Supreme Court Upholds Race-Based College Admissions Policies

125

The absence of Justice Antonin Scalia was never more apparent than in the Supreme Court’s ruling on affirmative action this week. Scalia had sounded deeply skeptical of the policy being challenged in the case of Fisher v. University of Texas during opening arguments earlier this year, but his death allowed the court’s liberals to uphold race-based admissions at one of the country’s top universities.

“A university is in large part defined by those intangible qualities which are incapable of objective measurement but which make for greatness,” wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy in the majority opinion. “Considerable deference is owed to a university in defining those intangible characteristics, like student body diversity, that are central to its identity and educational mission.”

Oh, cool. So this means that colleges and universities are now free to exclude races as well, right? There won’t be any legal problem for a university if they want to go back to an all-white student body, right? Oh, it only works the other way, huh? Right, right. That sounds like wonderful logic.

According to the majority, the university’s “top ten” program, which guaranteed admission to any students who graduated high school in the top ten percent of their class, was not enough to ensure diversity at the University of Texas.

And as we all know, there’s simply nothing more important than ensuring DIVERSITY.

“This is affirmative action gone berserk,” said dissenting Justice Samuel Alito.

Affirmative action, as a concept, began as “berserk.” Any further strengthening of that policy is just insanity piled on top of insanity. There is no coherent reason to support these policies, which are racist, meaningless, and lead inevitably to the degradation of university standards of education.

According to Justice Kennedy, the goals of these programs include “the destruction of stereotypes,” “cross-racial understanding,” and preparing students for “an increasingly diverse work force and society.”

These may or may not be noble goals, but they are certainly not the type of concrete legal logic upon which Supreme Court decisions should be made. They are remarkably similar to the fuzzy reasoning used by the Court last year to make gay marriage the law of the land. It couldn’t be more obvious that these Justices are making their decisions based on their political beliefs before going back into the case archives to come up with some justification – no matter how twisted or silly – to make the ruling look legit.

Scalia’s death wasn’t just a blow to conservatism; it was another sad step away from the constitutional grounding that has kept the Supreme Court in high esteem for hundreds of years. This absurd decision is the first sign of real trouble on the horizon.