Affirmative Action

In the next 10 days, Gov. Jerry Brown must decide whether to sign a bill that could put race and gender back into the admissions process at California's public universities 15 years after the state's voters banned affirmative action. The proposed law would allow the University of California and California State University systems to "consider" applicants' race, gender and household income to diversify student bodies. The author says he crafted it to avoid conflict with Proposition 209, the ballot measure voters passed in 1996 that prohibited preferential treatment of minority groups by the state.

All but eclipsed by the speculation about how the Supreme Court will rule on same-sex marriage is the fact that the court will also hand down a decision in the next few months about the constitutionality of affirmative action at state universities.  But even if the court rules that the University of Texas went too far in seeking to assemble a racially diverse class, that may not mean the end of racial preferences. These are tough times for supporters of affirmative action. Some states, including California, have adopted prohibitions of racial preferences in college admission and government programs.

Republican critics of affirmative action hailed Monday's Supreme Court decision as a mandate for even more sweeping action by Congress and vowed to press home their attack on federal programs of racial preference.

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court agreed to weigh in on college affirmative action for a second time in a year and decide whether Michigan's voters can forbid "preferential treatment" based on race in their state universities. The justices are closely split on whether school officials may ever use race as a factor for deciding who is admitted. A decade ago, the high court, by a 5-4 vote, upheld a limited use of race as a means to achieve classroom diversity in a case from the University of Michigan Law School.

To proponents of affirmative action, Patrick Chavis was viewed six years ago as a hero. Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) called the personable black doctor the perfect example of how the controversial college admissions program could help minorities and disadvantaged communities. To opponents of the program, Chavis was seen four years ago as one of its failures.

Re "Race matters," Opinion, Oct. 9 Lee C. Bollinger and Claude M. Steele attempt to justify preference based on race and ethnic background. But there is no justification for giving preference to, or discriminating against, people based on race or ethnicity. To justify doing so, you have to take the position that the person's race or ethnicity makes him or her unable to compete on an equal basis. Not all people of the same race or ethnic group grow up in the same economic and social conditions.

It looks bad for the University of Texas after Wednesday's oral arguments at the Supreme Court about the university's affirmative action program. Even if the court doesn't overturn a 2003 decision allowing some consideration of race in college admissions, questions from several  justices -- including Anthony M. Kennedy, who dissented in the 2003 case but is open to some use of race in admissions -- suggested that they thought UT went too far. The UT program allows admissions officers to consider race in filling places in the freshman class left over after the acceptance of students who finished at the top of their high school graduating classes.

All but eclipsed by the speculation about how the Supreme Court will rule on same-sex marriage is the fact that the court will also hand down a decision in the next few months about the constitutionality of affirmative action at state universities.  But even if the court rules that the University of Texas went too far in seeking to assemble a racially diverse class, that may not mean the end of racial preferences. These are tough times for supporters of affirmative action. Some states, including California, have adopted prohibitions of racial preferences in college admission and government programs.

Re "Affirmative action and the law," Editorial, Nov. 30 Your editorial fails to grasp the intent of affirmative action and equal protection in two respects. You comment favorably on the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling 15 years ago that contrasted "equal protection rights against political obstruction to equal treatment" with "equal protection rights against obstructions to preferential treatment. " But you miss the obvious: Preferential treatment is warranted to achieve equal rights for those who otherwise would not have them.

Over the next three months, the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether to end affirmative action, whether to overturn part of one of the most important civil rights laws in our country's history (the Voting Rights Act) and whether gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to the same marriage benefits as heterosexual couples. In almost every term, the justices exercise veto power over fundamental policy questions such as abortion, gun control and freedom of speech and religion.

Not since "Garbo Talks!" has a public figure's decision to speak attracted such attention. I'm referring, of course, to the media sensation created this week when Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas broke an almost seven-year-long silent streak to crack a joke during oral arguments in a case involving the adequacy of counsel in a Louisiana murder case. As The Times' David Savage reported, most of what Thomas said was drowned out by cross-talk, but apparently he had some fun with the idea that one of the lawyers in the case should be considered qualified because she attended Yale Law School, Thomas' alma mater but an institution about which he has mixed feelings.

Re "Patients' choices narrower, yet cost of insurance rises," Column, Nov. 30 David Lazarus' criticism of Anthem Blue Cross for making its customers buy their medicine from only the pharmacy it chooses makes no sense. Why would any thinking person oppose a volume drug discount deal with an online pharmacy that naturally requires the insured to use that pharmacy exclusively or pay more? Such contracts reduce drug costs markedly, and thus co-pays for which the insured are responsible.

Re "Affirmative action and the law," Editorial, Nov. 30 Your editorial fails to grasp the intent of affirmative action and equal protection in two respects. You comment favorably on the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling 15 years ago that contrasted "equal protection rights against political obstruction to equal treatment" with "equal protection rights against obstructions to preferential treatment. " But you miss the obvious: Preferential treatment is warranted to achieve equal rights for those who otherwise would not have them.

As the Supreme Court mulls whether the U.S. Constitution prohibits state universities from taking race into account in admissions decisions, a federal appeals court has moved in a very different direction. It recently held that, far from forbidding affirmative action, the Constitution prevents a state's voters from doing away with it. The case, decided this month by the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, was filed after Michigan voters approved Proposal 2, barring state and local governments as well as public universities from giving preferential treatment on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin.

Re "Europeans clearly prefer Obama, survey finds," Nov. 2 I recently returned from a Mediterranean cruise, during which I met people from all parts of the world. It was astounding how interested and informed everyone was about our upcoming election. What was enlightening to me was the intensity with which the rest of the world awaits our election. As one passenger on that cruise put it to me, the fate of the world rests on what happens in the United States. At those moments I felt deeply the responsibility we have as a part of the global community and how gravely the rest of the world prays for our success as a harbinger of its own fate.

Re "How to save Prop. 30," Opinion, Nov. 2 I agree 100% with Dan Schnur's suggestion that Gov. Jerry Brown and the Legislature should immediately drop support for high-speed rail. Continued support of this project would be the biggest cause of a Proposition 30 defeat. With so many really important infrastructure projects that California desperately needs, to stubbornly cling to the rail project - especially by a governor who has substantially improved things in this state - is nothing short of suicidal.