Of course I support differentiating based on skin color: what you might call discrimination by trying to flip the table on the NAACP. The Constitution is not color-blind, nor has it ever been, despite some right-wing fantasy that everything is alright when it comes to race relations. Your same colorblind bogus is what anti-integrationists used to perpetuate and continue segregation. It's an argument that has continually been knocked down in the Supreme Court. Seeing differences in race and using them to remedy inequities is a part of the American tradition from all the way back to the founders, and it is the law of the land. There is a difference between using race to enforce continuing inequities, and to use it to remedy the effects of racism, something the founders recognized. And you're incapable of deeper analysis if you cannot recognize that difference. https://www.propublica.org/article/...-abigail-fishers-affirmative-action-case-is-r You never answered my questions. Is institutionalized racism/discrimination DEAD because you say it's so?
says you and segregationists. Thankfully, neither of whom have been on past Supreme Courts or current ones that say otherwise. Fisher withstood strict scrutiny and came out 4-3. Kagan will not have to recuse herself next time. And neither will whoever Hillary appoints. The ability to state racial preferences in education in order to remedy continuing systematic racism is a part of the American tradition, and part of American law.
No, she is privileged because racial discrimination benefits her, and she did not suffer one iota of it. Arbitrary biases AGAINST one's race. There is an inherent value in remedying or attempting to remedy the different treatment you continue to get in America based on skin color. A right found in Supreme Court rulings and constitutional law. http://www.columbia.edu/node/8321.html You don't see value in diversity, and overcoming enduring inequities to unlock as much potential as possible? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-affirmative-action-thrive-at-elite-colleges/ Well, that's on you. Thankfully you don't sit on the Supreme Court or interpret constitutional law.
She is entitled because her grades and tests scores were not good enough for the most selective public university in the state. She is entitled because she was offered provisional admission to UT and turned it down, believing she was above a system that hundreds of other students who really wanted to attend UT worked through to achieve their goals.
Thanks for the thoughtful response. UT acknowledged in their own legal brief (at least according to the ProPublica story) that race was but a sub factor that went into deciding admission for non Top 10% applicants. While we don't know everything about Fisher's personal achievement qualifications (clubs, volunteer work, etc) we do know her GPA, SAT score and her assertion that her skin color is the reason why she was denied admission to UT. We also know that many, many more non-Top 10 minority students with better grades than Fisher were also denied admission, which makes her case feel hollow. I understand that Fisher is not bankrolling this case and that she is the poster child for a larger legal effort. I also feel like there are genuine criticisms of Affirmative Action. What I don't understand is why this woman is the poster child for this when she so clearly didn't deserve admission and even rejected an offer for provisional admission after a year at UTSA. Frankly, she seems like a sore loser. There are some kneejerk responses to this from the usual partisan perspectives. It feels more personal to me because I was a one of the last generations of Longhorns offered non-Top 10% summer admission to UT. I wasn't offered CAP like Fisher (but would've taken it if needed because, unlike Abigail, I was willing to do whatever it took to go to UT), but there were hundreds of students like her that worked hard to get to the main campus in Austin. I don't like to see my alma mater's reputation and motives drug through the dirt by this case when Abigail Fisher was so clearly unqualified, both academically and personally, to attend my school.
What arbitrary bias is anyone overcoming in the admission process when their race is taken into account in their admission evaluation? Again I see no inherent value in skin color nor do I think it is anyone's "privilege" that other people practice discrimination.
Yeah, not really sure how this hasn't been swatted down yet. Racial preference in the public sector is just bad policy all around.
Thank you. Having worked closely with university admissions, I can say her case is laughable on the merits. Just pathetic.
