supreme court affirmative action
Affirmative action lives. Sort of.
One Supreme Court decision does not cure 400 years of racism, and in fact, immediately after the decision, it was clear that some in our society still don't get it.
The Supreme Court's decision to uphold the program benefits the women who fought against it most of all.
Although I often disagree with Justice Scalia, and although I emphatically disagree with him about the constitutionality of affirmative action, the outrage and condemnation sparked by this comment is completely unwarranted.
Justice Scalia should know better; if nothing other than judicial temperament could guide him, he should know that a wise judge must think twice before opening his mouth to say something really stupid and highly prejudicial in front of the parties arguing their case before him.
The plaintiffs and their supporters would have you believe that racial discrimination and hatred are things of the past. They regard affirmative action as "reverse racism," as though such a thing can possibly exist. Racism requires power and privilege, attributes in short supply in communities of color.
Playing the Long Game: Fisher v. University of Texas and the Future of Race-Conscious Admissions Programs
We should all be paying close attention to the Fisher case, not just because of what it means for future of diversity at the University of Texas, but because of the potential impact it could have on the ability of colleges and universities across the country to welcome student bodies that reflect the full diversity of America.
When it comes to affirmative action, we remain stuck on simple. This is part of a national trend where we keep debating seemingly straightforward, and long-resolved, questions and therefore are unable to tackle the harder questions that could bring us closer to true equality.
If affirmative action -- or, better, equal opportunity -- is to be reinstated, we need to "build it better," as the new mantra goes. And its practitioners need to keep control of their instrument.
Affirmative action seemed destined to fare poorly before the Supreme Court in Schuette, but let's fairly inform the public on this important matter.
"The educational benefits of diversity, long recognized by the Court and affirmed in research and practice, include cross
The April 22 Supreme Court decision upholding Michigan's affirmative-action ban starkly demonstrates the limits of what political leadership by the representatives of "The 1 Percent" can achieve in the realms of racial justice and the healing of the racial divide.
Liberty and equality don't just happen: They must be valued and protected by law.
The Supreme Court's Schuette and Shelby decisions send a disturbing signal that ensuring unimpeded minority access to the processes that decide minority interests is not worthy of federal judicial intervention.
Last fall, "The Daily Show" tracked down a North Carolina Republican precinct captain to weigh in on the state's voter ID