Opinion
Reading Los Angeles: Join The Times' new book club
Opinion Editorial
Editorial

Affirmative action banned? It's not that simple.

"Supreme Court rules against affirmative action." That is likely to be a common shorthand description of Tuesday's decision upholding the constitutionality of Michigan's ban on the use of racial preferences in admission to state universities. But it's misleading.

The 6-2 decision leaves undisturbed previous rulings in which the justices said that state universities may take race into account in admissions policies without violating the U.S. Constitution. But the court now has made it clear that although such preferences are permissible, voters may opt to prohibit them. That obviously creates an additional hurdle for those who believe — as this page does — that public institutions such as the University of Michigan or UC Berkeley should be able to consider race as one factor in assembling a diverse student body.

We wish that voters in Michigan and in California, which passed a similar ban in Proposition 209 in 1996, had rejected ballot measures that prohibit state universities from granting preferences "on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin." But we agree with Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, the author of the lead opinion in Tuesday's decision, that nothing in the Constitution authorizes the judiciary to second-guess the voters' decisions.

 DOCUMENT: Read the court's ruling

The U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals had taken a different view. It held that the Michigan ballot question unconstitutionally discriminated against racial minorities by putting a "unique burden" on them. That court noted that although the amendment allowed a student to receive a preference based on whether or not any of his family members had attended the school, a black student hoping to benefit from a similar preference on the basis of race would be required to amend the state Constitution.

That theory of "political process discrimination" didn't come from nowhere. Twice the Supreme Court has struck down measures that made it harder for minorities to achieve their goals by placing a political burden on them that didn't apply to others. But Kennedy argued that those precedents involved attempts to remedy intentional discrimination (not to establish preferences) and, more important, that there is no reason to remove an issue from the democratic process just because it has racial implications.

We agree. Racial preferences in university admissions, however desirable, aren't constitutionally required. As Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote in his separate opinion: "The Constitution …foresees the ballot box, not the courts, as the normal instrument for resolving differences and debates about the merits of these programs."

The political sensitivity of this issue was made clear recently when legislators in Sacramento backed away from a proposal to repeal Proposition 209's ban on racial preferences in education. But now, as before Tuesday's decision, those who believe — rightly — in the importance of robust affirmative action need to convince their fellow citizens that it is good for society as a whole as well as for its beneficiaries.

Copyright © 2015, Los Angeles Times
Related Content
  • What constitutes cruel and unusual punishment?
    What constitutes cruel and unusual punishment?

    Should a fisherman face two decades in prison for discarding a few fish at sea? That question is at the core of a statutory interpretation case the Supreme Court heard in November, but it also raises another question: What does "cruel and unusual punishment" mean today?

  • Violent speech on Facebook might find 1st Amendment protection, but it can still get you in trouble
    Violent speech on Facebook might find 1st Amendment protection, but it can still get you in trouble

    The United States protects free expression to a far greater extent than other liberal democracies. But even many free-speech advocates are uneasy about a case argued in the Supreme Court this week involving a Pennsylvania man who took to Facebook to engage in violent and vituperative speech...

  • How to diversify the Ivy League club that is the Supreme Court
    How to diversify the Ivy League club that is the Supreme Court

    Easy for them to say, since they’re already on the Supreme Court, but three justices agreed the other day that the court isn’t diverse enough. In a forum at their alma mater, Yale Law School, Clarence Thomas, Sonia Sotomayor and Samuel A. Alito Jr. said the court would benefit if so...

  • Facebook case: Does believing that a message is a threat make it so under law?
    Facebook case: Does believing that a message is a threat make it so under law?

    The decision by a Missouri grand jury not to indict Police Officer Darren Wilson in the killing of Michael Brown turned largely on the issue of whether the unarmed man posed an immediate threat. And it pointed out how complicated, legally, the issue of what constitutes a threat can be.

  • Who's staying in that hotel?
    Who's staying in that hotel?

    This week the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to rule on the constitutionality of an L.A. city ordinance that gives police easy access to hotel records and punishes hotel managers who don't hand them over with fines or jail time. The justices should agree with a lower court that the ordinance...

  • At the Supreme Court, conflicts of interest are just a day at the office
    At the Supreme Court, conflicts of interest are just a day at the office

    Justice Samuel A. Alito's sister is a high-powered labor attorney who represents management in disputes with workers. Justice Elena Kagan's brother, a teacher at an elite public school in New York, has protested the school's admissions process because of low minority enrollment. And Justice...

Comments
Loading