Tim Scott: “Mr. Chairman, legislative language similar to the proposed amendment has been enacted in Texas and California. After the…”

“Mr. Chairman, legislative language similar to the proposed amendment has been enacted in Texas and California. After the adoption of those policies, educational opportunities for minorities plummeted to their lowest levels since the 1960s and in some schools those opportunities disappeared altogether. You cannot change the known impact of this amendment by using glorious rhetoric or a misleading title or results of a slanted poll. We know what this amendment will do. Mr. Chairman, the admissions policies have never been totally fair. Those who are children of alumni get preferences, children of large contributors get preferences, those who can afford to pay tuition without a scholarship get preferences, those who can perform well on a culturally biased test get preferences. Mr. Chairman, affirmative action serves as a counterbalance to those disadvantages that minorities suffer. Without affirmative action we will return to the unlevel playing field and turn the clock back to the 1960s. Mr. Chairman, the Supreme Court has limited the use of affirmative action to policies which are narrowly tailored to address the compelling State interest. So as the need for affirmative action drops, so will the practice of affirmative action. This amendment, however, will prohibit the use of affirmative action even in cases where there is a need to remedy proven cases of racial discrimination.”