<p>The US Supreme Court on Thursday, in a monumental decision, struck down affirmative action that took race/ethnicity into consideration before granting students admission to premier educational institutions. The decision left the bench divided with&nbsp;two ideologically opposed Black justices taking swipe at each other,&nbsp;in unusually sharp language.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Justice Clarence Thomas tore into the arguments posited by liberal&nbsp;Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the first Black woman to join the court, who penned her own fiery dissent in the case.&nbsp;</p>

<p data-analytics-observe="off" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/paragraph_D39C54D4-EAC6-6038-2195-081245BAFFE5@published">“As she sees things, we are all inexorably trapped in a fundamentally racist society, with the original sin of slavery and the historical subjugation of Black Americans still determining our lives today,” wrote Thomas.&nbsp;</p>

<p data-analytics-observe="off" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/paragraph_D39C54D4-EAC6-6038-2195-081245BAFFE5@published">“Worse still, Justice Jackson uses her broad observations about statistical relationships between race and select measures of health, wealth, and well-being to label all blacks as victims,” he wrote, before adding, “Her desire to do so is unfathomable to me.”</p>

<p data-analytics-observe="off" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/paragraph_D39C54D4-EAC6-6038-2195-081245BAFFE5@published">Justice Thomas did not appreciate Justice Jackson's continued assessment that Black people were the victims.&nbsp;Justice Jackson’s viewpoint, he said, would keep Black people locked into “a seemingly perpetual inferior caste.”&nbsp;</p>

<p data-analytics-observe="off" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/paragraph_D39C54D4-EAC6-6038-2195-081245BAFFE5@published">“Even in the segregated South where I grew up, individuals were not the sum of their skin color," he added.&nbsp;</p>

<p data-analytics-observe="off" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/paragraph_D39C54D4-EAC6-6038-2195-081245BAFFE5@published"><a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/new-era-in-the-us-education-system-top-court-bans-affirmative-action-610263"><strong>WATCH |&nbsp;New era in the US education system: Top court bans affirmative action</strong></a></p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/new-era-in-the-us-education-system-top-court-bans-affirmative-action-610263/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

<p>In response, Justice Jackson denounced the remarks of her colleague as a “prolonged attack”, full of strawmen.&nbsp;</p>

<p data-analytics-observe="off" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/paragraph_D39C54D4-EAC6-6038-2195-081245BAFFE5@published">“Justice Thomas ignites too many more straw men to list, or fully extinguish, here. The takeaway is that those who demand that no one think about race (a classic pink-elephant paradox) refuse to see, much less solve for, the elephant in the room – the race-linked disparities that continue to impede achievement of our great Nation’s full potential," she wrote.&nbsp;</p>

<p data-analytics-observe="off" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/paragraph_D39C54D4-EAC6-6038-2195-081245BAFFE5@published">"Justice Thomas is somehow persuaded that these realities have no bearing on a fair assessment of ‘individual achievement'," she continued the criticism,</p>

<p data-analytics-observe="off" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/paragraph_D39C54D4-EAC6-6038-2195-081245BAFFE5@published"><a href="https://www.wionews.com/opinions-blogs/us-verdict-on-race-quotas-in-education-raises-serious-questions-on-affirmative-action-610444"><strong>Also read |&nbsp;US verdict on race quotas in education raises serious questions on affirmative action</strong></a></p>

<h2 data-analytics-observe="off" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/paragraph_D39C54D4-EAC6-6038-2195-081245BAFFE5@published">What happens after the ruling?</h2>

<p data-analytics-observe="off" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/paragraph_8A95DABA-4B34-1123-79E8-07C0698906A6@published">After the court ruling, colleges and universities across the US may have to alter their admission process. Apart from making the uptake process 'merit-based', the institutions will have to find new ways to ensure diversity on the campus.&nbsp;</p>

<p>US President has expressed his displeasure at the decision to end affirmative action. &nbsp;He said USA's powerful top court was no longer in step with American norms.</p>

<p>"The court has effectively ended affirmative action in college admissions and I strongly, strongly disagree with the court's decision," he said in remarks broadcast live.</p>

<p data-analytics-observe="off" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/paragraph_D39C54D4-EAC6-6038-2195-081245BAFFE5@published"><em>(With inputs from agencies)</em></p>

<p data-analytics-observe="off" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/paragraph_D39C54D4-EAC6-6038-2195-081245BAFFE5@published">&nbsp;</p>

<p data-analytics-observe="off" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/paragraph_D39C54D4-EAC6-6038-2195-081245BAFFE5@published"><strong>WATCH WION LIVE HERE:&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe></p>


The US Supreme Court on Thursday, in a monumental decision, struck down affirmative action that took race/ethnicity into consideration before granting students admission to premier educational institutions.

The US Supreme Court on Thursday, in a monumental decision, struck down affirmative action that took race/ethnicity into consideration before granting students admission to premier educational institutions. The decision left the bench divided with two ideologically opposed Black justices taking swipe at each other, in unusually sharp language. Justice Clarence Thomas tore into the arguments posited by liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the first Black woman to join the court, who penned her own fiery dissent in the case. “As she sees things, we are all inexorably trapped in a fundamentally racist society, with the original sin of slavery and the historical subjugation of Black Americans still determining our lives today,” wrote Thomas. “Worse still, Justice Jackson uses her broad observations about statistical relationships between race and select measures of health, wealth, and well-being to label all blacks as victims,” he wrote, before adding, “Her desire to do so is unfathomable to me.” Justice Thomas did not appreciate Justice Jackson's continued assessment that Black people were the victims. Justice Jackson’s viewpoint, he said, would keep Black people locked into “a seemingly perpetual inferior caste.” “Even in the segregated South where I grew up, individuals were not the sum of their skin color," he added. WATCH | New era in the US education system: Top court bans affirmative action × In response, Justice Jackson denounced the remarks of her colleague as a “prolonged attack”, full of strawmen. “Justice Thomas ignites too many more straw men to list, or fully extinguish, here. The takeaway is that those who demand that no one think about race (a classic pink-elephant paradox) refuse to see, much less solve for, the elephant in the room – the race-linked disparities that continue to impede achievement of our great Nation’s full potential," she wrote. "Justice Thomas is somehow persuaded that these realities have no bearing on a fair assessment of ‘individual achievement'," she continued the criticism, Also read | US verdict on race quotas in education raises serious questions on affirmative action What happens after the ruling? After the court ruling, colleges and universities across the US may have to alter their admission process. Apart from making the uptake process 'merit-based', the institutions will have to find new ways to ensure diversity on the campus. US President has expressed his displeasure at the decision to end affirmative action. He said USA's powerful top court was no longer in step with American norms. "The court has effectively ended affirmative action in college admissions and I strongly, strongly disagree with the court's decision," he said in remarks broadcast live. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE:

US: Black justices take swipe at each other in affirmative action case

<p>Race is a topic of heated debate in the Unites States. The nation which was witness to slavery during colonial times and later has even seen a civil war on the issue of slavery. Segregation was a common thing even in 20th century. The issue of racism and identity has surfaced once more over US Supreme striking down affirmative action policies for college admissions. The decision has ended decades of a precedent that allowed schools across the country to take steps to increase diversity among students they admit for educational courses</p>

<h2><strong>What is affirmative action?</strong></h2>

<p>Affirmative action, in the context of higher education, refers to policies designed to increasing the number of Black, Hispanic and other minority students in order for the cohort to be inclusive.</p>

<p>This does not mean that colleges and universities award admissions based on race but in their holistic assessment of an application, they consider race in addition to grades, extra-curricular activities and test scores.</p>

<p><strong>Watch | New era in the US education system: Top court bans affirmative action</strong></p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/new-era-in-the-us-education-system-top-court-bans-affirmative-action-610263/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

<p>Aim of such race conscious admission process is to increase diversity among students who are granted admission. Colleges and universities do not usually disclose their admission process but race-conscious admission process is reportedly common among institutions that are more selective in their intake of students.</p>

<p>Reuters reported that a 2019 survey by National Association for College Admission Counseling revealed that quarter of respondent schools said that race had "considerable" or "moderate" influence on admissions. More than half reported that race did not play any role whatsoever.</p>

<p>Even before the Supreme Court ruling, nine states in the US has banned consideration of race in public colleges and universities. These states are Arizona, California, Florida, Idaho, Michigan, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Oklahoma and Washington.</p>

<h2><strong>What is the current litigation in Supreme Court about?</strong></h2>

<p>The US Supreme Court was considering two cases when it delivered its verdict on affirmative action. One of the cases was brought by Students for Fair Admissions. This group is headed by Edward Blum who is a conservative legal strategist. He has spent years fighting affirmative action.</p>

<p>One case alleged that Harvard University's admission policy unlawfully discriminates against Asian American applicants. While the other asserted that University of North Carolina unlawfully discriminates against white and Asian American applicants.</p>

<p>Both of the universities have rejected these claims. The universities said that race is determinative in only a small number of cases. The universities also said that barring the practice would result in significant drop in number of minority students on campus.</p>

<h2><strong>How has US Supreme Court ruled in the past?</strong></h2>

<p>In past, the US Supreme Court, in its ruling across decades, has upheld race-conscious admissions, though not without limits.</p>

<p>In landmark 1978 case, a divided Supreme Court considered the issue. The case was Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. The case was before the Supreme Court in an era when schools had begun taking affirmative action as a result of civil rights movement.</p>

<p>The swing vote, Justice Lewis Powell, ruled that schools could not use affirmative action to rectify past racial discrimination and struck down the university's practice of setting aside a certain number of spots for minorities.</p>

<p><strong>Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/opinions-blogs/us-verdict-on-race-quotas-in-education-raises-serious-questions-on-affirmative-action-610444">US verdict on race quotas in education raises serious questions on affirmative action</a></strong></p>

<p>Nevertheless, Powell found that increasing campus diversity was a "compelling interest" because students of all races - not just minorities - would receive a better education if exposed to different viewpoints. Powell ruled that schools could weigh race in admissions as long as it remained only one factor among many.</p>

<p>In the year 2003, the Supreme Court struck down a system in University of Michigan that awarded points to minority applicants. The court held that the system was going too far.</p>

<p>However, the Supreme Court upheld Bakke's central finding that schools could use race as one of several admission factors.</p>

<p>The Supreme Court again upheld &nbsp;race-conscious admissions in a challenge backed by Blum to University of Texas policies.</p>

<p>But the court has moved sharply to the right since then, with six conservative justices now and only three liberals.</p>

<h2><strong>What will the universities do now?</strong></h2>

<p>Colleges and universities may now have to find new ways to ensure diversity in their student populations. They may have to revamp their policies.</p>

<p>However, other measures may not be so effective.</p>

<p>University of California and University of Michigan have reportedly filed briefs with the US Supreme Court and said that they have outlawed race-conscious admissions. The universities have said that they have spent hundreds of millions of dollars on alternative programs but these measures have fallen short of goals.</p>

<h2><strong>The reaction on verdict</strong></h2>

<p>US President has expressed his displeasure at the decision to end affirmative action. &nbsp;He said USA's powerful top court was no longer in step with American norms.</p>

<p>"The court has effectively ended affirmative action in college admissions and I strongly, strongly disagree with the court's decision," he said in remarks broadcast live.</p>

<p>Biden said that the ruling "walked away from decades of precedent", adding that universities "should not abandon their commitment" to maintain diversity among their students.&nbsp;</p>

<p><em>(With inputs from agencies)</em></p>

<p>You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form"><strong>here</strong></a>.</p>

<p><strong>WATCH WION LIVE HERE</strong></p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false"><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

<p>&nbsp;</p>


Race is a topic of heated debate in the Unites States. The nation which was witness to slavery during colonial times and later has even seen a civil war on the issue of slavery.

Race is a topic of heated debate in the Unites States. The nation which was witness to slavery during colonial times and later has even seen a civil war on the issue of slavery. Segregation was a common thing even in 20th century. The issue of racism and identity has surfaced once more over US Supreme striking down affirmative action policies for college admissions. The decision has ended decades of a precedent that allowed schools across the country to take steps to increase diversity among students they admit for educational courses What is affirmative action? Affirmative action, in the context of higher education, refers to policies designed to increasing the number of Black, Hispanic and other minority students in order for the cohort to be inclusive. This does not mean that colleges and universities award admissions based on race but in their holistic assessment of an application, they consider race in addition to grades, extra-curricular activities and test scores. Watch | New era in the US education system: Top court bans affirmative action × Aim of such race conscious admission process is to increase diversity among students who are granted admission. Colleges and universities do not usually disclose their admission process but race-conscious admission process is reportedly common among institutions that are more selective in their intake of students. Reuters reported that a 2019 survey by National Association for College Admission Counseling revealed that quarter of respondent schools said that race had "considerable" or "moderate" influence on admissions. More than half reported that race did not play any role whatsoever. Even before the Supreme Court ruling, nine states in the US has banned consideration of race in public colleges and universities. These states are Arizona, California, Florida, Idaho, Michigan, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Oklahoma and Washington. What is the current litigation in Supreme Court about? The US Supreme Court was considering two cases when it delivered its verdict on affirmative action. One of the cases was brought by Students for Fair Admissions. This group is headed by Edward Blum who is a conservative legal strategist. He has spent years fighting affirmative action. One case alleged that Harvard University's admission policy unlawfully discriminates against Asian American applicants. While the other asserted that University of North Carolina unlawfully discriminates against white and Asian American applicants. Both of the universities have rejected these claims. The universities said that race is determinative in only a small number of cases. The universities also said that barring the practice would result in significant drop in number of minority students on campus. How has US Supreme Court ruled in the past? In past, the US Supreme Court, in its ruling across decades, has upheld race-conscious admissions, though not without limits. In landmark 1978 case, a divided Supreme Court considered the issue. The case was Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. The case was before the Supreme Court in an era when schools had begun taking affirmative action as a result of civil rights movement. The swing vote, Justice Lewis Powell, ruled that schools could not use affirmative action to rectify past racial discrimination and struck down the university's practice of setting aside a certain number of spots for minorities. Also Read | US verdict on race quotas in education raises serious questions on affirmative action Nevertheless, Powell found that increasing campus diversity was a "compelling interest" because students of all races - not just minorities - would receive a better education if exposed to different viewpoints. Powell ruled that schools could weigh race in admissions as long as it remained only one factor among many. In the year 2003, the Supreme Court struck down a system in University of Michigan that awarded points to minority applicants. The court held that the system was going too far. However, the Supreme Court upheld Bakke's central finding that schools could use race as one of several admission factors. The Supreme Court again upheld race-conscious admissions in a challenge backed by Blum to University of Texas policies. But the court has moved sharply to the right since then, with six conservative justices now and only three liberals. What will the universities do now? Colleges and universities may now have to find new ways to ensure diversity in their student populations. They may have to revamp their policies. However, other measures may not be so effective. University of California and University of Michigan have reportedly filed briefs with the US Supreme Court and said that they have outlawed race-conscious admissions. The universities have said that they have spent hundreds of millions of dollars on alternative programs but these measures have fallen short of goals. The reaction on verdict US President has expressed his displeasure at the decision to end affirmative action. He said USA's powerful top court was no longer in step with American norms. "The court has effectively ended affirmative action in college admissions and I strongly, strongly disagree with the court's decision," he said in remarks broadcast live. Biden said that the ruling "walked away from decades of precedent", adding that universities "should not abandon their commitment" to maintain diversity among their students. (With inputs from agencies) You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here. WATCH WION LIVE HERE ×

Explained | US Supreme Court struck down affirmative action: What this means for college admissions

<p>This week’s US Supreme Court verdict that has ruled against race/ethnicity-linked admission quotas in elite institutions like Harvard University has come at the right moment for both US and India. It makes sense to examine occasionally if not frequently the pros and cons of quotas and affirmative action to support underprivileged sections and communities to see what works and doesn't -- and test it against the underlying principles for which they were brought into force.<br />
<br />
The US verdict came in a week during which I have been engaged in an online debate of sorts on affirmative action after Prime Minister Narendra Modi's visit to the US that triggered questions on the state of minority Muslims in India. I had remarked that it is perhaps more appropriate to compare India's Muslims with America's blacks though one is a religious minority and the other a racial one.<br />
<br />
But that can only apply in terms of numerical minority and how much they are integrated in mainstream society based on current ideas of discrimination and equality. If one is to look at affirmative action to make up for historical injustice then it is more appropriate to compare the African Americans of the US with the Dalits of India. Dalits have been victims of untouchability as well as restrictions that confined them to menial work in a caste system that resembles America's slave system.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-supreme-court-strikes-down-race-conscious-admissions-programs-at-harvard-unc-610243"><strong>ALSO READ| 'I strongly disagree', says Biden after US Supreme Court strikes down race-based admissions programmes</strong></a><br />
<br />
The problem is that the current political movement for affirmative action (wokeism, if you will) often demands quotas and access not as corrective aids but as some sort of entitlement. That gets trickier when you ask if a government job is a means to an income, a position of power or a public service responsibility.<br />
<br />
When it comes to education it gets murky. We can think of scholarships, fellowships or freeships to boost education but isn't it asking for too much if the highest centres of learning such as Harvard University are dictated by political criteria that reek of what one might call ‘revenge entitlement’? More important, what is the ethical content in affirmative action and how do you measure it?<br />
&nbsp;<br />
Imagine America's whites demanding quotas in NBA basketball teams or jazz bands that make blacks look so good. I am saying all this only to emphasise that there are no easy answers to some questions in a world in which merit and recognition can be of various types and aptitudes. (Er, why are female supermodels larger in number than men and why do they tend to get paid more?)<br />
<br />
This is why we need judicial intervention to assess concepts in which political overkill can upset some common ideas of justice. But jurisprudence itself is a political idea based on ethics and values and tends to vary with time and space. You can go around in circles on this.<br />
<br />
India's constitution is more progressive than that of the US as it promises social justice. In the US, affirmative action is a current fashion driven by recent political awakening whereas India has baked it into the Constitution. When India’s equality-prone Constitution was alive and kicking in the 1950s, America’s blacks were still fighting for civil rights like sitting in a bus next to a white man.</p>

<p>India's definition of 'other backward classes (OBCs) includes both non-Dalit Hindu communities (castes) as well as socially and educationally laggard Muslim communities. India's Supreme Court has already ruled in favour of OBC quotas but cautioned against its "creamy layer" usurping it.&nbsp;<br />
<br />
How does one measure creamy layers? That is where the executive administration needs to strike a balance between the principles of the legislature (political) and the judiciary. In simple terms, we need to revisit the idea of affirmative action time and again to calibrate policies and measure outcomes.<br />
<br />
Former US president Barack Obama has come out against the Supreme Court verdict but was candid about the limits of affirmative action when he said in an interview that the political problems with turning the argument for reparations into reality were manifold.<br />
<br />
&nbsp;“If you look at countries like South Africa, where you had a black majority, there have been efforts to tax and help that black majority, but it hasn’t come in the form of a formal reparations program. You have countries like India that have tried to help untouchables, with essentially affirmative-action programs, but it hasn’t fundamentally changed the structure of their societies. So the bottom line is that it’s hard to find a model...'<br />
<br />
Personally, I believe in what I call the Staircase Principle: One step at a time. If a larger number of blacks or Dalits are given free and compulsory state-funded junior school education with incentives to study, it helps more people move up in society as a whole. Individual spirit, excellence and hard work always play a role in upward mobility. Broader interventions at the bottom of the social and economic pyramids work better than top-level quotas that reek of entitlement while touching the lives of fewer people. When a whole community needs affirmative action, why should only a few from it benefit?&nbsp;<br />
<br />
A broader intervention at the lower levels also works better to gain votes in a democracy. The wider the field of action, the more the number of people that benefit from affirmative action and the higher the electoral endorsement for the party or group that does it.<br />
<br />
Freeships, scholarships and special education programmes seem a better choice if you regard administration and management jobs as a responsibility when it comes to work.<br />
<br />
However, caste discrimination in India and racial discrimination in the US also involve the denial of opportunities by prejudiced incumbents in positions of responsibility – and are cited as the reason for diversity-based inclusion at the top level. That also requires separate treatment and social reform involving elements of empathy and fair access to resources and ethically strong administration. That's another story.</p>

<p><strong>Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.</strong><br />
<br />
&nbsp;</p>


This week’s US Supreme Court verdict that has ruled against race/ethnicity-linked admission quotas in elite institutions like Harvard University has come at the right moment for both US and India.

This week’s US Supreme Court verdict that has ruled against race/ethnicity-linked admission quotas in elite institutions like Harvard University has come at the right moment for both US and India. It makes sense to examine occasionally if not frequently the pros and cons of quotas and affirmative action to support underprivileged sections and communities to see what works and doesn't -- and test it against the underlying principles for which they were brought into force. The US verdict came in a week during which I have been engaged in an online debate of sorts on affirmative action after Prime Minister Narendra Modi's visit to the US that triggered questions on the state of minority Muslims in India. I had remarked that it is perhaps more appropriate to compare India's Muslims with America's blacks though one is a religious minority and the other a racial one. But that can only apply in terms of numerical minority and how much they are integrated in mainstream society based on current ideas of discrimination and equality. If one is to look at affirmative action to make up for historical injustice then it is more appropriate to compare the African Americans of the US with the Dalits of India. Dalits have been victims of untouchability as well as restrictions that confined them to menial work in a caste system that resembles America's slave system. ALSO READ| 'I strongly disagree', says Biden after US Supreme Court strikes down race-based admissions programmes The problem is that the current political movement for affirmative action (wokeism, if you will) often demands quotas and access not as corrective aids but as some sort of entitlement. That gets trickier when you ask if a government job is a means to an income, a position of power or a public service responsibility. When it comes to education it gets murky. We can think of scholarships, fellowships or freeships to boost education but isn't it asking for too much if the highest centres of learning such as Harvard University are dictated by political criteria that reek of what one might call ‘revenge entitlement’? More important, what is the ethical content in affirmative action and how do you measure it? Imagine America's whites demanding quotas in NBA basketball teams or jazz bands that make blacks look so good. I am saying all this only to emphasise that there are no easy answers to some questions in a world in which merit and recognition can be of various types and aptitudes. (Er, why are female supermodels larger in number than men and why do they tend to get paid more?) This is why we need judicial intervention to assess concepts in which political overkill can upset some common ideas of justice. But jurisprudence itself is a political idea based on ethics and values and tends to vary with time and space. You can go around in circles on this. India's constitution is more progressive than that of the US as it promises social justice. In the US, affirmative action is a current fashion driven by recent political awakening whereas India has baked it into the Constitution. When India’s equality-prone Constitution was alive and kicking in the 1950s, America’s blacks were still fighting for civil rights like sitting in a bus next to a white man. India's definition of 'other backward classes (OBCs) includes both non-Dalit Hindu communities (castes) as well as socially and educationally laggard Muslim communities. India's Supreme Court has already ruled in favour of OBC quotas but cautioned against its "creamy layer" usurping it. How does one measure creamy layers? That is where the executive administration needs to strike a balance between the principles of the legislature (political) and the judiciary. In simple terms, we need to revisit the idea of affirmative action time and again to calibrate policies and measure outcomes. Former US president Barack Obama has come out against the Supreme Court verdict but was candid about the limits of affirmative action when he said in an interview that the political problems with turning the argument for reparations into reality were manifold. “If you look at countries like South Africa, where you had a black majority, there have been efforts to tax and help that black majority, but it hasn’t come in the form of a formal reparations program. You have countries like India that have tried to help untouchables, with essentially affirmative-action programs, but it hasn’t fundamentally changed the structure of their societies. So the bottom line is that it’s hard to find a model...' Personally, I believe in what I call the Staircase Principle: One step at a time. If a larger number of blacks or Dalits are given free and compulsory state-funded junior school education with incentives to study, it helps more people move up in society as a whole. Individual spirit, excellence and hard work always play a role in upward mobility. Broader interventions at the bottom of the social and economic pyramids work better than top-level quotas that reek of entitlement while touching the lives of fewer people. When a whole community needs affirmative action, why should only a few from it benefit? A broader intervention at the lower levels also works better to gain votes in a democracy. The wider the field of action, the more the number of people that benefit from affirmative action and the higher the electoral endorsement for the party or group that does it. Freeships, scholarships and special education programmes seem a better choice if you regard administration and management jobs as a responsibility when it comes to work. However, caste discrimination in India and racial discrimination in the US also involve the denial of opportunities by prejudiced incumbents in positions of responsibility – and are cited as the reason for diversity-based inclusion at the top level. That also requires separate treatment and social reform involving elements of empathy and fair access to resources and ethically strong administration. That's another story. Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.

Race, caste and affirmative action: US verdict raises the right questions

The US Supreme Court has effectively banned Universities from using race in admissions. The US Supreme Court rules 6-3 to end affirmative action. US President Joe Biden comments on the same stating how he disagrees with the decision and how colleges and the country are stronger when its racially diverse.

New era in the US education system: Top court bans affirmative action

<p>In exactly a week from now, we shall know whether the Lotus has bloomed or the Hand has swept aside its rivals in Gujarat. We shall also know whether Rahul Gandhi begins his new innings as Congress president with a morale-boosting win or a defeat for which his minions will need to scamper to find scapegoats. And, we shall know too if Prime Minister Narendra Modi approaches the forthcoming electoral challenges after having being endorsed as Gujarat&rsquo;s Pride or rejected in his own backyard. Both sides are confident of a decisive victory, but that is only to be expected. One has to lose and will lose. After all, while many scenarios have been discussed, none has ventured to suggest a hung Assembly where the winner-loser is unclear.</p>

<p>Election campaigns are composed of several issues, and it is rare for just one or two of these to determine the outcome. The 2014 Lok Sabha poll was one such exception where corruption and policy paralysis alone doomed the Congress. Various other matters, factual or perceptional, became subordinate to this twin overriding narrative. In the Uttar Pradesh Assembly election held earlier this year, the two issues that tamed the Samajwadi Party were minority appeasement and poor law and order.</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>The Gujarat campaign began in a simple enough manner, giving hope to the plethora of commentators of a fairly accurate assessment.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=The Gujarat campaign began in a simple enough manner, giving hope to the plethora of commentators of a fairly accurate assessment." target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>The Bihar Assembly poll was fought and won by the Lalu Prasad-Nitish Kumar combine (which has since evaporated) on pure caste arithmetic. Aside these, elections are contested and decided on multiple grounds, and this makes the democratic exercise all the more challenging &mdash; and even more challenging to predict. Rare is that political commentator who is able to say, with some amount of accuracy, that a particular issue would be the dominant factor. In hindsight, once the results are known, there are many to &lsquo;analyse&rsquo; the impact of one strand or the other.</p>

<p>The Gujarat campaign began in a simple enough manner, giving hope to the plethora of commentators of a fairly accurate assessment. Led by Prime Minister Modi, the Bharatiya Janata Party went on an overdrive, listing its achievements in the State over the two decades of its rule &mdash; especially the period 2002-14 when Modi was the Chief Minister. The Gujarat Model of development was showcased, the ease of doing the business ranking of the World Bank was flaunted, the upgrade in the country&rsquo;s ratings by Moody&rsquo;s was quoted, the robustness of the Indian economy was pointed out, and the &lsquo;exemplary&rsquo; law and order situation in the State was underlined. The Congress sought to pick holes in the Gujarat Model by citing matters of unemployment, poor social welfare indices, farmers&rsquo; distress etc.</p>

<p>Thereafter, as the campaign picked momentum, the issue of reservation for the Patidar community gained ground. While it was there from the beginning, the matter received heft after the Congress and Patidar leader Hardik Patel joined hands officially. Once the Congress formally endorsed Patidar reservation, the BJP swung into action, first by projecting that the Patidars were a divided lot and that the sensible among them &mdash; who according to BJP leaders were in a majority &mdash; would remain loyal to the BJP. Second, the ruling party forcefully projected the &lsquo;impossibility&rsquo; of the reservation in constitutional terms and said the Congress was taking the Patidars for a ride.</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>The BJP had been keeping an eye on Rahul Gandhi&rsquo;s sudden devotion to temples; by some accounts, he has visited more than a dozen of them during his campaigns in the State.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=The BJP had been keeping an eye on Rahul Gandhi?s sudden devotion to temples; by some accounts, he has visited more than a dozen of them during his campaigns in the State." target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>So far, the going was simple enough and the commentators were still a happy lot. The BJP pitched for inclusive development (reminding voters of its past record and promising more of the same for the future) while the Congress aggressively pushed for reservation as an affirmative action to benefit the Patidars who form nearly 12 per cent of the population in Gujarat. The caste rainbow of Patidar-OBC-Scheduled Caste, which the Congress had quickly put out, was supposed to extinguish the BJP&rsquo;s flame of hope. Then, the development versus reservation narrative began to change.</p>

<p>For some time, the BJP had been keeping an eye on Rahul Gandhi&rsquo;s sudden devotion to temples; by some accounts, he has visited more than a dozen of them during his campaigns in the State. But after his trip to the Somnath temple, the party got an opportunity to say something. Somebody supposedly from the Congress leader&rsquo;s side entered his name as a non-Hindu visitor to the temple. BJP leaders were quick to demand an explanation. The Congress fell in the trap and one of its senior functionaries claimed that Rahul Gandhi was a &ldquo;<em>Janeu-</em><em>dhari</em> (sacred thread wearing) Hindu&rdquo;. To top this, Rahul Gandhi said he was a Shiva devotee! His acolytes then went on to speculate on the religious affiliations of both the Prime Minister and BJP president Amit Shah.</p>

<p>The sudden turn towards religion, on which the Congress generally finds itself on the defensive given that the BJP leaders make no bones about where their inclinations lie, shaped the narrative even more decidedly when senior Congress leader and noted lawyer Kapil Sibal demanded that the Supreme Court postpone the hearing on the Ayodhya temple-mosque dispute case, and take it up after the 2019 Lok Sabha election. The direct linkage of the dispute with politics left the Congress red-faced. Worse, even the litigants who had hired Sibal condemned the senior advocate&rsquo;s stand and said they wanted an early hearing and quick settlement of the issue.</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>The manner in which the BJP latched on to the issue at his public rallies and converted it into a major talking point, should have alerted the Congress against more self-goals.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=The manner in which the BJP latched on to the issue at his public rallies and converted it into a major talking point, should have alerted the Congress against more self-goals." target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>The manner in which the BJP, especially Prime Minister Modi, latched on to the issue at his public rallies and converted it into a major talking point, should have alerted the Congress against more self-goals. After all, it suited the opposite party to target the BJP on the issues of reservation and lack of real and inclusive development. But, perhaps already confident that they were winning Gujarat, senior Congress leaders breached the red line. Mani Shankar Aiyar called the Prime Minister &ldquo;<em>neech</em>&rdquo;, &nbsp;a term which Modi and his team ran swiftly to the electorate and termed it as a slight to his social status of being an OBC. Now, the BJP used the occasion to not just strike at the Congress for its &lsquo;elitist&rsquo; and &lsquo;feudal&rsquo; mindset but also quoted the abuse as an insult to Gujarati asmita (pride).</p>

<p>Had these blunders come in the early stages of electioneering, the Congress could have had a better chance of glossing over them or having them dominated by other, fresher issues. But they have come towards the end stages of campaigning, and their recall value is, therefore, more likely. Does this mean that religion and personal abuse will eventually determine the outcome? The Congress must be hoping to the contrary, and the BJP praying that the issues click.</p>

<p><em>(Disclaimer: The author writes here in a personal capacity).</em></p>


The Congress aggressively pushed for reservation as an affirmative action to benefit the Patidars who form nearly 12 per cent of the population in Gujarat

In exactly a week from now, we shall know whether the Lotus has bloomed or the Hand has swept aside its rivals in Gujarat. We shall also know whether Rahul Gandhi begins his new innings as Congress president with a morale-boosting win or a defeat for which his minions will need to scamper to find scapegoats. And, we shall know too if Prime Minister Narendra Modi approaches the forthcoming electoral challenges after having being endorsed as Gujarat’s Pride or rejected in his own backyard. Both sides are confident of a decisive victory, but that is only to be expected. One has to lose and will lose. After all, while many scenarios have been discussed, none has ventured to suggest a hung Assembly where the winner-loser is unclear. Election campaigns are composed of several issues, and it is rare for just one or two of these to determine the outcome. The 2014 Lok Sabha poll was one such exception where corruption and policy paralysis alone doomed the Congress. Various other matters, factual or perceptional, became subordinate to this twin overriding narrative. In the Uttar Pradesh Assembly election held earlier this year, the two issues that tamed the Samajwadi Party were minority appeasement and poor law and order. The Gujarat campaign began in a simple enough manner, giving hope to the plethora of commentators of a fairly accurate assessment. × The Bihar Assembly poll was fought and won by the Lalu Prasad-Nitish Kumar combine (which has since evaporated) on pure caste arithmetic. Aside these, elections are contested and decided on multiple grounds, and this makes the democratic exercise all the more challenging — and even more challenging to predict. Rare is that political commentator who is able to say, with some amount of accuracy, that a particular issue would be the dominant factor. In hindsight, once the results are known, there are many to ‘analyse’ the impact of one strand or the other. The Gujarat campaign began in a simple enough manner, giving hope to the plethora of commentators of a fairly accurate assessment. Led by Prime Minister Modi, the Bharatiya Janata Party went on an overdrive, listing its achievements in the State over the two decades of its rule — especially the period 2002-14 when Modi was the Chief Minister. The Gujarat Model of development was showcased, the ease of doing the business ranking of the World Bank was flaunted, the upgrade in the country’s ratings by Moody’s was quoted, the robustness of the Indian economy was pointed out, and the ‘exemplary’ law and order situation in the State was underlined. The Congress sought to pick holes in the Gujarat Model by citing matters of unemployment, poor social welfare indices, farmers’ distress etc. Thereafter, as the campaign picked momentum, the issue of reservation for the Patidar community gained ground. While it was there from the beginning, the matter received heft after the Congress and Patidar leader Hardik Patel joined hands officially. Once the Congress formally endorsed Patidar reservation, the BJP swung into action, first by projecting that the Patidars were a divided lot and that the sensible among them — who according to BJP leaders were in a majority — would remain loyal to the BJP. Second, the ruling party forcefully projected the ‘impossibility’ of the reservation in constitutional terms and said the Congress was taking the Patidars for a ride. The BJP had been keeping an eye on Rahul Gandhi’s sudden devotion to temples; by some accounts, he has visited more than a dozen of them during his campaigns in the State. × So far, the going was simple enough and the commentators were still a happy lot. The BJP pitched for inclusive development (reminding voters of its past record and promising more of the same for the future) while the Congress aggressively pushed for reservation as an affirmative action to benefit the Patidars who form nearly 12 per cent of the population in Gujarat. The caste rainbow of Patidar-OBC-Scheduled Caste, which the Congress had quickly put out, was supposed to extinguish the BJP’s flame of hope. Then, the development versus reservation narrative began to change. For some time, the BJP had been keeping an eye on Rahul Gandhi’s sudden devotion to temples; by some accounts, he has visited more than a dozen of them during his campaigns in the State. But after his trip to the Somnath temple, the party got an opportunity to say something. Somebody supposedly from the Congress leader’s side entered his name as a non-Hindu visitor to the temple. BJP leaders were quick to demand an explanation. The Congress fell in the trap and one of its senior functionaries claimed that Rahul Gandhi was a “Janeu-dhari (sacred thread wearing) Hindu”. To top this, Rahul Gandhi said he was a Shiva devotee! His acolytes then went on to speculate on the religious affiliations of both the Prime Minister and BJP president Amit Shah. The sudden turn towards religion, on which the Congress generally finds itself on the defensive given that the BJP leaders make no bones about where their inclinations lie, shaped the narrative even more decidedly when senior Congress leader and noted lawyer Kapil Sibal demanded that the Supreme Court postpone the hearing on the Ayodhya temple-mosque dispute case, and take it up after the 2019 Lok Sabha election. The direct linkage of the dispute with politics left the Congress red-faced. Worse, even the litigants who had hired Sibal condemned the senior advocate’s stand and said they wanted an early hearing and quick settlement of the issue. The manner in which the BJP latched on to the issue at his public rallies and converted it into a major talking point, should have alerted the Congress against more self-goals. × The manner in which the BJP, especially Prime Minister Modi, latched on to the issue at his public rallies and converted it into a major talking point, should have alerted the Congress against more self-goals. After all, it suited the opposite party to target the BJP on the issues of reservation and lack of real and inclusive development. But, perhaps already confident that they were winning Gujarat, senior Congress leaders breached the red line. Mani Shankar Aiyar called the Prime Minister “neech”, a term which Modi and his team ran swiftly to the electorate and termed it as a slight to his social status of being an OBC. Now, the BJP used the occasion to not just strike at the Congress for its ‘elitist’ and ‘feudal’ mindset but also quoted the abuse as an insult to Gujarati asmita (pride). Had these blunders come in the early stages of electioneering, the Congress could have had a better chance of glossing over them or having them dominated by other, fresher issues. But they have come towards the end stages of campaigning, and their recall value is, therefore, more likely. Does this mean that religion and personal abuse will eventually determine the outcome? The Congress must be hoping to the contrary, and the BJP praying that the issues click. (Disclaimer: The author writes here in a personal capacity).

Opinion: Gujarat elections, a litmus test for Rahul

affirmative-action

Affirmative Action, News on Affirmative Action, stories on Affirmative Action, articles on Affirmative Action, Affirmative Action stories at Wion, Affirmative Action news, Affirmative Action latest news