Supreme Court Rules Against Affirmative Action—Whites And Asians ARE Protected By 14th Amendment...By A Vote Of 6-2
Print Friendly and PDF

Earlier (1993!) When Quotas Replace Merit, Everybody Suffers by Peter Brimelow

In a talk at the conference, I talked about how litigation can work against anti-white (and anti-Asian) discrimination, saying

you’ll find a lot of people who think that the 14th Amendment, Equal Protection, doesn’t really apply to whites. It wasn’t meant to apply to whites, presumably because whites already had at that point a lot of equal protection already. There’s an actual quote from an old Civil Rights bureaucracy head [Mary Frances Berry], who said that the Civil Rights laws were not meant to apply to whites [Rights Panel in New Uproar, by Juan Williams, Washington Post, February 26, 1985].

But of course, they’re written so they apply to everyone. They’re written in such a way that everyone is equal.

Today, in STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC. v. PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE, the Supreme Court agreed with me—or 6 out of 9 of them did. reported on the Michigan cases, 20 years ago, in which Sandra Day O’Connor wrote in Grutter v. Bollinger that

”race-conscious admissions policies must be limited in time,” adding that the ”Court expects that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today.” Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer concurred in the judgment, but did not subscribe to the belief that the affirmative measures in question would be unnecessary in 25 years. In a dissent joined by three other justices, Chief Justice William Rehnquist argued that the university’s admissions system was, in fact, a thinly veiled and unconstitutional quota system.

That’s from the Wikipedia article on Grutter v. Bollinger as of today.

And while Wikipedia is biased, it has a lot of volunteers updating it constantly, so it also says, as of this writing:

In 2023, the Supreme Court effectively overruled Grutter v. Bollinger in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina (2023), finding that affirmative action in student admissions violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.[1]

See our 2003 coverage here:

I said the vote was 6-2, by the way, because Sotomayor and Kagan rather predictably said in dissent that, in effect, the 14th Amendment doesn’t apply to whites and Asians, and Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson (Harvard ’92) ”took no part” in the decision because not only is she notorious beneficiary of Harvard’s Affirmative Action program, she also served a six-year term on the Harvard Board of Overseers, which means she also participated in Affirmative Action at Harvard, so she said when she was nominated that she’d recuse herself.

She did, however, file a dissent.

Print Friendly and PDF