{"id":11238,"date":"2023-07-20T13:23:55","date_gmt":"2023-07-20T13:23:55","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/lonecandle.com\/?p=11238"},"modified":"2023-07-20T13:23:55","modified_gmt":"2023-07-20T13:23:55","slug":"the-monstrous-arrogance-of-the-supreme-courts-affirmative-action-decision","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/?p=11238","title":{"rendered":"The monstrous arrogance of the Supreme Court\u2019s affirmative action decision"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

\n\n“Chief Justice John Roberts\u2019s opinion for the Court\u2019s six Republican appointees faults the two universities for having affirmative action programs that \u201clack sufficiently focused and measurable objectives warranting the use of race<\/a>.\u201d But there\u2019s an obvious reason why they do not. The Court\u2019s previous decisions permitted some limited forms of affirmative action, but they explicitly ban racial quotas and other mathematical formulas<\/a> that could allow universities to determine whether they are achieving \u201cfocused and measurable objectives warranting the use of race.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Harvard <\/em>case, in other words, is rooted in a Catch-22. Universities may neither have mathematically precise programs that violate the Court\u2019s earlier decisions, nor may they have the more vaguely defined programs that the Court prohibits in its newest decision.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I wish that the Court had shown more humility instead.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That\u2019s because the military leaders\u2019 views are shared by an equally long list of America\u2019s largest employers \u2014 a list that includes companies as diverse as Apple, Levi Strauss, Northrop Grumman, Starbucks, and United Airlines<\/a> \u2014 all of whom warn that American business will be less dominant because of the Supreme Court\u2019s decision in Students for Fair Admissions<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To appeal to diverse markets, the business brief argues, major employers need \u201cuniversity admissions programs that lead to graduates educated in racially and ethnically diverse environments.\u201d \u201cOnly in this way,\u201d their brief emphasizes, \u201ccan America produce a pipeline of highly qualified future workers and business leaders prepared to meet the needs of the modern economy<\/a> and workforce.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And then there\u2019s the medical profession\u2019s brief. This brief, filed on behalf of a wide range of medical organizations including the American Medical Association itself<\/a>, argues that \u201can overwhelming body of scientific research compiled over decades confirms\u201d that \u201cdiversity literally saves lives by ensuring that the Nation\u2019s increasingly diverse population will be served by healthcare professionals competent to meet its needs.\u201d”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

…<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“six lawyers with little specialized expertise in business, education administration, national defense, or medicine, declared that they have found the answer to America\u2019s longstanding questions about race and diversity \u2014 and that they know more than individuals and institutions with far greater expertise than someone who spends their days reading documents in a marble palace could ever have.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

https:\/\/www.vox.com\/scotus\/23616868\/supreme-court-affirmative-action-harvard-unc-students-fair-admissions-john-roberts<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

“Chief Justice John Roberts\u2019s opinion for the Court\u2019s six Republican appointees faults the two universities for having affirmative action programs that \u201clack sufficiently focused and measurable objectives warranting the use of race.\u201d But there\u2019s an obvious reason why they do not. The Court\u2019s previous decisions permitted some limited forms of affirmative action, but they explicitly ban racial quotas and other mathematical formulas that could allow universities to determine whether they are achieving \u201cfocused and measurable objectives warranting the use of race.\u201d
\nThe Harvard case, in other words, is rooted in a Catch-22. Universities may neither have mathematically precise programs that violate the Court\u2019s earlier decisions, nor may they have the more vaguely defined programs that the Court prohibits in its newest decision.<\/p>\n

I wish that the Court had shown more humility instead.<\/p>\n

That\u2019s because the military leaders\u2019 views are shared by an equally long list of America\u2019s largest employers \u2014 a list that includes companies as diverse as Apple, Levi Strauss, Northrop Grumman, Starbucks, and United Airlines \u2014 all of whom warn that American business will be less dominant because of the Supreme Court\u2019s decision in Students for Fair Admissions.<\/p>\n

To appeal to diverse markets, the business brief argues, major employers need \u201cuniversity admissions programs that lead to graduates educated in racially and ethnically diverse environments.\u201d \u201cOnly in this way,\u201d their brief emphasizes, \u201ccan America produce a pipeline of highly qualified future workers and business leaders prepared to meet the needs of the modern economy and workforce.\u201d<\/p>\n

And then there\u2019s the medical profession\u2019s brief. This brief, filed on behalf of a wide range of medical organizations including the American Medical Association itself, argues that \u201can overwhelming body of scientific research compiled over decades confirms\u201d that \u201cdiversity literally saves lives by ensuring that the Nation\u2019s increasingly diverse population will be served by healthcare professionals competent to meet its needs.\u201d”<\/p>\n

…<\/p>\n

“six lawyers with little specialized expertise in business, education administration, national defense, or medicine, declared that they have found the answer to America\u2019s longstanding questions about race and diversity \u2014 and that they know more than individuals and institutions with far greater expertise than someone who spends their days reading documents in a marble palace could ever have.”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[13],"tags":[1750,790,1213,528],"class_list":["post-11238","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-article-share","tag-affirmative-action","tag-courts","tag-judiciary","tag-supreme-court"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11238","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=11238"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11238\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":11239,"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11238\/revisions\/11239"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=11238"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=11238"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=11238"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}