Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About The skanner. (Portland, Or.) 1975-2014 | View Entire Issue (July 3, 2013)
Opinion Race and the Supreme Court “Challenging People to Shape a Better Future Now” B ERNIE F OSTER Founder/Publisher B OBBIE D ORE F OSTER Executive Editor T ED B ANKS Advertising Manager J ERRY F OSTER Account Executive L ISA L OVING News Editor H ELEN S ILVIS Multimedia Editor B RUCE P OINSETTE Reporter D AVID K IDD Graphic Designer M ONICA J. F OSTER Seattle Office Coordinator J ULIE K EEFE S USAN F RIED Photographers The Skanner Newspaper, established in October 1975, is a weekly publica- tion, published each Wednesday by IMM Publications Inc., 415 N. Killingsworth St., P.O. Box 5455, Portland, OR 97228. Telephone (503) 285-5555. I n its latest affirmative action ruling, Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, the Supreme Court, ruled the same way it had in its Bakke decision in 1978 and a pair of University of Michigan affirmative action rulings in 2003 – one upholding the law school admissions program (Grutter v. Bollinger) and one striking down the undergraduate admissions process (Gratz v. Bollinger). In each case, the court declared that state universities have a com- pelling interest that could justify the consideration of race in college admissions because of the benefits that flow to all students from hav- ing a diverse student body. However, all of the court’s deci- sion on affirmative action in high- er education were consistent with Justice Anthony Kennedy’s opin- ion in Fisher, when he wrote for the 7-1 majority: “…Strict scruti- ny imposes on the university the ultimate burden of demonstrating before turning to racial classifica- tions, that available, workable race-neutral alternatives do not suffice.” In other words, universities are free to consider race only after seeking solutions that do not involve race. In his concurring opinion in Bakke, Justice Harry Blackmun noted the absurdity of that approach. “I suspect that it would be impossible to arrange an affirma- tive action program in a racially neutral way and have it successful. To ask that this be so is to demand the impossible,” he wrote in words that ring true today. “In order to get beyond racism, we must first take account of race. There is no T HE C URRY R EPORT George E. Curry other way. And in order to treat some persons equally, we must treat them differently. We cannot – we dare not – let the Equal Protec- tion Clause perpetuate racial supremacy.” But that is precisely what has taken place. Right-wing groups have used the Equal Protection undergraduate admissions process. Race is not itself assigned a numerical value for each appli- cant…” For those not admitted as part of the top 10 percent of their high school graduating class, the uni- versity looks at such factors as leadership, extracurricular activi- ties, work experience, socio-eco- nomic status, whether there was only one parent in the home, race and whether English was the pri- mary language spoken in the home. Of all of those factors, Fish- er sued on racial grounds. Justice Blackmun observed how differently race is treated in col- lege admissions. “It is somewhat ironic to have us In other words, universities are free to consider race only after seeking solutions that do not involve race Clause of the 14th Amendment, which was specifically passed to protect former slaves from mis- treatment, to assert that Whites are victims of the major victims of racism. In its “Brief of Opposition,” the university said: “The undisputed evidence demonstrated that Fisher would not have been offered fall admission in 2008 even if she had scored a perfect ‘6’ on her PAI – the portion of the admissions process where race is considered as ‘a factor of a factor of a factor.’” As Justice Kennedy noted in his majority opinion, “The University of Texas at Austin considers race as one of various factors in its so deeply disturbed over a pro- gram where race is an element of consciousness, and yet to be aware of the fact, as we are, that institu- tions of higher learning, albeit more on the undergraduate than the graduate level, have given con- ceded preferences up to a point to those possessed of athletic skills, to the children of alumni, to the affluent who may bestow their largess on the institutions, and to those having connections with celebrities, the famous, and the powerful,” he said. In another decision with racial overtones, the Supreme Court struck down a key provision of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, citing progress made since passage of the law. Strangely, the National Black Chamber of Commerce submitted a friend of the court brief support- ing the termination of the Section 5 preclearance provision of the Voting Rights Act. In his weekly NNPA News Service column, President Harry C. Alford said, “Section 5 needs to be removed as it is antiquated and drags down the importance of the Voting Rights Act.” However, organizations repre- senting Black elected officials strongly disagree. For example, Joe Armstrong, president of the National Black Caucus of State Legislators, said, “The Supreme Court has turned the clock back on civil rights in the United States. In recent years, this nation has seen an incredible uptick in state and local laws sole- ly intended to suppress and disen- franchise voters. But, instead of ruling to protect all voters, justices have acted to undermine safe- guards that are key to our democ- racy. This is clearly a step in the wrong direction.” In her dissent, Ruth Bader Gins- burg stated, “True, conditions in the South have impressively improved since passage of the Vot- ing Rights Act. Congress noted this improvement and found that the VRA was the driving force behind it…Congress also found that voting discrimination had evolved into subtler, second-gen- eration barriers, and that eliminat- ing preclearance would risk loss of the gains that have been made.” George E. Curry, former editor- in-chief of Emerge magazine, is editor-in-chief of the NNPA. E-mail: info@theskanner.com World Wide Web site: http://www.theskanner.com Fax: (503) 285-2900 The Skanner is a member of the National Newspaper Pub lishers Associ- ation and West Coast Black Pub lishers Association. All photos submitted become the property of The Skanner. We are not re - spon sible for lost or damaged photos either solicited or unsolicited. © 2012 The Skanner. ALL RIGHTS RE SERVED. REPRODUCTION IN WHOLE OR IN PART WITHOUT PERMISSION PROHIBITED. To see The Skanner News on your smart phone go to theskannermobile.com or scan this QR code with your app. • • • • • • • • Local news Opinions Jobs, Bids Sports Entertainment Music reviews Bulletin board RSS feeds ‘I Recall Having to Pay a Poll Tax’ W ith its ruling on the Vot- ing Rights Act, the Supreme Court has taken the country back to a time when racial minorities were not able to participate equitably in the voting process. The court’s deci- sion is disgraceful to civil rights leaders and legislators who have fought to preserve equal voting rights in this country. It reminds me of a time in our history when minorities were pre- vented from voting because they had to pay a “poll tax” before they could vote. The tax represented a mean-spirited and vicious way of keeping hundreds of thousands of people from voting. The objection to eliminating the poll tax was that it would allow people of color to “flood the polls.” I recall having to pay a poll tax to vote in Texas. The practice began in my state in 1902. It did not end until 1966. During those 64 years, hundreds of thousands of our citizens were denied the right to vote, an opportunity to partici- pate in American democracy. The federal government prohibited the use of a poll tax in national elec- tions in 1964 with the passage of the 24th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The court’s current assault on the Voting Rights Act prevents the federal government from ensuring that states with a history of racial Page 4 The Portland Skanner July 3, 2013 NNPA G UEST C OLUMNIST Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson discrimination will not enact vot- ing methods and procedures that will deny a very significant right and duty. Prior to that time nine states, mostly located in the southern United States, had to receive clear- Section 5, and allow states to amend voting procedures and practices as they see fit without fear of federal intervention. Those who advocated for radical changes in the Voting Rights Act said that increasing numbers of racial minorities participated in state and national elections. They even pointed to the election of President Barack Obama as a rea- son for the elimination of federal oversight and intervention. Last summer, a federal court in Washington stated that a redistricting map enacted by the Republican controlled legislature was ‘purposefully discriminatory’ ance or prior approval from the Justice Department or a federal court before they could institute changes in voting methods or engage in redistricting. In its ruling, the court did not alter Section 5. Instead, it ruled that the formula, detailed in Sec- tion 4 of the Voting Rights Act, used to determine which states should be covered by Section 5, went beyond constitutional limits and used data that was outdated. The effect of that ruling is to mute The reality is that since 2010, eight southern states passed laws designed to make voting more cumbersome for racial minorities. Various civil rights organizations and entities such as the Congres- sional Black Caucus and the Con- gressional Hispanic Caucus have consistently opposed the elimina- tion of federal involvement in local elections. Recently, a U.S. Court of Appeals judge said that without Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act minority voters would suffer. Efforts to lessen the impact of the minority vote in Texas have been egregious. Last summer, a federal court in Washington stated that a redistricting map enacted by the Republican controlled legisla- ture was “purposefully discrimina- tory.” In the spring of 2012, the Texas NAACP and Mexican American Legislative Caucus of the Texas House of Representatives went to federal court to stop the state from requiring a photo ID in state elec- tions. A federal court agreed, find- ing that the law violated Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Now, the Texas Attorney Gener- al says he is going go to the photo ID requirement in place. Bipartisan coalitions of mem- bers of both the House and Senate have historically supported the Voting Rights Act and its provi- sions. In 2006, the Act was renewed for 25 years. The vote in the House was 390 to 30, while the vote in the Senate was 98 to zero. President George W. Bush signed the measure. Simply stated, the Voting Rights Act is the perpetuation of our democracy. We are a great country because all of our citizens have the right to exercise the right to vote without fear of intimidation. Read the rest online at www.theskanner.com
