West Debates UTA Professor on Constitutionality of Affirmative Action
Corey Stein
Issue date: 4/5/06 Section: News
- Page 1 of 2 next >
Last week, University of Dallas hosted the annual Bradford Debate. Lino Graglia, professor of law at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law, debated Dr. Tom West, professor of politics at UD, on the question of "Affirmative Action: Is it Constitutional? Legal? Good?"
Graglia started the debate by stating that most people agree the government should refrain from discrimination and make positive steps to ensure that the same opportunities are offered to people of all races. The question, he suggested, is the legitimacy of government preference based on race.
The use of affirmative action in college admissions, Graglia stated, is based on an argument for the benefit of diversity in universities rather than a concern for the individuals involved.
Graglia made the case that affirmative action in college admissions is actually a disservice to the students affected, because the principle of race preference puts people in a class above that in which they would be competitive, and actually lowers the overall output of black lawyers and other skilled professionals.
Graglia traced the protection of both civil and politcal rights for blacks through the 14th and 15th amendments, the 1789 Strauder case, the well-known Brown v. Board of Education decision, and the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which he understands to have "ratified the Brown principles."
Graglia classified both himself and West as "originalists" who believe that the Constitution "should be understood to mean what it was intended to mean." However, Graglia explained that he bases his constitutionalism on the explicit words of the constitution, and thus understands that "if the constitution does not prohibit something, it is not prohibited," thus giving the 14th and 15th amendments comprehensive scope.
West argued that this understanding of the constitution could lead to an interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause, which states "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws," in which same-sex bathrooms would be mandated and women would be included in the draft.
Graglia started the debate by stating that most people agree the government should refrain from discrimination and make positive steps to ensure that the same opportunities are offered to people of all races. The question, he suggested, is the legitimacy of government preference based on race.
The use of affirmative action in college admissions, Graglia stated, is based on an argument for the benefit of diversity in universities rather than a concern for the individuals involved.
Graglia made the case that affirmative action in college admissions is actually a disservice to the students affected, because the principle of race preference puts people in a class above that in which they would be competitive, and actually lowers the overall output of black lawyers and other skilled professionals.
Graglia traced the protection of both civil and politcal rights for blacks through the 14th and 15th amendments, the 1789 Strauder case, the well-known Brown v. Board of Education decision, and the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which he understands to have "ratified the Brown principles."
Graglia classified both himself and West as "originalists" who believe that the Constitution "should be understood to mean what it was intended to mean." However, Graglia explained that he bases his constitutionalism on the explicit words of the constitution, and thus understands that "if the constitution does not prohibit something, it is not prohibited," thus giving the 14th and 15th amendments comprehensive scope.
West argued that this understanding of the constitution could lead to an interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause, which states "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws," in which same-sex bathrooms would be mandated and women would be included in the draft.