Top Ten Videos to watch

47th NAACP Image Awards Presented By TV One - Press Room
A Man Operating A Tv Camera
Maurice White
March2Justice
'News One Now' With Roland Martin Taping
Bill Cosby
Activists In Los Angeles Gather To Burn Likenesses Of The Confederate Flag
Flint Firebirds V Windsor Spitfires
CBC Message To America: Rep. Conyers Addresses The Damage Inflicted On Our Communities By Poverty, Mass Incarceration And Lack Of Economic Development
Iowa Caucus Ted Cruz
NewsOne Now NAACP Image Awards Preview
Student sitting at a desk in a classroom
Slavery Stock image
The 16th Annual Wall Street Project Gala Fundraising Reception
Ava DuVernay
Roland Martin Blasts Stacey Dash For Comments About BET, Black Networks
President Obama Delivers State Of The Union Address At U.S. Capitol
Ava DuVernay
2016 North American International Auto Show
Democratic National Committee Presidential Primary Debate
88th Oscars Nominations Announcement
Democratic debate
Dream Speech
GOP Presidential Candidates Debate In Charleston
US President Barack Obama speaks on the
24593149
2011 Winter TCA Tour - Day 5
LOS ANGELES, CA - FEBRUARY 18, 2015: Two wooden stand-in Oscar statuettes are ready to be taken on
Woman Holding Dollars - Isolated
Leave a comment

john roberts michigan affirmative action ban

The John Roberts’ (pictured) court did not completely pull out the rug from under affirmative action. Yet one could argue that it tripped Michigan’s Affirmative Action program to its knees and then proceeded to kick it to the ground in order for it to chew on at least part of the very rug it’s kneeled on.

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court upheld Michigan’s Affirmative Action ban on using race as a factor in college admissions. The 6-2 ruling states that Michigan voters had the right to change their state constitution to prohibit public colleges and universities from taking race in to account for admissions decisions. And as the AP reports, the justices also concluded that a lower federal court was wrong to set aside the change as “discriminatory.”

Yet, the court did not tackle the constitutionality of affirmative action altogether.

As Justice Anthony Kennedy explains in the decision:

This case is not about the constitutionality or the merits of race-conscious admissions policies in higher education. Here, the principle that the consideration of race in admissions is permissible when certain conditions are met is not being challenged. Rather, the  question concerns whether, and in what manner, voters in the States may choose to prohibit the consideration of such racial preferences. Where States have prohibited race-conscious admissions policies, universities have responded by experimenting ‘with a wide variety of alternative approaches.’  The decision by Michigan voters reflects the ongoing national dialogue about such practices.

Nonetheless, while affirmative action has not been banned, the court finds that it’s perfectly legal for select states to ban it in admissions if they so desire. This will undoubtedly embolden opponents of the program. Already, there are plans to follow Michigan’s lead and put similar constitutional amendments in states like Ohio, Missouri, and Utah.

It feels senseless to continue to leave these sorts of matters to public votes, state governments, and other institutions when history has repeatedly shown each to be continuously wrong on what’s right…and legal.

Worse, Chief Justice Roberts’ intentions to gut policies like affirmative action are quite clear. Roberts is the same person who once wrote in a 2007 decision to strike down desegregation programs in Seattle and Kentucky, “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” More, Roberts’ decade-spanning criticism of the Voting Rights Act has long been examined. So even if today’s decision counts as a “punt,” it’s a tactical one that lays the ground work for the further gutting of affirmative action.

In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor took issue with the stance that judicial intervention in the Michigan case “impedes” rather than “advances” the democratic process. Sotomayor went on to write, “I firmly believe our roles as judges includes policing the process of self-government and stepping in when necessary to secure the constitutional guarantee of equal protection.”

Sotomayor also noted, “The Constitution does not protect racial minorities from political defeat, but neither does it give the majority free rein to erect selective barriers against racial minorities.”

Her remarks come at a time when 60 years after segregation, a new investigate report concludes select parts of the South (like Tuscaloosa, Alabama“have effectively reinstituted segregation for large numbers of Black students.”

It should be noted that Justice Elena Kagan recused herself from the case for reasons that remain unconfirmed, though Politico writers Stephanie Simon and Josh Gerstein explain, “She may have had dealings with the case while serving as solicitor general in the Obama administration or earlier in her career, as dean of Harvard Law School.”

The likes of John Roberts can afford to be “colorblind”; however, one hopes that those on the bench like him may hurry and retire so that President Barack Obama can stack this Supreme Court with judges who don’t want us to spend the next 30 years reliving the 1950s and 1960s.

Hopefully, they’ll all be like Sonia Sotomayor who rejected Roberts’ views on how to tackle discrimination and race by making it very plain that “[t]he way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to speak openly and candidly on the subject of race.”

SEE ALSO: NewsOne Minute: KKK Forms ‘Neighborhood Watch’ Group In Pennsylvania

Michael Arceneaux blogs at thecynicalones.com, tweets at @youngsinick, and praises Beyoncé’s name everywhere he goes.

Also On News One: