Supreme Court to rule on race as a factor in deciding who's admitted to college
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court could issue a ruling on affirmative action as early as Monday, 35 years after the justices set the terms for boosting college admissions of blacks and other minorities.
The case before the justices was brought by Abigail Fisher, a white suburban Houston student who asserted she was wrongly rejected by the University of Texas at Austin while minority students with similar grades and test scores were admitted.
The ruling is the only one the court has yet to issue after oral arguments in cases heard in October and November — the opening months of the court's annual term, which lasts until the early summer.
A decision might be made as early as Monday, before the start of a two-week recess.
As hard as it is to predict when a ruling will be announced, it is more difficult to say how it might change the law. Still, even a small move in the Texas case could mark the beginning of a new chapter limiting college administrators' discretion in using race in deciding on admissions.
For decades, dating back at least to the Kennedy administration of the 1960s, leaders have struggled with what “affirmative action” should be taken to help blacks and other minorities. In the early years, it was viewed as a way to remedy racial prejudice and discrimination; in the more modern era, as a way to bring diversity to campuses and workplaces.
Since 1978, the Supreme Court has been at the center of disputes over when universities may consider applicants' race.
In that year's groundbreaking Bakke decision from a University of California medical school, the justices forbade quotas but said schools could weigh race with other factors.
In another seminal university case, the court in 2003 reaffirmed the use of race in admissions to create diversity in colleges.
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.
- Pair of NYC officers killed in ambush shooting
- IBM’s Watson supercomputing system to be applied to PTSD
- 3-D printed prosthetics give dog ability to run
- Poor morale, training in Air Force ICBM program spur questions about usefulness as nuclear deterrent
- Document hunt to begin for illegals who need proof of residency since 2010 for permit, reprieve
- Killer of New York police officers angry over Garner chokehold death, officials say
- Ghostly snailfish found at record depth
- Teenager who attacked California Highway Patrol officer with machete shot, killed
- 4 Afghans freed from Guantanamo
- U.S., Cuba patching torn relations with historic accord
- Gray wolf decision reversed