These objectives are so vague that they can justify racial preferences for virtually any racial, ethnic, or religious group, especially if the university is not required to provide proof that doing so really will achieve measurable progress towards those objectives. For example, increasing the number of Swedes, Bulgarians, or Mormons from Utah at UT could potentially break down stereotypes about those groups, and help prepare students "for an increasingly diverse workforce and society." If applied consistently, the Court's reasoning, could even justify discrimination against minorities and in favor of whites . . .
they act almost as if Asian-American students do not exist….
tudents labeled "Asian American," seemingly include "individuals of Chinese, JapÂ¬anese, Korean, Vietnamese, Cambodian, Hmong, Indianand other backgrounds comprising roughly 60% of the world's population…." It would be ludicrous to suggest that all of these students have similar backgrounds and similar ideas and experiences to share. So why has UT lumped them toÂ¬gether and concluded that it is appropriate to discriminate against Asian-American students because they are "overrepresented" in the UT student body? UT has no good answer. And UT makes no effort to ensure that it has a critical mass of, say, "Filipino Americans" or "Cambodian Americans."
Um, "In 2008, students admitted under the TTP made up eighty-one percent of the freshman class."The fact is that this girl didn't qualify under Texas standards which covers way over 90% of all admissions. That leaves a few slots open for the university to pick whoever they want. It isn't as though she was qualified to attend and was denied because of race. She wanted to be admitted under special circumstances, and was upset that she didn't get her entitled special treatment, and somehow decided she was discriminated on because she was white.
And the funny thing is that the people always complaining about others playing the race card are actually upset that playing the race card didn't work.
Talk about hypocrisy....
You really don't make any sense. Everyone that wants to can get in the top 10%? You get that only the best 10% make the top 10%, right?in a public high school, you basically have to have a pulse, not make any attempt to kill any of your teachers, and show up most days, and you get in the 10% of your class.
That is NOT the reason for the S.Ct's holding, and it does not reflect the holding. Stop misrepresenting things.According to the story, 19% of all applicants were unqualified, including this young lady. However, she wasn't able to show race was a factor at all in her rejection. But because race COULD be used, she decided that was the reason she was rejected.
That is the very definition of playing the race card.
Wow, you did not read the opinion. You also did not read the links. You also did not read even the quotes I provided. Please go educate yourself.But was she wasn't able to do was show in the slightest is that race was a factor in her rejection. Yet she decided that that was the reason.
SCOTUS said race could be used in admissions, as the university made a compelling argument that diversity is a worthwhile goal. Whether or not I agree with the means to achieve that goal, there is no evidence whatsoever that race was any factor at all in her rejection.That is NOT the reason for the S.Ct's holding, and it does not reflect the holding. Stop misrepresenting things.
The case approves of using race as a factor in admissions.
It is a disgusting affront to the notion of equality.