On the Saturday, April 26, Disrupt show, MSNBC host Karen Finney divulged her counterintuitive view that a race-neutral policy on college admissions would constitute "trampling on the rights of the minority" as she fretted over what she called a "disturbing" Supreme Court ruling that allows states to ban the use of race as a factor in admissions. [See video below.]
The MSNBC host recounted the history of the university admissions issue in Michigan, characterizing the Supreme Court decision as "ignoring its duty to protect the rights of the minority." She then complained:
After being struck down on appeal, the case ended up in the Supreme Court, and here we are today, with a majority ruling which essentially says states are free to pass whatever laws they want, even if it means trampling on the rights of the minority.
Finney returned to her panel of guests and began by posing a question to Judith Browne Dianis of the Advancement Project. Finney:
And, Judith, I'm going to start with you because, you know, there is so much in this case that I think is disturbing. I mean, obviously the notion that we don't need affirmative action, that we're colorblind and all of that. But also this idea of protecting the minority, that the courts are there to protect the rights of the minority.
Below is a transcript of the relevant portion of the Saturday, April 26, Disrupt with Karen Finney on MSNBC:
So we've been talking a lot this hour about the fear of a changing America amid the mythology of a post-racial America. It's a myth that was reinforced this week when the Supreme Court upheld Michigan's ban on affirmative action in higher education admissions, ignoring its duty to protect the rights of the minority and ruling in favor of states' rights. In 2003, the University of Michigan faced two lawsuits challenging its right to consider race in admissions. Ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled in their favor saying that the university could consider race among other factors in admission.
Opponents of affirmative action were not to be deterred, though. And in 2006, they were successful in passing a ballot initiative in which Michigan voters banned consideration of race by a 58 percent majority. After being struck down on appeal, the case ended up in the Supreme Court, and here we are today, with a majority ruling which essentially says states are free to pass whatever laws they want, even if it means trampling on the rights of the minority.
(...)
And, Judith, I'm going to start with you because, you know, there is so much in this case that I think is disturbing. I mean, obviously the notion that we don't need affirmative action, that we're colorblind and all of that. But also this idea of protecting the minority, that the courts are there to protect the rights of the minority.
