Courts partially strikes down affirmative action - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

The_Dude · 06-23-2003, 07:29 AM

Quote:

WASHINGTON - In two split decisions, the Supreme Court on Monday ruled that minority applicants may be given an edge when applying for admissions to universities, but limited how much a factor race can play in the selection of students.

The high court struck down a point system used by the University of Michigan, but did not go as far as opponents of affirmative action had wanted. The court approved a separate program used at the University of Michigan law school that gives race less prominence in the admissions decision-making process.

The Constitution "does not prohibit the law school's narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body," Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (news - web sites) wrote.

The court divided in both cases. It upheld the law school program that sought a "critical mass" of minorities by a 5-4 vote, with O'Connor siding with the court's more liberal justices to decide the case.

The court split 6-3 in finding the undergraduate program unconstitutional. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote the majority opinion in the undergraduate case, joined by O'Connor and Justices Antonin Scalia (news - web sites), Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas (news - web sites) and Stephen Breyer (news - web sites).

Justices John Paul Stevens (news - web sites), David Souter (news - web sites) and Ruth Bader Ginsburg (news - web sites) dissented.

Government has a compelling interest in promoting racial diversity on campus, but the undergraduate school's admissions policy is not the way to get there, the court majority said.

"The university's policy, which automatically distributes 20 points, or one-fifth of the points needed to guarantee admission, to every single underrepresented minority applicant solely because of race, is not narrowly tailored to achieve the interest in educational diversity," that Michigan claimed justified the policy, Rehnquist wrote.

The ruling affects tax-supported schools, and by extension private schools and other institutions, that have looked for ways to boost minority enrollment without violating the Constitution's guarantee against discrimination.

The University of Michigan cases are the most significant test of affirmative action to reach the court in a generation. At issue was whether racial preference programs unconstitutionally discriminate against white students.

The rulings follow the path the court set a generation ago, when it outlawed quotas but still left room for schools to improve the odds for minority applicants.

The two Michigan cases directly address only admissions at public, tax-supported institutions. But the court's rationale is expected to have a wide ripple through private colleges and universities, other government decision-making and the business world.

Opponents of affirmative action had hoped the Supreme Court would use this opportunity to ban most consideration of race in any government decisions. The court is far more conservative than in 1978, when it last ruled on affirmative action in higher education admissions, and the justices have put heavy conditions on government affirmative action in other arenas over the past decade.

Defending its general approach to affirmative action, the university has said that having what it calls a critical mass of minority students benefits the whole student body. Minorities must be present in more than token numbers to ensure all students can interact, the university has said.

Michigan insists that it accepts only academically qualified students, no matter what their race.

Michigan's undergraduate school used a 150-point index to screen applicants. The 20 points awarded to minorities was more than the school awarded for some measures of academic excellence, writing ability or leadership skills. Outstanding athletes also got 20 points, as did impoverished applicants.

The school has also "flagged" minority applications, making it easier to keep an applicant in the pool even if he or she flunked an initial review.

In 1997, the year that two white students sued, the school had 13,500 applicants and selected 3,958 of them as freshmen.

The white plaintiffs, Jennifer Gratz and Patrick Hamacher, were Michigan residents with good grades and other qualifications when they were rejected at the flagship Ann Arbor campus. Both have since graduated from other colleges.

The Bush administration sided with the students, but did not call for an outright end to affirmative action.

The students were supported by a range of conservative legal groups, some law professors and affirmative action opponents.

The university's law school program uses a separate, less structured system to promote minority enrollment.

The law school case is Grutter v. Bollinger, 02-241; the undergraduate case is Gratz v. Bollinger, 02-516.

phew, that's one good decision to come out of the supreme court.

personally, i think that it should've been struck down for both undergrad and grad levels.
they shouldnt even ask for race on applications unless it's used ONLY for survey's.

on the things not to ask list, add sex too.

as a minority student (michigan only awards 20 pts to blacks and hispanics only, no other minorites.....) it's basically saying that you're not good enough to compete against other students, so we'll cut the corners for you.

i personally would be ashamed of using affirmative action as the reason to get into college.

Liquor Dealer · 06-23-2003, 07:40 AM

Damn! I find myself agreeing with the Dude! The 20 points they do allow is the largest single factor on their qualifying scale - It gives them a huge headstart. I am in no way saying that there should not be diversity. I agree whole heartedly with the President's view that the top 10% of every high school graduating class should have access to the state's colleges and universities - this would insure diversity because high school classes across a state represent the diversity of the state's population. Ability should be the factor that determines access and nothing else.

The_Dude · 06-23-2003, 07:50 AM

bah, i'm not a big fan of the top 10% rule (although i am in the top 10% of my graduating class)

this story ran in the houston chronicle

Quote:

Despite breezing through Houston's Yates High School with a 3 .9 grade-point average, Sean Watkins earned a 990 on his SAT college admissions test, just below the midpoint among the nation's test takers.

"I didn't learn how to study at Yates," he says. "I didn't study because I didn't have to. I just had to pay attention in class. The work was not that hard."

But while many students with an SAT score that low wouldn't be accepted to the state's two flagship universities, Watkins was a highly coveted recruit when he graduated in 2000 because he is black and because he finished in the top 10 percent of his class in a predominantly black high school. The Texas A&M University System chancellor personally invited him to attend A&M, but Watkins found the $58,000 in private and university scholarships at the University of Texas more enticing.

Since the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals barred Texas universities from using race in admissions and scholarships in its 1996 Hopwood decision, UT and A&M have increasingly relied on minority students with low SAT or ACT scores to boost campus diversity.

And so, with the U.S. Supreme Court poised to deliver a watershed decision this year on whether colleges can use racial preferences in admissions, Watkins finds himself at the center of a national debate. If preferences are banned nationally, many states will look to Texas for answers on how to promote college diversity.

The high court will hear oral arguments Tuesday on the constitutionality of racial preferences at the University of Michigan, and a decision is expected by this summer.

One of the few things state legislators could do to increase college diversity after the Hopwood decision was to pass a law guaranteeing Texas high school students who graduate in the top 10 percent of their classes admission to the public university of their choice.

Because many Texas high schools remain largely segregated by race, the law helps black and Hispanic students who graduate in the top 10 percent of their schools by placing them on the same level as white students who graduate in the top 10 percent of their schools. The law, passed in 1997 and implemented in 1998, is designed to offset the fact that blacks and Hispanics tend to score lower than whites on standardized tests.

Some contend that Watkins, through no fault of his own, should serve as a warning for other states to not follow in Texas' path. The more students who are automatically admitted to flagship institutions with low SAT scores, these critics say, the less room there is for perhaps more deserving students who do not attain a certain ranking at a tougher high school.

"The top 10 percent plan, as currently administered in Texas, has dumbed down the overall academic qualifications of incoming freshmen at UT and A&M," said Edward Blum, a 1973 UT graduate who is a fellow with the Center for Equal Opportunity, a Washington, D.C., group opposed to racial preferences.

But others say the law is doing exactly what it was intended to by giving deserving minorities a fair chance to attend the state's best public institutions. They contend that standardized tests are culturally biased, and they point out that freshman GPAs and retention rates have not been affected by the top 10 percent rule at UT and A&M.

"The top 10 percent plan is not a perfect system, but we needed to put something in place that would encourage minority enrollment," said state Sen. Rodney Ellis, D-Houston. "I don't think it has in any way led to a dumbing down of the schools. I don't think SAT test scores are a very accurate predictor of one's intelligence."

Among Texas students enrolled in 1996, 14 percent of the black freshmen at UT had SAT (or ACT equivalent) scores below 1000, compared with 13 percent of Hispanics, 2 percent of whites and 3 percent of Asian-Americans. By 2001, the latest year for which such statistics are available, 23 percent of blacks had such low SAT scores, compared with 17 percent of Hispanics, 3 percent of whites and 4 percent of Asians.

At A&M in 1996, 32 percent of black freshmen had such SAT scores, compared with 23 percent of Hispanics, 7 percent of whites and 11 percent of Asians. Five years later, 43 percent of black freshmen had these scores, compared with 23 percent of Hispanics, 9 percent of whites and 13 percent of Asians.

The 1997 law is also designed to help minorities who are not in the top 10 percent by allowing college admissions officials to give more weight to factors such as disadvantaged socioeconomic status, bilingual households and first-generation college students. But the majority of the increase in students with SAT scores in the bottom half comes from automatically admitted students.

UT and A&M officials say they typically admitted top 10 percent students even before Hopwood, but they did not actively recruit from predominantly minority schools and did not tailor scholarships for them the way they do now. (Watkins gets to pocket the financial aid he doesn't spend at UT , where tuition, room and board cost about $12,000 a year.)

Davida Charney, a UT writing professor who oversees the freshman writing program, said such statistics are helping to create a climate of distrust on the Austin campus. She said she hasn't noticed a drop in the quality of students since the top 10 percent law went into effect, but she has seen quite a few students make such claims in their compositions.

"The perception is that even if it's supposed to be the fairest way to go, it's not fair," said Charney, who supports the top 10 percent program. "It's kind of unfortunate. It hasn't circumvented the problem of seeming unfair, and that's the main thing it was supposed to do."

In January, President Bush not only called the program fair, but he also touted it as a model that could be emulated by the rest of the country when his Justice Department filed a brief asking the Supreme Court to strike down racial preferences.

Like UT and A&M officials, Bush pointed out that although enrollment of blacks and Hispanics at the schools dipped immediately after the Hopwood ruling, the top 10 percent plan has helped bring those numbers to roughly pre-Hopwood levels.

In the fall of 1996, 64.7 percent of UT 's freshman class was white, 14.7 percent was Asian-American, 14.5 percent was Hispanic and 4.1 percent was black . The fall 2002 freshman class was 61.5 percent white, 18.3 percent Asian-American, 14.3 percent Hispanic and 3 .4 percent black .

Even though A&M is often regarded as less hospitable to minorities than UT , the primary difference in their enrollments is that UT typically has more Asian-American students and A&M has more whites. In the fall of 1996, 80.4 percent of A&M's freshmen were white, 11.2 percent Hispanic, 3 .6 percent black and 2.8 percent Asian-American. In the fall of 2002, 82.3 percent of the freshmen were white, 9.6 percent Hispanic, 3 .4 percent Asian-American and 2.6 percent black .

Advocates of racial preferences, such as Harvard's Civil Rights Project and the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, have recently published lengthy studies saying the Texas program is not an effective replacement for preferences. One of their main arguments is that enrollment for Hispanics and blacks should be even higher than in 1996 because both groups are significantly underrepresented according to their Texas population.

Proponents of racial preferences have also criticized "top percent" programs in California and Florida that were enacted after Texas' as being ineffective.

The plans also have come under attack from some conservative groups for being nothing more than substitutes for racial preferences. They say if the Supreme Court strikes down preferences, top percent plans might be the next to face legal challenges.

"The legislative record is crystal clear that when the Texas top 10 percent plan was enacted, without a doubt the debate within the Legislature was its effect on minority admissions," Blum said.

Blum said Texas has the least race-neutral plan because it is the only state that guarantees students admission even to a flagship school. The top 4 percent plan in California guarantees admission only to the University of California system, not necessarily UC-Berkeley or UCLA, and Florida's "Talented 20" guarantees admission only to a state university.

Thus, he claims, the Texas plan has generated more resentment among white students, has diluted the quality of students at the flagships and has contributed to overcrowding at those institutions.

David Colburn, provost at the University of Florida, which is that state's flagship institution, said the school admits only the cream of the crop from the Talented 20 program "because there's a lot of pressure not to ignore students from private schools."

"I think guaranteeing admission to a university system is a fairer approach" than guaranteeing admission to flagship institutions, he said.

Since 1996, top 10 percent students have taken up an increasingly larger percentage of the space at UT and A&M, leaving less room for non-top 10 percent students who have higher SAT scores and GPAs than many automatically admitted students.

In 1996, top 10 percent students, who at the time were not guaranteed admission, accounted for 38 percent of UT 's freshmen class and 43 percent of A&M's class. By 2002, they accounted for 50 percent of the UT freshman class and 48 percent of the A&M class.

UT and A&M have tried to accommodate as many non-top 10 percent students with deserving credentials as they can by increasing class sizes. The UT freshman class was 7,935 last fall, compared with 6,430 in fall 1996. At A&M, the fall 2002 freshman class was 6,949, compared with 6,387 in fall 1996.

Admissions officials say record numbers of applications are mostly responsible for the growth, but the top 10 percent rule has forced them to try to squeeze in more deserving students.

According to many students who haven't gotten into the schools, and their angry parents, the efforts have not been enough. An increasing number of students from high -performing high schools, such as Houston's Bellaire High School, where it is difficult to make the top 10 percent, have in recent years been rejected by the flagship schools despite having high GPAs and high SAT scores.

Historically, UT has allowed rejected students the chance to enter the school by completing 12 semester credit hours of basic courses at the Austin campus the summer of their freshman year and attaining a 2.25 GPA . But because so many non-top 10 percent students entered the program after 1997, UT changed the rules in 2001 to require rejected students to complete 30 semester hours in one year with a 3 .0 GPA at another UT System school.

"I personally do not feel it is fair at all," said Matt Riklin, who is spending his freshman year at UT -San Antonio this academic year because he did not get into UT . He said he graduated in the top 15 percent of his class at Stratford High School in the Spring Branch district and earned an SAT score of about 1200.

"It's been my lifelong dream to go to UT ," said Riklin, who is white. "All my family went there. I've had burnt orange and white bleed through me since I was 2 years old. I do sympathize with the argument that we should help minorities, but it's screwing people like me over."

He said he expects to enter UT next year because he is earning a 4.0 GPA in San Antonio.

But most who try to enter UT through this program haven't been successful.

In 2001, 2,048 students were offered admission into the "coordinated admissions" program, according to Bruce Walker, UT 's director of admissions. Of the 476 who agreed to participate, only 182 made it to UT the following year.

This academic year, 2,287 students were offered a spot in the program, and 800 entered.

The top 10 percent program also raised cries of unfairness at some of UT 's most popular programs, which must give first preference to top 10 percent students. In 2000, the undergraduate business college was completely filled with top 10 percent students, leaving no room for others, no matter how spectacular their credentials.

The following year, UT changed its policy to cap top 10 percent students in particular colleges at 75 percent. In addition to the business college, the College of Communication has also been capped, Walker said.

Blum said UT professors have confided to him that the influx of top 10 percent students has weakened the overall strength of the student body.

"Many faculty members who came to UT with the hope of having a highly qualified and highly motivated student body, only to find themselves teaching in essence 10th- and 11th-grade English," he said.

But several professors interviewed for this story said the top 10 percent program isn't the culprit for why many college students in recent years have not been as prepared as in he past.

"A lot of it has to do with TV and video games," Charney said. "Kids are not reading."

Initially, the top 10 percent law lowered average SAT scores at both UT and A&M because the average test scores of top 10 percent students dipped significantly at both schools. But since non-top 10 percent students have had to earn increasingly higher scores to get in, UT 's average SAT of 1222 last fall for the first time exceeded the average score of 1220 in 1996. At A&M, the average score in 2002 was 1164, compared with an average of 1174 in 1996.

The average freshman GPAs of all minority groups at UT and A&M are about what they were in 1996. Blacks and Hispanics have consistently had lower freshman GPAs than whites and Asian-Americans, and students with lower SAT scores on average have lower freshman GPAs.

Among top 10 percent freshmen at UT in 2001-02, those who scored below 1000 on the SAT had an average GPA of 2.62, and those who scored above averaged 3 .29; the average GPAs at A&M were 2.38 and 3 .02, respectively.

Graduation rates, which are typically calculated over a six-year period, are not available yet for any top 10 percent class. UT has compiled data showing retention rates have so far remained at roughly pre-Hopwood levels. A&M officials have not analyzed the data this way, but admissions director Joe Estrada said he believes the numbers would be similar to UT 's.

UT psychology professor Joe Horn said it is difficult to take such numbers seriously, however, because disadvantaged students, especially if they are top 10 percent students, receive so much help.

UT and A&M have set aside millions in various scholarship funds targeted for disadvantaged students, so many of these students never have to work on campus. They also receive structured help to get them through school and are placed in much smaller freshman classes than the rest of the students.

At UT , Spanish-speaking students who pass a Spanish language test are automatically given 12 semester hours of A in that language. Horn said UT is one of the few major universities in the country to reward bilingual students this way.

Watkins, who has struggled with his grades, said support programs have been crucial to helping him stay in school. He said he is just as capable as many students who earned better test scores, but he just didn't have the same preparation.

"When I came to UT ," he said, "most of the other students had by the eighth grade heard about things I'd never heard of."

edit: let me add my view.

cuz of the top 10% law, people more qualified are denied admission from the universities, which could be related to aff action.

seretogis · 06-23-2003, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Dude
it's basically saying that you're not good enough to compete against other students, so we'll cut the corners for you.

i personally would be ashamed of using affirmative action as the reason to get into college.

Finally, a self-proclaimed liberal that understands what affirmative action is all about!

geep · 06-23-2003, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Dude
they shouldnt even ask for race on applications unless it's used ONLY for survey's.

on the things not to ask list, add sex too.

Brilliantly said.

smooth · 06-23-2003, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Dude
as a minority student (michigan only awards 20 pts to blacks and hispanics only, no other minorites.....) it's basically saying that you're not good enough to compete against other students, so we'll cut the corners for you.

i personally would be ashamed of using affirmative action as the reason to get into college.

As a minority student who is in the top 1% of my class and top 3% in GRE, I'm not ashamed to use race as a qualifying factor. I used to think that and have refused to submit my applications in the past on that basis.

However, recognizing that minority students haven't been prepared or have not had the same resources available to them as other, non-minority students does not denigrate one's personal achievements.

No one has ever stated that I wasn't "good enough" to compete against other students; rather, there is an understanding that personal attention, one-on-one counseling and grooming, up to date computers and textbooks gives well-funded school students an advantage that inner-city youth will never have access to unless systemic changes occur.

edit: the title of your thread is misleading. The Court was in majority support of affirmative action. 25 years ago only one Justice claimed race could be used as a factor. Now, 5 Justices found that race could be used as a factor but argued that the system in place was too blunt--they need to analyze each applicant indivually along with the ability to take race into consideration.

Furthermore, they explicitly stated that this finding was only applicable to higher education.

The_Dude · 06-23-2003, 11:27 AM

i understand that. fix the problem at the roots. increase funding for those schools. but discriminating at the next level is not the solution to that.

smooth · 06-23-2003, 11:35 AM

The_Dude, fixing the problem at "its roots" doesn't help the students applying today.

The_Dude · 06-23-2003, 11:39 AM

i dont get it.

so, the students from the situations you described are very unqualified. so, how would it benifit them if you put them in a top tier public university, which they are totally unprepared for? they're very likely to drop out or fail classes.

smooth · 06-23-2003, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Dude
i dont get it.

so, the students from the situations you described are very unqualified. so, how would it benifit them if you put them in a top tier public university, which they are totally unprepared for? they're very likely to drop out or fail classes.

The_Dude, now you are just arguing for the sake of it.

Read about the students qualifications--both the ones admitted and the ones denied.

The admitted students were very qualified despite the disadvantages they had to navigate through (just like you and me have been able to achieve the top of our classes and nationwide standards despite the disadvantages we had to deal with).

The non-admitted students were judged to be non-admittable despite the issue of race. Both, by the way, have gone on to pursue successful avenues in society.

Where does this idea that only GPA and scores are the only criteria of success in graduate studies?

The admissions counsel claimed (rightly so) that other factors should be considered to create a diverse pool of students. Some students were admitted because they played tennis well, some play the flute, some were black, some come from Nebraska, some come from a trailer park, all of these things comprise who a person is--what is his or her worldview--and are points of interest to an institution of higher education.

Gender, race, socio-economic position, geographic origin, rural vs. urban setting are all components that one can voluntarily answer on an application.

The school may decide that it has too many Indians, whites, males, heterosexual, or whatever and carefully craft its incoming cohort.

This isn't about unqualified people being admitted. It's about the fact that a small percentage of various groups don't even apply to particular schools--mainly because they haven't been told of the existance of the school by a counselor or haven't been prepped by their high school.

Of the ones who were applying, the University was awarding some points to account for the talent and achievment it took to get to that point. Before you ask it, white students are often awarded certain points for other things.

For example, they awarded more points due to rigorous curriculum. Surprise, some students have AP classes while other, poorer students never had that option because their inner-city school didn't offer AP classes.

The_Dude · 06-23-2003, 01:59 PM

yes, white students are getting points awarded for extracurricular actvities.

arent those same points avaliable for minority students to earn also?

black and hispanic students are awarded points just because of their race. are those points avaliable to white students?

Sun Tzu · 06-23-2003, 03:53 PM

No need to repeat everything, I dont understand why any ground was given towards that direction. Equality is what its is; I dont understand how theres even an argument.

smooth · 06-23-2003, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Dude
yes, white students are getting points awarded for extracurricular actvities.

arent those same points avaliable for minority students to earn also?

black and hispanic students are awarded points just because of their race. are those points avaliable to white students?

Frankly, you are surprising me. If you keep arguing against things I never even stated then I'm going to stop responding to you.

First of all, obviously anyone involved in extra-curricular activities would have received points for their actions--that isn't even an issue that I raised.

Secondly, no race is being awarded points--that's what was struck down in the Supreme Court.

How does that extend to barring admission counselors from reviewing all the merits of an applicant, deciding they want some more black, Hispanic, or homosexual viewpoints in the incoming cohort and admit them on that basis?

It doesn't and the ruling supports such decisions.

Now get off it, two white students were not refused admission due to some requirement to allow two unqualified (or even less qualified) minority students in.

Read the case.

The_Dude · 06-23-2003, 05:12 PM

i personally think that admitting the most qualified people is more important that improving campus diversity.

smooth · 06-23-2003, 07:42 PM

That seems to be our disagreement then; I believe diversity creates the most qualified people.

My experience has been that my learning environment has been enhanced when I was a part of a diverse cohort.

The_Dude · 06-23-2003, 08:18 PM

so, arent you sacrificing quality for diversity?

nofnway · 06-25-2003, 10:22 PM

This decision seems just about right to me....

Diversity, racial or otherwise, greatly increases the richness of life. But I wonder if equality is really what people are after.......They dance around how to achieve an equality of opportunity and lament an inequality of outcome. The way I have seen the world work tells me that the next guy would stab you in the back if it would give him an advantage......

I can't think of a single time when someone gave up an advantage in....College admissions
Golf
Stock car racing
Tiddly Winks
Living to reproduce

Evolution? Devolution?

Minorities ( Pick One), Women, Homosexuals, White male office workers don't want equality....They want superiority, to be the top dog. That is what the fight is all about.

"I'm poor" "I'm an oppressed underrepresented minority"
" I'm a disaffected greaseball loser"

Excuses.....C'mon

Inner city kids don't know how to compete? Can't get prepared?
Give them some credit....
White inner city kids deserve less consideration than minority kids because their country club cousins took all the spots. Now thats justice for ya....

smooth · 06-26-2003, 01:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Dude
so, arent you sacrificing quality for diversity?

No, I am not sacrificing anything. We seem to be speaking at cross-purposes. You are operating under the assumption (reasonable, granted) that quantitative, raw scores are an accurate measure of one's ability. From that premise you extrapolate that one's ability will translate to quality of education on campus.

The problem we find with that view, however, is that it fails to recognize that qualitative factors are subjective. In this circumstance, students are attempting to analyze whether administrators should or should not use qualities they deem as relevant to increasing the quality of the learning environment they are creating--factors only they are qualified to ascertain. At the graduate level, as is the case of the law school, cohort interation creates the learning environment--not merely (one could argue, least of all) the professors.

That doesn't even address the ramifications of allowing a court to gainsay the educators' expertise nor does it touch the ridiculousness of laypersons arguing against the positions of numerous experts on the subject.

I need to point out my position is that the most intelligent people in our country are at the helm of our intellectual institutions; one would hope so, anyway, seeing as we are arguing over one's right to learn from those people.

I've read the evidence for their position (and I've probably written some of it) and, as a social scientist, I both believe it to be strong and support it. If you aren't aware of the strong scientific evidence in support of Bollinger's position I believe you have an obligation to avail yourself of it before reaching a final conclusion.

IIRC, you are some sort of poli-sci major? You might remember a study out of--could be Harvard business--regarding X and O interaction. If you don't know what I'm talking about then let me know and I'll pull it out of my book. You can also ask some people in business managment or theory of organizations courses.

seretogis · 06-26-2003, 02:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by smooth
You are operating under the assumption (reasonable, granted) that quantitative, raw scores are an accurate measure of one's ability.

Whereas you are operating under the assumption that the color of ones skin is an accurate measure of one's ability?

The_Dude · 06-26-2003, 11:45 AM

fine, dont just look @ raw scores.

look @ something that anyone of any race has a chance to earn. like extra curricular stuff, volunteering, projects started, awards earned...anything like that.

a black kid and a white kid has equal chance of earning those credits.

but, a white kid doesnt have the oppurtuinity to become black

Conclamo Ludus · 06-26-2003, 12:01 PM

Affirmative Action is like a band-aid over cancer. It might make you feel good for a while, but the cancer is still consuming you. Hate from Fear is the problem and it takes a long time to evolve out of it. It gets better with each decade, but sadly it takes time. Affirmative Action via a point system, that was struck down, helps the short term but can possibly slow down the long term causing more resentment.

Equal rights have no place for "pay-backs" or "reparations" or "revenge". If someone is arguing that a minority should have more rights because of historical oppression, then don't argue behind equal rights, because that isn't what you are after.

Its a slippery slope. I am generally pleased with the Supreme Court's split decision.

smooth · 06-26-2003, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Dude
fine, dont just look @ raw scores.

look @ something that anyone of any race has a chance to earn. like extra curricular stuff, volunteering, projects started, awards earned...anything like that.

a black kid and a white kid has equal chance of earning those credits.

but, a white kid doesnt have the oppurtuinity to become black

And a black kid can't become white. That's why I support the position that if the administration doesn't want too many black kids or too many white kids they should be able to look at all of the factors you listed as well as including race, if necessary to balance the incoming cohort.

You are arguing against a moot point--the 20 extra points has already been eliminated. No one here is arguing in support of that system.

06-23-2003, 07:40 AM	#2 (permalink)
Liquor Dealer Super Agitator Location: Just SW of Nowhere!!! In the good old US of A	Damn! I find myself agreeing with the Dude! The 20 points they do allow is the largest single factor on their qualifying scale - It gives them a huge headstart. I am in no way saying that there should not be diversity. I agree whole heartedly with the President's view that the top 10% of every high school graduating class should have access to the state's colleges and universities - this would insure diversity because high school classes across a state represent the diversity of the state's population. Ability should be the factor that determines access and nothing else. __________________ Life isn't always a bowl of cherries, sometimes it's more like a jar of Jalapenos --- what you say or do today might burn your ass tomorrow!!!

06-23-2003, 11:27 AM	#7 (permalink)
The_Dude The GrandDaddy of them all! Location: Austin, TX	i understand that. fix the problem at the roots. increase funding for those schools. but discriminating at the next level is not the solution to that. __________________ "Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

06-23-2003, 11:35 AM	#8 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	The_Dude, fixing the problem at "its roots" doesn't help the students applying today. __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

06-23-2003, 11:39 AM	#9 (permalink)
The_Dude The GrandDaddy of them all! Location: Austin, TX	i dont get it. so, the students from the situations you described are very unqualified. so, how would it benifit them if you put them in a top tier public university, which they are totally unprepared for? they're very likely to drop out or fail classes. __________________ "Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

06-23-2003, 01:59 PM	#11 (permalink)
The_Dude The GrandDaddy of them all! Location: Austin, TX	yes, white students are getting points awarded for extracurricular actvities. arent those same points avaliable for minority students to earn also? black and hispanic students are awarded points just because of their race. are those points avaliable to white students? __________________ "Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

06-23-2003, 03:53 PM	#12 (permalink)
Sun Tzu Conspiracy Realist Location: The Event Horizon	No need to repeat everything, I dont understand why any ground was given towards that direction. Equality is what its is; I dont understand how theres even an argument. __________________ *To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking*

06-23-2003, 05:12 PM	#14 (permalink)
The_Dude The GrandDaddy of them all! Location: Austin, TX	i personally think that admitting the most qualified people is more important that improving campus diversity. __________________ "Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

06-23-2003, 07:42 PM	#15 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	That seems to be our disagreement then; I believe diversity creates the most qualified people. My experience has been that my learning environment has been enhanced when I was a part of a diverse cohort. __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

06-23-2003, 08:18 PM	#16 (permalink)
The_Dude The GrandDaddy of them all! Location: Austin, TX	so, arent you sacrificing quality for diversity? __________________ "Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

06-25-2003, 10:22 PM	#17 (permalink)
nofnway Insane Location: under the freeway bridge	This decision seems just about right to me.... Diversity, racial or otherwise, greatly increases the richness of life. But I wonder if equality is really what people are after.......They dance around how to achieve an equality of opportunity and lament an inequality of outcome. The way I have seen the world work tells me that the next guy would stab you in the back if it would give him an advantage...... I can't think of a single time when someone gave up an advantage in....College admissions Golf Stock car racing Tiddly Winks Living to reproduce Evolution? Devolution? Minorities ( Pick One), Women, Homosexuals, White male office workers don't want equality....They want superiority, to be the top dog. That is what the fight is all about. "I'm poor" "I'm an oppressed underrepresented minority" " I'm a disaffected greaseball loser" Excuses.....C'mon Inner city kids don't know how to compete? Can't get prepared? Give them some credit.... White inner city kids deserve less consideration than minority kids because their country club cousins took all the spots. Now thats justice for ya.... __________________ "Iron rusts with disuse, stagnant water loses its purity and in cold water freezes. Even so does inaction sap the vigor of the mind" Leonardo Da Vinci

06-26-2003, 11:45 AM	#20 (permalink)
The_Dude The GrandDaddy of them all! Location: Austin, TX	fine, dont just look @ raw scores. look @ something that anyone of any race has a chance to earn. like extra curricular stuff, volunteering, projects started, awards earned...anything like that. a black kid and a white kid has equal chance of earning those credits. but, a white kid doesnt have the oppurtuinity to become black __________________ "Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

06-26-2003, 12:01 PM	#21 (permalink)
Conclamo Ludus Modern Man Location: West Michigan	Affirmative Action is like a band-aid over cancer. It might make you feel good for a while, but the cancer is still consuming you. Hate from Fear is the problem and it takes a long time to evolve out of it. It gets better with each decade, but sadly it takes time. Affirmative Action via a point system, that was struck down, helps the short term but can possibly slow down the long term causing more resentment. Equal rights have no place for "pay-backs" or "reparations" or "revenge". If someone is arguing that a minority should have more rights because of historical oppression, then don't argue behind equal rights, because that isn't what you are after. Its a slippery slope. I am generally pleased with the Supreme Court's split decision. __________________ Lord, have mercy on my wicked soul I wouldn't mistreat you baby, for my weight in gold. -Son House, Death Letter Blues