Supreme Court upholds University of Texas affirmative action plan

[Derec]

"Added value" in the sense they feel there will be more graduated lawyers from their law school willing to service an under-represented group. But I fail to see what that has to do with students on average.

Well if these law school graduates are not fit to be lawyers (because they were only admitted because of their skin color) they may have to resort to "servicing" people.

 

[ronburgundy]

Your failure to understand how proportions relate to averages is a mathematical illiteracy I don't have the motivation to correct.

Either AA does nothing or it uses racist assumptions to shift the result away from what considering all of the non-race factors produce. Those are the only logical possibilities.

No, they are the only logical possibilities your ideologically limited mind will admit.

I explained why they are the only possibilities (it's actually just simple math), and you offer no rebuttal other than blind dismissal.

It's not even a question here. UT went to the USSC to defend its program specifically intended to admit more people of certain races based on their race, not deny it.

Yeah, but laughing dog and Jimmy (and all AA supporters I have talked to) don't grasp the simple logic that altering the outcome to increase the % of people of certain races (what UT explicitly admits to doing) necessitates that race was used to trump the outcome favored by the net combination of all the other non-race factors.

 

[Terrell]

Well, yeah, effectively they do. Their definition of "diversity" is all about having a certain number of each race.

One exception being black colleges, which have the least diverse student body. That is not seen as a problem however. Funny that.

Do HBCUs have policies to make it more difficult for people who aren't black to attend? If so they should change said polices so that they're fair to all. If it's the case that people, regardless of skin color, have an equal shot attending said schools but choose not to, then there's nothing to be fixed in terms of policy.

The same standard should apply to other jobs. I don't think we should expect equality of results. As long as everyone is held to the same standard for admission, or getting that job, promotion, etc. I don't think there's anything that needs fixing in terms of policy.

 

[ronburgundy]

Your failure to understand how proportions relate to averages is a mathematical illiteracy I don't have the motivation to correct.

Translation: outside of bluster and bullshit, I have no argument.

I explained why they are the only possibilities (it's actually just simple math), and you offer no rebuttal other than blind dismissal.

Then you failed simple math.

- - - Updated - - -

You have made no attempt to even present an argument, so how could I fail to comprehend it? You have simply denied that 1 + 1 = 2, without any support whatsoever.

Try having the kid around the corner read and explain the posts to you.

As per usual, your posts are the poster child for leftist dogmatism and everything that is destroying rational liberalism and thus fueling right-wing extremism.
Trump owes you a thank you gift.

 

[Derec]

Do HBCUs have policies to make it more difficult for people who aren't black to attend?

Not that I know of. But likewise, mainstream colleges and universities do not have policies to make it more difficult for people who are black to attend either. So what's your point?

If so they should change said polices so that they're fair to all. If it's the case that people, regardless of skin color, have an equal shot attending said schools but choose not to, then there's nothing to be fixed in terms of policy.

Sounds like an argument against so-called "affirmative action".

 

[laughing dog]

As per usual, your posts are the poster child for leftist dogmatism and everything that is destroying rational liberalism and thus fueling right-wing extremism.

The absolute lack of content indicates you have no argument to support your logically invalid opinions.

Trump owes you a thank you gift.

Nothing I could give would outshine your
support for his positions.

 

[laughing dog]

Yeah, but laughing dog and Jimmy (and all AA supporters I have talked to) don't grasp the simple logic that altering the outcome to increase the % of people of certain races (what UT explicitly admits to doing) necessitates that race was used to trump the outcome favored by the net combination of all the other non-race factors.

All the anti-AA SJWers on this board are incapable of nuanced reasoning. AA may or may not trump the outcome favored by the other factors. It depends on the method of implementation.

 

[bigfield]

This case was about the University of Texas Law school. There is no reason to believe that higher LSAT scores mean that the candidates are more qualified for admission than a candidate with a slightly lower score. The LSAT scores are used as a threshold of the minimum ability required to learn the subject matter in the time available. All candidates with scores above the threshold are consider to be equal in their ability to absorb the material in the time available.

I doubt the UT Law School admits every applicant who passes the threshold of minimum ability measured by the LSAT.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand that American universities also evaluate applicants based on their score on the SAT or ACT. If the university has 100 places to offer in a course, they admit the 100 highest-scoring students on the SAT/ACT.

Then other considerations, including race to provide minorities an advantage previously denied to them and because they will be more likely to service their own communities that are underserved by lawyers.

There is also a cost to the university and to society as a whole: by increasing the number of minority students who are admitted, UT is also decreasing the number of graduates. This is because race-conscious admissions, rather than admissions based purely on likelihood of graduation, increases the drop-out rate among the selected minorities. This was illustrated by the introduction of Prop 209 in California.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_209#Effect_on_enrollment_and_graduation_rates

So UT, assuming that their policy is similar to Berkeley's before the ban, is making a trade-off, incurring a social cost to bring about a social benefit: in order to increase the percentage of minority graduates, they are decreasing the number of graduates as a whole, and also increasing the number of young black Americans with a student debt and no marketable degree to pay for it.

 

[bigfield]

"Added value" in the sense they feel there will be more graduated lawyers from their law school willing to service an under-represented group. But I fail to see what that has to do with students on average.

Well if these law school graduates are not fit to be lawyers (because they were only admitted because of their skin color) they may have to resort to "servicing" people.

Nobody is "only admitted because of their skin color"--every UT law student has to pass the LSAT.

UT is most likely using race to give preference to marginal applicants from minorities. As a hypothetical example, if there is one enrolment place left to be filled, and they have two applicants who are very similar in aptitude but one is a minority, then the university will offer the enrolment to the minority applicant, rather than simply choosing the one most likely to graduate.

It's a trade-off: more of their graduates will end up working in shitty neighbourhoods, but at the cost of fewer graduates in total.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

How is giving the top 10% their choice of school racist or sexist?

It's racist.

It was specifically created as a response to the direct discrimination being ruled unacceptable. If it were whites benefiting the employer would be in a heap of trouble because it's a "requirement" that has nothing to do with the situation at hand, akin to height requirements simply to keep out women.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What this and all AA policies do is continue to legitimize the use of race as the determining factor in a decision of how the treat people, over riding other more objectively relevant considerations about the people as individuals.

You keep repeating this false generalization. Whether or not AA "legitimizes" the use of race as the determining factor in a decision on how to treat people depends on how AA is implemented.

But in practice it's always implemented in a discriminatory fashion when it becomes an issue. There might be some examples of non-discriminatory AA but those will be basically invisible because they don't cause a problem.

 

[Arctish]

The New York Times article has a bit more information as well as links to the decision and dissent.

The decision, by a 4-to-3 vote, was unexpected. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, the author of the majority opinion, has long been skeptical of race-sensitive programs and had never before voted to uphold an affirmative action plan. He dissented in the last major affirmative action case.

<snip>

Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, said courts must give universities substantial but not total leeway in designing their admissions programs.

“A university is in large part defined by those intangible ‘qualities which are incapable of objective measurement but which make for greatness,’” Justice Kennedy wrote, quoting from a landmark desegregation case. “Considerable deference is owed to a university in defining those intangible characteristics, like student body diversity, that are central to its identity and educational mission.”

“But still,” Justice Kennedy added, “it remains an enduring challenge to our nation’s education system to reconcile the pursuit of diversity with the constitutional promise of equal treatment and dignity.”

 

[Metaphor]

There is no reason to believe that higher LSAT scores mean that the candidates are more qualified for admission than a candidate with a slightly lower score.

There's every reason to believe it, since LSAT scores have a positive linear relationship with grades.

The LSAT scores are used as a threshold of the minimum ability required to learn the subject matter in the time available. All candidates with scores above the threshold are consider to be equal in their ability to absorb the material in the time available.

If that were the case, then you would expect that, within races, anyone above the threshold would have an equal chance of admission as anyone else above the threshold.

Of course, they don't. Black students with higher LSAT scores are more likely to get admitted than Black students with lower LSAT scores.

Then other considerations, including race to provide minorities an advantage previously denied to them and because they will be more likely to service their own communities that are underserved by lawyers.

If one wants certain communities served, you offer regionally-bonded scholarships to attract people to serve those communities.

But you don't prefer people over a certain race and then pray to the Madonna that they'll go back and 'serve' their 'community'.

The law school doesn't owe you admission because you have a high score. Their job is to provide Texas with the lawyers that Texas needs. And as long as race is considered to be a defining characteristic society is going to need minority attorneys.

Why? Did you choose your attorney based on the colour of her skin?

We go through this every time we discuss affirmative action and yet you insist on making the same mistakes over and over again.

You certainly bring up the same refuted arguments time and time again, it's true.

 

[dismal]

“But still,” Justice Kennedy added, “it remains an enduring challenge to our nation’s education system to reconcile the pursuit of diversity with the constitutional promise of equal treatment and dignity.”

It's nice that he's aware that the Constitution contains a promise of equal treatment. He only seems to be lacking the awareness it's his job to uphold it.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

You do not erase history but at the same time we do not have to continue to be defined by it. Just because there were Jim Crow laws 50 years ago does not mean whites need to be discriminated against today.

We have to live in the world we have and what we SHOULD do is make better of it as we go through it.

We are not going to make it better by perpetuating racial discrimination. Which is what racial preferences/AA is.

If you have any suggestions how we SHOULD do that, concrete specific suggestions, please do share.

We could start by not discriminating by race when it comes to college admissions etc.

Exactly what do you know about diversity programs at HBCUs?

I know that they don't particularly work and therefore, under the logic of AA proponents, they need to start discriminating against their black applicants and start admitting white students with like SAT scores of 1000 and 2.5 GPAs.

Examples please

 

[Derec]

Examples please

Examples for what exactly?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Examples please

Examples for what exactly?

Of actual HBCUs who are not doing well at diversity. And a definition of "not doing well"

 

[Derec]

Of actual HBCUs who are not doing well at diversity.

Morehouse College, just to name an example very close to here is 96.5% black. That is much less diverse than any majority white university. For example University of Michigan Ann Arbor is, post AA-ban, only 62.5% white.

And a definition of "not doing well"

Whatever the cut-off is, the lack of diversity at HBCUs is much more severe than at mainstream universities that you (and others) think need racial preferences to remedy it. So why do you not demand HBCUs implement racial preferences in their admissions in order to improve their diversity? Or are you going to redefine diversity (just like the left tried to redefine "racism" to exclude blacks from being accused of it) to claim that Morehouse is really much more "diverse" than Michigan because it has more "diverse" (aka non-white) people?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You keep repeating this false generalization. Whether or not AA "legitimizes" the use of race as the determining factor in a decision on how to treat people depends on how AA is implemented.

But in practice it's always implemented in a discriminatory fashion when it becomes an issue. There might be some examples of non-discriminatory AA but those will be basically invisible because they don't cause a problem.

Ah yes. It can happen, but we can't tell because it doesn't cause problems. Meanwhile, still waiting to hear about the problems by AA, I mean other than the whining about it from the right-wing.

 

[laughing dog]

Morehouse College, just to name an example very close to here is 96.5% black. That is much less diverse than any majority white university. For example University of Michigan Ann Arbor is, post AA-ban, only 62.5% white.

What percentage of white students should the UM have?

Whatever the cut-off is, the lack of diversity at HBCUs is much more severe than at mainstream universities that you (and others) think need racial preferences to remedy it. So why do you not demand HBCUs implement racial preferences in their admissions in order to improve their diversity? Or are you going to redefine diversity (just like the left tried to redefine "racism" to exclude blacks from being accused of it) to claim that Morehouse is really much more "diverse" than Michigan because it has more "diverse" (aka non-white) people?

Without actual evidence that HCBUs are keeping white students out or not trying to attract white students, this is simple Simply Just White Whining (SJWW).