Supreme Ct Decision on Univ of Mich Affirmative Action

I agree with you 100%. They should not receive special treatment.

 

Why don't you stop grandstanding and elaborate on your point about building a true meritocracy? Can you?

 

MrP, even if the Supreme Court allows it, won't UT still need to contend with the decisions of the Texas Supreme Court? That is, if they were of a mind to allow affirmative action in the first place.

Legacy kids are a phenomenon in private universities. How many of those would be affected by this ruling anyway? Can't Princeton legally still run their affirmative action program and their Legacy program?

 

the Texas supreme court wouldn't likely hear any case on this because it would have to come up from a lower state court, where it would be removed to federal court because it's a constitutional issue.

Princeton and private schools, had it gone the other way, proably would not be able to run their AA program because they receive federal funds.

 

But the Universities do have to answer to the Legislature, I would suppose. Top 10% will certainly still be in effect at least until the Legislature changes it.

But since Top 10% was created specifically to address the fact that universities could not use race as an admissions factor, I would not be surprised to see some universities push for an end to Top 10% (especially UT who was pushing for Top 10% changes already) since they can, once again, use legally use race as an admissions factor.

 

I think the universtiy crafts its own policy but if the leg. wants to intervene it can.

I wouldn't put anything past the texas leg these days.

 

Well, the Legislature has already intervened by creating the Top 10% law. So universities will have to continue to abide by that for now.

Anything else would depend on what the law itself says. I don't know how much leeway was taken away from universities by the Legislature already in the wake of the 5th Circuit decision.

 

This is like raising the mound for Pitchers. Hitters had an unfair advantage over Pitchers so they raised the mound. hitters then began to lose out. They couldn't accomplish what they had before. Even some sorry pitchers got better. But For the first time Pitcher felt like they had a chance to get a hitter out. The mound was raised to make things fair. To give the pitcher a chance.

You can't treat everyone equally. You just have to treat them fairly.

The moment Pitchers began to gain the advantage. Smaller Ball parks were built.

The courts decided in this case that it wasn't time to build maller parks. It wasn't time to lower the mound. Things are still fair.

 

Well, I thought I understood the situation until that baseball analogy reared its head and confused me.

 

How can a macroscopic solution ever resolve a microscopic problem?

DaDakota offers the only real solution-- it may need to be expanded to be more complete as someone suggested.

 

take out legacy too.
Take out AB Course's EXTRA points too

Rocket River

 

why do white people defend and protect their racial preferences . .. .and don't want anyone else to have any?

TRUE MERITOCRACY ???? WHEN THE HELL HAVE WE *EVER* HAD THAT?

DEFINATELY NOT NOW!!!

Minority Skin is still seen as a crumpled suit at an interview
A minority name on a app is still seen as if u spilled gravy on it.

Rocket River

 

Maybe that's why I have so much trouble getting jobs.

I mean, I do share a last name with Satchel and Rod.

 

What are AB courses? Are they like AP courses? And, if so, wouldn't getting extra points for those be merit-based? If I take a more advanced class, should I not be given more credit for that than for taking a lesser class, if we're looking at it from a merit perspective?

As for legacies, I didn't think schools like the University of Texas really put much stock in them. All the stories I've read recently have talked about how disappointed kids were because their parents went to UT but they couldn't get in despite having relatively good grades and test scores.

If UT changes their admissions policies to once again consider race in their admissions decisions, should they also be required to take one's legacy status into consideration, as well, and give it similar weight?

I mean, if the two things are equal.......

 

I know how ya feel. At times, there were these rich kids that got into my school just because their daddy was big time (ala President Bush). I had to work with them and they didn’t know jack sh*t either. The only difference is no one trips about the special rules in place to get them into college.

I have these same problems with people that were very qualified to be in the school. Quite a few of them had excellent grades, they were just lazy as hell. I guess you checked the entrance scores of these individuals that you worked with, because I know you would not just assume they did not get in on their own merit, but because of their skin color instead. Unless you specifically knew what kinda grades they made prior to getting into the school, then you are assuming that just because they were colored (and not performing, whether it be that they were unqualified or just lazy students), that they got special treatment to get in and did not deserve to be admitted.

Should I look at every rich kid and ask do they really deserve to be there? How smart would that be?

I’m glad you realize this.

Actually, I know quite a few blacks that hate AA, and I am willing to be that I know more blacks than you do. Just curious, how many blacks have you actually discussed AA with, and of that number, how many were for it/against it? I know that the black vote is quite predictable, but when you consider that like 10% of the people in our country vote, I don’t see how you can base an entire race’s opinion on a subject matter on voting records. Is your feeling of safety based on your assumptions and what you read in the media, or is it based on actual blacks that you know, and their feelings on this matter?

I understand that legacy preferences are not under review by the Supreme Court (I wonder why), but just because they are not being “reviewed” does not make them acceptable when AA is not. Please explain to me how they are any different? Something has to be reviewed in court to be relevant?

I think you are missing his point (if I am looking at it correctly…forgive me if I’m not). AP courses are not offered at every school, especially poor public schools in urban communities (which will usually be full of minority students). Is it fair for students to have a chance to take AP courses and earn extra college credit (which probably means they will graduate earlier and spend less money at college, start off with less debt after graduating, etc) because they live in the right area? What about the genious in the hood that never got to take an AP class?

Yeah, but top tier schools like Harvard and Yale do. Don’t limit your argument to Texas institutions.

Just curious, but does UT have a legacy policy?

 

If you have a level playing field that doesn't make things fair. It makes things equal. But not fair. Somebody is still getting slapped around like the African American individual. Rules have to be introduced that make things fair. That's what affirmative action does. And that's why it exists.

If you take the baseball analogy (that some of you would eagerly toss out the window) you'll notice that some of you would like to make it a level playing field. You'd like to lower the mound so that eveything is equal. But baseball didn't do that. They know the game would not be fair to Pitchers if they did. So what they did instead was keep making up rules until the game was exaxctly the way they wanted it. The strike zone shrank. The fields became smaller. spitballs were eliminated. The game became fair again.

And that's how you build a perfect system. You keep making rules adjustments. You don't throw out the system and start again.

So what everyone is probably going to see is the same thing. When the time is right (as suggested by the supreme court) you will begin to see laws that ammend affirmative action. That adjust it. Not that take it away. And in a way that's what you just saw.

What the court tried to do was exactly that. But they don't have that power. So they left it up to the lawmakers. They hinted at what should be done if I'm not mistaken. That's the next step.

If you ask me the courts played this perfectly.

 

PSJ,

Pitchers and batters aren't trying to do the same things. You don't see a larger strike zone for left handed hitters, or right handed pitchers standing close to the plate. Everyone plays under the same rules. Such it should be in life. Some people are going to have advantages/disadvantages compared to others (be smarter, have rich parents, be discriminated against, born with one arm, whatever) but everyone should be treated the same under the law. That is the very essence of equal protection.

 

True dat, but you have to ask yourself what does equal protection address specifically.

This may or may not make sense. Because I'm still trying to think it through myself. However...as of right now I would think the following...

In my opinion Equal Protection is the right to get an education. Which both these people have. The black. And the White. They already have that. They can get an education. They are both protected under the law to do that. Nobody is going to stop them.

However, the rules that Michigan set up are to make things fair. Not equal. So in my opinion this is not a case about equal protection. So the white woman cannot win. This case is about interpretation of the rule of affirmative action and therefor it's about fairness. Which Michigan thinks it achieved. The Court can only conclude the same thing because it's an opinion.

The court can conclude that Michigan was trying to be fair, and in so doing, had the right to interpret the law as they wished.

That being said. The court could then make suggestions as to how one might change the law to eliminate any more interpretation of it. Thus, another rule to specifically address the problem at hand. Just like baseball would do. Make another rule to eliminate the exception to the affirmative action rule. Thus helping to protect the caucasian

Not sure if I am even clear on what I said. But whatever, I had fun trying to think it thru. I could be totally way off tho

 

ok.

Maybe what I am trying to say is that equality = right to an education

while fairness = affirmative action and interpretation of those laws