[Malum Prohibitum]

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2016/06/race-and-university-admissions

I am kind of surprised this has not received any commentary here yet.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...acial-preferences-at-the-university-of-texas/

After the oral argument in December, most experts, myself included, expected that the Court would apply strict scrutiny and strike down the Texas plan. However, that did not happen, possibly because of the unexpected death of Justice Antonin Scalia, who would almost certainly have voted to invalidate Texas’ program.

Instead, the program was upheld by a narrow 4-3 majority (Justice Elena Kagan was recused from the case). Justice Anthony Kennedy cast the decisive swing vote, and wrote the majority opinion, which seems at odds with the sort of rigorous strict scrutiny he has long advocated in previous affirmative action cases, including his majority opinion in Fisher I. The result is all the more surprising because this is the first time Kennedy has ever voted to uphold any type of racial preference in education.​

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Same link as post #2

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 . . .

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Justice Alito wrote in his dissent:

they act almost as if Asian-American students do not exist….

tudents labeled "Asian American," seemingly include "individuals of Chinese, Jap¬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 to¬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."

 

[Mrs_Esterhouse]

 

[codegeek]

racism is only acceptable when it is perpetrated by the government.

 

[GM404]

I think the days of a conservative SCOTUS are over for a very, very long time. :-|

 

[bdee]

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....

 

[Rugerer]

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....

Um, "In 2008, students admitted under the TTP made up eighty-one percent of the freshman class."
http://www.scotusblog.com/2011/10/barbara-grutter-meet-abigail-fisher/

She's not asking for special treatment. She asking that in the competition for slots in the remaining 19% that she's graded only upon her merits demonstrated by such things as essays and high school achievements, which are currently employed by UT in the decisions. She's claiming that race being used as any sort of determining factor is unconstitutional.

Where do you get she's playing a race card? That would be asking for greater consideration because she's white or lesser consideration of minorities. Is she doing that?

 

[bdee]

Bottom line is that she didn't get admitted because they admit people to a top tier school based on being at the top of their class. She didn't qualify under that criteria. That's insane, 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. But she applied like lots of other people for admission.

She wasn't able to show that race was a factor in her rejection, but because she's white and that can be used in selection criteria, she determined that she was discriminated against because she's white.

How is that NOT playing the race card?

 

[a_springfield]

Is there one minority student that is not as qualified as her admitted because they need to meet the quota?

 

[bdee]

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.

 

[a_springfield]

You did not answer the question. Of the students accepted was there even one minority student accepted less qualified than her?

I know when I was at kennesaw there were several students that could barely speak English. Most of them disappeared by sophomore year. These were "quota" students. I have a friend that worked in the counseling office for a high school that told me they have seen minority students with low B high C averages and average sat scores get accepted to big schools over mid B white students with high sat scores.

 

[Rugerer]

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.

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?

The plaintiff was in the top 12%.

Why does it matter why she was rejected? UT is using race as a preferential criterion for the express purpose of increasing diversity (i.e. increase the number of black and Hispanic students). By declaration, that means some people are chosen for inclusion by some factor other than their academic qualifications. She is suing for a judgment that using race for a qualification of getting into an academic institution is wrong.

For all we know, she might have won, UT may have went back to the ranking lists, and she still would have gotten rejected. But the first step was to sue for taking race out of the ranking lists.

Are you advocating that a lower academically skilled person should be chosen over a higher skilled person for no other reason than a tick mark in a race column? How does it help that person or the school when he washes out for not be able to handle the academics?

 

[bdee]

Bottom line is that she didn't qualify for automatic admission. You're right, it doesn't matter why she was rejected after failing to automatically qualify. Once you fall out of that group, you get put into a lottery. The college could have seen another person was highly involved in their community, maybe she wasn't. Maybe another candidate had great recommendation letters, maybe this young lady didn't. There are lots of factors that go into these admissions.

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.

So she played the race card, and then we have people that decry its use actually defending her..... oh the hypocrisy.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

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.

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.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

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.

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.

If this was going to be the holding, the Supreme Court would not have even accepted the case.

Stop dodging the issue.

The Court approved of using race as a factor, that is, well, certain races.

I get it. You are a lefty, so you approve of using race as a factor. You can't just admit that, because the Constitution is pretty clear, so you need to come into this thread and deflect, deflect, deflect. Squirrel!

If this case had approved of a preference for white male students, you would be screaming bloody murder. What was that word you used again (and again)? Oh, yeah, hypocrisy.

 

[Craftsman]

A truly cynical person would consider this beneficial to whites and asians and massively detrimental to "minorities". Statistically, minority students admitted to schools they qualify for under "special criteria" fail out in much greater rates, leaving open slots for transfer students based on qualifications alone. A student could at the cheap local community college and transfer into the top tier school when the slot opens up. Nobody cares that you started at local tech when the diploma shows "Big State School".

 

[NTA]

Actually, the Asians have been suffering for a long time as to admissions.
They qualify for admission in huge numbers but get bumped for more favored races.

 

[bdee]

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.

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.

Somehow she decided that because minorities were let in and she wasn't, that race must have been the reason for her rejection.

How did she come to that conclusion you ask?

So yes that is the definition of playing the race card. So instead of creating strawmen about lefties or whatnot, this is about a failed case of playing the race card, and the hypocrites in this country who constantly complain about people using race to their advantage are sitting here trying to defend it now.....

Just Sad. I expected more from you MP.