Clicking on banner ads enables JWR to constantly improve
Jewish World Review June 26, 2003 / 26 Sivan, 5763

Jonathan Turley

Turley
JWR's Pundits
World Editorial
Cartoon Showcase

Mallard Fillmore

Michael Barone
Mona Charen
Linda Chavez
Ann Coulter
Greg Crosby
Larry Elder
Don Feder
Suzanne Fields
James Glassman
Paul Greenberg
Bob Greene
Betsy Hart
Nat Hentoff
David Horowitz
Marianne Jennings
Michael Kelly
Mort Kondracke
Ch. Krauthammer
Lawrence Kudlow
Dr. Laura
John Leo
Michelle Malkin
Jackie Mason
Chris Matthews
Michael Medved
MUGGER
Kathleen Parker
Wes Pruden
Sam Schulman
Amity Shlaes
Roger Simon
Tony Snow
Thomas Sowell
Cal Thomas
Jonathan S. Tobin
Ben Wattenberg
George Will
Bruce Williams
Walter Williams
Mort Zuckerman

Consumer Reports


A Ruling That Only Goldilocks Could Love; We still don't know how much weight to give race in college admissions.


http://www.NewsAndOpinion.com | For 25 years, the country has struggled with the confusion over affirmative action left by the U.S. Supreme Court's deeply divided Bakke decision.

Monday, the court returned to this subject and left even greater confusion in its wake.

To the extent that the framers wanted the court to reflect society, they seem to have succeeded beyond their intentions: The nine justices appear just as divided as the rest of us.

Despite the victorious statements of pro-affirmative action groups, the two opinions -- one involving the University of Michigan law school and the other involving its undergraduate program -- should hardly be viewed as a cause for celebration.

The court did clearly affirm in its 5-4 decision in the law school case that diversity was a compelling state interest and that preference may be granted on the basis of race. But, at the same time, it completely rejected the undergraduate affirmative action plan, which gave a specific number of points to minorities on the basis of their race.

Of the two decisions, the undergraduate ruling may have a more lasting effect legally and politically. The decision by Chief Justice William Rehnquist was quite specific in rejecting a system that gave 20 points out of 150 for race -- a level of preference viewed as modest by some other programs. This line will now become the focus of the next generation of cases for opponents of affirmative action.

Conversely, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's decision in the law school case is so generally worded that it may be vulnerable to later reduction or outright rejection. The dissenting justices accuse O'Connor of brushing over past opinions and previously established standards to uphold the Michigan policy.

Among these earlier sources are some of O'Connor's own prior opinions that seem to contradict the result in this case.

Donate to JWR

In this decision, critics say O'Connor was somewhat cavalier in her application of the "strict scrutiny test," which must be satisfied whenever the government uses a race-based classification. O'Connor, they say, accepted certain arguments of the law school uncritically. She is also criticized for not imposing a specific duration for the Michigan program or require that such programs be used only to remedy past discrimination. All of these points are contested by the four dissenting justices. Thus, much of this decision could evaporate with a seemingly innocuous tweaking of one of these elements by a new court majority, should one of the justices retire.

The dissenting justices may have sown the seeds for precisely such a later rematch. In the undergraduate case, these justices left open the question of the precise weight that can be given to race, while ruling that Michigan was clearly excessive in its program. This will trigger countless challenges using the rejected Michigan program as a benchmark.

The court is now in the position of a constitutional Goldilocks: What is too much, too little and just the right weight in an admissions program? The undergraduate case is an invitation for challenges and, as early as 2004, the court could have a new case and, more notably, a new majority.

Monday's decisions will put affirmative action squarely on the agenda for the 2004 presidential election for two obvious reasons: The Bush administration opposed both admissions programs; the decision hangs by a single vote. With four justices expressing staunch opposition that is not likely to diminish with time, the next appointment to the court very likely will dictate the future of affirmative action. This puts the doctrines of affirmative action and abortion rights precariously on the 5-4 bubble.

Although Supreme Court nominees long have been used to rally conservative and liberal troops, the significance of the appointment issue is now quite real. A brief look at the majority in the law school case is hardly encouraging for pro-affirmative action advocates. Two of the five votes are considered ripe for retirement -- justices O'Connor and John Paul Stevens.

Only one of the dissenting justices is expected to retire soon: Rehnquist. For affirmative action, it has become a simple question of numbers, and the conservatives could ultimately prevail on the basis of actuarial rather constitutional realities. In a 5-4 world, the side with the youngest justices wins.

Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in Washington and in the media consider "must reading." Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.



JWR contributor Jonathan Turley is a professor at the George Washington University Law School. . Comment by clicking here.

06/24/03: 'Educating' Congress at the hands of lobbyists
06/12/03: Crooked arm of the law
06/10/03: Defense on lay-away
05/23/03: Innocence doesn't pay, either
05/15/03: A see-no-evil parole system
05/08/03: An American Gulag?
05/01/03: CUNY Law gives grads a cynical parting gift
04/22/03: Congress Must Send Spammers a Message
04/16/03: End Apartheid in the State Prisons
04/07/03: NBC's sacking of Peter Arnett over a critical analysis plays well in Baghdad
03/07/03: Rights on the Rack: Alleged torture in terror war imperils U.S. standards of humanity
02/25/03: How democracy could clear our snowy streets
02/11/03: Sanity and Justice Slipping Away
01/28/03: Quit horsing around, senator
01/14/03: Public Payroll: a Family Affair; Nepotism in Washington poses a threat to institutional integrity
01/09/03: DARPA and democracy
12/24/02: The 13th juror
12/19/02: Back to the admissions morass
12/10/02: Pro-Choice at Expense of Free Speech; NOW case against abortion protester may backfire
12/02/02: A cruel bait and switch for vets
11/15/02: Junk justice
11/07/02: OUR second-class soldiers
10/30/02: 'Quirin' revisited: The dark history of a military tribunal
10/22/02: Un-American Arrests: Mass detainments of the innocent may be the ultimate form of crowd control, but the tactic is unconstitutional
10/16/02: Reverse pawn shops? Broke state officials across the country have been looking for businesses to buy their assets at a fraction of their worth to pay for budget shortfalls
10/08/02: A legal tattoo hullabaloo
10/02/02: Gagged justice sets dangerous precedent
09/25/02: The Great Salmon Rose Caper
09/17/02: Reparations: A Scam Cloaked in Racial Pain
09/12/02: This country's hidden strength
09/04/02: 1st Amendment protects even the ugliest among us
08/28/02: A secret court goes public
08/20/02: I defended Ashcroft during his nomination; he's become a constitutional menace
08/07/02: San Francisco embracing states-rights
07/31/02: Who needs Jenny Craig when you can have Johnnie Cochran?
07/22/02: The meaning of justice and the madness of Zacarias Moussauoi
07/16/02: The President vs. the Presidency
07/08/02: How one woman's whims dictates the rights of millions
07/02/02: Just say 'no' to extracurricular activities
06/24/02: Missing Ted Bundy
06/14/02: DESTROYING A FAMILY TO SAVE IT
06/10/02: A comedy of eros06/14/02: 05/31/02: Beyond the 'reformed FBI' hype
05/23/02: Do we really need a Federal Marriage Amendment?
05/19/02: No "battlefield detainee" should leave home without a U.S. birth certificate
05/10/02: The perfect constitutional storm
04/26/02: 'Slave of Allah' wounds justice
04/12/02: The importance of being nameless
04/05/02: The adjusted value of justice
03/18/02: How Clinton got off: A law professor's take
03/11/02: Profiling and the terrorist lottery
03/05/02: Yes, Sharpton, there was a failure of justice
02/28/02: The Lay of the land
02/14/02: Living in constitutional denial
02/05/02: Legal Lesson for Afghanistan: War's Not a Slip-and-Fall Case
01/25/02: Sever "Jihad Johnny"'s ties to his homeland
01/21/02: "Out of sight, out of mind," but they're still prisoners
01/14/02: Your papers, please!
01/07/02: Prescription for disaster
12/18/01: Madison and the Mujahedeen
12/07/01: In the U.S., espionage crime is easy to understand but difficult to prove
11/19/01: What type of 'creature' would defend bin Laden?
11/19/01: Could bin Laden be acquitted in a trial?
10/28/01: The ultimate sign of the different times in which we are living
10/25/01: Al-Qaida produces killers, not thinkers
09/28/01: The Boxer rebellion and the war against terrorism
08/31/01: Bring back the silent Condit
08/27/01: Working out the body politic

© 2002, Jonathan Turley