Scalia: "slower-track school where they do well"

[untermensche]

The history you speak of is not relevant and does not excuse racist policy today.

So say the living beneficiaries of these centuries of torture and abuse.

 

[dismal]

In the 14th Amendment it says public institutions may not discriminate based on race.

In other words they cannot make decisions based only on race.

But they certainly can make decisions based on circumstance.

And the circumstance just happens to be centuries of massive discrimination and torture by whites against blacks.

No, not in other words, they may not discriminate based on race.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I find it amazing that the idea that universities should not discriminate by race (and gender for that matter) when it comes to admissions is in any way controversial.
I find it equally amazing that the idea that if you admit people to schools that they would not be admitted to based on their academic chops they would have a greater likelihood of struggling academically and dropping out is controversial.

I find it incredibly amazing that people apparently think being admitted to a university is apparently based solely on race and has nothing to do with academic merit.

 

[untermensche]

In other words they cannot make decisions based only on race.

But they certainly can make decisions based on circumstance.

And the circumstance just happens to be centuries of massive discrimination and torture by whites against blacks.

No, not in other words, they may not discriminate based on race.

Basing decisions on circumstance is not basing them on race.

It just so happens that after centuries of abuse and torture of their relatives many blacks today find themselves in bad circumstances.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The history you speak of is not relevant and does not excuse racist policy today.

Happening to identify or be identified with a historically discriminated against group should not entitle you to special perks of any sort; not unless you yourself can show how you have been hard done by and that it hides your potential. Otherwise this is simple racism.

AA is about recognizing that the opportunities of blacks today are not level with whites directly because of 100 years of discrimination that purposefully prevented blacks from having access to opportunities, generation to generation. So AA was developed to offer a method of being able to put this into consideration when hiring or admitting. There seems to be a misnomer that race is apparently all that matters. It isn't.

Where Scalia went off the rails in that quote was the assumption that black people won't be as bright or suitable for the "elite" school. But I didn't read all that he said, so he may have been talking only about less intelligent black people.

Seeing that all potential black students would be affected, including all the ones either tied or marginally outside the threshold for acceptance based on their merit and achievements in High School, it is hard to believe he was trying to qualify his statement. This guy is still living in the 50s.

 

[dismal]

No, not in other words, they may not discriminate based on race.

Basing decisions on circumstance is not basing them on race.

It just so happens that after centuries of abuse and torture of their relatives many blacks today find themselves in bad circumstances.

They are not basing decisions on "other circumstances". They are basing them on race. They freely acknowledge this. They are in court to fight to continue the practice.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

I find it amazing that the idea that universities should not discriminate by race (and gender for that matter) when it comes to admissions is in any way controversial.
I find it equally amazing that the idea that if you admit people to schools that they would not be admitted to based on their academic chops they would have a greater likelihood of struggling academically and dropping out is controversial.

I find it incredibly amazing that people apparently think being admitted to a university is apparently based solely on race and has nothing to do with academic merit.

Yep. Race has never come up in any admissions committees I have sat on. (And our student population is diverse.)

- - - Updated - - -

Basing decisions on circumstance is not basing them on race.

It just so happens that after centuries of abuse and torture of their relatives many blacks today find themselves in bad circumstances.

They are not basing decisions on "other circumstances". They are basing them on race. They freely acknowledge this. They are in court to fight to continue the practice.

Texas must be the most backward place on the planet.

 

[Derec]

The are trying to address centuries of massive discrimination that put us here.

Kids entering college today were born in the late 1990s. Even their parents, by and large, were born after the victories of the civil rights movement. At some point we need to leave the past in the past.

This is a societal issue, not an individual issue.

Society is nothing but a collection of individuals. It's individuals being negatively discriminated against by being denied admission because of their skin color. It's individuals being positively discriminated for when they are admitted to a school they would not have been without this discrimination.

If whites had been the victims of centuries of torture and abuse, instead of the perpetrator, I suspect they would call for a lot more than is happening now.

My ancestors were victims of centuries of torture and abuse, as I presume everybody's ancestors were at some point. Why can't I get affirmative action?
Also, none of my ancestors participated in the transtlantic slave trade or were involved with slavery in the Americas (or elsewhere for that matter, at least not in the last few hundred years). So why do I get punished for what some whites unrelated to me did centuries ago? This idea of racial guilt is at the very core of racism.

 

[ImGod]

Scalia is asking a question and posing a scenario, the justices do it all the time. Their opinion comes at the end of the case and that's what people should focus on. It will tell much more than bantor between lawyers and the justices during the process.

 

[untermensche]

Basing decisions on circumstance is not basing them on race.

It just so happens that after centuries of abuse and torture of their relatives many blacks today find themselves in bad circumstances.

They are not basing decisions on "other circumstances". They are basing them on race. They freely acknowledge this. They are in court to fight to continue the practice.

They are basing them on past circumstances.

If whites had been the victims of centuries of torture and abuse they would make adjustments to those circumstances. Hopefully.

 

[dismal]

AA is about recognizing that the opportunities of blacks today are not level with whites directly because of 100 years of discrimination that purposefully prevented blacks from having access to opportunities, generation to generation. So AA was developed to offer a method of being able to put this into consideration when hiring or admitting. There seems to be a misnomer that race is apparently all that matters. It isn't.

Where Scalia went off the rails in that quote was the assumption that black people won't be as bright or suitable for the "elite" school. But I didn't read all that he said, so he may have been talking only about less intelligent black people.

Seeing that all potential black students would be affected, including all the ones either tied or marginally outside the threshold for acceptance based on their merit and achievements in High School, it is hard to believe he was trying to qualify his statement. This guy is still living in the 50s.

Fortunately (or unfortunately for those with a certain narrative they are trying to manufacture) we can find the actual transcript on teh interwebz and see what is being discussed in context:

20 What ** what I'd like to say too is, if this
21 Court rules that University of Texas can't consider
22 race, or if it rules that universities that consider
23 race have to die a death of a thousand cuts for doing
24 so, we know exactly what's going to happen. Experience
25 tells us that.
Alderson Court Reporting
67
Official * Subject to Final Review
1 University ** this happened at the
2 University of Texas after the Hopwood case: Diversity
3 plummeted, especially among African*Americans.
4 Diversity plummeted at selective institutions in
5 California, Berkeley, and UCLA, after Prop 209. And
6 that is exactly what's taking place today at the
7 University of Michigan.
8 Now is not the time, and this is certainly
9 not the case **
10 JUSTICE SCALIA: There are ** there are
11 those who contend that it does not benefit
12 African*Americans to ** to get them into the University
13 of Texas where they do not do well, as opposed to having
14 them go to a less*advanced school, a less ** a
15 slower*track school where they do well. One of ** one
16 of the briefs pointed out that ** that most of the **
17 most of the black scientists in this country don't come
18 from schools like the University of Texas.
19 MR. GARRE: So this Court **
20 JUSTICE SCALIA: They come from lesser
21 schools where they do not feel that they're ** that
22 they're being pushed ahead in ** in classes that are
23 too ** too fast for them

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/14-981_p8k0.pdf

The government/UT has just taken the position that if the school is not allowed to consider race in admissions decisions African American enrollment will plummet.'

So, I guess the Obama administration are the real racists here.

 

[untermensche]

Scalia is asking a question and posing a scenario, the justices do it all the time. Their opinion comes at the end of the case and that's what people should focus on. It will tell much more than bantor between lawyers and the justices during the process.

The funny thing is, if Scalia had had his way his silent partner on the bench would not be there.

 

[Horatio Parker]

P

Scalia is asking a question and posing a scenario, the justices do it all the time. Their opinion comes at the end of the case and that's what people should focus on. It will tell much more than bantor between lawyers and the justices during the process.

The funny thing is, if Scalia had had his way his silent partner on the bench would not be there.

Even funnier, if the silent partner had his way, he would not be there.

 

[ImGod]

Maybe we should see if Scalia sides with UT or not before determining his intent. It's not uncommon for the Justices to argue points with council while also ending up siding with them. It might be unlikely in this case, but stranger things have happened.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Maybe we should see if Scalia sides with UT or not before determining his intent. It's not uncommon for the Justices to argue points with council while also ending up siding with them. It might be unlikely in this case, but stranger things have happened.

I'm curious as to what would be considered stranger than Scalia upholding AA.

 

[dismal]

Maybe we should see if Scalia sides with UT or not before determining his intent. It's not uncommon for the Justices to argue points with council while also ending up siding with them. It might be unlikely in this case, but stranger things have happened.

I'm curious as to what would be considered stranger than Scalia upholding AA.

What should be considered strange is any judge with a slight grasp of the 14th Amendment upholding racial discrimination by a public institution.

 

[untermensche]

I'm curious as to what would be considered stranger than Scalia upholding AA.

What should be considered strange is any judge with a slight grasp of the 14th Amendment upholding racial discrimination by a public institution.

Is giving preferences to children of alumni, or students from expensive prep schools, discrimination we need to worry about?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Maybe we should see if Scalia sides with UT or not before determining his intent. It's not uncommon for the Justices to argue points with council while also ending up siding with them. It might be unlikely in this case, but stranger things have happened.

I'm curious as to what would be considered stranger than Scalia upholding AA.

What should be considered strange is any judge with a slight grasp of the 14th Amendment upholding racial discrimination by a public institution.

This high moral tone on the evils of racial discrimination would probably not ring so hollow if it managed to show up in discussions other that those in some way dealing with affirmative action.

 

[dismal]

What should be considered strange is any judge with a slight grasp of the 14th Amendment upholding racial discrimination by a public institution.

Is giving preferences to children of alumni, or students from expensive prep schools, discrimination we need to worry about?

We can worry about millions of things. This, however, is a discussion about what's in the Constitution. What the Constitution says is not affected by all those things we may otherwise worry about. The relevant point here is that the Constitution does not allow the government to discriminate based on race.

- - - Updated - - -

Maybe we should see if Scalia sides with UT or not before determining his intent. It's not uncommon for the Justices to argue points with council while also ending up siding with them. It might be unlikely in this case, but stranger things have happened.

I'm curious as to what would be considered stranger than Scalia upholding AA.

What should be considered strange is any judge with a slight grasp of the 14th Amendment upholding racial discrimination by a public institution.

This high moral tone on the evils of racial discrimination would probably not ring so hollow if it managed to show up in discussions other that those in some way dealing with affirmative action.

If you can find a post where I argued it was OK for the government to engage in racial discrimination elsewhere please produce it now. Or, alternatively shut the fuck up with this sort of bullshit until you can.

 

[untermensche]

Maybe we should see if Scalia sides with UT or not before determining his intent. It's not uncommon for the Justices to argue points with council while also ending up siding with them. It might be unlikely in this case, but stranger things have happened.

I'm curious as to what would be considered stranger than Scalia upholding AA.

What should be considered strange is any judge with a slight grasp of the 14th Amendment upholding racial discrimination by a public institution.

This high moral tone on the evils of racial discrimination would probably not ring so hollow if it managed to show up in discussions other that those in some way dealing with affirmative action.

And what is affirmative action?

Are it's intentions evil?

It is an attempt at a remedy.

What remedy do those who oppose it offer?

Or do they even see a remedy is in order?

- - - Updated - - -

Is giving preferences to children of alumni, or students from expensive prep schools, discrimination we need to worry about?

We can worry about millions of things. This, however, is a discussion about what's in the Constitution. What the Constitution says is not affected by all those things we may otherwise worry about. The relevant point here is that the Constitution does not allow the government to discriminate based on race.

Quick dodge.

So you have nothing to say except to give your opinion that this is discrimination?

Got it. You're wrong, but got it.