Supreme Court Debates Affirmative Action

San Francisco Chronicle, October 10, 2012

A deeply divided Supreme Court on Wednesday squared off over the future of affirmative action in college admissions, with liberals defending a university’s right to assemble racially diverse student bodies, and conservatives worrying about the constitutional rights of those who are denied admission because of their race.


At the end of a lengthy oral argument over admissions policies at the University of Texas, it seemed highly unlikely that a majority of the justices would announce a ringing endorsement of racial-preferences.

But it also was unclear whether there were five votes willing to bar universities from considering race in their admissions process. That would renounce the court’s most recent affirmative action decision in 2003 that universities could use race in a limited way to achieve a “critical mass” of diversity that benefits all students.

That decision will likely come down to Justice Anthony Kennedy. The veteran justice has agreed in theory that campus diversity is the kind of compelling government interest that can sometimes license an otherwise forbidden consideration of race.

But he dissented in that 2003 case, Grutter v. Bollinger, and has never voted to uphold an affirmative action plan that has come before the court.


Fisher’s attorney, Bert Rein, did not ask the court to overturn Grutter but said the university had not shown the necessity for racial considerations that Grutter demanded.

Texas, he said, had become one of the nation’s most diverse universities because of the policy of admitting the top 10 percent of each Texas high school, which yields a diverse crop of students because the schools often are dominated by one race.


Topics: ,

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • RJS

    There are actually MILLIONS more poor whites than poor blacks in the US, but proponents never mention MILLIONS of poor whites systematically excluded by AA.

    By “fighting racism & achieving diversity”, AA is a politically correct way of saying:  “There are too many whites & there must be FEWER whites”.

    There is an insidious AA impact – in college campuses & workforces in the US, MILLIONS of (UNQUALIFIED) non-whites have come into contact with whites that wouldn’t have otherwise. 

    This has lead to a huge increase in the number of interracial marriages & interracial children.

    • Up to my neck in CA

      The hidden agenda of AA?

    • The__Bobster

      The dune-dwelling ex-CEO of Ford Motor company just came out and said it.

      As evidence, the complaint cites statements of several Ford executives. Some of the remarks are openly anti-white, such as the videotaped speech of Ford CEO Jacques Nasser to one of the sessions in corporate brainwashing known as a “diversity training seminar.” “I do not like the sea of white faces in the audience,” Mr. Nasser preached, “and FoMoCo [cute corporate jargon for the company] must ensure that in the future, the company reflects the broad spectrum of Ford’s customers.”

      • Puggg

        “Reflects the broad spectrum of Ford’s customers.”

        The only country outside the United States where American cars are popular is Australia.  Ford and GM have lucrative markets there — GM operates under the label “Holden” in Australia.  Otherwise, there is no great market for American cars.  The American automakers would have been gone years ago but for the economic nationalism of American car buyers.

        Our black population doesn’t seem to be big fans of Ford’s staid lineup.  They seem to love Chrysler and the Escalade/Tahoe

        • Maresy_Doats

           U.S. cars sell very well in Canada. Canadians manufacture a lot of U.S automobile parts too.

      • Up to my neck in CA

        FoMoCo?? Gottz ta make it cool for the dusky brethren to say. They sure are making it hard to buy American cars these days.

  • ed91

    sure they’re leaning conservative……..  like the sellout roberts when he voted for obamacare?

    no thanks.

  • I read that Sandra Day O’Connor was in attendance.

    She wants to be sure that the court can correct her Freudian Slip about affirmative action lasting only 25 years longer.   

  • Of course they are leaning conservative, they are trying to “conserve” affirmative action and non white privilege.

    • The__Bobster

      Notice that no one even guesses how the liberal faction will vote. It’s a given.

  • jedsrael

    Can you see what’s in play here?   ROBERTS!

    He is now hated for giving the victory to Obamacare, so he will give this victory to Fisher, and then he will withstand the cries of RACISM! when the refuses to throw out the illegal alien Dreamer Votes and thereby gives the election to Obama.

    He can keep playing this see-saw justice game for the rest of his life- makes you mad, then makes you happy, then makes you mad, then makes you happy- and in the End, nothing that he did to make you happy will be enough to make up for the COST of all that he did to make you mad.

    The Republic is Dead. Adjust yourself to the New New.

  • Frank Keliher

    Bravo, Woody, you drilled that one like a Campephilus principalis!

    This sillly brouhaha can be easily resolved simply by allowing colleges to admit anyone they choose.  If the Ivy League wishes to be 100% black that’s up to them. 

    Good students, good people will make good reputations for other colleges that are now less well-known.

    • Woody Woodpecker


      And if Harvard went 100% black like you say, I can guarantee two things that would follow:

      1) Its rating would fall somewhere to the level of CCNY.
      2) I would be rolling on the floor, laughing like an idiot.

  • Detroit_WASP

    Wow, if the court bans affirmative action and BHO loses the election…WATCH OUT next summer! 

    • Yes I have considered this scenario as well.  The violent Left (seen some of those Occupy anarchists?) will be out in force and it may make the turbulence of the 1960s seem like a cake walk.

      Whites are in for an interesting time over the next few years as the bastard child of ‘Diversity’ is going through birth pains.  Hopefully it shall be still born and then Whites can go back to a White Republic soon…

    • Up to my neck in CA

      Broke Obama will not go quietly into the night. Look for black riots that will give him the ability to declare Martial Law, then God help us all.

  • Tom_in_Miami

    The phrase, “Considering race in admissions processes,” has no meaning.  How much will race be “considered”?  Just a little?  A lot?  Everyone knows that when race is “considered” it becomes the only consideration and the loser is always the white person, just as when sex is considered it becomes the only consideration. 

  • Does anyone believe that this disgrace of a US Supreme Court will side with the Law and justice.  They will repeat their march down the road to the failure of a socialist Republic.  Who has respect for this Court after the Obama imperial decree of John Roberts.  This is not the US Supreme court but an Imperial Court.

  • They will do what past courts have done, side with the powerful Federal Government.  Their job is to protect the Government and Congress against the people.  Who cares what they decide, the American people from now are going to take the destiny of their nation unto them selves in spite of this Court and this Rogue-Renegade Government.  They falsely swear to uphold the Law and begin to work of destroying it as soon as they sit down.

  • Gary Jenkins

    3 of the 9 SUPREME COURT JUDGES are JEWS (Breyer, Kagan, Ginsburg)

    • Svigor

       Personally, I think a long march against Jewish Privilege in America is an idea that has legs.

  • Barrack Osama

    If only we had some kind of “government” with a “legislative branch” to handle all of this.

  • Herman

    The empty suit Obama has already picked 2 of the 9 Supreme Court Justices.

    If re-elected he will probably pick 1 to 3 more. 

    Legal anti-white discrimination may soon be the law of the land.

  • Giuseppe Verdi

    This is the sort of reason why we really, really all need to hold our noses and vote for Romney. Presidents last for 4 or 8 years, but the Supreme Court justices they appoint are usually there for decades.

    The Court deals with tons of extremely important cases like this one. Right now we have four left-wingers, two right-leaning moderates, and three conservatives on the court. In other words, the situation is precarious. Do you really want Obama replacing an aging conservative, in-your-face firebrand like Scalia? All the left needs is one more vote and then affirmative action discrimination against you and your children and grandchildren (along with many other damaging laws) will be here permanently without even a hope of lessening or weakening it, much less doing away with it.

    Can this country even survive a couple more leftist “Wise Latinas” appointed to the highest court in the land by Obama? However, now that he’s got women, Hispanics, and Jews dealt with on the Court, I’m thinking a radical Marxist black male will be the next one up for nomination. Won’t that be fun? An Obama packed court will make the Warren Court look mild.

  • Michele

    In California, where racial preferences are banned (or supposed to be by law, anyway), colleges have found a way around.  For instance,  each undergraduate candidate for admissions at the University of California, Los Angeles,  is given a “holistic score,” which is based on test scores, grades, extra-curricula activities, and obstacles overcome. Among those with the same score, there are a significantly higher percentage of blacks and Latinos  as whites and Asians.  (Source: New York Times, “Rethinking Affirmative Action”, Oct. 13, 2012
    So, even if Affirmative Action is banned by the Supreme Court, the liberal higher education institutions will still practice it, only they will give it a different name. In the case of  U.C.L.A., their  “officials say that the holistic scores do not fully capture the obstacles some students face.”

  • Bobby

    With European-Americans still a slight majority in the U.S. these Supreme Court Justices,  should think about the implications of their continuing to allow this obomination called affirmative action. The longer it’s around, the more “minorities” will think it’s some God given right to them, and the more possibility for violent reaction will there be, when it’s finally elimanated. They should take the tiger by the tail NOW.

    • Amy

       They? The Justices should take the tiger by the tail NOW? These treasonous  cowards long ago betrayed us. Waiting for them, or any member of the body politic is foolish and will prove to be deadly. There is no branch of government left untainted, ALL have been infiltrated. The sooner our people accept this insidious truth the sooner we will act ourselves.

      • Bobby

        Amy, no excuses, but I must have been tired when I wrote this. Of course, you are one-hundred per-cent correct. Even on things like simply coming out and upholding our Immigration laws, these traitors have FAILED.

  • Amy

    By now I think we should all know that our high court, the “Supreme Court” has been infiltrated and no longer protects the Constitution or our people, but rather those in power. The fact that the supposed “Justices” recently upheld the National Defense Authorization Act, a bill that allows Americans to be denied habeas corpus indefinitely speaks for itself.
    No branch of our government remains uncontrolled by foreign powers who seek to enslave and slaughter us. Only a fool continues to remain in denial and place hope in our body politic.
    We the people are our last and only hope.