[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
RE:medina,dallas,aa
William Newman wrote:
>Actually, the standard of scrutiny is the important issue. The Court
>ruled in Adarand Construction V. Pena (1995), for the first time, that
>federal affirmative action programs, (it had already done so for states)
>must meet a strict scrutiny standard because any racial or gender
>classification is an on face violation of the fourteenth amendment.
Stirct Scrutiny doesn't mean that on it's face racial or gender
classifications are on face in violation of the 14th. All it means according
to O'Connors majority opinion in Pena is that it must be "narrowly tailored"
and must "further compelling Gov. interest. In fact O'Connor goes out of her
way to say that the court does not "equate remedial racism wth invidious
discrimination (which is on face in violation of the 14th). In fact the Pena
opinion says that "The unhappy persistance of both the practice and lingering
effects of racial discrimination against minority groups in this country is
unfortunate and government is not disqualified from acting in response to
discrimination". That being said I don't think Pena says what is being
implied. Also narrowly taliored and "further compelling Gov interest" is a
good way to limit Aff. cases.
Jorge Medina
SFSU Debate
Follow-Ups:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page