He purpose of helping certain groups whom the faculty of the Davis Medical School perceived as victims of “societal discrimination” does not justify a classification that imposes disadvantages upon persons like respondent, who bear no responsibility for whatever harm the beneficiaries of the special admissions program are thought to have suffered. . . . Preferring members of any one group for no reason other than race or ethnic origin is discrimination for its own sake. Third, there is a measure of inequity in forcing innocent persons in respondent’s position to bear the burdens of redressing grievances not of their making. . . . Second, preferential programs may only reinforce common stereotypes holding that certain groups are unable to achieve success without special protection based on a factor having no relationship to individual worth. First, it may not always be clear that a so-called preference is in fact benign. . . . Moreover, there are serious problems of justice connected with the idea of preference itself. There is no principled basis for deciding which groups would merit “heightened judicial solicitude” and which would not. . . . Not all of these groups can receive preferential treatment and corresponding judicial tolerance of distinctions drawn in terms of race and nationality, for then the only “majority” left would be a new minority of white Anglo-Saxon Protestants. As observed above, the white “majority” itself is composed of various minority groups, most of which can lay claim to a history of prior discrimination at the hands of the State and private individuals. The concepts of “majority” and “minority” necessarily reflect temporary arrangements and political judgments. He difficulties entailed in varying the level of judicial review according to a perceived “preferred” status of a particular racial or ethnic minority are intractable. If both are not accorded the same protection, then it is not equal. . . . The guarantee of equal protection cannot mean one thing when applied to one individual and something else when applied to a person of another color. deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” . . . Its language is explicit: “No State shall. The guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment extend to all persons. Whether this limitation is described as a quota or a goal, it is a line drawn on the basis of race and ethnic status. To the extent that there existed a pool of at least minimally qualified minority applicants to fill the 16 special admissions seats, white applicants could compete only for 84 seats in the entering class, rather than the 100 open to minority applicants. The special admissions program is undeniably a classification based on race and ethnic background. Excerpt: Controlling Opinion, Justice Lewis Powell
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |