Of Course Not

breaking my self imposed silence to comment on the reaction to Scalia's comments

The top Senate Democrat and a civil rights legend serving in the House both condemned Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's comments during an affirmative action case on Thursday, when Scalia seemed to suggest that some African-Americans don't belong in top colleges.

Well of course some African-Americans don't belong in top colleges. And guess what? Some European-Americans don't belong in top colleges either.

This is why we have entrance requirements. You must meet the requirements for entry. Not everyone makes the cut. Why is this even controversial?

Rep. John Lewis, who helped lead the civil rights march in Selma, suggested Scalia should consider recusing himself from the case, Fisher v. University of Texas.

"Justice Scalia's evident bias is very troubling to me. It leads me to question his ability to make impartial judgments in this case," the Georgia Democrat said in a statement.

I question John Lewis' intelligence and fitness to be a representative in government.

Lewis said he was "shocked and amazed" by Scalia's remarks. "His suggestion that African-Americans would fare better at schools that are 'less advanced' or on a 'slow-track' remind me of the kind of prejudice that led to separate and unequal school systems -- a policy the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional decades ago," Lewis said.

A liberal who is "shocked and amazed". Imagine that. Why does John Lewis think there are different tiers of colleges? Why does John Lewis think there are academic scholarships to which some, most students do not qualify for? I wonder if John Lewis has ever considered why most of if not all the Supreme Court Justices went to "top tier" graduate schools? I wonder what John Lewis thinks about trade schools and the fact that many educators actually encourage students who are not "college material" to go to them. Actually I wonder if John Lewis actually thinks?

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid took to the Senate floor to decry Scalia's comments as "racist" -- and sought to tie him to Donald Trump and Republicans.

A liberal calling someone racist for making a comment they don't like in regards to black folks. Imagine that.

"These ideas that he pronounced yesterday are racist in application, if not intent," Reid said.

Yes, they are racist because Harry Reid says so. And if Harry Reid say so then...

Anyway...

"I don't know about his intent, but it is deeply disturbing to hear a Supreme Court justice endorse racist ideas from the bench on the nation's highest court.

Intent isn't the only thing Harry Reid doesn't know. And of course I've already laid out why Scalia's comment wasn't racist but hey facts have never stopped a liberal from declaring something racist.

His endorsement of racist theories has frightening ramifications, not the least of which is to undermine the academic achievements of Americans, African-Americans especially."

Racist theory eh? It's racist that it is a fact that persons of whatever race who are enrolled in a program or college that expects performance that they cannot meet should go to institutions that are a better match for their abilities. Wow. You know, this week has really shown that Democrats and liberals actually live in an imaginary world of their own making in which black people can do no ill and are apparently ALL Ivy League material.

Reid called Scalia "out of touch" with the nation's ideals and called his comments "distressing," saying they were a reminder of a need for vigilance to protect opportunity for Americans.

Firstly the issue of law is not a popularity contest (side note: I blame Kennedy and his made up constitutional rights for adding fuel to this bullshit fire). Secondly the national "ideal" is supposed to be about rewarding people for their performances. If there are students who cannot cut it in a program they either find something else to do or do an easier program. What exactly is "distressing" about that?

And why are Democrats and liberals always emoting? Shocked, amazed and distressed. Get control of your emotions!

"The idea that African-American students are somehow inherently intellectually inferior to other students is despicable," Reid said.

Well sure. If Scalia had said such a thing then I'd be on Reid's side. But Scalia made no such statement. Once again we have a liberal Democrat (I repeat myself) making up comments and sticking them on their opponent.

The idea we should be pushing well-qualified African-Americans out of the top universities into lesser schools is unacceptable."

Again, Scalia did not make this statement. His statement which is actually supported by data, is that if a candidate is not prepared to do work at the level of a school that is offering him admission, it would be better if that candidate went to a school that was a better match for his abilities. This way he does not drop out with debt to pay off or run up debt taking remedial classes and the like at the higher cost of the more prestigious institutions.

Harry Reid's commentary is just as silly as Obama's new Every Student Succeeds plan. I mean really. What wonderland do these folks live in where they think every student will succeed? But politicians like to use cutesy titles for their programs and voters fall for it.

Not every student succeeds but we can help increase the numbers by making sure they are in programs that are best for their skill and intelligence levels. And that's for everybody, not just black people.

*note: The author worked at an admissions office while an undergrad at an Ivy. He also paid close attention to admissions and dropouts of black students while attending a Big Ten school. He has seen first hand how many students are admitted with questionable academic skills who later dropped out or failed to maintain a satisfactory GPA. In every year he kept track, the schools would pronounce how many black students were admitted and every year the black enrollment numbers would shrink as many students would be gone. Meanwhile so called "black activists" would rant about the institution and never considered (at least publicly) that maybe it was simply wrong to admit some of those students in the first place.

The Rising Tide of Other Minorities Who DGAF About Slavery and Jim Crow

One of the side effects of the "browning of America" that a lot of so called "black leadership" have not come to terms with is that as the white population shrinks and is replaced by whites of non-"Anglo" ancestry and other assorted non-whites who have zero connections to Jim Crow and slavery, the usefulness of "white supremacy" arguments are going to take a huge nosedive.

While most white Americans have been cowed into silence on the subject of black folks messing up, for example the 30 dead in Baltimore in the past 30 days with nary a single police officer involved. Other groups are not so quick to toe the PC line. Of late the Asian community, though small relative to other "minority" groups (remember that as of 2050 "minority" will HAVE TO include whites. That should be fun) have been very vocal about the effects that Affirmative Action has against them

A coalition of Asian-American groups filed a federal complaint against Harvard University on Friday alleging the school engaged in "systemic and continuous discrimination" against Asian Americans during its admissions process.

More than 60 Chinese, Indian, Korean and Pakistani groups came together for the complaint, which was filed with the civil rights offices at the justice and education departments. They are calling for an investigation into Harvard and other Ivy League institutions that they say should stop using racial quotas or racial balancing in admission.

Think of this as the Bakke case (and others) without the whiteface. Here you have a diverse group of students arguing that they are being hurt by the admission of lesser qualified diverse students.

"We want to eliminate discrimination of Asian Americans, and we want procedural justice for all racial groups," Yukong Zhao, one of the chief organizers and a guest columnist with the Orlando Sentinel, told NBC News. "All racial groups should be treated equal." [My underlines]

It will be amusing to watch various parties arguing against equal treatment and equal standards as this case goes forward. That along with a lecture about the history of Jim Crow and slavery to which these groups will respond: "We had nothing to do with that." I will remind the reader that in the hierarchy of test scores Asians decimate the competition. You do not even want to see how poorly African-Americans do, on average, compared to Asians.

Is it any wonder then that during the latest Baltimore "unrest" folks were "directed" to target Asian (and Arab) owned businesses?

It's going to get really ugly when these assorted minorities who cannot be induced into "white guilt" because by technicalities they are not "white" become more and more vocal about why they should be subject to certain rules which apparently punishes them for working hard while they see (and are victims of) a relatively large number of black folks who mess about, destroying their future prospects who then demand special attention from various institutions. Post 2050 is going to be interesting.

Vox Uses Anti-Affirmative Action Arguments to Defend Women

One sign that a group that has previously been discriminated against has arrived and is feeling themselves is when they don't even realize they are using the same arguments that they have previously considered [insert ism of choice]. Here's Vox with one Lets start with the title:

Discrimination against women is a real problem in college admissions

Now anyone who has been paying attention knows full well that women generally outnumber men in college. Generally speaking when not talking about traffic stops, drug arrests and things like stop and frisk, being over-represented in a setting is taken as a sign of discrimination. There's even an entire concept called "disparate impact" used to determine discrimination exists in the absence of anyone doing anything to discriminate. So lets follow Vox.

Two generations ago, women were in the minority in higher education. Now they're dominating it.

Seems like a case of non-discrimination to me.

Women now make up 59 percent of all college students. In 2011, they earned 62 percent of all associate degrees, 57 percent of all bachelor's degrees, and 60 percent of all master's degrees. They now even earn the majority of doctorates — the last bastion of male domination in higher education.

Bastion commentary aside, I would think that anyone quoting something like this shouldn't be writing an article about discrimination against women in college admissions. But I'm sure there is something coming to make the point.

Women are so dominant, in fact, that some colleges — particularly private colleges — overtly or covertly give men a boost in the admissions process. If you're hoping to be admitted to a prestigious private college that doesn't specialize in engineering, it helps to be male.

Wait. Wait. I've seen this before. You...you..you were standing right there....yeah...and I. I'm supposed to stand right here and...and I say...Everything that has a beginning Neo, has an end. Oh sorry wrong subject matter. No seriously. I have seen this before It goes like this:

Whites are so dominant in fact, that colleges -including private colleges- overtly give Blacks a boost in the admissions process. If you're hoping to be admitted into a prestigious private college, it helps to be Black

Yup, this is a total re-hash of the anti-Affirmative-Action argument where Black is substituted with male. In liberal circles this argument is considered totally racist. Yet here is Vox fronting the very same argument in order to argue for women.

Evidence has mounted in recent years: at some colleges, although not all, men can get in with less impressive credentials. A push for gender balance on campus means accomplished young women end up competing with each other rather than crowding out less accomplished young men.

Yet another take on the Affirmative Action argument:

Evidence has mounted...at colleges, Blacks can get in with less impressive credentials. A push for racial balance on campus means accomplished young white people end up competing with each other rather than crowding out less accomplished blacks

I mean really. Nobody at Vox noticed this?

About 25 percent of admissions directors surveyed by Inside Higher Ed in 2014 said colleges should admit men with lower grades and test scores than other applicants to create a gender balance.

May as well write:

Admissions directors....said colleges should admit blacks with lower grades and test scores than white applicants to create racial balance

This article is chock full of nuggets. I've been looking for a "satire" tag somewhere because I simply cannot believe that this was written and published with a straight face.

In 2006, Jennifer Delahunty Britz, then the dean of admissions and financial aid at Kenyon College, wrote an op-ed in the New York Times headlined "To All the Girls I've Rejected." In the opaque world of college admissions, Britz's op-ed laid out the situation candidly: talented female applicants at Kenyon were a dime a dozen, and highly qualified male applicants were rarer. It was simply harder to get in as a young woman than a young man.

Wowwwwwww. How long has there been complaints about Affirmative Action on this very thing?

"The elephant that looms large in the middle of the room is the importance of gender balance," Britz wrote. "Should it trump the qualifications of talented young female applicants?"

Rewritten:

"The elephant that looms large in the middle of the room is the importance of racial balance," Britz wrote. "Should it trump the qualifications of talented young white applicants?"

And here we have the racial angle:

The Supreme Court allows affirmative action based on race to achieve a critical mass of students of color at a university. The idea is that a college should be diverse enough that students experience the diversity of thoughts and life experiences within different races as well as among them. It's meant to avoid a situation where students of color are so rare that they become tokens who must represent an entire race or ethnicity on their own.

No actually the Supreme Court did not rule the way they have so that tokenism wouldn't happen. The Supreme Court ruled the way they have for a variety of reasons one of which is that the institution may have as it's own interest a diverse student body as well as the idea that some racial groups may have had disproportionate difficulties in education and therefore "tipping the scales" in their favor would overcome such disadvantages. And lets not forget that Affirmative Action was intended to be a remedy to past discrimination of blacks until it was watered down to include anyone not white, heterosexual and male. So no points for using the "but the blacks" argument to prop this piece of shit article.

So colleges aren't restricting women's opportunities to achieve critical mass with an underrepresented group. They're just putting a ceiling on the number of women they admit.

Once again, substitute black or white in this piece and you have another classic anti Affirmative Action argument.

Again, I looked to see if "satire" was anywhere on the page in case this was one huge joke:

Nowhere to be seen.

Some Key Points On The SCOTUS Decision

If came here looking for comparisons to Dred Scott you came to the wrong place. This is a discussion of the Shuette vs. BAMN decision.

Lets first look at commentary from Justice Justice Kennedy:

(a) This case is not about the constitutionality, or the merits, of race-conscious admissions policies in higher education.

Well that is the first point. When we look at Sotomayor's dissent. Keep this in mind.

Unlike the injuries in Mulkey, Hunter, and Seattle, the question here is not how to address or prevent injury caused on account of race but whether voters may determine whether a policy of race-based preferences should be continued. By approving Proposal 2 and there­ by adding §26 to their State Constitution, Michigan voters exercised their privilege to enact laws as a basic exercise of their democratic power, bypassing public officials they deemed not responsive to their concerns about a policy of granting race-based preferences.

So again, this isn't actually about Affirmative Action but about the rights of citizens to vote for or against legislation by constitutional means. Note that there is no claim of injury. We do know that most times (if not all) the claimant must show damage.

The question here, as in every case in which neutral state action is said to deny equal protection on account of race, is whether the challenged action reflects a racially discriminatory pur­pose. It plainly does not.

Note the commentary about equal protection. This is where the complainant runs afoul of the law. See once folks started waving the equal protection flag, they failed to realize that it would come and bite them in the ass. Affirmative Action is definitively NOT equal protection. That's OK too. So long as you admit it and justify it. Say that you're bypassing equal protection for the purposes of seeking an advantage for your group. But to act as if a clearly non equal policy is equal is absurd. Says Kennedy:

More fundamentally, the analysis misreads the Equal Protection Clause to protect particular groups, a construction that has been repudiated in a “long line of cases under­standing equal protection as a personal right.” Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña, 515 U. S. 200, 224, 230. Pp. 7–12.

I've made similar observations of late. Mozilla.org should take note. Eich was denied equal protection of employment law (particularly the 1964 Civil Rights Act) when Mozilla declined to discipline employees who created a hostile work environment for Eich due to his religious belief and practice and eventually forced him out (resigned my foot). But that's an entirely different case.

Furthermore, note that the case has to show discriminatory purpose. This is key because slowly but surely claims of disparate impact is also falling apart. Speaking of which...

(d) Hunter and Seattle also endorse a version of the propositionthat a facially neutral law may deny equal protection solely because it has a disparate racial impact. That equal-protection theory has been squarely and soundly rejected by an “unwavering line of cases” holding “that a violation of the Equal Protection Clause requiresstate action motivated by discriminatory intent,” Hernandez v. New York, 500 U. S. 352, 372–373 (O’Connor, J., concurring in judgment), and that “official action will not be held unconstitutional solely be­cause it results in a racially disproportionate impact,” Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., 429 U. S. 252, 264–265.

Discriminatory intent. Not disparate impact. Look folks. People are simply not going to continue to accept the argument that because x group isn't seen in y numbers that there must be discrimination. It may be the case that such things do stem from discrimination but simply making the accusation is not going to hold water much longer. Not with readily available data at the fingertips of everybody.

Respondents cannot prove that the action here reflects a racially discriminatory purpose, for any law expressly requiring state actors to afford all persons equal protection of the laws does not— cannot—deny “to any person . . . equal protection of the laws,” U. S. Const., Amdt. 14, §1. Pp. 15–17.

I was saying....

Third, Hunter v. Erickson, 393 U. S. 385, and Washington v. Seattle School Dist. No. 1, 458 U. S. 457, which reflect the important principle that an individual’s ability to participate meaningfully in the political pro­cess should be independent of his race, do not apply here. Those cas­es involved a restructuring of the political process that changed thepolitical level at which policies were enacted, while this case involves an amendment that took decisionmaking authority away from une­lected actors and placed it in the hands of the voters. Hence, this case does not involve a diminution of the minority’s ability to partici­pate in the political process.

This is key to the entire decision. Essentially the claimant was saying that by reason of being a minority group that they should be able to overturn the votes of the majority simply because that minority disagreed with it. That is not how the political process works. The process works to make sure that the minority has equal access to the political process in order to organize and become a voting majority via voter growth or coalition. What the claimant wanted to do was far more dangerous than the legislation they disagreed with.

Now let's look at Sotoymayor's dissent:

At first, the majority acted with an open, invidious purpose. Notwithstanding the command of the Fifteenth Amend­ment, certain States shut racial minorities out of the political process altogether by withholding the right to vote. This Court intervened to preserve that right.

True. But note that the act that she discusses was a limiting of a given right. Affirmative Action is not an enumerated right under any constitutional reading. Therefore the voting example is irrelevant to the case at hand.

The majority tried again, replacing outright bans on votingwith literacy tests, good character requirements, poll taxes, and gerrymandering. The Court was not fooled; it invalidated those measures, too.

Yes, that is also true but it is also irrelevant to this case. As mentioned before the example here was an abridgment of an enumerated constitutional right. Affirmative Action is not an enumerated constitutional right.

This time, although it allowed the minority access to the political process, the majority changed the ground rules of the process so as to make it more difficult for the minority,and the minority alone, to obtain policies designed tofoster racial integration.

Really? How so? Did they stop the minority from voting? How does a ballot initiative “change the grounds”? Did they change how many votes were needed? Did they only allow voting during a certain time? Place? Secondly, since when did those without the votes to pass legislation get the right to determine certain pieces of legislation? That doesn't sound very democratic to me. Why have a vote if the losing party can simply claim that they don't like the outcome and therefore shall overturn the results?

purpose, the Court reaffirmed the right of minority members of our society to participate meaningfully and equally in the political process.

What exactly is “meaningfully”? Does that mean getting the outcome they want? What is equally? Getting the outcome you want? Participation does not mean getting what you want every time. It means you get an equal chance to (in this case) vote. But let's get to the meat of Sotomayor's complaint.

Prior to the enactment of the constitutional initiative at issue here, all of the admissions policies of Michigan’s public colleges and universities—including race-sensitive admissions poli- cies2—were in the hands of each institution’s governing board. The members of those boards are nominated by political parties and elected by the citizenry in statewide elections. After over a century of being shut out of Michi­gan’s institutions of higher education, racial minorities in Michigan had succeeded in persuading the elected board representatives to adopt admissions policies that took into account the benefits of racial diversity. … In the wake of Grutter, some voters in Michigan set out to eliminate the use of race-sensitive admissions policies.Those voters were of course free to pursue this end in any number of ways. For example, they could have persuaded existing board members to change their minds through individual or grassroots lobbying efforts, or through gen­eral public awareness campaigns. Or they could have mobilized efforts to vote uncooperative board members out of office, replacing them with members who would share their desire to abolish race-sensitive admissions policies.When this Court holds that the Constitution permits a particular policy, nothing prevents a majority of a State’s voters from choosing not to adopt that policy. Our system of government encourages—and indeed, depends on—that type of democratic action. But instead, the majority of Michigan voters changed the rules in the middle of the game, reconfiguring the existing political process in Michigan in a manner that burdened racial minorities. They did so in the 2006 elec­tion by amending the Michigan Constitution to enact Art.I, §26, which provides in relevant part that Michigan’s public universities “shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.”

Here is Sotomayor's issue. She wants to limit what the Michigan voter can do in regards to it's public institutions. She says that the only and proper way to change the policies of Michigan public colleges and universities is to get the boards to change their minds rather than setting rules by which the board members must abide by. I wonder if she feels the same way about California's prop 8. Shouldn't those with an interest in same sex marriage waited on the legislature to make the change rather than using the court to overturn a voted on law?Secondly what if those who wanted the board to change it's policies had already gone through the process of changing the board members or asking for x,y or z changes and the board refused? What if the situation was that the board didn't think black folks should be in Michigan schools at all. What if the majority of voters disagreed with the board but the board never made the changes sought by the Michigan voters? Would Sotomayor still be of the position that the voters would be wrong to demand via legislation that blacks be admitted? This would be equal protection.

As a result of §26, there are now two very different processes through which a Michigan citizen is permitted to influence the admissions policies of the State’s universi­ties: one for persons interested in race-sensitive admis­sions policies and one for everyone else. A citizen who is a University of Michigan alumnus, for instance, can advo­cate for an admissions policy that considers an applicant’s legacy status by meeting individually with members of the Board of Regents to convince them of her views, by joining with other legacy parents to lobby the Board, or by voting for and supporting Board candidates who share her posi­tion. The same options are available to a citizen who wants the Board to adopt admissions policies that consider athleticism, geography, area of study, and so on. The one and only policy a Michigan citizen may not seek through this long-established process is a race-sensitive admissions policy that considers race in an individualized manner when it is clear that race-neutral alternatives are not adequate to achieve diversity. For that policy alone, the citizens of Michigan must undertake the daunting task of amending the State Constitution.

Question: Are all persons in Michigan under the same restriction of not being able to advocate for race-sensitive admissions? Yes? Then it is equal protection under the law.Question: Are there any black University of Michigan alumnus? Yes? Can they equally advocate for a legacy admission? Yes? Are they also barred from using race? Yes? Then it is equal protection.

Point: Sotomayor is absolutely incorrect in her assertion that the only policy that Michigan citizens may not seek is race. The language, which she quoted says:

“shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, orpublic contracting.”

So actually, ALL Michigan citizens may not make race sex, color, ethnicity or national origins into consideration. Sotomayor can read. Why did she write as if she doesn't know this? That is because she's only interested in one portion of the rule. Women are quite secure in their status at Michigan institutions and are under no threat by such rules so that's OK.

Our precedents do not permit political restructurings that create one process for racial minorities and a sepa­rate, less burdensome process for everyone else.

Which of course it does not. Again, there was no process that singled out racial minorities, women, other nationals from voting for or against the proposition. It wasn't separate no matter how much she says it was.

This Court has held that the Fourteenth Amendment does not tolerate “a political structure that treats all individuals as equals, yet more subtly distorts governmental processes in such a way as to place special burdens on the ability of minority groups to achieve beneficial legislation.”

Justice Kennedy already gave the deathblow to this argument. It simply cannot be argued that certain groups, any group has a right to have legislation it wants and likes to be passed. Being a minority group comes with it the burden of having a harder time to get legislation you want passed (see Congress).

Rather, this case is about how the debate over the use of race-sensitive admissions policies may be resolved, contra, ibid.—that is, it must be resolved in constitution- ally permissible ways. While our Constitution does not guarantee minority groups victory in the political process, it does guarantee them meaningful and equal access tothat process. It guarantees that the majority may not win by stacking the political process against minority groups permanently, forcing the minority alone to surmount unique obstacles in pursuit of its goals—here, educational diversity that cannot reasonably be accomplished through race-neutral measures.

I'm glad Sotomayor realizes the Constitution does not guarantee minority groups victory. I was worried there for a minute. But again she is there with the “meaningful”. What is “meaningful”? That seems to me to be a backdoor way of saying “get victory”.

To the point of “permanent” staking against minority voter blocks. Again that is part and parcel of being a minority voting block. It is ALWAYS harder for the minority group to effect policy.
Secondly I repeat again that “diversity” is not an enumerated right that a group can sue over. It may be a laudable goal, but it is not a right. There is also the assumption that the ONLY groups interested in Affirmative Action for races are racial minorities. This is mistaken. While racial minorities may be the leading proponents of Affirmative Action (and recent events in California undercut that argument with Asian opposition to the re-instatement of racial considerations in college admissions) there are many non-minorities who also have an interest in the policy. So a proper question would be how come those who were for the policy were unable to get others into their camp?

Today, by permitting a majority of the voters in Michigan to do what our Constitution forbids,the Court ends the debate over race-sensitive admissions policies in Michigan in a manner that contravenes consti­tutional protections long recognized in our precedents.

Which isn't what happened. The Constitution prohibits taking away citizen's rights. That's the 15th Amendment. Nobody's rights were taken away. In fact had the court ruled differently then it would have in effect claimed that minority groups of any kind can overturn ballot initiatives they do not like just because they are a minority group. That is very dangerous.Sotomayor then goes on to cite many cases where states enacted laws that abridged the rights of certain citizens. There is no argument that those things were not only morally wrong but that they were unconstitutional. But in each example they were of laws abridging enumerated rights of citizens. The Michigan case has no such quality.
Sotomayor attempts to compare a case in Virginia where the school board was changed in an attempt to stop desegregation. Again this case is irrelevant to the Michigan case because Michigan is not trying to segregate it's student body. This is key. Arlington County was wrong because it intended to block the equal protection rights of blacks in that county. Michigan has no such intention or effect.

Similarly Sotomayor's example of the Miss. Legislature fails. In that case Miss decided to strip the rights of people to elect. That is the state abridged the rights of the citizenry. Michigan did no such thing. It did not remove the board members (which she herself pointed out). Nor did Michigan stop anyone from voting either way. Michigan simply decided to further narrow what the board could use in admission policies. It did not abridge the right of any person from applying to Michigan universities and to be considered on their academic merits.

Again with Sotomayor's Arkansas example. There the state not only stripped the board from making any decision, particularly as it regarded desegregation, thereby stripping black citizens of their equal protection rights, the Governor also closed schools in order to enforce this rule. That action also abridged the rights of black citizens of that state. Again, Michigan did no such thing. Not even close. It is also very strange that Sotomayor would use the example of state appointments in her dissenting opinion:

The States’ political restructuring efforts in the 1960’s and 1970’s went beyond the context of education. ManyStates tried to suppress the political voice of racial minori­ties more generally by reconfiguring the manner in whichthey filled vacancies in local offices, often transferring authority from the electorate (where minority citizens hada voice at the local level) to the States’ executive branch(where minorities wielded little if any influence). See, e.g., 1981 Hearings, pt. 1, at 815 (report of J. Cox & A. Turner) (the Alabama Legislature changed all municipal judge­ships from elective to appointive offices); id., at 1955 (report of R. Hudlin & K. Brimah, Voter Educ. Project, Inc.) (the Georgia Legislature eliminated some elective offices and made others appointive when it appeared that a minority candidate would be victorious); id., at 501 (statement of Frank R. Parker, Director, Lawyers’ Comm.for Civil Rights Under Law) (the Mississippi Legislature changed the manner of filling vacancies for various publicoffices from election to appointment).

Why? Because the Michigan board is appointed. It would seem from the language Sotomayor is using that she would WANT the citizenry to assert themselves over the board(s). But it is clear that she only wishes for certain groups to be able to do the asserting and only for goals she agrees with. That is not equal protection. In using the Hunter case Sotomayor show's how she conflates wildly different examples:

In Hunter, the City Council of Akron, Ohio, enacted afair housing ordinance to “assure equal opportunity to allpersons to live in decent housing facilities regardless ofrace, color, religion, ancestry, or national origin.” 393 U. S., at 386 (internal quotation marks omitted). A major­ity of the citizens of Akron disagreed with the ordinanceand overturned it. But the majority did not stop there; italso amended the city charter to prevent the City Councilfrom implementing any future ordinance dealing withracial, religious, or ancestral discrimination in housingwithout the approval of the majority of the Akron elec­torate. Ibid. That amendment changed the rules of the political process in Akron. The Court described the result of the change as follows: “[T]o enact an ordinance barring housing discrimina­tion on the basis of race or religion, proponents had toobtain the approval of the City Council and of a major­ity of the voters citywide. To enact an ordinance pre­venting housing discrimination on other grounds, or to enact any other type of housing ordinance, propo­nents needed the support of only the City Council.” Seattle, 458 U. S., at 468 (describing Hunter; empha­sis deleted).

Again see that the proposed legislation barring discrimination is actually the same as what Michigan did. It's odd that Sotomayor does not see that plain as day.

What is also clear is how the Akron decision made a law that made a two tier system for discrimination ordinances. This differs from Michigan in two ways:1) Sotomayor claims that persons asking for legacy admissions is the same as discrimination. It is not. The Michigan legislation is to prevent what the majority of voters considered to be discrimination. It was not put up roadblocks to equal opportunity and equal protection.

2) Sotomayor thinks that things such as legacy admissions should be handled at the ballot box because legacy admissions (and athletes) are the same as race, gender and nationality. While I disagree that legacies and athletes are anything close to race, gender, national origins and the like, it is also clear that any group, including the claimants can put forth a ballot initiative to remove legacy status as a consideration. Whether it would pass is another thing entirely. But whether such legislation would or would not pass is irrelevant. Only that all citizens have the right to propose such an initiative. That was Kennedy's point.

But here goes Sotomayor telling untruths again:

Before the enactment of §26, Michigan’s political struc­ture permitted both supporters and opponents of race­ sensitive admissions policies to vote for their candidates of choice and to lobby the elected and politically accountable boards. Section 26 reconfigured that structure. After §26,the boards retain plenary authority over all admissions criteria except for race-sensitive admissions policies.5

Nope. Race, sex, color, national origins are all included.

The effect of §26 is that a white graduate of a public Michigan university who wishes to pass his historical privilege on to his children may freely lobby the board of that university in favor of an expanded legacy admissions policy, whereas a black Michigander who was denied the opportunity to attend that very uni­versity cannot lobby the board in favor of a policy that might give his children a chance that he never had and that they might never have absent that policy. Such reordering of the political process contravenes

Absolute bullshit. No person has a “right” to attend the University of Michigan. One must be qualified for entry to the University of Michigan. This is why U of M and MSU and others can send letters declining admission. Secondly this is 2014 there are many, many, many black Michigan residents (and non-residents) who have graduated from U of M who can freely take advantage of the legacy program.

Thirdly any White, Asian, Black, Native American or whoever who never went to U of M cannot take advantage of the legacy program. All would be denied equally.

Fourthly no person of any persuasion should be able to lobby the board of any school to admit his or her child just because. How about that child do the work to qualify for admission? You know, how those Chinese and Indian students do year after year after year?

Sotomayor continues to cite case after case of discriminatory law and /or acts that abridge the enumerated rights of citizens but at no point shows that the Michigan law was discriminatory or abridged the enumerated rights of any of the groups mentioned in the law. The law removed what could be seen as an advantage given to a group based on race, sex, color or national origins. That is not discriminatory because none of the groups mentioned have a right to such consideration. Those groups may not like that such consideration is no longer extended to them, but it does not mean that they are suffering undue burdens.< P/> Sotomayor gives a nice overview of official discrimination and denial of equal protection. That's great. The problem is that most of what she says is irrelevant to the matter at hand. It is her job to focus on the matter at hand. Simply saying that what Michigan did looks like what Arkansas did or Akron did is not acceptable. Water and alcohol have a lot of things in common but they are definitely not the same.

Lastly I want to address the chart added to Sotomayor's dissent (pg 51). In it she shows the number of black persons of college age and then the enrollment of Freshmen. Let's be clear that when we look at the academic performances of African-Americans it is clear that many of them are simply not prepared for college work, particularly that required at such places as U of M. It is misleading to post a chart and say that because x-amount are college age thatx amount should be enrolled. I've seen what this can result in first hand.

I attended Michigan State in the early 90's. What the university did was enroll x amount of black students every year. The newspapers would ohh and ahh about how this class was so diverse and that x percent were African-American. By the middle of the semester many students were failing out. Many of those were already taking remedial classes. They eventually dropped out and had thousands of dollars in student debt and nothing to show for it. I looked at the data over a couple of years and saw the pattern of high enrollment followed by drop outs that brought the number of black students back to the mean. This helps no one with the possible exception of the banks that were to be paid back.
But what is MORE telling about the chart is the total absence of data for Asians. Why is it that Asians who are an even smaller minority than African-Americans are over-represented on campuses across the country? The very fact that Asian students outscore every other group in the US puts a lie to the idea that any group needs Affirmative Action to gain entry into schools. Grades matter. Preparation matters. All that matters more than any AA policy. This ruling is a great opportunity to address this blatant issue.

Racial Diversity Efforts Ebb for Elite Careers, Analysis Finds

Even as racial barriers continue to fall, progress for African-Americans over all has remained slow — and in some cases appears to be stalling.

And this surprises who?

“You don’t want to be a diversity officer who only buys tables at events and seats people,” Ms. Higgins said recently. “It’s about recruiting and inclusion and training and development, with substantive work assignments.”

See how in an article discussing the lack of 'racial diversity" the person responsible here is responsible for "diversity"? You may ask why that's a big deal since it's diversity. Remember that Affirmative Action, the ball that started the whole diversity thing rolling, was meant to be a means for black folks to get into positions with companies that previously barred them. Then everybody who was not a white male, excuse me, white, heterosexual male got on board.

If the NY Times wanted to address what I believe is the number ONE reason for the "stalling" of blacks in various companies they ought to look no further than the number ONE beneficiary of Affirmative Action policies:

White women.

I would put down cold hard cash in a bet of what the percentage of the companies discussed in the article have had a near exponential increase in the number of white women (or women in general) while the "stagnation" or "reversal" of African-Americans.

Secondly, I said right at the election of Barak Obama that Affirmative Action as a policy was on its deathbed.

There’s no question there’s been some pullback,” said Ms. Tatum, who works in San Antonio. “There are some firms that look at what they have done, they look at President Obama, and they say we’re there.”

After all once you have an African-American holder of the highest government office in the land, you are hard pressed to make "I didn't get it because I was black" argument. The rebut will go something like this: What have you done? What is wrong with you? If Obama can...

Lastly though we have this:

erald Roberts, a black lawyer who was a partner at Thompson & Knight before leaving in 2010, said that social relationships left some black lawyers at a distance from their white colleagues and potential clients. “For the most part, they don’t go to church together on Sunday enough, they don’t have dinner together enough, and they don’t play enough golf together to develop sufficiently strong relationships of trust and confidence,” he said.

Well why not start and do business with those persons who you DO gold, church and dine with? What's that? They don't have the kind of business you want? They don't have the deep pockets? And why is that? Oh right, integration. Black folks being hell bent on being where the white folks are rather than build their own. I'm not saying to do exclusive business with African-Americans but you do like everybody else: Start in your own yard and expand from there. Instead of this:

“Being an equity partner means you’ve arrived, that you have clout,”

Up and take those client to a black run firm, be equity partner and arrive with the next generation in tow and spread the clout.