Is race-based affirmative action in state-university admissions constitutional?

[A18]

Discuss.

[MaC]

having the government push it upon schools is.  Having the federal government do it to universities is unconstitutional in that it violates federalism.  If the school is private from government, although it isn't a good idea, it is constitutional because it's that university's choice.

[A18]

I thought I made the question clear... state-university admissions.

[Emsworth]

It is undoubtedly unconstitutional, being a violation of the equal protection clause.

[A18]

I specifically said state-university admissions to make it clear that I'm not talking about federal contracts.

It is a pity, however, that the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment did not include an equal protection clause binding the general government of the United States.

[dazzleman]

No, I really don't believe that it is constitutional to specifically favor one race over another in admissions.

This is a case where textbook and the real world collide.  Colleges look at a number of factors that possibly could not be considered "legitimate" factors for admission.  State schools limit out-of-state admissions, and often factor in geography in order to seek geographical diversity.  I heard of one college that thought it was attracting too many unattractive girls from New York, and sought to "diversify" itself in this area.  Colleges also have looser requirements for athletes who play sports from which the school gains financially.

So I think it may be permissible to have a non-stringent policy of seeking to diversify admissions, without quotas, and within a narrow range.  But I reiterate that affirmative action in college admissions is not the answer to the real problem.  The achievement gap needs to be addressed a lot earlier than when a student is applying to college.  By then it's mostly too late.

[Schmitz in 1972]

It is undoubtedly unconstitutional, being a violation of the equal protection clause.

Are you sure? First of all the equal protection clause contains the word "within its jurisdiction", from this one could make a case that if the applicants were out-of-state that they wouldn't be entitled to 14th amendment protection. Secondly and more generally speaking, I'm not sure if state anti-discrimination laws are worded so as to make affirmative action ammount to a violation of the "laws" that the 14th amendment gives equal protection under.

[Emsworth]

Are you sure? First of all the equal protection clause contains the word "within its jurisdiction", from this one could make a case that if the applicants were out-of-state that they wouldn't be entitled to 14th amendment protection.

However, once the applicants enter the state in question, they become subject to its jurisdiction, and are covered by the equal protection clause.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It certainly is a pity. Due to this oversight, we are left with the conclusion, strange though it may be, that although states cannot segregate the races, the District of Columbia can.

[© tweed]

Philip, what article of the constitution do you believe makes this unconstitutional?  (If you do believe it is)

[A18]

Fourteenth Article of Amendment.

No State shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[Giant Saguaro]

Ridiculously unconstitutional. In fact, I believe it to be in stark violation of the very thing it grew out of: the '64 Civil Rights Act.

[AuH2O]

Laughably illegal. So much so that no sane person can believe it truly is Consitutional. Most pro-AA judges realize they are acting outside the law, but they stopped caring long ago.

[opebo]

Obviously constitutional under the equal protection clause.