Everyone wonders...
By a 7-1 vote a few days ago, the Supreme Court told an appeals court that
it misinterpreted the justices' precedent when reviewing the University of
Texas at Austin's affirmative action policy.
The decision is a provisional victory for Abigail
Fisher, a white woman who claimed that UT-Austin unconstitutionally
discriminated against her after the state's flagship university rejected her
application in 2008 under its race-conscious admissions program. UT-Austin will
now have a much more difficult job of proving its program constitutional under
the standard the Supreme Court clarified on Monday.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority,
endorsed the Supreme Court's prior decisions establishing affirmative action as
constitutional to further states' compelling interest in fostering a diverse
student body. But the majority maintained that the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the 5th Circuit did not give a hard enough look at UT-Austin's race-conscious
admissions program.
"The University must prove that the means
chosen by the University to attain diversity are narrowly tailored to that
goal. On this point, the University receives no deference," Kennedy wrote.
"Strict scrutiny must not be strict in theory but feeble in fact."
Kennedy's opinion is largely a reiteration of his
dissent in the landmark 2003 Supreme Court case, Grutter
v. Bollinger. In that decision, Justice Sandra Day
O'Connor sided with the court's four
liberals to uphold the University of Michigan Law School's affirmative action
policy and, in so doing, reaffirm the constitutionality of race-conscious
university admissions.
Back then, Kennedy accused
the Grutter majority of watering down strict scrutiny, a standard of review
that the court first
articulated in 1978 -- a standard that Kennedy did not
believe the University of Michigan was able to meet. For the policy to meet the
standard of strict scrutiny, according to Monday's majority, it must be
absolutely necessary to achieve diversity on campus. Whether UT-Austin can meet
that standard is a question the Fisher majority has left for another day.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the lone justice
dissenting decision, maintained that the appeals court faithfully applied
Grutter. "I would not return this case for a second look," she wrote,
because "the University reached the reasonable, good-faith judgment that
supposedly race-neutral initiatives were insufficient to achieve, in
appropriate measure, the educational benefits of student body diversity."
Read more:
No comments:
Post a Comment