Reading Los Angeles: Join The Times' new book club
Opinion 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
  • Supreme Court tells Amazon workers no pay for shift-end screenings
    Supreme Court tells Amazon workers no pay for shift-end screenings

    A decision by the Supreme Court on Tuesday spotlights the occasionally wide gap between common-sense fair play and the law. The law always wins, of course. But that doesn’t mean it’s right.

  • A sign of discrimination in Arizona town
    A sign of discrimination in Arizona town

    A sign posted on or near a public highway is an expression of speech, but it also can pose safety and aesthetic problems. A community should be free to regulate the distraction and clutter created by public signage so long as it doesn't pick and choose on the basis of the signs' content.

  • Profligacy at the state's Judicial Council?
    Profligacy at the state's Judicial Council?

    While California's economy was only beginning to recover from deep recession, the Administrative Office of the Courts was maintaining a fleet of 66 vehicles. Were they needed? Who knows. An audit released last week found no documented justification.

  • Ignorance of the law isn't an acceptable defense, even for police
    Ignorance of the law isn't an acceptable defense, even for police

    It's already too easy for police to stop motorists they consider suspicious using the pretext of a minor violation of traffic laws. Law enforcement will enjoy even more leeway under Monday's misguided Supreme Court decision upholding the legality of stops based on an officer's misunderstanding...

  • In lethal injection case, high court has a chance to take a bold step
    In lethal injection case, high court has a chance to take a bold step

    In the effort to find less gruesome ways to execute condemned prisoners, more than two dozen states — including California — adopted a lethal injection protocol developed by Oklahoma in the late 1970s in which the prisoner is rendered insensate with one injection, then given a paralytic to halt...

  • Another thing the Supreme Court can't agree on
    Another thing the Supreme Court can't agree on

    Maybe you were in a cave and missed the news: The Supreme Court came back from summer recess  Oct. 5 and surprised a lot of folks by denying five petitions for writs of certiorari related to same-sex marriage.  The court's "no" amounted to a "yes" – by denying the petitions, it spread legal gay...