Opponents of affirmative action have long argued that the programs, initially meant to remedy past discrimination, are themselves discriminatory.
Conservatives have long embraced the argument that affirmative action is unconstitutional racial discrimination.

The Supreme Court has ruled several times, including in 2016 in the final decision in Fisher v. University ofTexas, that affirmative action is constitutional and doesn’t discriminate against white applicants.

But lots of ways to carry out an affirmative action program aren’t constitutional. For example, colleges can’t set quotas by race. They can consider race as one factor in a “holistic review” of applicants. And for colleges to consider a prospective student’s race in a constitutional way, the Court ruled, it has to meet three tests.

These tests were laid out in the two decisions for Fisher v. Texas, a case concerning a white student not admitted to the University of Texas who argued that the university’s consideration of race in admissions meant she had been discriminated against.

But even at the time, affirmative action opponents saw the strict conditions for affirmative action programs as a silver lining of the loss, because they could be the basis of future lawsuits:

• • Universities have to give a “reasoned, principled explanation” for wanting a diverse student body.

  • Their affirmative action programs must be narrowly tailored, or specifically designed to accomplish a goal.

  • And the policies must withstand strict scrutiny, meaning colleges have to prove affirmative action was the only way to accomplish its diversity goals.

____________________
In his dissent in Fisher v. Texas, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, who voted in Fisher’s favor, argued that the Court should have considered the university’s discrimination against Asian-American students as well as white ones.

The summary on Hillary Clinton, is priceless;

Typically, the views expressed about her focused on being untrustworthy and dishonest, as well as accumulating a fortune from not working hard. This marked her as being outside the working-class values noted above as being the cornerstone of working class identity. In addition, she was seen as a member of the political elite and an “insider” in contrast with her political opponent. Across our study cities—very different in terms of demographics, politics, ideology,and culture—we heard consistent criticisms against Clinton and the Democrats that ultimately proved to be fatal for Hillary’s campaign to become the first female president.

Views: 23