Supreme Court upholds University of Texas affirmative action plan

[Jolly_Penguin]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/23/polit...firmative-action-texas-immigration/index.html

The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the race-conscious admissions program at the University of Texas, saying that the plan taking race into consideration as one factor of admission is constitutional.

The 4-3 ruling greenlights the limited use of affirmative action polices by schools.

President Barack Obama, speaking from the White House, praised the decision.
"I'm pleased that the Supreme Court upheld the basic notion that diversity is an important value in our society and this country should provide a high quality education to all our young people regardless of their background," Obama said. "We are not a country that guarantees equal outcomes but we do strive to provide an equal shot to everybody. And that's what was upheld today."

Only evidently that isn't so. This is a decision to green light the explicit selection of one person over another based on race. The previous policy of admitting the top X% regardless of race isn't racist. This is racist. This was the case of a white woman excluded because she is white, but I wonder just how much more of us Asian people will be excluded from US schools because we are Asian.

 

[Derec]

Bad ruling. Of course we have one justice (Sonya Sotomayor) who is very proud of having had a special "door" to enter Yale just because of her ethnicity. Imagine Hillary appointing a couple of more affirmative action admissions and SCOTUS will rule that AA is not only constitutional but also mandatory.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Well, if white people want political favoritism to benefit them, they shouldn't vote for Donald Trump. If they're not going to support the next President, they shouldn't expect her to support them.

 

[dismal]

Well, if white people want political favoritism to benefit them, they shouldn't vote for Donald Trump. If they're not going to support the next President, they shouldn't expect her to support them.

Who should people who want to see people treated equally under the law (like the Constitution says they must be) vote for?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Well, if white people want political favoritism to benefit them, they shouldn't vote for Donald Trump. If they're not going to support the next President, they shouldn't expect her to support them.

Who should people who want to see people treated equally under the law (like the Constitution says they must be) vote for?

I don't know. Maybe the libertarian guy. Definitely not Clinton.

 

[SimpleDon]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/23/polit...firmative-action-texas-immigration/index.html

President Barack Obama, speaking from the White House, praised the decision.
"I'm pleased that the Supreme Court upheld the basic notion that diversity is an important value in our society and this country should provide a high quality education to all our young people regardless of their background," Obama said. "We are not a country that guarantees equal outcomes but we do strive to provide an equal shot to everybody. And that's what was upheld today."

Only evidently that isn't so. This is a decision to green light the explicit selection of one person over another based on race. The previous policy of admitting the top X% regardless of race isn't racist. This is racist. This was the case of a white woman excluded because she is white, but I wonder just how much more of us Asian people will be excluded from US schools because we are Asian.

No, the previous system of admitting students was race based, denying admission to minorities and to women because they were minorities and women.

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. 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.

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.

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

 

[Tom Sawyer]

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.

Well, wouldn't the main thrust of the OP's point be that race shouldn't be a defining characteristic in society and any steps taken to have it continue to be so would be steps backwards?

 

[laughing dog]

Well, wouldn't the main thrust of the OP's point be that race shouldn't be a defining characteristic in society and any steps taken to have it continue to be so would be steps backwards?

That boils down to the chicken or the egg argument. It is hard to see that this type of policy perpetuates race as a defining characteristic in society. And to eliminate such a policy effectively means the very people who are underserved by the status quo have to wait until these SJW's utopia is attained.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Well, wouldn't the main thrust of the OP's point be that race shouldn't be a defining characteristic in society and any steps taken to have it continue to be so would be steps backwards?

That boils down to the chicken or the egg argument. It is hard to see that this type of policy perpetuates race as a defining characteristic in society.

It's hard to see how a policy of using race as a defining characteristic in whom they select into their school helps perpetuate the usage of race as a defining characteristic? I don't see the difficulty in associating the two things.

 

[laughing dog]

That boils down to the chicken or the egg argument. It is hard to see that this type of policy perpetuates race as a defining characteristic in society.

It's hard to see how a policy of using race as a defining characteristic in whom they select into their school helps perpetuate the usage of race as a defining characteristic? I don't see the difficulty in associating the two things.

No one would, since that is a tautology. However, the Texas Law school policy does not use race as a defining characteristic in whom they select, but as one of a number of factors.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

Well, wouldn't the main thrust of the OP's point be that race shouldn't be a defining characteristic in society and any steps taken to have it continue to be so would be steps backwards?

"defining characteristic" or a "characteristic of consideration"? Unless I'm mistaken, colleges don't have piles of applications stacked by race and they just randomly pick quota'd numbers from each stack.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

However, the Texas Law school policy does not use race as a defining characteristic in whom they select, but as one of a number of factors.

Does that matter? Would it stop being racist if a white supremacist only discriminated against black people as one among a number of other factors?

 

[dismal]

Well, wouldn't the main thrust of the OP's point be that race shouldn't be a defining characteristic in society and any steps taken to have it continue to be so would be steps backwards?

"defining characteristic" or a "characteristic of consideration"? Unless I'm mistaken, colleges don't have piles of applications stacked by race and they just randomly pick quota'd numbers from each stack.

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

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

No, the previous system of admitting students was race based, denying admission to minorities and to women because they were minorities and women.

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

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.

Is there any reason to believe that being a particular race mans that the candidates are more qualified for admissions than candidates of other races? Is black skin better than yellow skin?

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.

This is a bullshit argument unless you actually require them to do so. And then you could require anyone who agrees to do so, and wouldn't have to base it on race proxy. You could have some sort of program like the military does to guarantee a number of years of service to a particular underserviced area as a term of admittance. I am also curious if you encourage discrimination on admissions in favor of white applicants from trailer parks. Or how about instead looking at income level of parents? You are using race as a proxy here, aren't you? And your system gives Obama's kids yet another advantage over asian kids living in poverty. No wonder Obama supports it.

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

No, sir. you do.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Well, wouldn't the main thrust of the OP's point be that race shouldn't be a defining characteristic in society and any steps taken to have it continue to be so would be steps backwards?

"defining characteristic" or a "characteristic of consideration"? Unless I'm mistaken, colleges don't have piles of applications stacked by race and they just randomly pick quota'd numbers from each stack.

Nor do they have piles of applications stacked by LSAT score and just randomly pick from each stack. However, it's safe to say that they feel that a student with a high LSAT score is, on average, more valuable to them than a student with a low one. Similarly, they are saying that a black law student is, on average, more valuable to them than a white law student. Whether one thinks that they are correct or incorrect in having that position, it's still discriminating amongst the applicants based on their race.

 

[Derec]

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.

 

[dismal]

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.

The courts have not said you must discriminate based on race in the name of diversity, just that you can.

Historically black colleges could presumably start putting the thumb on the scale in favor of white applicants if they wanted to, but they can also decide not to.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

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.

Well, wouldn't the main thrust of the OP's point be that race shouldn't be a defining characteristic in society and any steps taken to have it continue to be so would be steps backwards?

How do we make so? How do we erase the history we have, the results of that history, and its future ramifications?

If we are talking what SHOULD be, we all should be born rich and smart and beautiful and safe. We should never suffer. We should never know sorrow or grief. We should always be happy and joyful.

And yet we are not and do not.

We have to live in the world we have and what we SHOULD do is make better of it as we go through it. If you have any suggestions how we SHOULD do that, concrete specific suggestions, please do share.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

Exactly what do you know about diversity programs at HBCUs?

 

[dismal]

Well, wouldn't the main thrust of the OP's point be that race shouldn't be a defining characteristic in society and any steps taken to have it continue to be so would be steps backwards?

How do we make so? How do we erase the history we have, the results of that history, and its future ramifications?

Note: the USSC rationale to uphold the UT admissions policy in this case (and other recent cases) has nothing whatever to do with addressing historical discrimination.

Nothing, nada, zero, zip, zilch.

 

[fromderinside]

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.

Ever try getting even white trash to go to a black school? I visited FAMU once when I had a pharmacy question - Florida Legislature thought it was some kind of a joke making FAMU the Florida center of excellence for Pharmaceutical studies just as they denied FSU a medical school and an engineering school - where I found the newest building to be at least 50 years old with improvements scheduled every 70 years. Now this was in the mid sixties ....

So, yeah, funny that.