Uncomfortable topics: Let's talk about race

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Cain youre fucking with us right?

I mean its still hilarious if you are or arent i just want to be sure why im laughing.

[CorbeauEtRenard]

I'm absolutely going to use that line the next time someone starts earnestly spouting "facts" about gay people in my presence. 

Being from an Irish family will only it that much more hilarious.

[Cain]

Geert Wilders: "did you know that Irish people, I am not making this up, that Irish people have more genes in common with a potato than a human?  There's no evidence for this, but it's a scientific fact."

Chris Morris rocks.

(but it was lobsters :P)

Oh yes, but if you can't work a potato gag into a racist screed against the Irish....well, then you're just not trying in my book.

[Cain]

Cain youre fucking with us right?

I mean its still hilarious if you are or arent i just want to be sure why im laughing.

Yes, of course.

But all of you do need to watch this.

[BadBeast]

Geert Wilders: "did you know that Irish people, I am not making this up, that Irish people have more genes in common with a potato than a human?  There's no evidence for this, but it's a scientific fact."

Chris Morris rocks.

(but it was lobsters :P)

Beg to differ. It was crabs. And paedophiles.
eta: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZDGWICVQ3w&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PLE27BDAF640BBCFC1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVKf-HGzBSs&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFMsx0mjWrM&feature=related

[Triple Zero]

INDEED ALL OF YOU

You used to be able to see the entire show in 3 parts on YouTube.

Geert Wilders: "did you know that Irish people, I am not making this up, that Irish people have more genes in common with a potato than a human?  There's no evidence for this, but it's a scientific fact."

Chris Morris rocks.

(but it was lobsters :P)

Beg to differ. It was crabs. And paedophiles.
eta:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-lroPLKs58

But it's SCIENTIFIC FACT, nonetheless.

[BadBeast]

INDEED ALL OF YOU

You used to be able to see the entire show in 3 parts on YouTube.

Still can. Links fixt.

[Cain]

So, apparently, there is some Supreme Court hearing going down soon, which will almost certainly end affirmative action in higher education.

I suppose the bright side of this is that at least it will stop a certain vocal contingent of whiners trying to claim the mantle of racial victimhood from those who are actually underrepresented and systematically selected against.

[Doktor Howl]

So, apparently, there is some Supreme Court hearing going down soon, which will almost certainly end affirmative action in higher education.

I suppose the bright side of this is that at least it will stop a certain vocal contingent of whiners trying to claim the mantle of racial victimhood from those who are actually underrepresented and systematically selected against.

Yes, now they can go back to simply quitely excluding Those People.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

So, apparently, there is some Supreme Court hearing going down soon, which will almost certainly end affirmative action in higher education.

I suppose the bright side of this is that at least it will stop a certain vocal contingent of whiners trying to claim the mantle of racial victimhood from those who are actually underrepresented and systematically selected against.

More on this, please? I am interested... I haven't heard anything about it yet.

[Cain]

http://prospect.org/article/end-affirmative-action-college

As my colleague Jamelle Bouie noted yesterday, the Supreme Court agreed to hear Fisher v. UT Austin, a challenge to the use of affirmative action for undergraduate admissions at the University of Texas. I wish I could make a case for more optimism, but I have to agree with the conventional wisdom that Grutter v. Bollinger, the case that upheld that affirmative action was allowed in higher education so long as it was done to promote diversity, is likely to be overruled and the use of affirmative action in higher education therefore made flatly unconstitutional.

To start with the less-bad news first, readers may find it ominous that Justice Elena Kagan has recused herself from the case. But this means less than it might appear at first. The 5th Circuit opinion the Supreme Court is reviewing upheld the constitutionality of the program. Because of this, if the Supreme Court deadlocked 4-4, the program would be sustained and Grutter would remain good law. While the best outcome would be a majority opinion clearly re-affirming Bollinger, a tie would be acceptable.

The bad news is that Kagan's recusal probably doesn't matter because her vote will be irrelevant. Everything points to there being five votes to overrule Grutter. Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas are sure votes—not only did they dissent in Grutter, they have consistently held that all affirmative action programs are unconstitutional (even though this is flagrantly inconsistent with the "originalism" they claim guides their interpretation of the Constitution). Samuel Alito and John Roberts were not on the Court when Grutter was decided in 2003, but the 2007 Parents Involved ruling, authored by Roberts and joined by Alito, is an ominous sign. Chief Justice Roberts's Young Republican debate society koan "[t]he way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race" strongly suggests that the two George W. Bush appointees will adhere to the Scalia/Thomas absolutist position.

If you squint really hard, you might see a ray of hope in Anthony Kennedy. He dissented in Grutter, which would seem to settle the question. But in Parents Involved, given the opprtunity to provide five clear votes for the position that affirmative action programs always violate the 14th Amendment he didn't quite go all the way, arguing that there might be some narrow cases in which affirmative action might be constitutionally permissible. Since the primary UT system uses a proxy measure for race—granting admission to the top 10 percent of every high school class in Texas rather than explicitly considering a student's race per se—Kennedy might see the case as distinguishable from Grutter (and Gratz, in which Kennedy joined an opinion that struck down the University of Michigan's undergraduate affirmative action program). The Supreme Court could write a narrow opinion holding that the supplemental pool for students that Abigail Noel Fisher was part of after missing the 10 percent cutoff (and which does consider race) violates the Constitution without considering the broader UT admissions system. Doing so may permit ruling in favor of Fisher without seeing a need to overrule Grutter.

Having said this, if Kennedy isn't as certain a vote to strike down the UT program as the other four Republican appointees, he's close. The question is not so much whether the Court will rule against the UT as how it will do so. I'm generally not a big fan of "judicial minimalism," but if the Court just ruled against the UT without overruling Grutter explicitly, I would consider that the best outcome that could be hoped for. My guess is that the Supreme Court is taking the case so it can overrule Grutter and hold that affirmative action programs are never constitutional.

[LMNO]

NOTHING TO SEE HERE.  GO BACK TO YOUR SECOND CLASS CITIZEN STATUS.
                              /

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

http://prospect.org/article/end-affirmative-action-college

As my colleague Jamelle Bouie noted yesterday, the Supreme Court agreed to hear Fisher v. UT Austin, a challenge to the use of affirmative action for undergraduate admissions at the University of Texas. I wish I could make a case for more optimism, but I have to agree with the conventional wisdom that Grutter v. Bollinger, the case that upheld that affirmative action was allowed in higher education so long as it was done to promote diversity, is likely to be overruled and the use of affirmative action in higher education therefore made flatly unconstitutional.

To start with the less-bad news first, readers may find it ominous that Justice Elena Kagan has recused herself from the case. But this means less than it might appear at first. The 5th Circuit opinion the Supreme Court is reviewing upheld the constitutionality of the program. Because of this, if the Supreme Court deadlocked 4-4, the program would be sustained and Grutter would remain good law. While the best outcome would be a majority opinion clearly re-affirming Bollinger, a tie would be acceptable.

The bad news is that Kagan's recusal probably doesn't matter because her vote will be irrelevant. Everything points to there being five votes to overrule Grutter. Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas are sure votes—not only did they dissent in Grutter, they have consistently held that all affirmative action programs are unconstitutional (even though this is flagrantly inconsistent with the "originalism" they claim guides their interpretation of the Constitution). Samuel Alito and John Roberts were not on the Court when Grutter was decided in 2003, but the 2007 Parents Involved ruling, authored by Roberts and joined by Alito, is an ominous sign. Chief Justice Roberts's Young Republican debate society koan "[t]he way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race" strongly suggests that the two George W. Bush appointees will adhere to the Scalia/Thomas absolutist position.

If you squint really hard, you might see a ray of hope in Anthony Kennedy. He dissented in Grutter, which would seem to settle the question. But in Parents Involved, given the opprtunity to provide five clear votes for the position that affirmative action programs always violate the 14th Amendment he didn't quite go all the way, arguing that there might be some narrow cases in which affirmative action might be constitutionally permissible. Since the primary UT system uses a proxy measure for race—granting admission to the top 10 percent of every high school class in Texas rather than explicitly considering a student's race per se—Kennedy might see the case as distinguishable from Grutter (and Gratz, in which Kennedy joined an opinion that struck down the University of Michigan's undergraduate affirmative action program). The Supreme Court could write a narrow opinion holding that the supplemental pool for students that Abigail Noel Fisher was part of after missing the 10 percent cutoff (and which does consider race) violates the Constitution without considering the broader UT admissions system. Doing so may permit ruling in favor of Fisher without seeing a need to overrule Grutter.

Having said this, if Kennedy isn't as certain a vote to strike down the UT program as the other four Republican appointees, he's close. The question is not so much whether the Court will rule against the UT as how it will do so. I'm generally not a big fan of "judicial minimalism," but if the Court just ruled against the UT without overruling Grutter explicitly, I would consider that the best outcome that could be hoped for. My guess is that the Supreme Court is taking the case so it can overrule Grutter and hold that affirmative action programs are never constitutional.

Hot damn. Thanks Cain. This is directly relevant to next week's project.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

This story filled me with delight:

[moose]

That's great Nigel!