Freedom4um

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Dead Constitution
See other Dead Constitution Articles

Title: Scholars: Kavanaugh ‘could undermine diversity on college campuses’
Source: [None]
URL Source: https://www.prisonplanet.com/schola ... rsity-on-college-campuses.html
Published: Oct 8, 2018
Author: Campus Reform
Post Date: 2018-10-08 19:53:06 by BTP Holdings
Keywords: None
Views: 189
Comments: 12

Scholars: Kavanaugh ‘could undermine diversity on college campuses’

Campus Reform
October 8, 2018

A law professor and scholar at the University of Texas (UT) at Austin co-wrote an article on Tuesday insisting that then-Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh – now Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh – should not be confirmed due to his opposition to affirmative action.

UT law lecturer Shavonne Henderson and UT Juris Doctorate postgraduate fellow Martin Kamp penned the op-ed, titled “Kavanaugh Could Undermine Diversity on College Campuses” and published the piece on the University of Texas at Austin’s official news site.

“The Supreme Court’s longstanding position has been that colleges and universities have a compelling interest in diversity and may consider race among many factors when assessing qualified students for admission,” the professor and postgraduate fellow write. “But if Brett Kavanaugh is appointed, that position could change and would probably signal a return to pre-Civil Rights era race-neutral admissions policies.”

The Senate confirmed Kavanaugh in a Saturday afternoon vote. He was sworn in as a Supreme Court justice that night.

“This is not what America needs,” Henderson and Kamp assert in the op-ed, published Tuesday. “Race-conscious admissions policies remain vital for ensuring diverse student bodies that reflect our ever-changing society. If Kavanaugh can’t support this longstanding position, he should not be confirmed.”

The scholars cite Kavanaugh’s praise of late Chief Justice William Rehnquist and the late “anti-affirmative-action jurist” Antonin Scalia as evidence that he should not be confirmed. But the article does not make clear how aligning with past Supreme Court justices on the issue of affirmative action disqualifies a potential Supreme Court justice.

Henderson and Kamp acknowledge that Kavanaugh’s opposition to affirmative action policies stems from his belief that such policies contradict rights granted by the Fourteenth Amendment. They then reason that, “given his position on the constitutional validity of reproductive rights, it is doubtful that Kavanaugh will support race-conscious admissions policies.”

“Race-conscious admissions ultimately benefit all students,” the pair conclude in the piece.

Students for Fair Admissions, a group representing Asian American students, is contesting this notion and has filed a lawsuit against Harvard, claiming that the Ivy League school’s affirmative action policies discriminate against Asian American students, docking their application in categories such as likability and “positive personality.”

“The record evidence demonstrates that Harvard’s race-based admissions process significantly disadvantages Asian-American applicants compared to applicants of other racial groups — including both white applicants and applicants from other racial minority groups,” the Justice Department stated in August.

Students for Fair Admissions will take its lawsuit against Harvard to Boston’s U.S. District Court on Oct. 15.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 8.

#5. To: BTP Holdings (#0)

Too many vested-interest groups have zero desire to ever have a color-blind society.

Lod  posted on  2018-10-16   21:58:58 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: Lod (#5) (Edited)

Too many vested-interest groups have zero desire to ever have a color-blind society.


Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003) - Wikipedia [SCOTUS Affirmative Action case]

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, writing for the majority in a 5–4 decision ... implied that affirmative action should not be allowed permanent status and that eventually a "colorblind" policy should be implemented. The opinion read, "race-conscious admissions policies must be limited in time." "The Court takes the Law School at its word that it would like nothing better than to find a race-neutral admissions formula and will terminate its use of racial preferences as soon as practicable. The Court expects that 25 years from now [i.e. 2028], the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary ... The phrase "25 years from now" was echoed by Justice Thomas in his dissent.

Justice Thomas, writing that the system was "illegal now", concurred with the majority only on the point that he agreed the system would still be illegal 25 years hence. ... The case was heard in conjunction with Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244 (2003), in which the Court struck down the University of Michigan's more rigid, point-based undergraduate admission policy, which was essentially deemed a quota system.

Justice Thomas also quoted this case re: the principle of equality embodied in the Declaration of Independence and the Equal Protection Clause. "Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens." Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 527, 559, [...] (1896) (Harlan, J., dissenting).

GreyLmist  posted on  2018-10-17   0:36:57 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 8.

        There are no replies to Comment # 8.


End Trace Mode for Comment # 8.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest