Last night I downloaded the Supremes' Opinion in the referenced matter because NONE of the comments I had read or heard (on TV) addressed what may be the biggest bombshell ever ignited by those idiots ("Gang of Six") now dominating the Supreme Court!
Most people probably think I am nit-picking, but the PRECEDENT of what John Roberts did NOT say in his official Opinion (buttressed by 3 or 4 concurrences and opposed by 2 or 3 dissents) seems important to me. I have only looked at his Opinion and not the other stuff, so far.
I am simply clueless as to WHY or HOW a PRIVATE school like Harvard U. is subject to the 14th Amendment's guarantee of "Equal Protection"? I am not quibbling with the "morality" of it, but I think it is legally flawed. I also don't know that Harvard may have a remedy, since the Supremes are the court of last resort. I wonder if their lawyers even argued the point? Had they done so, I'd expect at least one Justice to have addressed it.
Ergo, it may be possible that Harvard could continue to practice race-based affirmative action, DESPITE what John Roberts said!
But not UNC, which is a STATE school and IS, therefore, subject to the 14th Amendment.
The Constitution is applicable ONLY to governments, not to private interests—or, at least that's what I thought until this past week. The 14th Amendment is specifically applicable ONLY to "States"! I kept hearing and reading that the Court had found that Harvard had "violated" the 14th Amendment, and that simply made no sense to me. Harvard is STILL a private entity, no? OF COURSE, "private" entities that receive federal funds might well be compelled to practice "equal protection" due to statutory regulation that does follow federal funding. But, that's NOT what John Roberts said! I could find no mention of any analysis of federal funding in his Majority Opinion. He said the 14th Amendment was DIRECTLY applicable to Harvard, and I think he's wrong. Of course, I COULD be wrong now.
I generally agree with the "equal protection" clause prohibiting RACE-BASED affirmative action, which SHOULD instead be based on a nonracial measure, like income level. A benefit for some is a penalty for those (white males?) not in the favored group. The high-falutin' motive for "student diversity" falls on deaf ears here, since it seems to based on nothing more than skin melanin. I don't think that is a valid measure of "diversity," and it violates Dr. King's plea for judgment on the basis of content of character and not mere skin color. "Skin color" is the lazy way out, as far as I am concerned.
So, maybe this case came to the right conclusion but by the wrong way. I am concerned more by what precedents may have been created for other cases down the road making the Constitution directly applicable to private interests now. NO JOURNALIST I have read or listened to has commented on that point, and I think it is very significant. I have tried to discuss it with some of my former lawyer friends, and most don't even see a problem!
So, make of it what you will. Or nothing at all. I hope you will at least interrogate your journalist friends. I'll be interested in what you may have to say about it later on.
It is understandable that most people might want to reverse the horrible effects of decades of mistreatment of racial minorities by whites, but RACE-BASED affirmative action violates the principles of equal protection of the laws. A benefit given to racial minorities is a PENALTY levied on anyone not in such a group.
To legitimize affirmative action, some guideline other than race or gender should be followed, like phone exchange, or ZIPcode, something that is NOT "race-based." That is patently illegal. It could wind up benefitting most of the same people without measuring the melanin level in their skin. Many black people oppose race-based affirmative action. It puts an asterisk by their names.
I have not read the Supremes' recent decision so I reserve my need to do so for a fuller understanding of what was decided.
My view from 30,003 ft. is that this week's SCOTUS decisions reflect the 6 member MAGA majority's adherence to the unstated white supremacist mandate of the MAGA Republican Party in general. Workarounds like the class-based affirmative action option may be empirically attractive, but without an explicit race-based component in college acceptance decisions, racial diversity may become nothing more than an afterthought.
Yes, let’s blame Hillary Clinton. Stopped reading after that. Yes, it was a stupid remark but one of the main causes of Dems losing the working class? Please try again.
Re: STUDENTS, etc. v. HARVARD U.
Mr. Alter:
Last night I downloaded the Supremes' Opinion in the referenced matter because NONE of the comments I had read or heard (on TV) addressed what may be the biggest bombshell ever ignited by those idiots ("Gang of Six") now dominating the Supreme Court!
Most people probably think I am nit-picking, but the PRECEDENT of what John Roberts did NOT say in his official Opinion (buttressed by 3 or 4 concurrences and opposed by 2 or 3 dissents) seems important to me. I have only looked at his Opinion and not the other stuff, so far.
I am simply clueless as to WHY or HOW a PRIVATE school like Harvard U. is subject to the 14th Amendment's guarantee of "Equal Protection"? I am not quibbling with the "morality" of it, but I think it is legally flawed. I also don't know that Harvard may have a remedy, since the Supremes are the court of last resort. I wonder if their lawyers even argued the point? Had they done so, I'd expect at least one Justice to have addressed it.
Ergo, it may be possible that Harvard could continue to practice race-based affirmative action, DESPITE what John Roberts said!
But not UNC, which is a STATE school and IS, therefore, subject to the 14th Amendment.
The Constitution is applicable ONLY to governments, not to private interests—or, at least that's what I thought until this past week. The 14th Amendment is specifically applicable ONLY to "States"! I kept hearing and reading that the Court had found that Harvard had "violated" the 14th Amendment, and that simply made no sense to me. Harvard is STILL a private entity, no? OF COURSE, "private" entities that receive federal funds might well be compelled to practice "equal protection" due to statutory regulation that does follow federal funding. But, that's NOT what John Roberts said! I could find no mention of any analysis of federal funding in his Majority Opinion. He said the 14th Amendment was DIRECTLY applicable to Harvard, and I think he's wrong. Of course, I COULD be wrong now.
I generally agree with the "equal protection" clause prohibiting RACE-BASED affirmative action, which SHOULD instead be based on a nonracial measure, like income level. A benefit for some is a penalty for those (white males?) not in the favored group. The high-falutin' motive for "student diversity" falls on deaf ears here, since it seems to based on nothing more than skin melanin. I don't think that is a valid measure of "diversity," and it violates Dr. King's plea for judgment on the basis of content of character and not mere skin color. "Skin color" is the lazy way out, as far as I am concerned.
So, maybe this case came to the right conclusion but by the wrong way. I am concerned more by what precedents may have been created for other cases down the road making the Constitution directly applicable to private interests now. NO JOURNALIST I have read or listened to has commented on that point, and I think it is very significant. I have tried to discuss it with some of my former lawyer friends, and most don't even see a problem!
So, make of it what you will. Or nothing at all. I hope you will at least interrogate your journalist friends. I'll be interested in what you may have to say about it later on.
H. Watkins Ellerson
It is understandable that most people might want to reverse the horrible effects of decades of mistreatment of racial minorities by whites, but RACE-BASED affirmative action violates the principles of equal protection of the laws. A benefit given to racial minorities is a PENALTY levied on anyone not in such a group.
To legitimize affirmative action, some guideline other than race or gender should be followed, like phone exchange, or ZIPcode, something that is NOT "race-based." That is patently illegal. It could wind up benefitting most of the same people without measuring the melanin level in their skin. Many black people oppose race-based affirmative action. It puts an asterisk by their names.
I have not read the Supremes' recent decision so I reserve my need to do so for a fuller understanding of what was decided.
H. Watkins Ellerson
My view from 30,003 ft. is that this week's SCOTUS decisions reflect the 6 member MAGA majority's adherence to the unstated white supremacist mandate of the MAGA Republican Party in general. Workarounds like the class-based affirmative action option may be empirically attractive, but without an explicit race-based component in college acceptance decisions, racial diversity may become nothing more than an afterthought.
Yes, let’s blame Hillary Clinton. Stopped reading after that. Yes, it was a stupid remark but one of the main causes of Dems losing the working class? Please try again.
I agree. Hillary's "deplorables" remark was not self-defeating. It was a simple well-placed truth that earned her respect.
... until she walked it back.