Will the Court's decision on this case bring about the demise of affirmative action in universities (and everywhere else)? Notwithstanding my personal views on the matter, I think this question boils down to whether the five justices who either dissented in Grutter (Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy) or have expressed enmity towards the decision (Roberts, Alito) think that Fisher is the right vehicle to start dismantling university affirmative action policies. For reasons unique to the Texas plan, I think these five Justices are likely to answer that question with a “yes.” Specifically, because Texas’s Top 10 Percent plan (which is not challenged in the petition) is a race-neutral program that furthers racial diversity, the Court can strike down the express use of race in filling the non-Top 10 percent slots while making clear that race-neutral programs like the Top 10 Percent plan (that have the effect of furthering diversity) are still appropriate. In other words, reviewing Texas’s plan would allow the Court a unique opportunity to reverse race-conscious programs while still extolling the virtues of diversity in general (as advanced by race-neutral programs). Conclusion: Fisher wins 5-3; Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito vote in favor of Fisher; Breyer, Sotomayor, Ginsburg dissent (Kagan recused herself).
The last thing we want to have is another inadvertent red-lining and block-busting system that occured during the white flight era. Racial diversity is good. That being said The University of Texas hates the top 10% rule and they've been slowly bringing down the percentages year by year. This year for my senior class was 8%, I think they are projecting 6% soon.
Then either labor unions will get a lot bigger, corporate managers and VPs will be a lot less educated; or there'll be a lot more military hires. Or white high-schoolers will just stop doing extra-curriculars altogether.
They hate the top 10% rule because the university is huge, and they don't have room for mediocre students.
good for them. Some people look at me weird when I tell them I was top 5% and still chose A&M over UT. I like it here but they have some what of a point because I do run into really ignorant r****ded ass people sometimes. I think we're at the point where we will do something about it too, talked to some people that barely graduated out of top 10% and didn't get in. These people were asian so that may be why, unfair though if you ask me.
Going to a ****ty school because you're poor is what's unfair. The people that talk about fairness in getting into college never talk about why 10% exists and real solutions to that problem. If every one has equal opportunity in education then 10% is quite fair.
You have a really good point, but on the other side its much easier to be in that top 10% if your school isn't that good. That being said I would rather take the reform you propose, something needs to be done about the shcooling system.
Its easier to be in the top 10 percent if your parents give a **** about education and you don't have to worry about feeding yourself also. The 10 percent rule is as fair as it comes.
I can vouch personally that the 10% has its downsides. Having the GPA I have in my school that ranks me at 20 out of 700+ would barely put me at the top 25% in a school like Seven Lakes. Some kids are severely punished by this rule. Of course those same kids have an excellent chance of getting into private schools and out of state schools on the flip side. However, the alternative is that kids in poor neighborhoods will never have the opportunity to get into a good college. Its not a perfect rule, but until there is another alternative its the only solution.
the top 10% rule is terrible. All high schools are not the same and setting a set number of spots aside puts a ceiling on how good your school looks academically. If you want to go to a good college, apply and see how your GPA and SAT stack up to everyone else.
It's not stupid. It guarantees diversity. If the top 10% rule did not apply and neither did affirmative action, a school such at UT would likely be at least 80% white and asian. That's not representative of our population. I see people who complain about not getting into UT (like this Fisher chick) as just whiners. You couldn't get into the top 10% of your class so you have no right to complain. You could have gone to UTSA for a year under the CAP program and you would have been able to get in anyway. I think UT likes the principle of a top 10% rule, it guarantees them diversity so that they don't have to look at it as much in admitting regular and out of state students. They would reach their "quota" of URMs easier so they can only look at numbers for OOS and regular admission students. The dilemma UT faces is that it's too damn overcrowded. UT is the top public university in Texas so that's why so many kids are going there. With the poor economy, many children are going to UT instead of paying 20+ thousand on an out of state school. They want to reduce the rule to top 6% because if they admitted every single top 10% kid that wanted to go there, they would not have any other slots for out of states or other applicants.
And to the right if it plays any part of your identity you are racist against white people and we all know the poor whites don't get any breaks at all.
To me you either 1) Want to keep affirmative action because people don't all have the same opportunities and we need to help balance it out. Especially when a lot of inequality was stem from 200 years of negative actions vs. maybe 25 years of large scaled attempt at progress. or you 2) Keep 10% because in realize the inequalities and want to give a chance to everyone.
This is a really good point. Should affirmative action apply to a kid whose family made $250,000 last year, for example? If the goal of affirmative action is to level the playing field so minorities can have opportunity, is that goal furthered by assisting a kid whose family has already established a history of success?
