American Civil Rights Institute Blog

Sandra Day O’Connor Revises Preferences Opinion

In 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Grutter v. Bollinger that the University of Michigan law school’s use of race in admissions was narrowly tailored to further a compelling interest in “obtaining the educational benefits that flow from” a skin deep-only diverse student body.

Justice Sandra Day O’Conner, who voted with the majority, wrote that she and her colleagues “expect that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today.”

Six years later, O’Connor says the “25 years” language shouldn’t be construed as a deadline for the end of racial preferences. (Surprise!) Social scientists need to “clearly demonstrate the educational benefits of diverse student bodies, and to better understand the links between role models in one generation and aspirations and achievements of succeeding generations.” (Source)

What if social scientists prove that so-called educational benefits flow to racial minorities, but not to racial majorities? Under this scenario, would O’Connor and company still believe racial bean counting is constitutional?

I echo Roger Clegg’s sentiment: “I am glad she is no longer on the Supreme Court. [She] “is not a social scientist by training, and the problem with her jurisprudence is that she would too often try to be a social scientist rather than a justice. She tried to make policy rather than interpret laws.”

The Center for Individual Rights’s Terry Pell (pictured) said, “I think the fact Justice O’Connor is doing this reflects the fundamental weakness of the opinion she offered: It failed to offer a principled basis for limiting — or even judging the effectiveness of — these practices.”

Unfortunately, as long as agencies and companies can be sued for “disparate impact,” racial preferences will exist. Until any and all differences between the races disappear, there will be “discrimination” accusations, allegations, and lawsuits. However, Ricci v. DeStefano sends a warning shot to employers who infringe on the rights of individuals in one group for fear of disparate impact lawsuits from another group.

Tuesday, January 19th, 2010, by La Shawn Barber and is filed under "Diversity, Judiciary, Roger Clegg ". Both comments and pings are currently closed.