Getty Images
Last Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard arguments in an affirmative action case, after a white woman named Abigail Fisher was denied admissions to the University of Texas and claimed it was because of her race.
There has been much said about how the justices are likely to vote – especially with the possibly of a 4-4 tie, since Justice Kagan has excused herself from the case. Justice Kennedy, who is considered the swing vote in this case, seems to swaying towards striking down affirmative action.
With the likelihood of affirmative action being ruled down so high, the fate of many university admissions policies are up in the air. And this threat has sparked a large response from universities across the United States. Several universities, including the University of Chicago, Cornell University, Yale University, and John Hopkins University, have filed an amicus curiae brief in favor of the University of Texas.
Student newspapers around the country, from Harvard, to the University of Michigan, to my own school, the University of Pennsylvania, have run opinion editorials on the subject. Most of these editorials seem to view affirmative action in a positive light, as a means not just to level the racial playing field, but also to increase racial diversity on campus and thus add to a larger diversity of viewpoints that students are exposed to while on campus.
However, these editorials also reveal that students view race-based affirmative action as only one component to ensuring a wider diversity on college campuses – many want socio-economic status to be weighed in admissions decisions.
Of course, the Supreme Court has also heard plenty of arguments against the policy. These arguments include the idea that minority students admitted under these policies are not adequately prepared for college classes, that the policies heighten racial tensions and that they discriminate against whites in admissions.
“The point of such briefs,” The Washington Post writes, “is not to necessarily provide the winning argument but to inform the justices of the consequences.” Currently, the balance of the amicus curiae briefs is tipped in support of the University of Texas.
Did Stephen Colbert make a valid point in his recent interview with Slate senior editor Emily Bazelon when he asked, “Shouldn’t Sotomayor and Thomas also recuse themselves, because they’re minorities. They’ve got, pardon the expression, skin in the game. … Shouldn’t it just be Roberts deciding this case?” Or did Bazelon, when she replied, “But doesn’t he have the most skin in the game? Because if you get rid of affirmative action, then that benefits more white people.”
| The Colbert Report | Mon – Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
| Affirmative Action Supreme Court Case – Emily Bazelon | ||||
|
||||
*Disclaimer: Yessenia Gutierrez is a weekly-columnist and on the opinion board for the University of Pennsylvania’s independent student newspaper, The Daily Pennsylvanian.
|
|
||||
I’m undecided. I don’t want to discriminate either way, and I wonder if minorities would be hired without it these days. I kinda think they would but is it too soon to remove us from the “workplace endangered species list?”
As harsh as it’s to say, affirmative action is discrimination all the way and a lot of people here know it but don’t want to say anything because it’s how you get your entitlements. America knows your scams and fleecing of the system by now. Gender, color, sexual orientation, ethnic group, disability, should never be factors in hiring potential job candidates – candidates should be hired because they are the best qualified. That is the only fair thing – and deep down you all know it because it’s wrong to “level” the playing field by shutting out the qualified.
there will be two open seats in the Supreme Court in the near future and if the GOP win the presidency, look out
Affirmative action is not discriminatory, if you look at universities, majority of the student body still remains anglo american. They are obviously not being systematically excluded. The arguments about the danger of affirmative action letting “under qualified” minorities in fails to acknowledge the larger issue. It places the burden on students of color, while not recognizing that it is our schools and larger education system that fails to prepare them. The legacy of racism and discrimination is alive and well, we can’t expect people of color to perform in the same manner as anglo american students because as we know up until recently racism continues to be part of legal structures that exclude ( i.e. segregation not to long ago, only to be replaced by de facto segregation, the attacks on ethnic studies in AZ and the xenophobic law SB 1070.)
I have not researched this myself and I have mixed feelings about AA. Here’s a related link I came across recently on FB…I thought it was interesting: http://mrcyriac.com/2012/10/15/affirmative-action-hurts-minorities-the-most/
“Systematically excluded” – wow, so you guys are brazen enough to even admit to selective discrimination?! Just wow. No one should be ever “systematically excluded” – that’s tyranny.
“people of color”…….minus out all the chinese, taiwanese, korean, japanese, indian and pakistani who make good grades and do well in this country and all who’s left on the list are african americans and latinos who now all the colleges, highschools and government positions the standards are being lowered for like in florida last week. what’s “alive and well” is mediocrity i’m ashamed to say. also obesity and crime but who’s counting. the subsidies will run out one day soon, much sooner than you think in fact. at that time “affirmative action” or anything close to it will be a mere historical footenote. then what do you argue for? i mean 90% of the democrat platform is subsidy teasing based on class and race. what good are slogans and buzzwords at that time.
As harsh as it sounds there is some truth in the bell curve.
@mario: agreed, systematic exclusion is tyranny that’s why, we need a more holistic admissions process that accounts for the many facets of students experiences. What is in place now is not affirmative action, as you might know that was banned quite some time ago. In fact, some of the biggest beneficiaries of affirmative action when it was in place were white women, so the media just likes to focus in on race, one component of many that they look like to play into the racial anxieties of people. ( like gender, class, sexual orientation, gpa, involvement etc) .
@joseramirez: And lets not play into stereotypes of Asian american students as the model minority, it is a myth that hurts everyone by pitting people of color against each other. Not to mention, that the discourse erases the experiences of southeast asian folks, such a vietnamese and cambodian (khmer) who in fact share very similar struggles to others like latinos and african americans in education.
Oops, meant @mario ramirez