Click here to go to the NEW College Discussion Forum

There is a special one hour show on about aa in our college system. They talk about everything from top colleges to the courts likely decision!!!!

Make sure you watch it, then come to the site n talk about it Saturday.

Once again it is on NBC at 8 eastern time. TUNE IN!!

By Andymcgav (Andymcgav) on Thursday, June 05, 2003 - 07:58 pm: Edit

I'll try to watch, but I have noticed that watching television and reading books about college admissions makes me uneasy. Does anyone else feel this way?

By B18c1cx (B18c1cx) on Thursday, June 05, 2003 - 08:05 pm: Edit

I love it. I'm not sure why....even though I am done searching/applying.

By Trojan1444 (Trojan1444) on Thursday, June 05, 2003 - 09:40 pm: Edit

Andy...exactly. Only builds anxiety.

By Apguy (Apguy) on Friday, June 06, 2003 - 01:19 am: Edit

Chose the perfect Friday to broadcast it. The day before the last SAT testing date this school year! Thank god for TiVo.

By Serene (Serene) on Friday, June 06, 2003 - 01:49 am: Edit

I'm too lazy... I'll wait until the real court decision...

By B18c1cx (B18c1cx) on Friday, June 06, 2003 - 10:31 am: Edit

lol, I think it will be really good. Besides, nightlife here starts around 11.

By Spartan858585 (Spartan858585) on Friday, June 06, 2003 - 11:56 pm: Edit

Did anybody watch this????

By Uncchlocalmayor (Uncchlocalmayor) on Saturday, June 07, 2003 - 12:10 am: Edit

no.

By Interesteddad (Interesteddad) on Saturday, June 07, 2003 - 01:10 am: Edit

Yes. I watched it. I thought it was a pretty well done show.

I've also looked at the University of Michigan point chart and read some of the legal briefs in the case.

IMO, the U of Michigan is relying too heavily on Justice Powell's one-man opinion in the Brakke case. Their arguments go way beyond what Powell indicated might be acceptable.

Shifting the rationalization for racial discrimination from "correcting past sins" to "diversity" is never going to pass muster with the Supreme Court. The consitutional protection of equal rights is just too strong to allow that.

U of Michigan is going to go down in flames on this decision. The only real question is whether the Supreme Court makes a very narrow ruling or whether they make the broader ruling that they will have to make sooner or later. If they make a broader ruling, the colleges and universities are going to be SCRAMBLING.

If the Supreme Court doesn't do it, the voters will. The anti-discrimination statutes that passed in California, Texas, and Florida aren't going to stop there.

Virginia's Attorney General has already sent a lengthy memorandum to the universities in that state essentially telling them that their current admissions policies will be ruled unconstitutional the first time they are sued and that, if they think they can hang their hat on "diversity" as a legal justification for continued racial discrimination, they better figure out how much they are willing to lose in settlements.

It's going to be an interesting few years, because the academics are determined to continue applying preferential treatment for some racial/ethnic groups in college admissions. The courts and voters are equally adamant that our constitution does not allow that.

I would suggest that the money they will spend defending their current system would be better spent in outreach/recruitment programs in minority high schools and financial aid packages.

BTW, the lawyers looking for a plaintiff did a heck of job in finding Gretz. The daughter of two non-college working class parents who finishes in the top 10% of her class in a Michigan high school is EXACTLY the kind of diversity the affirmative action programs are intended to foster. I don't know why the colleges are so determined to make it race-based. Just give a preference to ANY applicant who does not have the benefit of growing up in a college educated home.

By Howdydoody (Howdydoody) on Saturday, June 07, 2003 - 03:15 am: Edit

Interesteddad: Did mention any of the top schools (Ivies, etc.)? Just curious...what schools were talked about? Any tactics mentioned? Also, was this Dateline NBC? Thank you.

By Interesteddad (Interesteddad) on Saturday, June 07, 2003 - 01:56 pm: Edit

The NBC show focused on the U of Michigan case and didn't really address other schools except a case where two students (best friends) from the same New York school applied to MIT. The class valedictorian with 1600 SATs didn't get in. His friend, the black student, who finished 10th in the same senior class did. They interviewed the black student. He said that he wasn't sure that he wanted to go to a school that admitted him based on his race rather than a fair competetion based on his high school record.

I listened to the oral arguments in the Supreme Court last night. It appears to me that it will be very difficult for the Court to decide this case on very narrow grounds. Michigan's defense has been that, yes, they do have a discriminatory admissions policy and it is justified by a compelling community interest: the educational benefits of "diversity". They openly admit that they have a different standard for different races and that essentially 100% of minority applicants with even the basic standards are admitted. They admit that the reason for this is that they simply don't have enough minority applicants, so admission of those who do apply with even minimal qualifications ((for example: Michigan resident, 1010 SATs, 2.7 GPA, with an average curriculum in an average public high school) are automatically admitted while white students are forced to compete for spots and must have much higher qualifications for admissions.

The plaintiffs argument is quite simple: the 14th amendment to the Constitution specifically prohibits discrimination based on the color of a person's skin.

The Supreme Court has only permitted racial preferences in one very narrow instance: to correct a very specific, quantifiable record of discrimination at a particular school. Michigan, and the elite schools are no longer claming this. It would be patently absurd since most of them have had admissions policies FAVORABLE to minority applicants for at least the last 20 years. Instead, Michigan opted to frame the case in terms of diversity being so important, in and of itself, that the Supreme Court should allow an exception to the 14th Amendment and allow preferential treatment of one race over another.

The Justices asked some very pointed questions. One justice wanted to know how a college knew when it had enough "diversity" and how long an exception to the 14th amendment would need to remain in effect to achieve it.

One justice asked, "if your university believes that diversity is SUCH an important goal and the problem is that you don't have enough minority applicants who can meet your standards, why don't you simply lower your standards across the board?

Justice Thomas pointed out that the historically black colleges play an important role in the black community and asked if it would be Michigan's position that "diversity" would be equally important at these colleges to the point where the Supreme Court should allow preferential treatment for white candidates over black candidates at these schools to achieve it.

My sense from the oral arguments and the nature of the case is that it will be very difficult for the Supreme Court to duck the issue with a narrow technical or vague ruling. To make a narrow ruling, they would have to throw out some characteristic of the Michigan plan without providing guidance on the larger issue or on what admissions plans might be constitutional. This would only put off the need for a real answer from the Court, until the next case comes along. If they make a broader ruling, then the precedent dating back to Brown vs Board of Education is clear that the 14th Amendment simply does not allow unequal treatment based on race and the only exceptions to that have been narrow, short-term remedies to specific violations of the 14th amendment rights.

To rule broadly in favor of Michigan requires the Court to set a precedent that a sociological theory (diversity improves education, in this case) is sufficient to allow violation of one of the most fundamental tenets of our constitution. To rule broadly against Michigan would make this an equally landmark case, because it would effectively throw out the admissions policies at every school in the country and, sooner or later, the hiring practices at every large corporation.

That is why you have every top school and a hundred corporations filing briefs in this case.

On a personal level: I grew up in the South in the 1960's as an actively liberal and fervently strong supporter of the Civil Rights movement and the Equal Rights Amendment. So to me, the premise that people should be treated the same, without regard to their skin color, is at the very core of my beliefs about my country. I thought it was wrong when the University of Mississippi tried to argue their theory that the educational benefits of segregation justified racial preferences and I think it's wrong for the University of Michigan to argue that their pet theory on educational benefits justfies racial preferences. In my opinion, once you start allowing exceptions to something as fundamental as equal treatment for men of all colors, you are on a slippery, dangerous slope because who the heck knows what the "theory of the day" might be at some time or place in the future.

I am all for efforts to increase minority enrollment at the University of Michigan. I think that is a good thing. Just don't violate the 14th Amendment to do it. The 14th Amendment is simply too important to mess with.

By Rubenizm (Rubenizm) on Saturday, June 07, 2003 - 02:02 pm: Edit

"Oh no..... i didn't get into the college of my choice.... , oh noooooooooooooooo. I was soooo embarassed!!!" She actually said she was embarassed. What the hell was wrong with her?
You know no offense but maaaaaaybe she wasn't smart enough to get in. What the fucck? Then they show her sitting in an empty basketball court. What the fucck was that? She's ilke 30, why can't she move on with her life. Ok let's take Harvard: They have about 10% URM's, ok make that 15%. A white student doesn't get in and blames AA. What this means is not that her spot was taken away but that she was less qualified that at least 85-90% of all the kids who got in. What the hell is there to complain about?
That girl, who's like 30 now, simply wasn't smart enough to get into Umich. More spots go to Sports recruits, legacies, famous kids and people like bush. The reason so many people bitch about AA is that it's the easiest thing to bitch about. The black man is accepted easier that the white man. OH NOOOOOOOO. Sure the black people's parents weren't discriminated agains and called the n-word. We're all equal now. It's been almost 40 years. That's enougn, let's be equal. That's so retarded.

And no i'm not black. I'm as white as they come who didn't have the opportunities the vast majority of you people had. And yet i'm not making up excuses, I'm doing my best and even if i don't get into the school of my choice, i'll know that it's my fault and not blame 30 million people for me not being smart and hardworking enough

By Interesteddad (Interesteddad) on Saturday, June 07, 2003 - 02:24 pm: Edit

This case does't have anything to do with Jennifer Gratz. She was hand-selected as the plaintiff because her particular application fell at a point that highlighted the unequal treatment of Michigan's two-tier admissions policy. She was also hand-selected because she comes from a working class family, in a working class neighborhood with non-college parents, so there is no socio-economic consideration to cloud the fundamental constitutional question.

Michigan was specifically selected because their numerical admissions system made for an easily quantifiable record of racial preferences. Again, nothing to cloud the constitutional question and the reason that the U. of Mich acknowledges that their admissions system favors one race over another.

30% of white candidates with her exact application score were accepted at U of Mich. 100% of minority candidates with her exact application score were accepted at U of Mich. That is why Jennifer Gratz was selected as the plaintiff.

This case, from the moment the lawyers advertised for potential plaintiffs, was about one thing: forcing the Supreme Court to rule on a constitutional issue, framed in a way that left little wiggle room for ducking the question.

By B18c1cx (B18c1cx) on Saturday, June 07, 2003 - 02:28 pm: Edit

Rubenizm,

Surely you see the problem here. UMich(and every1 else) may be violating the 14th amendment. This case is NOT all about some girl who couldn't make the cut.

Don't be so unreasonably opinionated in the future. You sound like an idiot.

Sports recruits, legacies and famous people's children all offer the college something in return for an acceptance. URM's simply offer a small part of a statistic.

Your simple arguements are not impressive.

-Alex

By Interesteddad (Interesteddad) on Saturday, June 07, 2003 - 02:49 pm: Edit

The issue of whether athletes, musicians, or legacies should receive preferential treatment is a fundamentally different question than whether some racial/ethnic groups should receiver preferential treatment. Why? Because the 14th Amendment to the Constitution specifically prohibits the latter.

Reasonable people could debate the merits of preferential treatment based on any number of factors and different schools could come up with different answers. That would be perfectly OK as long as the constitution of our country does not prohibit preferential treatment based on those factors.

By Interesteddad (Interesteddad) on Saturday, June 07, 2003 - 03:03 pm: Edit

>> Surely you see the problem here. UMich(and every1 else) may be violating the 14th amendment.

Actually, in the way they have chosen to defend the case, the U of Mich is essentially acknowledging that they are violating the 14th Amendment. What they are arguing is that their reasons for doing so reach the level of importance to society that an exception to 14th Amendment is warranted.

They are apparently as eager to force the Court to decide the "big issue" as the people who brought the case.

It seems to me that Bollinger took a big risk when he decided how UMich would defend this case. If he bet wrong, the consequences on admissions policies are going to rumble through the country like a giant earthquake.

By Rubenizm (Rubenizm) on Saturday, June 07, 2003 - 04:30 pm: Edit

ok the 14th amendment was passed when? Like 130 years ago and yet it kept discrimination because of the way it's worded. The whole point in this argument is whether AA is discriminatory. I don't think it's discriminatory, i think it's reasonable. And yes URM's do offer a lot to colleges. Let me clarrify why: Why do colleges admit athletic/gifted/legacies(and legacies don't offer anything)? because except for legacies, these groups will bring profit to the school as sports bring in millions and people naturally want to go to better schools. Let's take Harvard again. Harvard's has 6% black students. You have to agree that compared to the 15% of the black population, that's pretty low. Now let's say AA is no more. Harvard has what.....3% blacks. I for one will not apply to a homogenous(if that's the word) school. I will apply to a diverse school where i willl meet a lot of new people. This means that diversity brings money to the schools just like athletics do. Whether you agree with this or not, the 14th amendment don't say anything about this. Now you cana argue what it says, but the Supreme Court is there to interpret the Constitution and that's what it'll do whether we agree with that or not

By L_Wonder (L_Wonder) on Saturday, June 07, 2003 - 05:36 pm: Edit

Rubenizm has a point. No one cared about the 14th amendment when black people were being discriminated against by the very government that wrote it to "protect" them. Of course, if Black Americans would have tried to sue when OUR 14th Amendment rights were being violated, you were likely to be found hanging from a tree branch or simply disappear. We wouldn't have needed the Civil Rights Act or affirmative action if the 14th amendment was so effective.

My point of view is that affirmative action hasn't had a chance to really work. It has been only about 40 years since blacks and minorities have been "allowed" to have access to decent education. Still, many blacks are attending school in the same substandard school districts as their parents. Although we have come far, 40 years is simply not long enough for the black population to make up for centuries of lost opportunity.

Of course the black middle class is the first to benefit from affirmative action. They are the people most likely to be in a position to benefit from the program. Their parents were among the first black students to attend integrated colleges and they make efforts to make sure their children have the same opportunities. Also, since they have the money to contribute to college, they are way more likely to apply to selective institutions then poorer blacks.

I think we are just entering a period where the poorer minorities are being noticed by our educational system and people are making efforts to stress the value of education. I think the standardized tests (Florida for example) are bringing much needed attention to the treatment of poor blacks in the school system. Maybe now that these tests are holding the school districts accountable, these children won't be passed from grade to grade without learning the basics.

Also, the Univerisity of Michigan is the poorest example of affirmative action you could have, and that is probably why the school was chosen for the lawsuit. The point system is very problematic, and I don't know of any other selective college that uses this system. Its one thing to be like, "this person has overcome significant obstacles to get this far and we think that this student is capable of doing well in our college and contribute to a diverse student body" and another to be like "black applicants-20 points."

The Michigan example isn't representative of how other selective colleges do their admissions, and I don't know how far reaching the effects of the verdict could be.

By Interesteddad (Interesteddad) on Saturday, June 07, 2003 - 06:07 pm: Edit

To say that nobody "nobody cared about the 14th Amendment when black people were being discriminated against" seems to demean the efforts of at least two generations of black and white leaders who, indeed cared very much and worked very hard to ensure equal protection under the law, without regard to race.

You make an excellent point about the necessity to correct the sins of past discrimination. But, NOBODY in the current cases before the Supreme Court is arguing that the current admissions policies are designed to do that. That issue has long ago been decided by the Supreme Court and the current admissions policies don't meet any of the tests for that sort of corrective action. Rather these policies are designed to, and being tested as, efforts to achieve diversity for diversity's sake, as a goal in and of itself. The crux of the decision facing the court is whether that goal is of sufficient compelling interest to justify violating individual's rights to equal treatment under the 14th Amendment.

While Harvard's system is somewhat more vaguely crafted to conceal preferential treatment of certain racial/ethnic groups over others, the goals and results of both systems are essentially the same. Unless the Court rules broadly in favor of the Michigan system or very narrowly against it, the decision will have huge and immediate implications for the admissions policies at virtually every elite college and university. Title 7 extends the protections of the 14th amendment to private institutions that receive federal grant money.

By Covalentbond007 (Covalentbond007) on Saturday, June 07, 2003 - 07:22 pm: Edit

What's the difference between discrimination by race and discrimination by athletic ability?

I seem to remember a civil rights act that stated "no one shall be discriminated on the basis of race". Nah, nevermind, that law doesn't exist. Just a figment of my imagination.

By B18c1cx (B18c1cx) on Saturday, June 07, 2003 - 08:08 pm: Edit

Ruben,

Legacies are MUCH more likely to donate. That's what they add.....plus a close realtionship with families.

By Rubenizm (Rubenizm) on Saturday, June 07, 2003 - 10:19 pm: Edit

exactly i'm not quite sure if you were supporting my point, but simply put diversity earns schools money. And CovalentBond, that law didn't start working for black people for 100 years. Plus EVEN if the Supreme Court considers that as discrimination, that doesn't mean anything. Consider this: This woman in Florida wanted to have the muslim cloth thingy on her face on her driver's licence photo. In order to full exercise her religion, she needs to keep it on, but in order to secure safety she needs to take it off. In the end the more fundamental right, protected by the first amendment was denied. Even AA has two legal sides. So instead of making sarcastic comments showing how much you know about AA and how stupid people are for supporting it, maybe you should actually think and not blindy oppose something you don't know tht much about and that harms your chances at college.

By Interesteddad (Interesteddad) on Saturday, June 07, 2003 - 10:42 pm: Edit

I do not believe that the First Amendment to the Constitution guarantees anyone the right to a driver's license. It's a different issue.

But, for the sake of discussion, let's assume your argument is valid and a more fundamental right can trump a constitutional guarantee. What is the more fundamental right in the UMich case that trumps the 14th Amendment guarantee of equal treatment, regardless of race?

The UMich is arguing that their decision to seek diversity at their university trumps the 14th Amendment. As Justice Scalia pointed out in the oral arguments, they could have equally well achieved their diversity "critical mass" number by CHOOSING to reduce their application standards across the board. It is the UMich's optional choice to have both stringent standards AND diversity that is causing them to run afoul of the 14th Amendment. They do have other options, options that would not require an exception to 14th Amendment protections.

By Rubenizm (Rubenizm) on Saturday, June 07, 2003 - 11:25 pm: Edit

I see your point, but since when did the 14th amendment become interpreted verbatim? I don't think this is a 14th amendment issue. This is an issue of money and respect as a school. If we cancel AA then all the prestigious schools will be flooded by rich whites and asians. This won't work for me. If this happens i'll shoot for a worse school just for the sake of meeting difference people. So i think that if Umich can make a case of why diversity is so important, then the Court will rule in favor of Umich. After all we have Bob Jones. The school that has a ban on inter-racial dating. Bush, Lott, Helms and many others support that because they think that a school should have a right to what they want. I can't think of a better example of a clear violation of the14th amendment that even our president supports. So just because something doesn't look cool with the 14th amendment, that doesn't make it illegal. The 14th amendment is one of the worst ones because its meaning can be interpreted in many ways for different thing. So you can't say that it clearly violates it. The Supreme Court will determine that.

By T0fu (T0fu) on Saturday, June 07, 2003 - 11:34 pm: Edit

As an Asian, I probably stand not to benefit from AA, but I support it for a reason that not many people have discussed.

College isn't so simple as admissions. I mean, you have to actually go through the college experience once you're admitted, right? Easy to forget, eh?

Blacks and Hispanics have a very different experience living in the United States. Money has nothing to do with it. It's about prejudice. It's about a different culture. When they bring that different perspective to class, it profoundly enriches the educational process.

At a university, one is presumably there to learn and to prepare one's self for the real world. I would want to be at a college with a significant segment of the population from URM backgrounds. I think this is absolutely necessary for my receiving a complete education.

I'm a decent enough student, I think, that some universities would want me to apply and choose them, and I think that I, as well as many other smart, open-minded people would feel the same way.

It is therefore an intelligent choice for universities to use race-based affirmative action for the same reason baseball teams sign catchers. I mean, a team of 9 outfielders would hit very well, but they're missing components necessary to succeed.

By Interesteddad (Interesteddad) on Sunday, June 08, 2003 - 12:10 am: Edit

>> At a university, one is presumably there to learn and to prepare one's self for the real world. I would want to be at a college with a significant segment of the population from URM backgrounds. I think this is absolutely necessary for my receiving a complete education.

Nobody in the current Supreme Court case is arguing against a university including diversity as a part of the product they are selling.

The argument is that they are perfectly free to pursue diversity in any way they like -- except that they must adhere to the 14th Amendment to the Constitution which has been interpreted by Supreme Court ruling as prohibiting racial discrimination.

No state can apply a policy that gives a citizen preferential treatment simply on the basis that the citizen is Caucasian instead of Asian. No state can apply a policy that gives a citizen preferential treatment simply on the basis that the citizen is Caucasian instead of African-American. No state can apply a policy that gives a citizen preferential treatment simply on the basis that the citizen is Asian instead of African-American. Nor any other permutation.

Five perfectly constitutional methods of pursuing increased diversity were discussed in the Supreme Court oral arguments alone:

a) Lower the admissions standards across the board so that the pool of qualified minority applicants is larger.

b) Accept students based on achieving a specified class rank in any state high school.

c) Increase funding for recruitment efforts in minority communities.

d) Fund special preparatory programs to help candidates for admissions meet the standard qualifications for the university.

e) And the one I like best: identify and address the root causes of the problem.

By Covalentbond007 (Covalentbond007) on Sunday, June 08, 2003 - 12:28 am: Edit

I like Justice Scalia's argument. UM is choosing to be a elite school rather then to adhere to the 14th amendment. Therefore UM does not have a compelling state interest to violate the 14th amendment.

What did you think of the pro-AA green brief argument, Interesteddad? It seemed to have caught Kilbo off guard.

By Covalentbond007 (Covalentbond007) on Sunday, June 08, 2003 - 12:47 am: Edit

By the way, there's a reason why Bob Jones University is unaccredited. Students do not get any federal funding.

BJU and the National Achievement Scholars program are two sides of the same coin. I would rather not have either of them but they are within their rights because they are based on private funding.

You owe your life and prosperity to the rule of law, Rubenizm. If you do not like the law, there are mechanisms to change it. If you want a special protected class of citizens based on race, then by all means try to get the 3/4 majority needed to amend the constitution. If you don't, then you're no better then the people you despise so much.

By Rubenizm (Rubenizm) on Sunday, June 08, 2003 - 01:37 am: Edit

I'm not saying that the law has no meaning. We're arguing the legal side of the issues and I'm saying that the 14th amendment is not specific enough to have one meaning. The 14th amendment doesn't say anything about using race as a factor. This means that the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court alone can determine how this law should be applied to Affirmative Action.

And basically what you're saying is that because BJU doesn't get federal funding, it's ok for it to violate the 14th amendment. Because to me banning interracial dating is kind of racist. Yet it's perfectly legal. Why? Because the 14th amendment's application to this case hasn't been interpreted by the Supreme Court.

By Interesteddad (Interesteddad) on Sunday, June 08, 2003 - 01:38 am: Edit

>> I like Justice Scalia's argument. UM is choosing to be a elite school rather then to adhere to the 14th amendment. Therefore UM does not have a compelling state interest to violate the 14th amendment.

Scalia hit the bullseye with that argument. My biggest beef with the two-tier admissions standards is that, not only is one tier offered easier addmission, but the other must meet an even higher set of qualifications because the schools don't want their published SAT numbers to fall. So that tier gets a double-whammy to compensate for the other tier's lowered standards. The net effect is that the large group between the two tiers is shut completely out of the process. This is why your average run-of-the-mill class valedictorian with 95th percentile SATs is having so much difficulty comprehending the admissions process at the better schools.

>> What did you think of the pro-AA green brief argument, Interesteddad? It seemed to have caught Kilbo off guard.

It certainly seems to be Justice Ginsberg's hot-button issue. Hey, I have sympathy for the educators and the military. A shortcut like a race-based quota system is a LOT easier than addressing the underlying problems. I suspect that, if he ever said anything, this would be at the heart of Justice Thomas' objection to race-based quota systems -- that that they provide a distraction from fundamental changes in the African-American community and the educational system as a whole that will be necessary to really solve the problem.

I will give Ginsberg credit, though. By raising the military issue, she did speak to the widespread effect any decision in this case will have. If the court rules in favor of UMich, they have establised a permanent exception to the 14th amendment (I cannot imagine the Supreme Court doing this). If they rule against UMich, they are going to upset the whole apple cart: in education, business, and the military. I don't envy the court on this one. Because there is no easy way to split the baby, I'm inclined to think they may just rule, "No. You cannot use race-based admissions criteria, period. Deal with it." My sense was that justices from both "sides" are fearful of the slippery slope of allowing exceptions to key constitutional protections.

I was stunned at some of the punches thrown by the Justices. Was it Scalia who demanded to know from the UMich lawyer in the Law School case if 2% would be enough to achieve the so-called "critical mass"? What about 4%? How 'bout 8%? Somewhere between 8% and 12%? 10% would be a quota, but you say somewhere between 8% and 12% isn't a quota? He was like a bulldog.

His comments about the historical origins of the Harvard admissions policy were viscious.

By Azrunner (Azrunner) on Sunday, June 08, 2003 - 01:09 pm: Edit

white people using laws created to protect minorities (14 amend.) to protect themselves. reminds me of how the sherman anti-trust act was used against laborers. republicans just wont go away

By T0fu (T0fu) on Sunday, June 08, 2003 - 01:59 pm: Edit

The point is that all arguments about other ways to raise the minority population, universities need an out. They need a way to ensure diversity. That's all this so-called AA is doing, and I think it's necessary.

By Interesteddad (Interesteddad) on Sunday, June 08, 2003 - 02:26 pm: Edit

>> white people using laws created to protect minorities (14 amend.) to protect themselves. reminds me of how the sherman anti-trust act was used against laborers.

That's what makes this such an unsettling issue. The lawyers seeking to throw out the current admissions policies are using the philosophical and legal arguments that were the foundation of the civil rights movement. After all, Brown vs Board of Education and the federal court orders to integrate the University of Mississippi and the University of Alabama were based on the premise that race-based admissions policies violate the consititutional guarantees to equal protection.

The two situations are exactly parallel. George Wallace and the University of Alabama believed that their social policy (segregation) was important enough to the education of their students to justify an exception to the 14th Amendment. The University of Michigan believes that their social policy (diversity) is of such compelling interest to the education of their students to justify an exception to the 14th Amendment. Take away any judgements about the merits of their particular social policies and they really are closley related constitutional issue.

That's the slippery slope danger in granting exceptions to fundamental constitutional protections. While we would like to think otherwise, we really can't be sure that the motives behind a Michigan governor's favorite compelling social policy will always be "better" than the motives of an Alabama governor's favorite compelling social policy.

I think the Court will be very hesitant to approve an exception to the 14th Amendment that permits race-based admissions policies.

By May_1 (May_1) on Sunday, June 08, 2003 - 02:31 pm: Edit

>>The net effect is that the large group between the two tiers is shut completely out of the process. This is why your average run-of-the-mill class valedictorian with 95th percentile SATs is having so much difficulty comprehending the admissions process at the better schools. <<

Actually, these “run-off-the-mill” would be shut out even were all race-based AA policies to be struck down. The truth is that the number of under-qualified URM’s is so low compared to the total URM population, which is already small itself, that there aren’t many URM’s taking the “spots” of Caucasians/Asians. Because admissions is overall very subjective, these “normal” applicants would still be fighting an uphill battle against the legacies, athletes, musicians, underprivileged, and just simply more interesting applicants that may have slightly lower stats. Mind you, none of my statement bears any relevance as to the constitutionality of the Michigan quota system (NOTE: I was narrow in referring only to Michigan, not to AA as a whole), which I think is clearly unconstitutional, regardless of how one can interpret the Constitution; however, I wanted to refute the argument that many people make about AA helping Joequisha from Beverly Hills with a 2.5 and an 1100 get into Harvard over Sarah from Appalachia with a 4.0 and a 1600.

By Covalentbond007 (Covalentbond007) on Sunday, June 08, 2003 - 02:57 pm: Edit

No, it's more like helping Joequisha from Shaker Heights with a 3.5, 1300 get into Cornell over Sarah from Podunk City with a 3.9, 1450.

The gap seems to be exaggerated at times, but please do not pretend the gap isn't significant.

By Interesteddad (Interesteddad) on Sunday, June 08, 2003 - 03:49 pm: Edit

Sarah from Podunk City with a 3.9, 1450 is exactly the student that is being shut out of an admissions process that increasingly defines its class as a collection of specific "slots". It's not the AA slots by themselves. It's the totality of the reserved slots (AA, athletics, legacy, etc) taking up a very high percentage of the class and the fierce competition for the reduced number of "open-competition" slots.

Sarah is at a disadvantage because it is unlikely that Podunk City High fielded a team in the National Science Olympiad, yet she gets little credit for having absolutely maxed out the opportunities available at her school.

It would be very useful in evaluating admissions odds if colleges would publish the same kinds of breakdowns (SAT, diversity, class rank, etc.) for their applicants versus acceptances as they do for their applicants versus enrolled classes. Of course, none of them will do this because taking "yield" out of the equation, it would probably paint a rather stark picture of a two-tiered system, rather than a broad distribution.

By Rubenizm (Rubenizm) on Sunday, June 08, 2003 - 08:32 pm: Edit

I think that even if the supreme court finds this unconstitutional, they won't outlaw it. Just like in the case of the florida woman her right to exercise her religion is protected by the 1st amendment, but the judge ruled that the cause of establishing security requires her to give up a right - wearing of the face thingy. So even if they find it unconstitutional and that can be argued either way, they can and should rule that diversity and the whole cause of AA is more important than the blurry wording of the 14th amendment.

By Chim_Chim (Chim_Chim) on Sunday, June 08, 2003 - 11:24 pm: Edit

The lady in Florida wasn't deprived of a right. She was deprived of a privilege, just like anyone else can be.

Most if not all Muslim countries don't allow people to wear veils on their driver's license. Why should the US compromise it's security over that? Soon we'd be getting every terrorist in the US claiming they have to wear a ski-mask for their religion.

By T0fu (T0fu) on Monday, June 09, 2003 - 12:18 am: Edit

I wouldn't give a darn about what Sarah or Joequisha have for their GPAs or SATs. I would be thinking about what they offer the university. Both offer a reasonable degree of academic aptitude. However, Joequisha brings different perspectives and ideas, while Sarah doesn't.

Sarah would be comparatively boring, since Joequisha has had a very different experience growing up in this country. For example, just because she's Black, everyone assumes her name must end in a "quisha."

She has been victimized by moronic racists and vicious, ancient stereotypes, creating additional obstacles that she had to overcome to obtain her GPA and SAT scores.

Sarah, meanwhile, being White, has never had to deal with the racism, or at least the tacit condonement thereof. She has no new and interesting perscpective. She doesn't offer as much to the university.

That's why we should admit Joequisha because of her race.

By Interesteddad (Interesteddad) on Monday, June 09, 2003 - 01:40 am: Edit

Actually, if you look at the specifics of the example, a student from Podunk City would probably bring more diversity to most of the elite schools than [yet another] kid from a wealthy suburb like Shaker Heights.

By T0fu (T0fu) on Monday, June 09, 2003 - 02:33 am: Edit

It's a lot harder being Black than being poor...

By Fiza (Fiza) on Monday, June 09, 2003 - 04:59 pm: Edit

Since im asian, i dont know what to think about AA. True, hispanics, african americans, EVEN whites are stealing my spot that i might have worked harder for. True, diversity is necessary in America- but this might be too much. Okay, AA is fine with me AS LONG AS Asians are not discriminated against- im from the small country of bangladesh and were not the asians who were born geniuses ready to find a cure from cancer. lol....

By Dxiw (Dxiw) on Monday, June 09, 2003 - 07:08 pm: Edit

um, skin color should NOT be a part of admission. Diversity should come from other things like athletic ability, how hard someone has worked for something, problems they had to over come, etc. Being born a skin color should not give you any benefit; this is simply assuming that all black people are •••••• up poor drug addicts and that all white people are rich •••••••• with perfect lives, this is TOTALLY wrong.

We should help the poor black guy who had to suffer adversity and family abuse just as much as we should help the poor white guy who had to suffer adversity and family abuse, but in no way should we help the normal black guy who comes from a decent family. He should have to compete with all the other white guys that come from a decent family. If i was black, i'd be very offended, its like them saying "we know your dumber, so well help you". In the end, we just end up with harvard graduates and doctors and lawyers that are screwups because they didnt work as hard because they knew they had it easier.

I think that AA should be fully banned and admissions should be case selective. For example, you should get some bonus points if it shows that you had to go through hell to obtain your grades or had family abuse or other such problems, but in no way should you get any points at all for being a skin color or having something innate. I mean if we give bonus points for blacks then lets give them to the tall people, the people with big dicks, etc. you get what I mean. There is no reason whatsoever to give ppl bonus points for something they are born with. Now if they earned it, thats different. Like if someone got an award and another guy got the same award, but you had to get past a druggy abusive mother and a father who abandoned you at age 3 to get that award, then yes, definitly get your bonus points. But just because I am born black or asian or white should not affect me at all.

I think that AA is only damaging us now because its telling normal black kids from decent families that "you dont have to work so hard". I am not against awarding bonus points, i just feel they should not be awarded for anything you are born with. period.

AA assumes that white kids dont ever go through hell for things, and AA assumes that ALL white kids are rich •••••••• with no family problems and that ALL blacks are dirt poor with drug addicted parents. This, in my opinion, is not only totally wrong, but a disgrace to the human race. I am ashamed to be part of a country that thinks like this.

By Andymcgav (Andymcgav) on Tuesday, June 10, 2003 - 09:26 pm: Edit

Well said. That is why USA is the land of the hypocrites. Legacy kids parents actually went to the college, and that is not innate. Their families actually did something. One thing that I found kind of strange on the show is that when they selected people to talk to, they chose the professors, doctors, attorneys, etc. in an effort to persuade us that every black person admitted back then got a PHD and went to Princeton grad. It was kind of misleading...