<question: private="" colleges="" are="" exempt="" from="" any="" affirmative="" action="" ban,="" correct?=""> </question:>
If they receive federal money, then, probably, not. Most big privates receive some form of federal grants.
Both the courts and the facts happen to disagree with your conclusion!
Fwiw, this was pasted in the OP
When Fisher applied in 2008, UT Austin filled 92 percent of its in-state spots with students from the top 10 program. With a 3.59 grade-point average and a modest SAT score of 1180 out of 1600, she was a solid student but not a great one, not for a school with an extremely low acceptance rate for in-state students admitted outside of top 10.
For the remaining 8 percent of in-state spots, UT Austin used a holistic approach factoring in socioeconomic status, school quality, family background and/or race.
Neither special circumstances nor grades were determinative. Of the 841 students admitted under these criteria, 47 had worse grades than Fisher, and 42 of them were white. On the other end, UT rejected 168 black and Latino students with scores equal to or better than Fisher’s.
xiggi,
It doesn’t matter. Take an analogy of a racially segregated bus. It doesn’t matter, how many passengers were on the bus. It doesn’t matter if the “black” seats are as comfortable as the 'white" seats.
All that matters is the fact that passengers have preferences (and disadvantages) because of their race! This is wrong, as a concept. It is plain dangerous.
xiggi,
BTW, I agree with your calculations. Affirmative action is a smoke-screen that lets UT to select the student they want (often affluent and well connected, regardless of race). IMHO, UT is using URM students as a pawn to create non-transparent (subjective) way of selecting students.
You are entitled, like everyone else, to an opinion, and even an erroneous one. On the other hand, you’re not entitled to your own set of facts. Discrimination has to be factual. Your analogy to a bus is just plain silly.
Based on recent rulings, I can’t see this court killing any form of affirmative action.
xiggi,
Discrimination is discrimination. It is intuitively clear. If race is used to decide who is “in” and who is “out” - it is discrimination based on race. Everything else is a smoke screen.
This is really old stuff, and not very hard to address. Yes, Separate but Equal (i.e. the bus example) is discrimination, used to be allowed and then it was declared illegal. Using race in admissions decisions to attempt to remedy past injustices and other social imbalances is discrimination in the most technical sense of the word, but not in the way it is often used in everyday language. That kind of discrimination was not only allowed but promoted by the Federal government and frequently upheld by the Supreme Court, which is why many don’t consider it discrimination in the same sense as past abuses of racial preferences. This form of preferences (discrimination for those that are technical) is currently being reviewed for its continued legality, at least in this one case that might affect it in other applications. Separate but equal was legal until it finally wasn’t also. Courts use circumstances of the times we live in to make rulings.
Nothing new in anything you two are saying, it is just arguing over which definition you are using.
Re: #27
Seems that the word “discrimination” is increasingly being used to refer only to illegal or undesirable discrimination, as opposed to (for example) discrimination between applicants to a college on the basis of criteria like previous courses, grades, and test scores.
The Supreme Court will determine whether the discrimination in question is illegal discrimination. Everyone else here can also argue about whether they feel that the discrimination in question is undesirable discrimination. Of course, information may not be complete from an outsider point of view, unless the University of Texas publishes the holistic review rubric that it used at the time.
This really depends on the caliber of the school. If Ivy League and other elite colleges did not use affirmative action, those schools would be almost entirely comprised of Asians and international Asians. White people very much benefit from affirmative action when it comes to college admissions. That’s how colleges make sure that they have students of all races and ethnicities. Be careful what you wish for.
Just wish to have a world without discrimination 
If Asian students deserve slots at Ivys - fine. Berkley is Asian … and it is a vary good school. Nothing bad happened to it. My D is in the magnet school … the ONLY non-Asian girl in the class. Kids don’t even see the difference.
How does it matter? Why to we put people in the “race box”?
BTW, most students at Ivys are younger than 40 years old. Should we allocate special preferences for people older than 40 (like me) in admission to Ivys? Just for the sake of class diversity …
AA - the law - doesn’t apply to white people. I think you mean that if top schools considered only test scores more Asians would be there than whites.
You really have some of the worst analogies. I think you should stay away from using analogies to make an argument because you are really bad at it.
Affirmative action is not discrimination. You are acting as if colleges are just accepting under qualified applicants just for the sake of them being black. I’ve yet to see a college turn away a qualified white or Asian applicant for an under qualified applicant.
You know, it’s amazing to see how much people complain about affirmative action as if blacks and Latinos don’t make up a ridiculously small portion of PWI student bodies.
I never said that there is anything wrong with all Asian student bodies. I just believe that private institutions should be able to set the criteria for admissions and should be able to curate their own student body. The problem with non diverse student bodies is that they somewhat shelter students and limit exposure to different cultures. It’s why I chose to not apply to an HBCU and I didn’t want to apply to a school like Washington and Lee. I did not want to be at either end of the spectrum. The best student bodies have students from all walks of life who have different life experiences.
However, SES background diversity is often widely ignored, even though it is very skewed at many colleges. For example, many of the highly selective private schools that are the focus of attention of many on these forums have about half or more of their students not receiving any financial aid. This implies that they come from very high income and wealth families (probably in the top few percent to be able to afford the costs).
@ucbalumnus Well, it won’t happen over night. Private colleges have historically been havens for the wealthy, but it certainly seems as though colleges try to increase SES diversity. That’s why they love Questbridge scholars and brag about having more students who receive Pell grants.
^^ see Rose and Carnevale!
I think colleges love SES diversity but their endowments can’t handle too much of it.
CaliCash,
Colleges are considering race in admissions. Colleges are open about this fact. This is discrimination, per definition. Some candidates get preferential treatment because of their race. How else could I interpret “consider race”?
Is a good policy or a bad policy - it is a matter of discussion. Some scholars say that it is OK, because it 1) promotes diverse student body 2) addresses past injustices. Both are valid points.
However, the central question is: is it OK to discriminate based on race/ethnic origin?
IS it OK to discriminate based on the sexual orientation? It was time when man, having sex with men, could not donate blood. For the sake of everyone’s safety. Was this policy discriminatory? Yes. Was it for public benefit? Debatable.
Is it OK to discriminate one racial group for the sake of “good experience for everyone else”? (diversity in the classroom).Some people think it is OK. I don’t think so.
Ivys are using diversity as an argument for non-transparent admission. Next, non-transparent admission is used to admit well-connected students, sponsors, VIPs, legacy, etc. All behind the veil of “holistic approach to enable diversity”.
< I’ve yet to see a college turn away a qualified white or Asian applicant for an under qualified applicant.>
I’ve seen instances, when colleges accepted mediocre students and turned away qualified applicants. Not necessarily based on race. George W Bush got accepted to Yale and Harvard. I can’t believe that he was among the brightest kids in his generation. I bet Malia Obama would be accepted to Ivys, (if she decides to apply there) even if her grades are mediocre. All behind the veil of “holistic approach”.