Supreme Ct Decision on Univ of Mich Affirmative Action

Actually Asians don't have the same disadvantages. And there is a difference between Mexican AMerican hispanics and other latin American hispanics.

The difference is voluntary immigration, vs. enslavement, colonization or being conquored. The studies are very interesting. Anyway groups that don't fall in the category of the voluntary immigrants have for generations been denied education, discriminated against within education, and little effort has been made to bridge the gap with these groups.

 

Sorry, but that’s not true.

The statistics I've seen show a far greater correlation between socio-economic status / school district wealth and college levels than they do between race and college levels.

Basically, pool schools have less money and less resources, provide a lower-quality education, and thus are less likely to move people to high-quality colleges.

Who goes to the poorer schools? For the most part, the underrepresented minorities - blacks and hispanics.

 

Yes, I made a leap, but I also admitted that I was making a comment about something that I was not sure of, and would not mind being enlightened.

Thanks.

 

There is a study on immigration patterns in Houston done by Rice Sociology professor Steven Klineberg that supports the theory that Asian immigrants and Mexican immigrants are coming into Houston under very different circumstances. You can go to Rice's web site and I believe there is a link to it.

Another group that I have never seen research on but I would be willing to bet is more successful than than the average immigrant are Nigerians. From my experience, a lot of Nigerians who have immigrated to the U.S. come from fairly financially stable families and have had success in the U.S. But as I said, that is just from people I've met.

Edit: I don't want to downplay the cultures of the different Asian groups that I definitly think is also a major factor of their success in the U.S.

 

I also didn't mean to downplay the obstacles faced by certain groups. FB post addressed this.

I just know many people of Asian descent who take great offence, and rightly so, when it's assumed they came from moneyed families. Many times this isn't the case.

Carry on.

 

when I was in school I recognized a couple of things. There were just as many african Americans as Asians. Tech school. But the Asian got together and studied. That's what they did for fun. So I think it's cultural from an observational perspective. I was in a lot of Asian study groups and always felt they helped me a great deal. There was a sense of urgency about the group. A sense of a network is some weird way. Everybody helped everbody else.

 

I reviewed that report when he spoke at the Grassroots conference sponsored by the Democratic Party. Not bad at all.

I noticed the same thing at Morehouse with all the students from Trinidad. They always studied together, passed on their old tests. Etc.

 

But would increasing spending solve that problem alone? Dallas ISD already pays competitive teacher salaries (and was even giving signing bonuses and free laptops to hired teachers). Raising spending alone isn't going to solve that problem.

Dallas has a tremendous advantage in that they can charge a lower tax rate and bring in more money than the average district in Texas. They have the money. They spend the money. Their students underachieve.

It seems these problems need to be addressed when we're educating teachers originally, and through continuing education, seminars, etc.

Just a question, if students aren't able to achieve in high schools, why can colleges educate them properly? What makes the difference in college vs. high school? Teacher/professor training? What can we take from colleges to high schools to help underachieving students achieve?

On a note about immigrant success, etc. In that study of the school district in Ohio that was talked about on another thread, the author (an immigrant from Nigeria, I believe) talked about how voluntary immigrants often achieve because they don't get caught up in how bad things are here (poverty-wise, or whatever) because, by and large, the place they came from was worse (in whatever way they want to judge) and that they still believe in America being a land of opportunity if they work hard because they haven't seen their grandparents, parents, uncles, whoever stuck in poverty for generations, etc.

While I'm sure that feeling is not universal, I don't doubt that could have some relevance.

And, regarding the Top 10% future, here's an article from the Dallas Morning News:

Ruling to shake up admissions in Texas

06/24/2003

By LINDA K. WERTHEIMER and CHRISTY HOPPE / The Dallas Morning News

Race is back as a factor in admissions decisions for at least some Texas colleges – including the University of Texas – for the first time in seven years because of Monday's Supreme Court ruling, private and public university officials said.

The presidents of UT and Southern Methodist University said they intend to use race as one factor in admissions starting with students admitted for fall 2004.

"Right away," said UT President Larry Faulkner. "We have to get it in place in time for the next admissions cycle."

How, exactly, they will inject race into the process at their schools is yet to be sorted out. But one effect is clear: The high court's opinion in the University of Michigan case will cause big changes here, including intensified debate about the future of the state's top 10 percent law.

The court's opinion, at the minimum, tells all university presidents that they can use racial preferences to diversify their campuses under limited conditions, said SMU President Gerald Turner.

Since 1996, Texas has been at a disadvantage in recruiting top minority students because of a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit that ended the use of affirmative action tools – such as targeted financial aid or special admissions requirements – at Texas universities. Private universities held themselves to the same standards out of fear of lawsuits.

But it didn't apply to several nearby states, which operated under federal desegregation court orders, Dr. Turner said.

"We are delighted that all of the country is going to be under the same standard," he said.

Supplanting Hopwood

A state law passed in 1997 mandated that students in the top 10 percent of their graduating classes must be admitted to state schools. It was viewed as a tool for increasing diversity after affirmative action was banned.

But the law has come under increasing scrutiny as the number of students admitted under the law has grown to more than 50 percent of applicants to UT and Texas A&M University. Monday's Supreme Court decision may render the law moot, legal experts said.

"Hopwood is dead," said Douglas Laycock, a professor and associate dean at UT's law school. "This completely supplants Hopwood. Now, we read this opinion to figure out what we can do."

The Hopwood decision stemmed from a 1992 lawsuit by Cheryl Hopwood and three other white people who alleged that less qualified applicants were admitted to UT's law school based on race.

Dr. Turner said universities would need to analyze Monday's opinion more to see what they can do to recruit minorities. At the minimum, race should be permitted as a factor for scholarships, Dr. Turner said.

In a statement, Texas A&M University President Robert Gates said he would seek an opinion from the Texas attorney general before proceeding.

No clear guidelines

The Supreme Court opinion does not define a clear-cut procedure for including race in admissions, Dr. Faulkner said.

"It's going to take some study for us to carefully work that out," he said.

"The court has ruled we may not develop a point system or a system that's highly explicit or approaches a quota system."

Mr. Laycock said he hoped that UT would will begin formally awarding minority scholarships again or at least consider race as a variable. Since the Hopwood decision, UT has lost top students to other schools that used financial aid to lure minorities, he said.

"It evens the playing field for Texas," he said of the court's opinion. "I hope we do what we have to do to compete, and I expect we will."

Robert Gray, a law professor at Texas Wesleyan University's School of Law and author of a book on affirmative action, said his university eliminated race-based scholarships after Hopwood. He said he'd like his school to draft a new affirmative action plan.

"I assume such a committee will tiptoe very carefully through the petunias," Mr. Gray said. "This is a standard that the court has set today. It's an opening, but it has to be used with great care or otherwise, someone will sue you and knock you down."

10 percent law's future

Meanwhile, Allan Van Fleet, a Houston lawyer who helped represent UT in the Hopwood case, said the Supreme Court opinion should lead to discussions about what to do about the top 10 percent law.

In writing the majority opinion for the court, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor frowned upon such plans because they don't allow universities to consider applicants individually. They also aren't used at graduate schools and thus provide no remedy, Justice O'Connor wrote.

"What the court confirmed is that admissions officials don't have their hands tied behind their back," Mr. Van Fleet said.

There's no longer a reason for a law that admits students based on only one factor – their rank in high school, he said.

Dr. Faulkner has been pushing for lawmakers to discuss putting a cap on top 10 percent admissions as part of a special session, but he said Monday that he doesn't support abolishing the law. He'd like to use it along with some form of affirmative action.

Lawmakers interviewed Monday said they solidly stand behind the law, but they disagreed on how much the Legislature should tinker with college admissions policies.

Sen. Florence Shapiro, R-Plano, chairwoman of the Education Committee, said most state lawmakers have embraced the law and feel it has helped add diversity – not just for race, but also for students from rural areas and small schools.

"I think its future is just as bright as it always has been," Ms. Shapiro said. "In my view, it's unaffected by the Supreme Court ruling."

She said she envisions universities re-examining their admissions policies and fine-tuning them to allow race to play a factor within the parameters of the court's ruling.

In addition, she said she believes that university administrators – not lawmakers – are in the best position to decide admission policies.

Other lawmakers, while favoring the top 10 percent law, said they hoped the Legislature would write guidelines for universities to assure that all campuses strive for the most aggressive diversity programs allowed by law.

"I think we should keep the top 10 percent, but I am open in terms of figuring out what this ruling means and how it applies to the state of Texas," said Sen. Royce West, D-Dallas, who successfully filibustered a bill this session that would have capped top 10 percent admissions.

E-mail lwertheimer@dallasnews.com and choppe@dallasnews.com

 

Just curious, but when you say they spend a lot of money in the school in Dallas, exactly what are they spending it on. For example, if a lot of money is going to teachers (which dosen't necessarily mean the teachers are that good...it might just mean you have to pay them more to teach in the hood…kinda like you will have to pay me more to work in New York than in Houston), but the schools still don't have any computers, or enough computers for all the students (like the inner city schools in Houston), then what does it really matter? The kid is still screwed.

 

Their direct classroom spending is above the state average. What, specifically, they spend that on, I don't know.

Their teacher salaries are not significantly more than in other local districts, aside from the singing bonuses, etc., which were limited.

But, Dallas does have untapped resources, too, in that they have the 2nd highest property value per student ratio in the state, a ratio that's about 1/3 higher than the state average. So, if they wanted more money, they could get it easily. Just raise taxes to suburban levels.

 

I don't understand how a system which takes race into account would not be considered racist. Isn't that the very definition of racism. If whites replaced "underrepresented minorities" in any of these statutes, people would scream bloody murder. Just use pure numbers to detrermine admission. Test scores, class rank, etc should be enough to differentiate. If it comes down to a tie, chose randomly. Names, races, etc could be totally omitted from applications.
<pre>
SSN (last 4 digits): 3480 2829
SAT: 1400 1360
Class Rank: 98% 94%
GPA: 3.90 3.90
</pre>

You get these two applications and you pick student 3480. There is no indication about the race of either. The cream
rises to the top.

 

Mind you, the Chinese were "enslaved" to build railroads in San Francisco.

And can you explain to me which Hispanic segment was enslaved?

 

Interesting ideas people. But lets take this another direction.

It seems that the majority of the reasons you guys provided as the difference between Asians and African Americans/Hispanic Americans comes to FINANCIAL STABILITY (which I agree with to some degree).

Then why don't we get rid of RACE as a qualifying criteria and substitute it with a FINANACIAL STABILITY? Perhaps, parents income etc.

My point is that the current setup takes a MASS GENERALIZATION that all African Americans/Hispanic Americans are poor. All Asians are financially stable. And all whites are financially stable and have legacy benefits.

We all know that this is NOT AT ALL TRUE. There is a great deal of people who get unfairly categorized.

I think the AA has great intentions. It tries to balance out the underpriveledged. But I think the underpriveledged should be categorized more upon income than on race.

THoughts?

 

I can see how that would work.

 

She does harp on about different races, but the bit about "compelling interest in a diverse student body" could also be applied to economic backgrounds.

I think that the argument here was also that by lowering the economic barriers you would also be lowering the racial barriers.

Sheesh. Just when we'd all agreed the dang lawyers march in and stir it up again

 

Good point! Which brings us to the larger question..


I too believe in the importance of a balanced class. I would hate it if all my classmates were identical to me and I believe that would stunt my personal growth.

However, why do we ALWAYS think of DIVERSITY from SIMPLY A RACE standpoint???

Don't you think other things like work experience, gender etc... can create diversity than simply skin color alone?

I have many circles of friends of all races. My hispanic friend is a 3rd generation Hispanic American. I speak more Spanish than he does. My African American friends favorite food is Chinese. My Asian friend likes rap music and my Caucasian friend thinks he is a gangster.

Plus, lets not forget about the international class. Admission committees reserve a # of seats for international students as well. Don't you think a person from Mexico City will be able to teach you more about the Hispanic culture than a 3rd generation Hispanic American?

In conclusion, I think at some point in the near future, whether it is today or 10 years from now, people will realize that what makes each one of us different is not simply based upon our skin color. It is based upon the REAL person we are.

 

I've been following the progress of the 10% rule in Texas a lot, mainly because Bush continues talk about it's imaginary success, and what I've found that the law itself is doing very little. What's actually happening is that Texas schools are spending a lot more resources to target underperforming school districts. Basically recruiting minorities in poor districts to alert them to the 10% rule and educate them on what's available to them. 10% has done little but to force Texas schools to be more rigorous in their recruitment efforts and even then the level of minority enrollment is below what it was under AA. We're simply spending more money to allow these colleges to do what they could do before for with AA.

 

not to mention that the top 10% rule relies, at least presently, on segregated school districts to be effective at promoting diversity.