Near the end of oral argument in a high-profile affirmative-action case Wednesday, conservative U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia suggested that black students benefit from a “slower track” at less prestigious schools and are thus harmed by affirmative action. The comments come during a time of racial turmoil on campuses across the country, from Yale to the University of Missouri.“There are those who contend that it does not benefit African-Americans to get them into the University of Texas, where they do not do well — as opposed to having them go to a less advanced school, a slower-track school where they do well,” Scalia said from the bench. “One of the briefs pointed out that most of the black scientists in this country don’t come from schools like the University of Texas. They come from lesser schools where they do not feel that they’re being pushed ahead in classes that are too fast for them.”Scalia went on to say that it could be bad if the “really competent blacks” do not go to these “lesser” schools because they might then not become scientists. “I don’t think it stands to reason for the University of Texas to admit as many blacks as possible,” he concluded.
Or what about Chief Justice Roberts?
Here's the actual exchange with Scalia:Some of the Supreme Court justices on Wednesday seemed to question the utility of considering race in admissions at all, suggesting they may be backing away from their compromise on Fisher two years ago.“What unique perspective does a minority student bring to a physics class?” Chief Justice John Roberts asked at one point, challenging UT’s contention that one of its goals was to attain classroom diversity. (In 2002, UT found that 90 percent of its classes had only one or zero black students in them.)
JUSTICE SCALIA: There are there are
those who contend that it does not benefit
African Americans to to get them into the University
of Texas where they do not do well, as opposed to having
them go to a less advanced school, a less a
slower track school where they do well. One of one
of the briefs pointed out that that most of the
most of the black scientists in this country don't come
from schools like the University of Texas.
MR. GARRE: So this Court
JUSTICE SCALIA: They come from lesser
schools where they do not feel that they're that
they're being pushed ahead in in classes that are
too too fast for them.
MR. GARRE: This Court
JUSTICE SCALIA: I'm just not impressed by
the fact that that the University of Texas may have
fewer. Maybe it ought to have fewer. And maybe some
you know, when you take more, the number of blacks,
really competent blacks admitted to lesser schools,
turns out to be less. And and I I don't think
it it it stands to reason that it's a good thing
for the University of Texas to admit as many blacks as
possible. I just don't think
MR. GARRE: This Court heard and rejected
that argument, with respect, Justice Scalia, in the
Grutter case, a case that our opponents have and asked
this Court to overrule. If you look at the academic
performance of holistic minority admits versus the top
10 percent admits, over time, they they fare better.
And, frankly, I don't think the solution to
the problems with student body diversity can be to set
up a system in which not only are minorities going to
separate schools, they're going to inferior schools. I
think what experience shows, at Texas, California, and
Michigan, is that now is not the time and this is not
the case to roll back student body diversity in America.
Thank you, Your Honors.
12 comments:
I'm not sure having cameras in the Court would have made a difference given that the entire transcript is available. It may even make the problem worse, those who selectively quote Scalia to make him look bad could just as easily edit the video footage to do the same thing.
you are linking to a word by word transcript of what he said... isn't that better?
11:18 - is your position that what David posted is a "selective" quote that makes him look bad? Seems to actually be bad to me.
No, not at all. I was just pointing out that people can selectively edit video just as they can selectively quote a transcript, and that as long as the whole transcript is already available I don't see how the availability of video would make any difference.
First, Scalia doesn't need any help making himself look bad, he does fine all by himself. But, more importantly, if we have learned anything this past year it is that visual and audible proof of someone's actions and words have profoundly more impact than having that action described, even in detail, or reading a verbatim transcription of those words. We as a society need to see it and hear it ourselves. The Court would no doubt counter that the only words that matter are the words that make up its decisions and that a hypothetical or rhetorical question at oral argument has little public importance. But in this case, the country would be best served if they could hear and see what Scalia said. It was deeply offensive and given the dialogue that is currently occurring on college campuses across the country, those words needed to be made public in a way that people could see and hear what he said.
Well if the point here is that some people are incapable of understanding what somebody said based on a verbatim transcript, you've proven it.
I'm not sure what the big deal is all about - other than, of course, to create a false narrative. First, Scalia has historically been anti affirmative action, therefore whatever he said this time should not surprise anyone --- except, secondly, that what he said was not of his vintage as he was quoting an argument on a brief.
Nice try. But he adopted that argument and reasoning of the "mismatch" theory with this quote:
"I'm just not impressed by
the fact that that the University of Texas may have
fewer. Maybe it ought to have fewer. And maybe some
you know, when you take more, the number of blacks,
really competent blacks admitted to lesser schools,
turns out to be less. And and I I don't think
it it it stands to reason that it's a good thing
for the University of Texas to admit as many blacks as
possible.
Somehow you were able to figure that out even without a video of the oral argument.
But without a video Dems can't really use in a campaign ad.
Wow. I am shocked, and saddened really, that so many people (especially those on this blog)can read Scalia's words and not view them as blatantly racist.
No sadder than the liberal agenda to grab at straws in order to find fault with republicans....especially on the eve of an election. The whole idea being that if a republican judicial appointee is racist, so are the rest of republicans. And, of course, the video would the icing on the cake. After all, seems like everyone, including those on this blog, reached their own conclusions about Scalia's comments. So, why do we need a video? Oh yes, for political special effects!!
Post a Comment