IE 11 is not supported. For an optimal experience visit our site on another browser.

Scalia makes racially charged argument in affirmative-action case

African-American students, Scalia argued, may struggle in the best universities, as opposed to "a slower-­track school where they do well."
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is interviewed by The Associated Press, July 26, 2012, at the Supreme Court in Washington. (Photo by Haraz N. Ghanbari/AP)
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is interviewed by The Associated Press, July 26, 2012, at the Supreme Court in Washington. 
About a month ago, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia spoke to first-year law students at Georgetown, where he drew a parallel between gay people, pedophiles, and child abusers. What would he do for an encore?
 
This morning, the high court heard oral arguments in a Texas case on affirmative action and the use of race in college admissions, and NBC News reported that Scalia "questioned whether some minority students are harmed by the policy because it helped them gain admittance to schools where they might not be able to academically compete."
 
At first blush, that sounds pretty racist, so let's check the official transcript:

"There are -- there are those who contend that it does not benefit African Americans to ­­ to get them into the University of Texas where they do not do well, as opposed to having them go to a less­-advanced school, a less -- a slower-track school where they do well. "One of -- one of the briefs pointed out that -- that most of the -- most of the black scientists in this country don't come from schools like the University of Texas. They come from lesser schools where they do not feel that they're -- that they're being pushed ahead in -- in classes that are too ­­ too fast for them."

If we were to go out of our way to be charitable, I suppose we could emphasize the fact that Scalia prefaced these comments by saying "there are those who contend." In other words, maybe the far-right justice himself isn't making such an ugly argument, so much as the justice is referencing an offensive argument from unnamed others?
 
It is, to be sure, a stretch. At no point did Scalia say he disagrees with "those who contend" that African-American students who struggle at good universities and are better off at "a slower-track school."
 
David Plouffe, a former aide to President Obama, highlighted Scalia's quote this afternoon and asked a pertinent question: "Motivation lacking for 2016?"
 
As for the case itself, Fisher v. Texas, which has been bouncing around for a long while, MSNBC's Irin Carmon reported that the dispute stems from a complaint filed by Abigail Fisher, a white woman "who claims she was denied admission to the University of Texas because of her race, despite the fact that a lower court found she wouldn't have been admitted regardless of her race."
 
And how did oral arguments go? Carmon added:

The liberals worked to poke holes in the argument that Texas cannot put race on the list of holistic factors. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg made the same point she had made the first time Fisher came to the court, which is that the supposedly "race-neutral" process of admitting the top 10 percent, which isn't being challenged in this case, isn't race-neutral at all, because it makes virtue out of a long history of school and housing segregation and discrimination. Justice Elena Kagan didn't say a word, because she has recused herself, having worked on the case as solicitor general. Justice Sonia Sotomayor fiercely challenged Fisher's attorneys. Meanwhile, three of the four most conservative members of the court reiterated that they oppose affirmative action and would overturn the court's precedent that it is allowed as a last resort to promote educational diversity. Chief Justice John Roberts repeatedly asked when remedies to racial discrimination would no longer be needed. (Judging from his past decisions, he believes the time is now.) Justice Samuel Alito tried to argue that advocates for affirmative action are themselves making racist or condescending judgments.

A decision is expected by June.