'Supreme Court upholds Michigan affirmative action ban'

christiefan915 said:

Exactly. And Sonia writes on P. 102 "The President and Chancellors of the University of California (which has 10 campuses, not 17) inform us that
“[t]he abandonment of race-conscious admissions policies resulted in an immediate and precipitous decline in the rates at which
underrepresented-minority students applied to, were admitted to, and enrolled at” the university. "
Click to expand...

Ok, but what that doesn't tell us is where did these kids apply instead? Did they not apply for college at all? If they applied to other schools we could probably compare if they were on the same level academically as the UC's.

I think there have been studies done on this but what percent of students who went to UC's based on AA graduated (I think there were a fair number who didn't) and would they have benefitted going to school more along the lines of where their grades fit it? (That last question could apply to students of all races, sex and ethnicities and there are definitely kids who didn't score or test well in high school that excel when they get to tougher college courses.)
 
Bonestorm said:
I hadn't realized gun ownership was an issue in the college admissions process.
Click to expand...

Well soto etal want high bars to excede for lawabiding regular people but are comfortable with no bars for po minorities who dont bother with gun laws and shoot one another willy nilly. See ? :/
 
Celticguy said:
Legacys really only work at private schools. That said there is a real dogfight at top tier privated (think Ivy League) for minority.
Click to expand...

Legacy also works at Public Schools, trust me.

They don't work as well, that's why Bush did not get into Texas A&M but was accepted to Yale.
 
Jarod said:
Its not right for a less qualified black guy to get into college over a more qualified white guy.

The Republicans scream about that... but they don't see to care when...

The less qualified rich guy gets into college over a more qualified poor guy. (GWB)
Click to expand...
California wants race as an issue as whites can't compete with Asians.
 
Scalia's argument was unassailable. To paraphrase: Do affirmative action requirements compel the government to commit acts that violate the 14th Amendment?
 
Democrats are odd ducks. They've never been for equality.

Between the years 1968 and 1972, when they were sharply divided between George McGovern or George Wallace...between Jimmy Carter and Lester Maddox.... opposing integration or embracing forced busing of students....fighting for the Civil Rights Act or defending segregation...

In the period of those short few years they made the leap from trampling the rights of minorities in favor of their white constituency, to trampling the rights of whites in favor of their minority constituency.

The idea of actual equal treatment under the law never got to enjoy a moment in the Sun on a Democrat platform.

The notion of equality is anathema to Democrats. They always have to be sticking it to somebody to get votes from others.
 
Last edited:
christiefan915 said:
Here's Sotomayor's dissenting opinion. She's my new heroine.

"Our Constitution does not guarantee minority groups victory in the political process.... It guarantees that the majority may not win
by stacking the political process against minority groups permanently, forcing the minority alone to surmount
unique obstacles in pursuit of its goals—here, educational diversity that cannot reasonably be accomplished through
race-neutral measures.

Today,by permitting a majority ofthe voters in Michigan to do what our Constitution forbids,the Court ends the debate over race-sensitive admissions
policies in Michigan in a manner that contravenes constitutional protections long recognized in our precedents."

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-682_j4ek.pdf
Click to expand...

She is your hero because she is for reverse racism
 
cawacko said:
Ok. As even Darla has said white women have been the biggest beneficiaries of affirmative action. That stat I saw was 140 women graduated college now for every 100 men and more women get associate, bachelors, masters and doctorate degrees than men. So from that perspective AA is working very well.

When we talk politics and voting Asians are considered minorities. When we talk education they aren't. In California Asians make up 13% of the population and over 35% of the incoming students at UC schools. They would in fact be hurt by AA.

Those are also realities.
Click to expand...

I looked it up. When AA was enacted in 1961 there were 97 men to every 100 women. So it's pretty sad that the majority needed a law to even the playing field with white guys. And minorities are still trying to catch up.
 
christiefan915 said:
Are you talking about a particular decision If so, which one?
Click to expand...

the decision in this particular case is applicable, to wit - ""Our Constitution does not guarantee minority groups victory in the political process.... It guarantees that the majority may not win by stacking the political process against minority groups permanently, forcing the minority alone to surmount unique obstacles in pursuit of its goals"

which is basically what most regulatory gun laws are
 
PostmodernProphet said:
and therein lies the answer to why affirmative action based on race is wrong......
Click to expand...

With regards to financial aid available to disadvantaged students, income and ability, should be the only criteria to meet. Racist attitudes still exist amongst the general population. It may even exist within the private education system, but with regards public universities, I have not heard of any instance in the last decade.

If, going forward, it can be shown that state universities in Michigan have disqualified, or in anyway denied a student access to an education, based on race, then I will definitely switch positions on this.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top