SCOTUS decides racial preference cases Update: Equality wins!
If any of you followed my work at the Seattle Times, you know how closely I covered the battle against government racial preferences in Washington state. You may remember that Washington passed Initiative 200 to ban government racial preferences in public hiring and education. Despite massive establishment opposition (led by my then-publisher), the measure was approved overwhelmingly–even in liberal enclaves like Seattle and other parts of western Washington. As in California and Michigan, the Left fought bitterly to undermine the letter and spirit of the law. One of the areas where inequality in the name of “diversity” reigned was the Seattle public school system. Several parents rose to challenge the racial bean-counting and have fought in court since 1998. Their case reached the Supreme Court, which will issue a decision this morning. I’ll be busy liveblogging the Senate shamnesty debate, but the folks over at SCOTUSblog will be covering the release of the racial preference cases wall-to-wall live beginning at 10am. Stay tuned.
10:34am Eastern update breaking:
The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected public school assignment plans that take account of students’ race.
The decision in cases affecting schools in Louisville, Ky., and Seattle could imperil similar plans in hundreds of districts nationwide, and it leaves public school systems with a limited arsenal to maintain racial diversity.
The court split, 5-4, with Chief Justice John Roberts announcing the court’s judgment. Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a dissent that was joined by the court’s other three liberals.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- PAXALLES
- Crush Liberalism
- A Step Away From Racism « Tai-Chi Policy
- Equality did not win… « Cowardly political musings…
- Thoughts Of A Conservative Christian SCOTUS decides racial preference cases Update: Equality wins! «
- Mark Nicodemo
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Affirmative action, Diversity, Supreme Court
Hot Air
» Anticlimax in West Virginia tonight
Hot Air
» Hagee to apologize to CatholicsJawa Report
» Obama General Election Strategy Taking ShapePower Line
» Running Interference for Obama, Part 3Hot Air
» Breaking: Terror blasts in India, 30 Dead Updates: Military curfew in effect, according to HA sourceprotein wisdom
» Guilt by association by association (or, how learned to stop worrying and love the ill-fated Greenwich Village nail bomb)NewsBusters.org
» USA Today Joins CNN, ABC in Inflating Gas Prices on WebsitesThe Sundries Shack
» Be Ready for a Rash of New Einstein QuotesPajamas Media
» Drunkblogging West Virginia
Affirmative action is all about judging people by the color of their skin, and not by the content of their character. This is in direct opposition to what Martin Luther King fought so hard and gave his life for. How can we ever become a “color blind” America if we are constantly bring color into almost every aspect of decision making in our country?
Nothing less than reverse discrimination.
The supreme court just said they can’t use race to determine where someone attends school .Score.
I agree that AA and preferences should not be used in hiring and so on. On this “color-blind” America, I am silent.
“United we stand. Divided we fall”
It is time to stop breaking everyone here into groups of color. The S.C. got one right today.
Liberal media? What liberal media?
SCOTUS is the only good thing about Bush’s 2nd Term
4 out of 9 Judges feel racism is Constitutional. These are the same Judges that feel it is fine for a student, at a school parade to promote illegal drug use, but that the Federal Government may prohibit critism of a sitting politician. Wonderland.
It all depends on whose ox is being gored, doesn’t it?
Puhiawa is arguing that it’s okay for government to intervene in one exercise of speech but not in another. I’m not sure I’m comfortable with either, though I do believe that school administrators ought to be given more latitude when dealing wth minors in such matters than might otherwise be the case.
As for today’s schools decision - Stevens’ statement that none of the Justices on the court in 1975 when he joined would agree with this decision says something about how far this country had fallen off the rails in the ’70s, and something about how far out of touch a Justice Stevens is with the present reality. Defining ‘minority’ as ‘non-white’, as would have (de facto if not de jure) been the case in 1975, is patently at odds with the facts on the ground in many districts today.
The Raging Republican : I could not have said it better myself. I have been offering the same statement to deaf ears for years
As long as we dote on our differences, we will never be recognized by our true qualities and intiatives 
No. I think it obvious that a school starts with discipline as well as the instruction of legalities. The majority made4 it very clear that it was the status of these kids as students in an educational setting that allowed to disciple to be proper. I agree.
“the discipline”
TODAY has been an abosolutely stellar day. Lightening struck TWICE!
Amazing. As a graduate of what is widely considered to be Seattle’s worst high school, this is a great day. Overdue, but hey…
And tniles, you’re right but it took a lot of conservative muscle from people like MM and the readers here to make it Alito and not Miers.
Score one for the good guys!!
This is a huge victory for those of us in the world of education!!
I went through this forced-busing stupidity throughout the 1970’s. Know what? The schools I went to are now even MORE segregated, and are academic dead zones.
Billions of dollars wasted. Millions of tons of bus exhaust put in the atmosphere. And for what? Some imagined benefit gained from sitting near a kid with more skin pigment?
Maybe the next issue they can tackle is how teacher’s unions are covering for pedophile teachers: http://www.failingschools.net/
At the risk of nitpicking, There is no such thing as reverse descrimination. Descrimination is descrimination. The only reason why we’ve been led to add the “reverse” to it is because the liberal media wants us thinking that it’s so rare that it needs a special qualifier.
Big John is correct, although the term was coined by attorneys for Allan Bakke who successfully sued the U. of Calif for discriminating against him based on their using a quota system.
The reason those attorneys chose “reverse discrimination” to describe their case was that every other discrimination matter to come before SCOTUS at that time dealt with white on black discrimination. They felt it important to differentiate their clients case from past cases.
But since then, the press has picked up on the term to delegitimize people making the claim.
Is sanity finally starting to show in this country?
BigJohn , I understand your point . I was expressing my anger towards the anti-white movement that’s been going on for years in our country.This is part of it.
According to Liberals, it is impossible for anyone to discriminate against whites regardless of the validity of the arguments offered.
To see the results of well meaning leftists take a look at how well Yellowstone National Park has dealt with their interference.
How has the fight for equality been an anti-white movement?
I grew up in a racially diverse area in Maryland….and as kids we all just got along. Racism existed, but we didn’t know it. But then a judge told us we were different and that some of us needed to ride buses to help provide “balance” in other areas of the school district. People started to look at each other differently and soon you were called names, threatened, and occassionally assaulted for associating with with people you simply thought of as friends. I’ve always hoped I’d live long enough to see adults (and the gov’t) stop telling children they are different because of their ancestry.
You guys didn’t read Kennedy’s opinion. He is wishy-washy and I think he implies that this issue should be looked at on a case-by-case basis.
#55 “fight for equality ” WHAT ??
#18 I was not quoting anyone . Discrimination in America is white people oppressing anyone who is not white. So when white people in America are the oppressed it is reversed.
Many words in the English language have more than one meaning even when used together .
All these words have been spoken before so when exactly do they become a quote .
Who decides when two words or more are used together their meaning is absolute . Not a question.
We went through this in Miami, FL in 70’s - took jr hi kids away from friends and bussed across US#1 - kids in high school had a race riot - this does NOT work and angers people. We were able to move away…how many can do that?
Off topic somewhat but similar…
While the SC was at it, they should have voted against discrimination concerning CITIZENS VS ILLEGALS.
Most county jobs in my area “PREFER” Spanish speaking. Just another way around the EOE law…instead of saying, “WE WON’T HIRE YOU UNLESS YOU SPEAK SPANISH”.
Another one I just love is no employer is supposed to ask your age; the way around that is on your application, they want the high school you attended and the year you graduated. DUH.
I leave it BLANK. I refuse to be tricked.
Re my complaint above, I should have added that we lived in a mixed neighborhood in Atlanta many years later and we got along fine. Was surprised to get a letter from Senator Richard Burr yesterday…mailed before the final vote (amazing how they cover both sides of the “fence”!)
.
This is a good point.
I’m glad the SCOTUS has issued some sensible rulings - this definitely being one of them.
However, my biggest fear is that the liberals in this nation (to borrow a phrase from our hostess) are so unhinged that it won’t matter what ruling is handed down by the SCOTUS, they’ll ignore it.
A play on that saying by Andrew Jackson: “Justice Roberts has made his decision, now let him enforce it.”
My husband and I imagine very plausible scenarios where SCOTUS rulings are completely, defiantly ignored by the left.
Heck, the 9th Circuit already ignores SCOTUS precedent, and we fear that with a Democratic Congress and (shudder) a Democratic president, such rulings will mean nothing because they won’t be enforced.
That being said, we do take pleasure in seeing a notion as ridiculous and backward as racial quotas in schools being ruled unconstitutional. That’s a great start.