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