Supreme Court upholds Michigan affirmative action ban (1 Viewer)

[jonessed]

I don't think affirmative action works especially well. But I've never understood why conservatives tend to be so focused on it either. Very few of those who complain about it are likely to ever be affected by it. In terms of issues which have a real impact on the way most people live, this is a pretty minor one.

Both sides put a lot of focus on it because it's an important issue. It affects anybody with kids who plan to go to college. Some more than others. That's a lot of people and I imagine many of them take the education of their children very seriously.

What is your purpose in trying to downplay it or making it a conservative only issue?

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

Powell deserves much of the blame for the mental gymnastics displayed in Bakke, but the very idea that remedying the effects of hundreds of years of racial inequality would somehow fail to serve as a compelling government interest is, IMO, ludicrous.

I haven't read Bakke since law school. I find it difficult to believe that remedying past wrongs isn't a compelling government interest, so I looked at the summary of the case in Wikipedia, and as far as I can tell from the summary, the plaintiffs didn't even argue that affirmative action was intended to remedy past wrongs. They argued that it was intended to increase the number of minority doctors (UC Davis medical school had racial quotas), to increase the number of doctors in areas currently underserved by doctors, and to increase diversity. Powell accepted only the third argument.

In Part IV of the opinion, Powell states that remedying individual discriminatory government policies (such as school segeregation) is a legitimate and substantial government interest, but that remedying the effects of "social discrimination" is not.

"We have never approved a classification that aids persons perceived as members of relatively victimized groups at the expense of other innocent individuals in the absence of judicial, legislative, or administrative findings of constitutional or statutory violations."

Powell wants the remedy to be narrowly tailored to the harm. But the harm was not narrowly tailored. The harm systematically destroyed the political and economic participation of a group of Americans for over a century. For this reason, while I understand why Powell refused to accept the petitioner's argument that strict scrutiny should only apply to classifications that burden the type of groups that lack meaningful access to democratic remedies as described in footnote 14 of Carolene Products, I think the Court's failure to consider that argument is unfortunate. And I don't think it's based on any great principle of fidelity to the text or original meaning of the 14th Amendment.

 

[avoiding injuries]

Are the Lions now exempt from the Rooney Rule?

 

[Sand]

I don't think affirmative action works especially well. But I've never understood why conservatives tend to be so focused on it either. Very few of those who complain about it are likely to ever be affected by it. In terms of issues which have a real impact on the way most people live, this is a pretty minor one.

Both sides put a lot of focus on it because it's an important issue. It affects anybody with kids who plan to go to college. Some more than others. That's a lot of people and I imagine many of them take the education of their children very seriously.

What is your purpose in trying to downplay it or making it a conservative only issue?

To make the subtle but not so subtle statement that conservatives are racist and that's why they care.

 

[Bogeys]

I don't think affirmative action works especially well. But I've never understood why conservatives tend to be so focused on it either. Very few of those who complain about it are likely to ever be affected by it. In terms of issues which have a real impact on the way most people live, this is a pretty minor one.

Both sides put a lot of focus on it because it's an important issue. It affects anybody with kids who plan to go to college. Some more than others. That's a lot of people and I imagine many of them take the education of their children very seriously.

What is your purpose in trying to downplay it or making it a conservative only issue?

Just setting it up to blame it on the tea party...slow playing it.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

I downplay it because I don't think it really hurts many white applicants. I applied to Harvard Law School. They wasted little time in telling me "no." There's no doubt that African Americans with lower LSATs than me were admitted. Maybe even ones with lower LSATs and similarly "meh" undergraduate grades. But if HLS didn't admit those applicants, I still wouldn't have gotten in. Because there are plenty of other white guys with high LSATs and meh undergraduate grades.

The worst thing that happened to me is I had to go to another great law school. And a black student presumably received an opportunity to have greater participation in a political process that shut his race out for generations. I don't think that public schools HAVE to consider that (so I would not have joined Sotomayor's dissent), but I think it's perfectly appropriate if they wish to consider that. And if whites find that unfair, or think that preferences should be means-based or whatever, I think they have ample access to democratic remedies, as evidenced by the law being challenged.

 

[jonessed]

I downplay it because I don't think it really hurts many white applicants. I applied to Harvard Law School. They wasted little time in telling me "no." There's no doubt that African Americans with lower LSATs than me were admitted. Maybe even ones with lower LSATs and similarly "meh" undergraduate grades. But if HLS didn't admit those applicants, I still wouldn't have gotten in. Because there are plenty of other white guys with high LSATs and meh undergraduate grades.

The worst thing that happened to me is I had to go to another great law school. And a black student presumably received an opportunity to have greater participation in a political process that shut his race out for generations. I don't think that public schools HAVE to consider that (so I would not have joined Sotomayor's dissent), but I think it's perfectly appropriate if they wish to consider that. And if whites find that unfair, or think that preferences should be means-based or whatever, I think they have ample access to democratic remedies, as evidenced by the law being challenged.

From reading your posts it actually seems like you don't downplay it at all. If it has very little impact what does it matter if we get rid of it?

 

[Todd Andrews]

The Roberts court opinion and Republican Party national platform summed up in many fewer words.

 

[timschochet]

I don't think affirmative action works especially well. But I've never understood why conservatives tend to be so focused on it either. Very few of those who complain about it are likely to ever be affected by it. In terms of issues which have a real impact on the way most people live, this is a pretty minor one.

Both sides put a lot of focus on it because it's an important issue. It affects anybody with kids who plan to go to college. Some more than others. That's a lot of people and I imagine many of them take the education of their children very seriously.What is your purpose in trying to downplay it or making it a conservative only issue?

It doesn't affect "anyone" who wants to go to college. I've heard anecdotes, mostly from conservative sources, of non-minority students who were shut out as a result of affirmative action, but I've never encountered it and I believe it to be pretty rare. If you have statistical evidence that suggests otherwise, I'd be happy to look at it and that would change my mind. And it is a conservative only issue, so far as they're the only ones who ever seem to bring it up. Progressives typically discuss it only in response to a conservative attack. It's a pet peeve for conservatives, much like NPR, and on the grand scale of things it's meaningless.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I don't think affirmative action works especially well. But I've never understood why conservatives tend to be so focused on it either.

You honestly don't see why people have a problem with institutionalized racial discrimination? It's one thing to say those worries are misplaced, but you really can't fathom how a reasonable person might find them problematic?

 

[SoBeDad]

I don't think affirmative action works especially well. But I've never understood why conservatives tend to be so focused on it either. Very few of those who complain about it are likely to ever be affected by it. In terms of issues which have a real impact on the way most people live, this is a pretty minor one.

Both sides put a lot of focus on it because it's an important issue. It affects anybody with kids who plan to go to college. Some more than others. That's a lot of people and I imagine many of them take the education of their children very seriously.

What is your purpose in trying to downplay it or making it a conservative only issue?

I've seen if directly affect my daughter's classmates who applied to the flagship public school in Florida, the University of Florida. The word among the students is that blacks have a big advantage and Hispanics have a small advantage,compared to whites and Asian. It's well documented that females have a greater chance of getting into top-notch engineering schools compared to males, when everything else is equal. These examples of bias or quotas based solely on race or gender are hard to prove and are not part of any school's policy. I know of 2 cases in which white non-Hispanic girls appealed (unsuccessfully) the UF admission decision - they thought their resumes were better than several other minority students who were accepted to UF.

 

[jonessed]

I don't think affirmative action works especially well. But I've never understood why conservatives tend to be so focused on it either. Very few of those who complain about it are likely to ever be affected by it. In terms of issues which have a real impact on the way most people live, this is a pretty minor one.

Both sides put a lot of focus on it because it's an important issue. It affects anybody with kids who plan to go to college. Some more than others. That's a lot of people and I imagine many of them take the education of their children very seriously.What is your purpose in trying to downplay it or making it a conservative only issue?

It doesn't affect "anyone" who wants to go to college. I've heard anecdotes, mostly from conservative sources, of non-minority students who were shut out as a result of affirmative action, but I've never encountered it and I believe it to be pretty rare. If you have statistical evidence that suggests otherwise, I'd be happy to look at it and that would change my mind. And it is a conservative only issue, so far as they're the only ones who ever seem to bring it up. Progressives typically discuss it only in response to a conservative attack. It's a pet peeve for conservatives, much like NPR, and on the grand scale of things it's meaningless.

Schools only have a defined amount of space for students. If someone gets in based on a racial preference that leaves someone else out based on that same decision.Doesn't that seem obvious?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I read somewhere in the FFA that affirmative action typically has little to no effect on white applicants. More blacks and Hispanics get accepted while fewer Asians do, and it's pretty much a wash for whites.

I don't remember which thread, but I believe the link provided was to a legit source.

 

[timschochet]

I don't think affirmative action works especially well. But I've never understood why conservatives tend to be so focused on it either.

You honestly don't see why people have a problem with institutionalized racial discrimination? It's one thing to say those worries are misplaced, but you really can't fathom how a reasonable person might find them problematic?

Of course. When you put it like that I have a problem with it too. But I also have a problem with unemployment, with economic growth, with health care, with the environment, with social and racial inequities, and a host of other issues. This one just seems so minor and unimportant in comparison. It affects so few people. And yet conservatives seem obsessed by it.

 

[timschochet]

I read somewhere in the FFA that affirmative action typically has little to no effect on white applicants. More blacks and Hispanics get accepted while fewer Asians do, and it's pretty much a wash for whites.

I don't remember which thread, but I believe the link provided was to a legit source.

I've read this too in several places. But you'll never convince guys like Jonessed.

 

[Sand]

And yet conservatives seem obsessed by it.

That's just your perception.

 

[timschochet]

It is unfair to Asians, slightly, and that's one good reason it should be eliminated IMO. But it's not really all that important.

 

[timschochet]

And yet conservatives seem obsessed by it.

That's just your perception.

Yes it is.

 

[Sand]

It is unfair to Asians, slightly, and that's one good reason it should be eliminated IMO. But it's not really all that important.

Removing hot asian girls from college campuses is a crime against humanity and the masses have demanded that it stop.

 

[jonessed]

I don't think affirmative action works especially well. But I've never understood why conservatives tend to be so focused on it either.

You honestly don't see why people have a problem with institutionalized racial discrimination? It's one thing to say those worries are misplaced, but you really can't fathom how a reasonable person might find them problematic?

Of course. When you put it like that I have a problem with it too. But I also have a problem with unemployment, with economic growth, with health care, with the environment, with social and racial inequities, and a host of other issues. This one just seems so minor and unimportant in comparison. It affects so few people. And yet conservatives seem obsessed by it.

That makes sense. Conservatives have clearly not spent enough time talking about healthcare and the economy. Their obsession with affirmative action has really gotten in the way of those conversations.

 

[jonessed]

I read somewhere in the FFA that affirmative action typically has little to no effect on white applicants. More blacks and Hispanics get accepted while fewer Asians do, and it's pretty much a wash for whites.

I don't remember which thread, but I believe the link provided was to a legit source.

I've read this too in several places. But you'll never convince guys like Jonessed.

You specifically referenced "non-minorities" which would include Asians here.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Powell wants the remedy to be narrowly tailored to [redress] the harm. But the harm was not narrowly tailored.

Is that last part constitutionally relevant? I suppose the petitioners could have argued for a new constitutional test -- contingent strict scrutiny -- that does away with the "narrowly tailored" requirement when the harm sought to be redressed is particularly broad. But that would be a significant departure from prior precedent.

 

[timschochet]

I read somewhere in the FFA that affirmative action typically has little to no effect on white applicants. More blacks and Hispanics get accepted while fewer Asians do, and it's pretty much a wash for whites.

I don't remember which thread, but I believe the link provided was to a legit source.

I've read this too in several places. But you'll never convince guys like Jonessed.

You specifically referenced "non-minorities" which would include Asians here.

I don't want to see anyone treated unjustly. I suspect few Asian Americans are mistreated by these laws but even one is too many, which is why they should be removed. But earlier you wrote that affirmative action affects anyone who applies to college. I don't believe there is any evidence that this statement is even close to accurate. But if you have some please share it.

 

[JohnnyU]

That argument is bull####.

Remedying the fact that the government prohibited one race of people for centuries from participating in the institutions that contribute to and create success and wealth in this country--education, family, religion, government itself, etc.--is obviously a compelling government interest.

I agree with your statement. However I don't believe that affirmative action in terms of college admissions is the best means of remedy.

I dont think it is the best means of remedy, but it certainly could be considered a legitimate tool in such a remedy.

Who is looking out for the poor white guy?

Still waiting

 

[jonessed]

I read somewhere in the FFA that affirmative action typically has little to no effect on white applicants. More blacks and Hispanics get accepted while fewer Asians do, and it's pretty much a wash for whites.

I don't remember which thread, but I believe the link provided was to a legit source.

I've read this too in several places. But you'll never convince guys like Jonessed.

You specifically referenced "non-minorities" which would include Asians here.

I don't want to see anyone treated unjustly. I suspect few Asian Americans are mistreated by these laws but even one is too many, which is why they should be removed. But earlier you wrote that affirmative action affects anyone who applies to college. I don't believe there is any evidence that this statement is even close to accurate. But if you have some please share it.

You need evidence to show that if someone gets admitted to a school based on race, someone else doesn't get in based on race?

Why would somebody study that?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I don't think affirmative action works especially well. But I've never understood why conservatives tend to be so focused on it either.

You honestly don't see why people have a problem with institutionalized racial discrimination? It's one thing to say those worries are misplaced, but you really can't fathom how a reasonable person might find them problematic?

Of course. When you put it like that I have a problem with it too.But I also have a problem with unemployment, with economic growth, with health care, with the environment, with social and racial inequities, and a host of other issues. This one just seems so minor and unimportant in comparison. It affects so few people. And yet conservatives seem obsessed by it.

Since it's such a minor, insignificant issue, you're fine with abolishing it altogether then?

 

[Captain Quinoa]

I downplay it because I don't think it really hurts many white applicants. I applied to Harvard Law School. They wasted little time in telling me "no." There's no doubt that African Americans with lower LSATs than me were admitted. Maybe even ones with lower LSATs and similarly "meh" undergraduate grades. But if HLS didn't admit those applicants, I still wouldn't have gotten in. Because there are plenty of other white guys with high LSATs and meh undergraduate grades.

The worst thing that happened to me is I had to go to another great law school. And a black student presumably received an opportunity to have greater participation in a political process that shut his race out for generations. I don't think that public schools HAVE to consider that (so I would not have joined Sotomayor's dissent), but I think it's perfectly appropriate if they wish to consider that. And if whites find that unfair, or think that preferences should be means-based or whatever, I think they have ample access to democratic remedies, as evidenced by the law being challenged.

Data from one selective California law school from 2005 show that students who received large preferences were 10 times as likely to fail the California bar as students who received no preference.

 

[timschochet]

I don't think affirmative action works especially well. But I've never understood why conservatives tend to be so focused on it either.

You honestly don't see why people have a problem with institutionalized racial discrimination? It's one thing to say those worries are misplaced, but you really can't fathom how a reasonable person might find them problematic?

Of course. When you put it like that I have a problem with it too.But I also have a problem with unemployment, with economic growth, with health care, with the environment, with social and racial inequities, and a host of other issues. This one just seems so minor and unimportant in comparison. It affects so few people. And yet conservatives seem obsessed by it.

Since it's such a minor, insignificant issue, you're fine with abolishing it altogether then?

Yes.

 

[timschochet]

I read somewhere in the FFA that affirmative action typically has little to no effect on white applicants. More blacks and Hispanics get accepted while fewer Asians do, and it's pretty much a wash for whites.

I don't remember which thread, but I believe the link provided was to a legit source.

I've read this too in several places. But you'll never convince guys like Jonessed.

You specifically referenced "non-minorities" which would include Asians here.

I don't want to see anyone treated unjustly. I suspect few Asian Americans are mistreated by these laws but even one is too many, which is why they should be removed. But earlier you wrote that affirmative action affects anyone who applies to college. I don't believe there is any evidence that this statement is even close to accurate. But if you have some please share it.

You need evidence to show that if someone gets admitted to a school based on race, someone else doesn't get in based on race?Why would somebody study that?

That's not what I asked for. I need evidence to show that it affects everyone or even a significant portion of the population.

 

[igbomb]

I'm no fan of affirmative action, but more because I don't think it's a terribly effective way of trying to level the playing field. We need to get to these kids in the first ten years of their life, not help them get into colleges that they may not be qualified for based on their educational background.

 

[jonessed]

I read somewhere in the FFA that affirmative action typically has little to no effect on white applicants. More blacks and Hispanics get accepted while fewer Asians do, and it's pretty much a wash for whites.

I don't remember which thread, but I believe the link provided was to a legit source.

I've read this too in several places. But you'll never convince guys like Jonessed.

You specifically referenced "non-minorities" which would include Asians here.

I don't want to see anyone treated unjustly. I suspect few Asian Americans are mistreated by these laws but even one is too many, which is why they should be removed. But earlier you wrote that affirmative action affects anyone who applies to college. I don't believe there is any evidence that this statement is even close to accurate. But if you have some please share it.

You need evidence to show that if someone gets admitted to a school based on race, someone else doesn't get in based on race?Why would somebody study that?

That's not what I asked for. I need evidence to show that it affects everyone or even a significant portion of the population.

Why? That's not what I said.

 

[GDogg]

I don't think affirmative action works especially well. But I've never understood why conservatives tend to be so focused on it either. Very few of those who complain about it are likely to ever be affected by it. In terms of issues which have a real impact on the way most people live, this is a pretty minor one.

Both sides put a lot of focus on it because it's an important issue. It affects anybody with kids who plan to go to college. Some more than others. That's a lot of people and I imagine many of them take the education of their children very seriously.

What is your purpose in trying to downplay it or making it a conservative only issue?

I've seen if directly affect my daughter's classmates who applied to the flagship public school in Florida, the University of Florida. The word among the students is that blacks have a big advantage and Hispanics have a small advantage,compared to whites and Asian. It's well documented that females have a greater chance of getting into top-notch engineering schools compared to males, when everything else is equal. These examples of bias or quotas based solely on race or gender are hard to prove and are not part of any school's policy. I know of 2 cases in which white non-Hispanic girls appealed (unsuccessfully) the UF admission decision - they thought their resumes were better than several other minority students who were accepted to UF.

Your basis for affirmative action directly affecting your daughter's classmates who applied to Florida is "word among the students" and two white girls having their rejection appeals dismissed and their "thought" that their resumes were better than other minorities students? What qualifies those girls to know whether their resume is better or not?

Not exactly iron clad evidence of anything there.

I know some people on admissions committees both at a private school in Louisiana and at UCLA. UCLA is probably more analogous to Florida, but UCLA cannot consider race in their admissions policies (which, by the way, has probably led to the least amount of ethnic diversity on the UCLA campus in its almost 100 year history). The person I know on the committee at UCLA told me that while they cannot consider race, they can consider a bunch of other things to give them a more well-rounded class.

He gave the example of two students one with a 4.5 GPA and 2200 SAT score and the other a 4.1 GPA with a 2100 SAT score. They were both girls. And, had roughly similar extra-curriculars. UCLA was looking for, as part of their class, some students with music/band backgrounds. Both of these girls had them. However, one played the tuba (4.5 GPA) and the other played the trumpet (4.1 GPA). The committee was going to extend offers to 10 tuba players and 10 trumpet players. At the time these applications came up, they'd already extended their 10 offers to the tuba players, but had 3 spots left for trumpet players. They dinged the tuba player and accepted the trumpet player. They also accepted other applicants who had slightly worse "numbers" than the 4.1 trumpet player, but they are trying to put together what they deem well-rounded classes (without taking into account race).

So, this girl who had worse numbers got in over "better" applicants because she happened to play the trumpet. If she were of Mexican descent and Prop 209 had not been enacted, and had the two girls had known of each other's qualifications, I'm sure the parents (and maybe the student herself) of the white tuba player would have said that race-based affirmative action gave her daughter's spot to the Mexican trumpet player.

The dean of admissions for the grad school of the private school said they take race into account for diversity purposes. She said they are looking for a diverse class and student body. They want diversity of race, thought and backgrounds. So, they take into account where the applicant's hometown is, what fields of study each student got their undergrad degree in, etc. The reason they do this is because she believes that individuals that come from different racial groups, different majors, different areas of the country, all have different and important experiences, knowledge and perspectives that they can share in class discussions and in relationships that will benefit the student body as a whole. I tend to agree.

 

[DiStefano]

That argument is bull####.

Remedying the fact that the government prohibited one race of people for centuries from participating in the institutions that contribute to and create success and wealth in this country--education, family, religion, government itself, etc.--is obviously a compelling government interest.

I agree with your statement. However I don't believe that affirmative action in terms of college admissions is the best means of remedy.

I dont think it is the best means of remedy, but it certainly could be considered a legitimate tool in such a remedy.

Who is looking out for the poor white guy?

Still waiting

Well, since white people enslaved blacks in this country up until 1865, the grandson and granddaughter of someone who immigrated to the US from Germany in 1938 should be made to pay for it.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

Powell wants the remedy to be narrowly tailored to [redress] the harm. But the harm was not narrowly tailored.

Is that last part constitutionally relevant? I suppose the petitioners could have argued for a new constitutional test -- contingent strict scrutiny -- that does away with the "narrowly tailored" requirement when the harm sought to be redressed is particularly broad. But that would be a significant departure from prior precedent.

I think the precedent was more mixed than Powell let on at the time, but yes. I think Equal Protection analysis should be examined from the ground up. I think it makes little sense to say that Carolene Products is the fixed star that allows us to identify categories of problematic classifications, but that the same footnote doesn't make it clear that we're concerned with the discrete and insular minorities within those categories.

I think the current precedent has a serious case of what I'll call "johnjohn-itis." Someone with johnjohn-itis thinks the NAACP is every bit problematic as the KKK. I don't mean to suggest that person is racist. But I think that person is wrong. Because I don't think racial classifications are solely an individual wrong. If I don't get into the law school of my choice, I suffer some degree of harm. If discrete and insular minorities are systematically excluded from top undergraduate schools, law schools, MBA programs etc., those communities are systematically disenfranchised from the sources of political and economic power in this country. And that's what that short footnote in Carolene Products was trying to suggest.

 

[avoiding injuries]

Besides a couple of threads by johnjohn, I haven't recently heard much about AA before this ruling. I must have missed the obsession.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

I downplay it because I don't think it really hurts many white applicants. I applied to Harvard Law School. They wasted little time in telling me "no." There's no doubt that African Americans with lower LSATs than me were admitted. Maybe even ones with lower LSATs and similarly "meh" undergraduate grades. But if HLS didn't admit those applicants, I still wouldn't have gotten in. Because there are plenty of other white guys with high LSATs and meh undergraduate grades.

The worst thing that happened to me is I had to go to another great law school. And a black student presumably received an opportunity to have greater participation in a political process that shut his race out for generations. I don't think that public schools HAVE to consider that (so I would not have joined Sotomayor's dissent), but I think it's perfectly appropriate if they wish to consider that. And if whites find that unfair, or think that preferences should be means-based or whatever, I think they have ample access to democratic remedies, as evidenced by the law being challenged.

Data from one selective California law school from 2005 show that students who received large preferences were 10 times as likely to fail the California bar as students who received no preference.

So what? Would they be more likely to pass the bar if they didn't get into law school? Or if they went to a less selective law school? Whatever the rates, I can assure you that we have more minority lawyers because of affirmative action. Besides, I'm sure many of them just took the bar again.

 

[GDogg]

I downplay it because I don't think it really hurts many white applicants. I applied to Harvard Law School. They wasted little time in telling me "no." There's no doubt that African Americans with lower LSATs than me were admitted. Maybe even ones with lower LSATs and similarly "meh" undergraduate grades. But if HLS didn't admit those applicants, I still wouldn't have gotten in. Because there are plenty of other white guys with high LSATs and meh undergraduate grades.

The worst thing that happened to me is I had to go to another great law school. And a black student presumably received an opportunity to have greater participation in a political process that shut his race out for generations. I don't think that public schools HAVE to consider that (so I would not have joined Sotomayor's dissent), but I think it's perfectly appropriate if they wish to consider that. And if whites find that unfair, or think that preferences should be means-based or whatever, I think they have ample access to democratic remedies, as evidenced by the law being challenged.

Data from one selective California law school from 2005 show that students who received large preferences were 10 times as likely to fail the California bar as students who received no preference.

How is that setting up anyone to fail? Bar-bri exists to get you to pass the bar. Law schools really don't. Did the data say anything about their fail rate in law school, rather than the bar?

 

[Captain Quinoa]

I downplay it because I don't think it really hurts many white applicants. I applied to Harvard Law School. They wasted little time in telling me "no." There's no doubt that African Americans with lower LSATs than me were admitted. Maybe even ones with lower LSATs and similarly "meh" undergraduate grades. But if HLS didn't admit those applicants, I still wouldn't have gotten in. Because there are plenty of other white guys with high LSATs and meh undergraduate grades.

The worst thing that happened to me is I had to go to another great law school. And a black student presumably received an opportunity to have greater participation in a political process that shut his race out for generations. I don't think that public schools HAVE to consider that (so I would not have joined Sotomayor's dissent), but I think it's perfectly appropriate if they wish to consider that. And if whites find that unfair, or think that preferences should be means-based or whatever, I think they have ample access to democratic remedies, as evidenced by the law being challenged.

Data from one selective California law school from 2005 show that students who received large preferences were 10 times as likely to fail the California bar as students who received no preference.

So what? Would they be more likely to pass the bar if they... went to a less selective law school?

yes

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

I downplay it because I don't think it really hurts many white applicants. I applied to Harvard Law School. They wasted little time in telling me "no." There's no doubt that African Americans with lower LSATs than me were admitted. Maybe even ones with lower LSATs and similarly "meh" undergraduate grades. But if HLS didn't admit those applicants, I still wouldn't have gotten in. Because there are plenty of other white guys with high LSATs and meh undergraduate grades.

The worst thing that happened to me is I had to go to another great law school. And a black student presumably received an opportunity to have greater participation in a political process that shut his race out for generations. I don't think that public schools HAVE to consider that (so I would not have joined Sotomayor's dissent), but I think it's perfectly appropriate if they wish to consider that. And if whites find that unfair, or think that preferences should be means-based or whatever, I think they have ample access to democratic remedies, as evidenced by the law being challenged.

Data from one selective California law school from 2005 show that students who received large preferences were 10 times as likely to fail the California bar as students who received no preference.

So what? Would they be more likely to pass the bar if they... went to a less selective law school?

yes

What data do you base that on? As GDogg has pointed out, selective law schools don't teach to the bar exam. Even then, I'd wager that black students from Boalt have higher bar passage rates than black students from the People's College of Law. If you have data showing otherwise, I'd love to take a look at it.

 

[JohnnyU]

That argument is bull####.

Remedying the fact that the government prohibited one race of people for centuries from participating in the institutions that contribute to and create success and wealth in this country--education, family, religion, government itself, etc.--is obviously a compelling government interest.

I agree with your statement. However I don't believe that affirmative action in terms of college admissions is the best means of remedy.

I dont think it is the best means of remedy, but it certainly could be considered a legitimate tool in such a remedy.

Who is looking out for the poor white guy?

Still waiting

Well, since white people enslaved blacks in this country up until 1865, the grandson and granddaughter of someone who immigrated to the US from Germany in 1938 should be made to pay for it.

I would think any legislation would need to be fair to the poor white kid from Ohio just as much as it is for African Americans. If it's not, then the said legislation must be racist in nature itself.

 

[Captain Quinoa]

I don't think affirmative action works especially well. But I've never understood why conservatives tend to be so focused on it either. Very few of those who complain about it are likely to ever be affected by it. In terms of issues which have a real impact on the way most people live, this is a pretty minor one.

Both sides put a lot of focus on it because it's an important issue. It affects anybody with kids who plan to go to college. Some more than others. That's a lot of people and I imagine many of them take the education of their children very seriously.

What is your purpose in trying to downplay it or making it a conservative only issue?

I've seen if directly affect my daughter's classmates who applied to the flagship public school in Florida, the University of Florida. The word among the students is that blacks have a big advantage and Hispanics have a small advantage,compared to whites and Asian. It's well documented that females have a greater chance of getting into top-notch engineering schools compared to males, when everything else is equal. These examples of bias or quotas based solely on race or gender are hard to prove and are not part of any school's policy. I know of 2 cases in which white non-Hispanic girls appealed (unsuccessfully) the UF admission decision - they thought their resumes were better than several other minority students who were accepted to UF.

Your basis for affirmative action directly affecting your daughter's classmates who applied to Florida is "word among the students" and two white girls having their rejection appeals dismissed and their "thought" that their resumes were better than other minorities students? What qualifies those girls to know whether their resume is better or not?

Not exactly iron clad evidence of anything there.

I know some people on admissions committees both at a private school in Louisiana and at UCLA. UCLA is probably more analogous to Florida, but UCLA cannot consider race in their admissions policies (which, by the way, has probably led to the least amount of ethnic diversity on the UCLA campus in its almost 100 year history). The person I know on the committee at UCLA told me that while they cannot consider race, they can consider a bunch of other things to give them a more well-rounded class.

Black, American-Indian and Hispanic students made up 26% of all U.C. freshmen in 2010, up from 16% in 1997

 

[jonessed]

That argument is bull####.

Remedying the fact that the government prohibited one race of people for centuries from participating in the institutions that contribute to and create success and wealth in this country--education, family, religion, government itself, etc.--is obviously a compelling government interest.

I agree with your statement. However I don't believe that affirmative action in terms of college admissions is the best means of remedy.

I dont think it is the best means of remedy, but it certainly could be considered a legitimate tool in such a remedy.

Who is looking out for the poor white guy?

Still waiting

Well, since white people enslaved blacks in this country up until 1865, the grandson and granddaughter of someone who immigrated to the US from Germany in 1938 should be made to pay for it.

Good lord, I hope you are joking. I would think any legislation would need to be fair to the poor white kid from Ohio just as much as it is for African Americans. If it's not, then the said legislation must be racist in nature itself.

I suspect he is.

Affirmative Action is inherently racist. The question is whether it's justified in the larger context.

 

[JohnnyU]

That argument is bull####.

Remedying the fact that the government prohibited one race of people for centuries from participating in the institutions that contribute to and create success and wealth in this country--education, family, religion, government itself, etc.--is obviously a compelling government interest.

I agree with your statement. However I don't believe that affirmative action in terms of college admissions is the best means of remedy.

I dont think it is the best means of remedy, but it certainly could be considered a legitimate tool in such a remedy.

Who is looking out for the poor white guy?

Still waiting

Well, since white people enslaved blacks in this country up until 1865, the grandson and granddaughter of someone who immigrated to the US from Germany in 1938 should be made to pay for it.

Good lord, I hope you are joking. I would think any legislation would need to be fair to the poor white kid from Ohio just as much as it is for African Americans. If it's not, then the said legislation must be racist in nature itself.

I suspect he is.

Affirmative Action is inherently racist. The question is whether it's justified in the larger context.

I know it is inherently racist, and I find it ironic, given what it is supposed to be protecting. I'm flabbergasted that people actually push that notion to the side as not being important.

 

[igbomb]

That argument is bull####.

Remedying the fact that the government prohibited one race of people for centuries from participating in the institutions that contribute to and create success and wealth in this country--education, family, religion, government itself, etc.--is obviously a compelling government interest.

I agree with your statement. However I don't believe that affirmative action in terms of college admissions is the best means of remedy.

I dont think it is the best means of remedy, but it certainly could be considered a legitimate tool in such a remedy.

Who is looking out for the poor white guy?

Still waiting

Well, since white people enslaved blacks in this country up until 1865, the grandson and granddaughter of someone who immigrated to the US from Germany in 1938 should be made to pay for it.

Good lord, I hope you are joking. I would think any legislation would need to be fair to the poor white kid from Ohio just as much as it is for African Americans. If it's not, then the said legislation must be racist in nature itself.

I suspect he is.

Affirmative Action is inherently racist. The question is whether it's justified in the larger context.

Racist?

Affirmative action doesn't bring with any statement of relative value of different races. It does not state nor imply that whites are inferior to blacks. It's not racist.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

That argument is bull####.

Remedying the fact that the government prohibited one race of people for centuries from participating in the institutions that contribute to and create success and wealth in this country--education, family, religion, government itself, etc.--is obviously a compelling government interest.

I agree with your statement. However I don't believe that affirmative action in terms of college admissions is the best means of remedy.

I dont think it is the best means of remedy, but it certainly could be considered a legitimate tool in such a remedy.

Who is looking out for the poor white guy?

Still waiting

Well, since white people enslaved blacks in this country up until 1865, the grandson and granddaughter of someone who immigrated to the US from Germany in 1938 should be made to pay for it.

Good lord, I hope you are joking. I would think any legislation would need to be fair to the poor white kid from Ohio just as much as it is for African Americans. If it's not, then the said legislation must be racist in nature itself.

I suspect he is.

Affirmative Action is inherently racist. The question is whether it's justified in the larger context.

Of course that's the question debated in this thread, which was always going to be the case, but its not really relevant to the SCOTUS decision. Personally, I have no problem if the regents at the University of Michigan decide its in the best interests of their constituents to use race-based criteria in admissions, nor do I have any problem if the residents of the state of Michigan decide they want to do things differently. I don't think the constitution should prevent either of those things from happening.

 

[JohnnyU]

That argument is bull####.

Remedying the fact that the government prohibited one race of people for centuries from participating in the institutions that contribute to and create success and wealth in this country--education, family, religion, government itself, etc.--is obviously a compelling government interest.

I agree with your statement. However I don't believe that affirmative action in terms of college admissions is the best means of remedy.

I dont think it is the best means of remedy, but it certainly could be considered a legitimate tool in such a remedy.

Who is looking out for the poor white guy?

Still waiting

Well, since white people enslaved blacks in this country up until 1865, the grandson and granddaughter of someone who immigrated to the US from Germany in 1938 should be made to pay for it.

Good lord, I hope you are joking. I would think any legislation would need to be fair to the poor white kid from Ohio just as much as it is for African Americans. If it's not, then the said legislation must be racist in nature itself.

I suspect he is.

Affirmative Action is inherently racist. The question is whether it's justified in the larger context.

Racist?

Affirmative action doesn't bring with any statement of relative value of different races. It does not state nor imply that whites are inferior to blacks. It's not racist.

Sure it is, if that poor white kid from Ohio doesn't have the same advantages as the minority kid of color.

 

[jonessed]

That argument is bull####.

Remedying the fact that the government prohibited one race of people for centuries from participating in the institutions that contribute to and create success and wealth in this country--education, family, religion, government itself, etc.--is obviously a compelling government interest.

I agree with your statement. However I don't believe that affirmative action in terms of college admissions is the best means of remedy.

I dont think it is the best means of remedy, but it certainly could be considered a legitimate tool in such a remedy.

Who is looking out for the poor white guy?

Still waiting

Well, since white people enslaved blacks in this country up until 1865, the grandson and granddaughter of someone who immigrated to the US from Germany in 1938 should be made to pay for it.

Good lord, I hope you are joking. I would think any legislation would need to be fair to the poor white kid from Ohio just as much as it is for African Americans. If it's not, then the said legislation must be racist in nature itself.

I suspect he is.Affirmative Action is inherently racist. The question is whether it's justified in the larger context.

Racist?

Affirmative action doesn't bring with any statement of relative value of different races. It does not state nor imply that whites are inferior to blacks. It's not racist.

At an individual level it does. They are choosing one applicant over another based on race.

I don't want to go down that rabbit hole though. it's at the very least race-based discrimination.

 

[[icon]]

Tim with 30% more posts than the next guy in this thread.

Shocked... Shocked I tell you.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

[i####] with a Tim post count post.

Shocked... Shocked I tell you.

 

[igbomb]

That argument is bull####.

Remedying the fact that the government prohibited one race of people for centuries from participating in the institutions that contribute to and create success and wealth in this country--education, family, religion, government itself, etc.--is obviously a compelling government interest.

I agree with your statement. However I don't believe that affirmative action in terms of college admissions is the best means of remedy.

I dont think it is the best means of remedy, but it certainly could be considered a legitimate tool in such a remedy.

Who is looking out for the poor white guy?

Still waiting

Well, since white people enslaved blacks in this country up until 1865, the grandson and granddaughter of someone who immigrated to the US from Germany in 1938 should be made to pay for it.

Good lord, I hope you are joking. I would think any legislation would need to be fair to the poor white kid from Ohio just as much as it is for African Americans. If it's not, then the said legislation must be racist in nature itself.

I suspect he is.Affirmative Action is inherently racist. The question is whether it's justified in the larger context.

Racist?

Affirmative action doesn't bring with any statement of relative value of different races. It does not state nor imply that whites are inferior to blacks. It's not racist.

At an individual level it does. They are choosing one applicant over another based on race.

I don't want to go down that rabbit hole though. it's at the very least race-based discrimination.

Fair enough. I agree that it's largely semantics. And like I said earlier, I'm not a big fan of affirmative action, but more because I don't think it's a terribly effective strategy.