NEWS,28.04.2013

AA in US colleges may be restricted

Thirty-five years after the US Supreme Court set the terms for boosting college admissions of African Americans and other minorities, the court may be about to issue a ruling that could restrict universities' use of race in deciding who is awarded places.
The case before the justices was brought by Abigail Fisher, a white suburban Houston student who asserted she was wrongly rejected by the University of Texas at Austin while minority students with similar grades and test scores were admitted.
The ruling is the only one the court has yet to issue following oral arguments in cases heard in October and November, the opening months of the court's annual term which lasts until the early summer. A decision might come as early as Monday, before the start of a two-week recess.
As hard as it is to predict when a ruling will be announced, it is more difficult to say how it might change the law. Still, even a small move in the Texas case could mark the beginning of a new chapter limiting college administrators' discretion in using race in deciding on admissions.
For decades, dating back at least to the John F Kennedy administration of the 1960s, US leaders have struggled with what "affirmative action" should be taken to help blacks and other minorities. In the early years, it was seen as a way to remedy racial prejudice and discrimination; in the more modern era, as a way to bring diversity to campuses and workplaces.
Since 1978, the Supreme Court has been at the centre of disputes over when universities may consider applicants' race. In that year's ground breaking Bakke decision from a University of California medical school, the justices forbade quotas but said schools could weigh race with other factors.
In another seminal university case, the court in 2003 reaffirmed the use of race in admissions to create diversity in colleges. But with the current bench more conservative than the one in 2003, there is a strong chance a majority of the justices will undercut that decade-old ruling on a University of Michigan case.
Writing for the majority in that case, Grutter v. Bollinger, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor declared that "the path to leadership" should be "visibly open to talented and qualified individuals of every race and ethnicity." That meant public universities must be able to take special steps to enrol minorities, O'Connor wrote.
O'Connor retired in January 2006 and her successor as the regular swing vote on racial dilemmas has been Justice Anthony Kennedy, who dissented in the 2003 case and may well author the ruling to come in the latest case. The student in the case, Abigail Fisher, graduated from Louisiana State University last year.
Racial diversity
Notably, during oral argument in the University of Texas case on 10 October, Kennedy referred to the "hurt" and "injury" caused by screening applicants by race. However, Kennedy's comments during arguments suggested that he was not ready to vote to forbid all racial criteria in admissions.
In his dissenting opinion in the 2003 Michigan case, he wrote that the court has long accepted universities' stance that racial diversity enhances the educational experience for all students, while insisting such policies be narrowly drawn.
Kennedy's view of when exactly race can be considered and of the discretion of college administrators in the matter are likely to be crucial.
Marvin Krislov, now president of Oberlin College in Ohio and a past vice-president and general counsel of the University of Michigan, said on Friday that university administrators were concerned about how broadly it might sweep and whether it will ultimately reduce the number of minority students on campus.
"Colleges and universities care deeply about student body diversity," he said, adding of his colleagues in higher education: "We're all watching and waiting."
Once oral arguments are held, the court's deliberations on a case are shrouded in secrecy. The timing of a particular decision is not known in advance. And racial dilemmas have never been easy for the court, a point underscored by the current delay.
When the justices ruled in the 1978 case Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, they issued six separate opinions. None drew a majority. Four justices would have upheld a program that set aside a certain number of slots for minority applicants; four justices would have struck it down.
Justice Lewis Powell provided the essential fifth vote, allowing universities to consider race and ethnic origin but forbidding quotas or a reserved number of places. Powell planted the seed of the diversity justification that blossomed in O'Connor's opinion in 2003.
The Michigan case divided the bench 5-4, with O'Connor joining with the more liberal members of the bench to allow race as a consideration in admissions. In a 2007 dispute testing the use of race in student placements to ensure diversity in school districts, the court tipped the opposite way. Conservatives, including O'Connor's successor Samuel Alito, curtailed such public school integration plans.
Only eight of the nine justices will be deciding the Texas case. Justice Elena Kagan, a former US solicitor general, has taken herself out of the dispute because of her prior involvement in the case. The government is siding with the University of Texas.
The challenged programme supplements a Texas state policy guaranteeing admission to the university for high school graduates scoring in the top 10% at their individual schools. University of Texas administrators argue that the "Top 10" programme does not make the university sufficiently diverse.
The Texas approach, with the dual programmes, is distinct. The larger issue is how a decision would affect other universities.
"The court seems to have been leaning away from allowing affirmative action for some time," said University of Virginia law professor John Jeffries, a former law clerk and biographer of Justice Lewis Powell. "If they close the door that, potentially, is a very big deal."

Obama pokes fun at himself

President Barack Obama poked fun at himself, his political opponents, the news media and even his wife's hairstyle late on Saturday at the annual White House Correspondents' Dinner.
The dinner, where around 3 000 guests dine in a massive hotel ballroom, is greeted with near hysteria in Washington, normally a strait-laced town where celebrity is calculated in degrees of political power rather than box office pulling power.
In recent years, the dinner has been transformed from a chance for journalists and their bosses to meet with government officials into a full-bore celebrity party, with A-listers imported from Hollywood - a "nerd prom" as some call it.
"These days I look in the mirror and have to admit, I'm not the strapping young Muslim Socialist that I used to be," Obama said in one of his choice jokes, mocking that belief among a radical conservative fringe of Americans.
He then showed a montage of pictures showing him in a haircut with bangs like his wife Michelle wore on inauguration day.
Targets of Obama's humour included billionaire Sheldon Adelson, who spent $100 million backing Mitt Romney and other Republican candidates in the 2012 race; conservative radio provocateur Rush Limbaugh; the three major cable news networks; and several conservative Republican politicos.
The humour was mostly made up of inside jokes for news junkies, though the president ended with a clip in which Hollywood director Steven Spielberg announced a new movie - "Obama," starring Daniel Day-Lewis. The president then appeared acting as if he were Day-Lewis preparing for the role.
Among stars sighted were South Korean rapper Psy, singer Barbra Streisand, Hollywood actors Day-Lewis, Bradley Cooper, Michael J Fox, Kevin Spacey, Nicole Kidman, Ian Mckellen and Michael Douglas, and movie directors Spielberg and George Lucas.
Obama ended on a serious note, making reference to the people of Boston affected by the marathon bombings, those in Texas affected by the deadly fertilizer plant explosion, and victims of flooding in the midwestern United States.
The night's featured comedian was Conan O'Brien, who mocked US politicians and the media but also had choice words for North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un.
"In the past we've had really scary enemies like Saddam Hussein and Hitler," said O'Brien. "Now our nemesis is a pouty teenage boy who dresses like Rosie O'Donnell at the Emmys."
Kim "doesn't understand that we aren't afraid of him. What that guy doesn't get is that we already have an unstable peninsula that will ultimately bring down America. It's called Florida."
The reference was to the constant electoral headaches coming from the southern US state.
For the first time, celebrity cable news network E! covered the Oscars-style red carpet entrance to the party at the Washington Hilton hotel live as the stars rolled up.
Not everyone was impressed with the news media-Washington power elite lovefest.
"#1 legacy of tonite's #nerdprom: Merriam-Webster just added a 4th definition for 'incestuous,'" wrote political pundit Larry Sabato in a Twitter message.
The event "was pathetic," wrote former Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, also on Twitter. "The rest of America is out there working our asses off while these DC assclowns throw themselves a #nerdprom."
Famed NBC News anchor Tom Brokaw caused a stir last year when he slammed the dinner's growing glitz, and declined his invitation this year.
White House Correspondents Association president Ed Henry of Fox News took steps to try to damp down the Hollywood influence, cutting back on tables for news organisations that rarely cover the White House.
Henry also noted that the dinner raises funds for journalism scholarships.