Admissions & race: Lenient scrutiny
We're going to have to wait a while longer to learn if America's judicial system will honor the Equal Protection Clause and end feel-good, race-based college admissions.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday vacated and remanded to a lower court the case of Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin. In a 7-1 ruling (with Justice Elena Kagan recused), the high court said the U.S. District Court and the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals “did not hold the university to the demanding burden of strict scrutiny” required of it in prior rulings.
“Strict scrutiny does not permit a court to accept a school's assertion that its admissions process uses race in a permissible way without closely examining how the process works in practice,” wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy for the majority. The lower courts deferred “to the university's good faith in its use of racial classifications,” he said.
It was in 2008 that Abigail Fisher, who is white, sued the school, claiming she was denied admission in favor of a less-qualified minority.
In a concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas was more forthright, calling the school's practice “racial discrimination ... categorically prohibited by the Equal Protection Clause” of the 14th Amendment.
And should the appellate court apply the required “strict scrutiny” standard as the high court now has ordered, the last vestiges of discrimination in the name of ending discrimination should be on the road to being erased.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- State of Corruption: The McCord scandal
- Saturday essay: A new (& blue) feeder
- Catholic Education Week: School choice & more
- Host a Super Bowl?: False prophets/profits
- Pittsburgh Laurels & Lances
- The Thursday wrap
- Greensburg Tuesday takes
- Alle-Kiski Tuesday takes
- Alle-Kiski Laurels & Lances
- State of surveillanc: The DEA database
- U.N. Watch: Climate games