Now in a twist of irony:
Abigail Fisher, a white woman who was denied admission to the university and who filed the lawsuit before the justices, whether the modest racial preferences used by the university (University of Texas at Austin) crossed a constitutional line.I say irony because women have benefited heavily from many affirmative action like programs, and now that they constitute the majority, especially Caucasian women, of individuals who attend college they are now speaking up about the how wrong such policies are. Imagine the reception a Caucasian man would have received if such an argument was brought to the supreme court? Now, I know there are some out there that would attribute this to a feminist conspiracy to keep the gains they have received via government action and redistribution and don't want to risk losing them, since in many ways men are the gender that has been suffering most recently, but I don't think that is the case.
Despite the feminists wishes, we do not live in matriarchal society, men still occupy the majority seats of power, but we do live in a feminized culture. And this feminized culture is one that is artifically supported. Once the grass eating herb prostrating males learn that endorsing such wrong headed ideas earns them nothing but contempt; and once the charasmatic but character deficient alphas see no benefit to be had from crusading for the she-demon brigade, then the system ends and comes crashing down. There aren't even enough women who support modern feminism to keep it alive, and without the support of men, then the results are forgone.
But I digress. The real news is that there stands a decent chance that a terrible policy, that I would argue has actually hurt minorities, will be overturned.
If a relatively liberal judge can express unease with the policy as it stands, and considering that justice Kagan has recused herself from the proceedings means that there is a real chance this law policy could change.The member of the court who now probably holds the decisive vote, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, tipped his hand only a little, asking a few questions that indicated discomfort with at least some race-conscious admissions programs.Those questions, along with his voting record, suggested that Justice Kennedy may be prepared to limit the Grutter decision. He told Mr. Garre that he was uncomfortable with the university's efforts to attract minority students from privileged backgrounds."What you're saying," Justice Kennedy said, "is that what counts is race above all."
Now this is ignoring how utterly worthless college has become for so many individuals; but that is a separate battle in itself. What we see here is, perhaps, the beginning of the end of equalism. That ill-conceived notion that everyone is equal outside of just being treated equally under the law. Who knows, this may even save some minorities from majoring in worthless degrees and foisting upon themselves tens of thousands of dollars of debt for a degree in victim studies that will never see a positive return on investment.
Of course there are those who are expressing the gradual of real justice and fairness where we abandon the victim mentality and start judging individuals not off their genders or race, but off of what they have done. The meritocratic system that made us so great. Cue Barack Obama's appointee who thought that a Latina women, with the richness of her life, could reach a better conclusion than a white man.
"You don't want to overrule Grutter," she said. "You just want to gut it."Yes Justice Sotomayor I want to gut it. It is wrong, unethical, and unconstitutional.