

It is no longer possible for U.S. society to be described today as a Caucasian Northern European society. Perhaps it should never have been so described. It cannot be so described today.

There have always been military standards related to hair styles for both men and women that were fashioned after the above mind-set. A qualification standard required people who were willing to wear their hair in such a manner.

According to that mindset, corn-rows were forbidden. The Military is currently facing issues over this as our society today is not fully convinced that the qualification standard should be such.

5) The U.S. military has qualification standards which we claim are related to job requirements that other countries do not have for their military.

We have claimed that one must be "clean-shaven" due to the requirement to wear a so-called gas-mask.

Well, There are other countries that have the same need for their military to wear the same protective masks as ours (and may actually be using protective masks that we have given them) and allow their people to have beards of a specified length.

It should also be noted that at one time certain members of the Army were allowed to wear beards--I have served with them.

6) Qualification standards should not infringe upon religious beliefs that have no rational basis that is related to job performance.

I am reminded of a Jewish chaplain in the Army who was court-martialed, convicted and expelled for wearing the traditional head covering as he walked the halls of the hospital where he was assigned.

Folks, I could say more. The term "qualification standards" in military usage covers much more than you might think.

[bonnie]

Apparently qualifications need to be spelled out.

In becoming a firefighter the applicant male or female should be able to exhibit the strength requirements,regardless of the size of their shoes or their gender. If a 5'4" 110 lb woman can handle the hoses/carry those much larger than she is and all that is required,most people would not be concerned with her shoe size.If she can't do what is required she does not belong there

I would guess you didn't enlist at 50. When my nephew joined the Marines there were things required of him that a fifty year old would not be able to do. If as a male he had to be able to do so,so should any woman joining that would be expected to perform as he was.He is very close to retirement and has been promoted enough that he no longer has to perform in the same way as when he enlisted

If you are applying to medical school,the academic requirement to be accepted should not be lowered based on your age or skin color.

[Gregory Matthews]

Monahan, Evelyn M. & Neidel-Greenlee, Rosemary. A FEW GOOD WOMEN: AMERICA'S MILITARY WOMEN FROM WORLD WAR I TO THE WARS IN IRAQ & AFGHANISTAN. Alfred A. Knopf, 2010, 475 pages.

The above is one of the books that I have in my library. It tells the comprehensive story of the entry of females into the U.S. military. It is detailed.

It is also interesting as to issues that were raised related to "qualification standards." If I were to be specific as to some of the requirements that were placed upon women who dared to enter the military, I could be accused of being salacious. So, I chose not to be specific. But, I suspect that probably all people reading this thread would consider that medical examinations and requirements that some women faced in order to meet qualification standards of be abusive and/or criminal today.

So, do not take me to task for the direction that I have taken in regard to qualification standards. A documented history exists to support my perspective. If you want to get into this aspect, I suggest that you purchase and/or read the book that I have listed above.

NOTE: I have dwelt with only a minor aspect of the historical basis for the use of qualification standards in the military. I am assuming that there are probably people who are reading this thread who are better qualified than I am to discuss the use of quali8fication standards related to race and ethnic background.

[lazarus]

Either way, it seems like you are barking up the wrong tree with this, and following common misconceptions formed by conservative groups about this issue.

I'm actually not really a fan of Affirmative Action but its interesting to re-frame the debate. Affirmative Action usually seen as minorities not being qualified and getting jobs etc. but Affirmative Action a practice that has been part of American culture for decades. Of course it was not called that in the past. In our modern world another section of society is getting the benefit.

Check out the book below:

http://www.amazon.com/When-Affirmative-Action-White-Twentieth-Century/dp/0393328511