Slashdot Mirror
Supreme Court Upholds Michigan's Ban On Affirmative Action In College Admissions
Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes: "The Supreme Court, by a vote of 6 — 2, has upheld a Michigan law banning the use of racial criteria in college admissions, finding that a lower court did not have the authority to set aside the measure approved in a 2006 referendum supported by 58% of voters. 'This case is not about how the debate about racial preferences should be resolved. It is about who may resolve it,' wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy. 'Michigan voters used the initiative system to bypass public officials who were deemed not responsive to the concerns of a majority of the voters with respect to a policy of granting race-based preferences that raises difficult and delicate issues.' Kennedy's core opinion in the Michigan case seems to exalt referenda as a kind of direct democracy that the courts should be particularly reluctant to disturb. This might be a problem for same-sex marriage opponents if a future Supreme Court challenge involves a state law or constitutional amendment enacted by voters.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor reacted sharply in disagreeing with the decision in a 58 page dissent. 'For members of historically marginalized groups, which rely on the federal courts to protect their constitutional rights, the decision can hardly bolster hope for a vision of democracy (PDF) that preserves for all the right to participate meaningfully and equally in self-government.' The decision was the latest step in a legal and political battle over whether state colleges can use race and gender as a factor in choosing what students to admit. Michigan has said minority enrollment at its flagship university, the University of Michigan, has not gone down since the measure was passed. Civil rights groups dispute those figures and say other states have seen fewer African-American and Hispanic students attending highly competitive schools, especially in graduate level fields like law, medicine, and science."
Justice Sonia Sotomayor reacted sharply in disagreeing with the decision in a 58 page dissent. 'For members of historically marginalized groups, which rely on the federal courts to protect their constitutional rights, the decision can hardly bolster hope for a vision of democracy (PDF) that preserves for all the right to participate meaningfully and equally in self-government.' The decision was the latest step in a legal and political battle over whether state colleges can use race and gender as a factor in choosing what students to admit. Michigan has said minority enrollment at its flagship university, the University of Michigan, has not gone down since the measure was passed. Civil rights groups dispute those figures and say other states have seen fewer African-American and Hispanic students attending highly competitive schools, especially in graduate level fields like law, medicine, and science."
We've made enormous strides in racial equality since this was originally needed. Time for it to go away, at least in Michigan. Other states may decide for themselves.
...seems to think it's ok to reject an Asian American applicant to make room for an African or Hispanic American. That is despicable.
Justice Sotomayor sounds like a huge racist since she doesn't seem to believe that blacks or hispanics are capable of getting admitted on their own merit.
Discrimination in college admissions still exists in the form of legacy admission practices, i.e. giving a *very* significant advantage to the children of alumni.
There can be no level playing field as long as that exists.
"Civil rights groups dispute those figures and say other states have seen fewer African-American and Hispanic students attending highly competitive schools, especially in graduate level fields like law, medicine, and science."
I'm sure that is all about racism, and has absolutely NOTHING to do with whole "minority" thing, and there being less of them as a percentage of the population...
Consider the enormous advantages that say, President Obama's daughters have over say, an Asian girl from a economically disadvantaged family. Yet the check marks that each would mark on a college application would result in the President's daughters getting racial preference.
This is 2014. The idea that race is the predominant factor, or even a sizable factor, in opportunity is held only by those who wish to use race for their own agendas. The biggest factors now are family structure, and geography. If you grow up in rich suburbia to parents who care, you will have more opportunity than someone who grows up the ghetto to a single parent that is neglectful.
If you want a level playing field, then look for socioeconomic factors, not race.
Wisest quote I saw from the pundit class:
“I just keep wishing that the people who spend so much time trying to end racial preferences in higher ed would work to end the racial differences in the education we provide K-12”
--Kati Haycock, Education Trust
Why do people need preferential treatment because they're of a specific race? How about banning the admission based on anything other than merit (including sports). If you're smart enough and dedicated enough to get admitted, you should be. If you're not, maybe you don't deserve to be. Not everyone needs to go to the most prestigous schools. Affirmative action seems more anti-white than pro-non-white.
-SaNo
I think humanity as a whole just got dumber. You are one powerful motherfucker...
Gay marriage is about gaining the SAME right as the rest of the population. Affirmative action is about granting certain racial groups EXTRA rights over the rest of the population. These are very different considerations. Affirmative action was only seen as a temporary fix to correct historical imbalances, not in perpetuity. Why should the son of a wealthy African American get admitted to a top school just because he is black? Why should someone who is tall w/blue eyes and blonde hair get extra admission consideration just because his name is Gonzalez and he speaks Spanish? This is very different than granting two lesbians who've been together for 40 years the right to marry. The two are a bad comparison.
Bullshit.
My karma is not a Chameleon.
Affirmative action was a hackish fix for a horribly racist world. Maybe people are less-racist enough to do away with it now? Consider that these days, universities will intentionally seek to make their student body look "diverse" partly to avoid any accusations of racism, even if they have to seek them out in a town full of white folks.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
No...she doesn't "want" that at all. Any cursory read of her decision, or...basic logic...would indicate to a thinking person that she made a proper legal opinion.
Thank you Dave Raggett
Disadvantages in this country are more based on economics rather than race. If you want to equalize the playing field, start with paying poor people more. Choosing who gets in based on race is racist.
The notion that because an individual is a member of a group which has been or is being disadvantaged compared to other groups, that individual deserves to be favoured above members of other groups, is ridiculous. It's dangerous, unfair and unjust nonsense. It's discrimination, pure and simple. There's no such thing as "positive discrimination".
Every individual deserves to have the same chance as everybody else, and should be judged on their merits alone.
Michigan's Law School used the absolute dumbest interpretation of "Affirmative Action" which precipitated this whole mess.
"Affirmative Action" does not mean your Law School has to use a "point system" where points are awarded for characteristics.
1 point if you were a clerk for a judge
1 point if you are black
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION WAS NEVER SUPPOSED TO BE LIKE THIS
Thank you Dave Raggett
Yes.
I agree with "affirmative action"...Michigan's Law School brought this on themselves by how they chose to enact the policy.
Seriously...blacks and hispanics do suffer a racial bias that still exists...but Michigan's system was made as if it was intended to provoke this kind of decision.
Thank you Dave Raggett
Anyone who thinks Sotomayor is a "racist" is a total idiot.
Michigan's Law School brought this whole thing on themselves by their Frat Boy interpretation of "affirmative action"
If you read the opinions, all the justices agree this ruling is for a narrow application of the concept of "affirmative action"
The Michigan Law School had a stupid, reductive, over-simplified method...
4.0 in undergrad? +1
clerk for a judge? +1
black.... +1
it's fucking ridiculous...anyone who knows anything about "affirmative action" knows that application by the Michigan Law School would be **bound** for a court challenge
Michigan's Law School practically set this up. It's almost a perfect "test case"....
Thank you Dave Raggett
This opens the flood gates for tyranny by the majority, which is exactly the thing our founders were trying to avoid in implementing a representative republic instead of a direct democracy.
Direct democracy is a bad thing, kids.
I'm not and I never have been a member of the GOP. I am a liberal, through and through. Justice Sotomayor is not a liberal, you are not a liberal. Justice Sotomayor sees every social issue through the lens of race. There is no problem that cannot be solved by looking at a racial solution. After all she is the "Wise Latina", that was elevated to the supreme court. If she had just been a Wise Korean she never would have made it. You should really give up the asterisks. They don't make your arguments any stronger.
...why does it always seem to be "African American affirmative action" in practice?
It often strikes me that it really seems to be a program for African Americans and not specifically designed to promote broader racial diversity. It seems like most of the examples talked about in the news reporting on MIchigan refer to African American enrollment at UMich, never to the levels of Hispanic, Asian, Native American or other ethnic group enrollment.
You can get into an epic pissing contest over which of these groups is more historically a victim of prejudice (my vote goes to Native Americans, genocide and ethnic cleansing trumps slavery by a small margin) but there seems to be a subtle bias in these programs towards African Americans. And I'm not saying it's not statistically valid by many measures (especially in Michigan).
But nationally Hispanics outnumber African Americans and all other non-white races combined outnumber African Americans by almost 2:1.
It just strikes me that there's a lot unsaid in this debate and probably some painful and unpleasant facts unspoken.
If someone grows up in a situation that is disadvantaged doesn't that begin before college? Aren't they being taught less in K-12? So someone decides it's not their fault (perhaps this is true) and lets them in the college anyway. Are they prepared to take the same courses as someone who went to a better school previously? So now what do they do? Do they take a bunch of remedial courses? Why does someone need a prestigious university to do that? Why can't they take those kind of courses at a community college or at least a smaller university. If they are dedicated and intelligent enough to get good grades there then that should be taken into consideration allowing them to transfer to the university from there. Why tie up higher education resources fixing what K-12 broke?
Not only is it racist (by definition). Anyone belonging to a group of people who gets pushed ahead with "positive" racism/sexism/whateverism will have to work against the stigma that s/he didn't get that job because of qualification and ability to work but just because of belonging to that group.
Equality has to be the goal. Competition on equal ground is what makes the capitalist system strong and a powerhouse of productivity. Protectionism and favoritism weakens it. Whether that's affirmative action, "too big to fail" or nepotism.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Actually, you're not. You'd be a racist if you said that $group can't get a job otherwise because they aren't bright enough to go to college.
I'm all for a leg-up program to get people into college, btw. I think the decision whether you may have a college degree should not be made by what's in your wallet but what's in your brain. With more people being able to start college, colleges would have a far lower incentive to carry duds through 'cause they need the money.
That's what I love about our universities. My tax money pays for your education here. So we have a LOT of initial students, with most of them dropping out before reaching a degree. Our universities have plenty of "material" to work with, weeding out 95% of the herd is no problem. And that's what most universities in Europe do today. Nobody holds your hand or carries you through, if you know how to organize yourself and get your act together, you might have a chance. If not, well, so be it.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
What it seems like to my vaguely educated opinion is we need to find a way to identify those capable of learning, rather than those who currently have a certain level of knowledge. The existing tests for entering college test what someone already knows, this hints at their ability to learn but does not prove someone has the ability to further their learning. Too often I've seen highly qualified, intelligent people fail miserably at college and barely qualified people find their ability to learn and excel in college.
Seems like if we could identify those who will excel regardless of their background, we could keep the wealthy but unable to learn out of college and get the poorly trained by highly intelligent individuals into college. Probably an impossible task though.
a black Attorney General, black Supreme Court Justices, black Secretaries of State, and numerous black Senators and Congressmen. Yet there have been few Latinos in the upper echelons of the government and even few Asians. I think affirmative action has already done it's job and is no longer needed.
Then the boost should not be getting them into a college, dumping a truckload of tuition debt onto their back only to have them drop out or, if they're actually lucky enough to actually have a K-12 ed worth the money (i.e. outside the usual "ghetto schools"), eventually end up in a job that pays them almost enough to eventually recover their college cost.
The fact THAT they're by no means as well connected also means that they will be indentured servants after getting them through college. The whole "affirmative action" bull is nothing but the creation an insidious trap for the "smarter niggers". It's ingenious, you get educated slaves. And they're even happy about it.
No, that's not the solution. You can't fix in college what you fucked up before. If you really want to aid disadvantaged people, you have to start earlier. Way earlier.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Smartest guy in my class in my physics PhD program was Mexican.
They don't necessarily apply - you can't take people who don't apply, no matter how low you set the standard. Believe me, schools (at least law schools) lust for Native American applicants - particularly the Ivy league schools and places where the Native American population has some sway (Minnesota for sure, and I'm assuming Oklahoma).
>...why does it always seem to be "African American affirmative action" in practice?
Because, according to some viewpoints, 'minority' *means* African American.
I once wrote a grant for a school in Calexico (on the Mexican border) that was something like 90% Hispanic, with serious issues involve English skills and the like.
Was rejected by the federal government because I, quote, "Didn't talk about minorities in the district". It was mind boggling to me.
To use discrimination to correct discrimination is not fair, and if I may be so bold, not true to our basic American principles of equal treatment under the law. I say this as a political Progressive. Did/do we have a problem with racial discrimination? Yes! Should we all fight to end unequal treatment under the law? Yes! Is Affirmative Action the tool we should use to correct it? No! If we agree that discrimination is illegal (against the principle that all citizens have a right to Equal Treatment under the law), we can not use racial discrimination to correct the problem. And please do not argue that AA is not a form of discrimination because we can use different terms to describe how we discriminate against one individual in favor of another. This emperor has no clothes.
The USA is only 4X older than me...perspective
and they will continue to exist as long as 2 things keep happening
1 - people keep living in the past, by this I mean black folks calling other successful black folks uncle toms. Other black folk demanding to be paid because their great great great great grandpa was a slave, by people who dont own nor have they ever owned slaves
2 - elitists propagating the myth that people of a certain color need help by the white man because they cant make it on their own. This breeds animosity among whites who feel that a poor white kid deserves just as much of a shot as a poor black kid, and this breeds victim mentality among black folk
The irish were racial targeted when they came to america, guess what, they assimilated with the american way of life and are not generally targets anymore. Asians were targeted and even rounded up and put in camps 70 years ago, guess what, they are doing just fine.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
what would be even better than weeding out the 95% who drop out is to have them not go to begin with, it would bring the cost down dramatically for the government, the students who go, and the debt brought on by those who drop out
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Um, not living in Michigan?
Then explain why he's wrong rather than posting a bunch of ad hominem garbage.
Bartles is a GOP troll
Modded -1 Troll.
Ha. Ha. Ha. GFY
You can have my SIG when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.
You think that because you don't have a clue, hence your "it really seems" comment. Go look at the groups specifically targeted for AA by your college. This list at my alma mater included kids from economically advantaged communities and backgrounds in rural towns (which in Kansas means probably 99% chance of being White). AA also applies to women.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
Then explain why he's wrong rather than posting a bunch of ad hominem garbage.
Thats does not seem to ever be the Democrat method these days.
"His name was James Damore."
the pathetic part is this post. One of the worst ever.
You can have my SIG when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.
James Watson, co-discoverer of the DNA helix, does not think it's bullshit.
Of course, you guys with your liberal kum-ba-ya programming, are far more informed than Watson. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J...
You can have my SIG when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.
Africans are a particularly low-achieving race, along with Native Americans. They seem to be success-proof under all conditions, the only wealth they will ever possess is what is given to them by the races that prosper.
You can have my SIG when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.
I see everyone going off on either Libertarian or Leftist rants here... but it's not quite that simple.
First, my son is black, I'm white... so I have a vested interest in both races succeeding :-) So that's full disclosure I guess...
First, the reason for affirmative action is often argued as a way to help "the disadvantaged" Well, this is just flat out wrong. Diversity in a school, or anywhere for that matter, doesn't aid the minority students all that much. Yea, sure, they would have gotten in where maybe they otherwise couldn't, but does that really help them? Do get into a school they weren't qualified for? Diversity helps the SCHOOL and the students of the majority. If you went to an all white school, how well prepared do you think you would be for the modern working world? Diversity gives the school and the students have a broader view of the world. Marketing students gets more experience with other races and cultures. Programers learn how to communicate with people that might not speak English that well. (I just got out of a metting where my 60yr old co-worker was completely lost because the guy leading the meeting was teleconferencing from India. I didn't have a problem.) Engineering students learn new techniques from people that may have had different experiences.
With regard to my son, it's really hard to find good role models for him. Yes, there are plenty of great African American Scientists form throughout history. But they are not held in that high of a regard by the African American community. I get to go to "African American Parents groups" and I see it there. It's kind of weird that an the majority of a communities basis for success is related to professional athletes. It's something I had not anticipating as being that big of a problem, but I can really see it now that I have a son that's black. Obama, though I disagree with almost all of his policies, has been a huge boon in that regard. I can point to him and say "See? The most important person in the free world looks like you!" and yes, that is something he's asked about. I think the only real problem he has now is he wishes he had strait hair because he wants to have more than 3 options (shaved, Mohawk or Afro) when he goes to the barber.
So the question is: Should the schools garner this diversity benefit at the expense of white kids? I say no. And again, I think the arguments been reversed. It's not a dis-service to the white students. They'll get a degree from somewhere. But what does this do to the minority community? I don't want my son to EVER think he deserves something because of the color of his skin, or some injustice that happened to his ancestors. I want him to know that when he succeeds that it was on his own merits. Granted, my son will never be in poverty while I'm around (providing the job market doesn't crash) but I'd say that if poverty is your concern you should address that directly. Donate to charities that help with school and give scholarships. A scholarship can be race based, I have no problem with that. But don't you ever tell my son he's less of a person because of his ancestry and needs the states help to get into college.
You explain what a sine wave is in the review section for information you need to be successful in the class. You then offer time during office hours to help anyone who is at a different level of knowledge a chance to catch up. The motivated students will do what it takes to succeed and get the help offered. The rest you could not help regardless of your effort. Equal opportunity not equal results regardless of effort and talent.
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
The college admission "process" is so arbitrary and broken that doing pretty much anything to it would be an improvement.
That being said, I have a hard time believing in equality as a tenet of our country (even equality of opportunity) when the opportunities of a poor kid from the ghetto, a farm kid from small-town America, a middle-class kid from the burbs, and a rich kid from a mansion differ so greatly. Affirmative action was a way (no matter how imperfect) to attempt to address this issue. I wonder how long the myth of American "equality" can sustain itself when even ameliorative programs such as this are shut down with nothing offered in their place to address this issue.
That is all.
Can we please attempt to agree on a definition of 'racist'. Voting for racial preferences isn't racism just because you abhor those preferences. It's something else, and calling it racism is just the kind of false equivalence that poisons so much of our political discourse.
Racism is hatred or prejudicial negative assumptions about a person because of their race. There are other dynamics in society that reference race or ethnicity, but just because they do, that doesn't them racism. In the USA, there is no such thing as 'reverse racism' against white people. It's quite possible to hate white people without all the rest of the baggage that comes along with negative racial stereotypes as applied to black people. Calling that racism is meaningless.
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
It's always fun to skim the comments on stories like these to see the privileged white libertarians rage and educate us on what real racism is. As if this somehow is equivalent to all the disadvantages that race actually do play a part in. It's amusing how quickly "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" doesn't apply anymore the instant you encounter a situation where your merit alone doesn't determine the outcome, just like everyone else has to deal with.
There is no memory shortage. yes I have heard of XFCE. Go away.
As a white male who had to apply 3x to be accepted to medical school, being edged out repeatedly by others who fell into ironically-termed "disadvantaged" groups (they certainly were at an advantage for admissions)... fuck affirmative action!
I had a high GPA while triple majoring in undergrad and a commensurately high MCAT score. However, I couldn't tick any of those special boxes on my application regarding race or background. Thus, the schools took people who were "better" than I was. Well, "better", but not in the academic sense.
It was insanely frustrating to interact with someone who was guaranteed admission to my state's public med school by simple virtue that she was from a rural area. It took her literally THREE tries to obtain the rural advantage program's minimum requirement of a 50th percentile score on the MCAT. She eventually did just that: a 50th percentile score.
So, these are your future doctors. Be aware that med schools do NOT fail anyone out: the national average graduation stat for people matriculating to med school is 97%. That is to say, only 3% fail to get their MD, and that's for all causes: death, voluntary withdrawal, disability, expulsion for being caught cheating, etc.
Why, are there not enough black kids attending 12 Step programs?
Kids from lower socioeconomic backgrounds have lower IQs, and some say that the races and genders differ in intelligence.
Some say that miniature invisible alien operatives are trying to control their thoughts. What's your excuse?
Affirmative Action, in general, is a good concept. However, Affirmative Action based on race is not for these two important reasons:
1) Race is not well-defined casually or biologically.
2) While people of minority races are statistically more likely to get the short end of the stick, educationally, it is not race that causes it.
What we really need is Affirmative Action based on socio-economic status or household income. This will be "color-blind" while still generally helping African-Americans and Hispanic-Americans more often than Caucasian-Americans. Being Black doesn't make it harder to succeed in school, being poor and hungry does. Sure, there is a correlation to race, but the root cause is poverty. Moreover, this helps (the often forgotten minority of) rural Appalachian White people just as much as urban Detroit Black people.
For those of you here who have actually been around the block a few times, how many black or hispanic kids are there in in your kid's classes, as opposed to when you were a kid?
If you don't live in a city, how integrated is your neighborhood (oh, sorry, I know that (un)real estate agents get the cooties over that word, I meant "ethnically diverse")?
And if you personally can't deal with affirmative action because you think it kept you from getting into a school, or a job, then a) maybe there's another reason, like not enough of either, or b) maybe you *ain't* that good.
mark "and no, it won't help me personally"
"the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races."
I think racism is making an assumption or decision based on race. You need to understand the fact that if you hold a racial preference, it means you also must hold a racial deference. Unless of course the resource being sought is infinite, which access to education certainly is not.
'Michigan voters used the initiative system to bypass public officials who were deemed not responsive to the concerns of a majority of the voters with respect to a policy of granting race-based preferences that raises difficult and delicate issues.'
The majority of those voters being White. Just trade in your judicial robe for a Klan outfit, Kennedy.
A nice idea, but how do you want to know before allowing them to start?
Certain fields of study already have certain requirements. Almost universally you need a university entry diploma, for some specific ones (like medicine) you need diplomas that included certain specific courses (e.g. Latin).
What would do a LOT more good is if students were informed what they get themselves into with certain fields. A lot of them have VERY odd expectations from what studying X would be like. I'm pretty sure you could lower the drop out rate of psychology/psychiatry students if they knew that a good 90% of the whole shit was statistics. Likewise, a lot of people start studying CS thinking they'll be taught programming. Knowing how to program is a prerequisite, though, instead a good 80% of the stuff you'll be studying is math related.
A lot of dropouts happen due to false expectations. I think there should be mandatory orientation days, that should take care of a lot of that first semester dropouts.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Fine, you think that. I'm not saying racial preferences are good - or even defensible. But to call the assumption, say, that Asians are better at math than other groups racism is to define away a hideous past of racism that defined black people as sub-human. Go see "12 Years a Slave". Racism in the context that it's used to justify affirmative action is not the simple assumption of racial differences. Plain and simple.
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
you do make some compelling arguments indeed AC, I guess the point i was simply making is that everyone has a history, most have a history that isnt so great. People can either move past that and realize they are their own person, or they can deflect blame, which as you pointed out I was sort of doing without intending to in the previous post.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Sotomayor is as much a "racist"
She's doing all she can to try to preserve racial discrimination as a sacrosanct public policy. That makes her a racist, QED.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Yep, those two are conflatable. You got it.
I think it's time to put all STEM grads through an English/Philosophy regimen so we can avoid people like you embarrassing yourselves.
I like how the majority justices considered this an issue already decided by Michigan's citizens. I don't agree with their voters' choice, but deciding this as a states' rights issue seems appropriate.
Now, what Michigan's Universities should do is refuse a private path for deciding legacy admissions and other priority considerations. After all, what's to prevent those private paths from being discriminatory as well!
The majority is wrong, it is NOT constitutional for a state to selectively enforce civil rights legislation.
Virginian can't choose which parts of the Civil Rights Act to follow...
Thank you Dave Raggett
"Correlated with" does NOT mean "caused by". Going by purely academic achievement, while race blind, would have a disparate affect because different races perform differently at lower levels of education as well. That's not the responsibility of higher education to fix.
"Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
Disclaimer: I am a Mexican-American who grew up way below the poverty line to middle school-educated mother and a frequent felon father who got his GED in prison. I went to college, worked for a good portion of my career in higher education outreach, and continue to work at a university.
Affirmative Action was necessary at a time, but it is no longer necessary. The problem that Affirmative Action tried to solve is that those with very hard upbringings are at a severe educational disadvantage throughout their K-12 lives and may not have ever had a sufficient opportunity to become competitively eligible for admission to a 4-year research university in the non-local context. Race was a factor in that the most immediately visible instances of under-servedness were in communities dominated by racial minorities. The concept seemed obvious: give racial minorities some sort of boost in admissions applications.
But race (and more specifically, racism) was only one factor. With greater racial integration, the deeper-rooted issues are now more widely recognized: parent's education, family income, the actual schools attended/programs accessed, and childhood stress (divorces, violence, gangs pressures, etc.). The vast majority of universities now give special consideration (a couple extra points in the entire application score) to those who have had particular hard upbringings.
This is a better and more equitable non-impermutable-characteristic-based method of improving the quality of life for communities (religious, cultural, geographical, etc.) than Affirmative Action.
By discriminating against non-minorities you maintain the racial discrimination you claim to be ending - you simply reverse it.
How does admitting a lesser-qualified minority applicant today because of their race make amends to the qualified minority applicant that was previously refused admittance?
Ken
Interesting.
Racism will never end because it is political and as long as humans are involved, it's going to be political. Race has nothing to do with it; it's human tribalism and political. There are cultures with "racism" where both sides are genetically the same but each side identifies with a different tribe and they will subscribe to stereotypes with false racial rationalizations as well. It's like thinking Republicans are rich evil fucks when most of them are just gullible suckers.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
if Michigan had made a law that said Asians can't enter the following colleges (Insert list of top universities) then they should have struck that down. But that isn't what affirmative action is.
Are you sure? Study: Asian Americans hurt most by affirmative action in education
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
Nice try at the misdirection there, but the matter at hand is racial discrimination in university admissions. She supports it.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Instead of a lottery or affirmative action -- why don't we let everyone have higher education who wants it.
This country progressed with the GI bill and letting a lot of people who wouldn't otherwise afford college go. And we could do the same for trade schools. You only have to pay for education if you leave the country.
It's the reverse of the "H1-B Visa" where businesses don't pay for education in the USA and import people who got educations paid for by their countries.
>>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...
Casteism
http://www.businessinsider.com...
Casteism
how much one person can edit a discussion with mod points...
so, thanks...I appreciate your taking the time to engage with me...some points you should consider:
1. calling Sotomayor a "racist", for anyone who actually understands white privalidge & institutional racism & pretexts for colonialism, really is trolling
by any sane definition of racism, she is not racist...it's painfully obvious that GOP-tards were seizing any minutia they could to flip the charge on her. The whole notion is racist...of course she *could* be secretly racist...but all her decisions and public comments indicate otherwise. ...sort of like calling a pro-life person "pro-choice" because though against abortion, they support the pill and don't think the pill is abortion...
2. my post was about how THIS IS MICHIGAN LAW SCHOOLS FAULT. I definitely mentioned the Sotomayor trolling, but only to point out the (IMHO obvious) lunacy of calling Sotomayor "racist" but also agreeing with the Majority decision
3. stop making a war on me with your mod points from this point forward...I admit I make comments that could be modded down, but I am virtually always (attempting) to engage in direct clash and make a coherent point. You modded me down for political reasons and felt guilty
4. Green/"libertarian"/etc parties all just help maintain oligarchy. It's a false choice. Start understanding that in voting, you always "choose the lesser of two evils"...no one could possibly represent your decisions *perfectly* so it's always the 'best' of many options...ALWAYS.
I don't begrudge a Green party voter, but they are still ruining our country. We're in the fight of our life against the Oligarchy...it's naive to think a hopeless, unelectable Green party vote will help end Oligarchy and the military industrial complex
Thank you Dave Raggett
fine, glad we got that settled...it's true that you could think my arguments werent great & not be targeting me
blah blah blah "they're all crooks, meh" and on it goes...
you missed my point, and it's relevent to what you're Actually, trying to figure out
**you're always choosing the lesser of two evils**
you always have to choose between a field of people who are NOT YOU...the best you can do, in ANY VOTING SITUATION (if its a fair election) is to VOTE FOR WHOEVER IS **CLOSEST** TO YOUR POLICIES
that's it...that's your answer...it's not complex so people discount it...but that's it
BY POLICY VOTES DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS ARE DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED TO EACH OTHER...sure there are corporatists in the Dems. of course...but that doesn't mean their policies are at any less antipathy!!!
Obama was the best of the options...he's doing measurable better than any other Democrat cadidate or Republican (especially McCain with Palin VP???) would have done
That's all we're **ever** going to get...no one can ever represent you 100%
Thank you Dave Raggett