<p>
[QUOTE]
Two things: Yes, it is ok for a private orginization to have its own membership rules even if it regards race/natural origin/gender, etc.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>As I already mentioned above, this is a false statement. Trust me.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
Second, if you are not an american citizen (which unless you were born here and moved international), you cant sue anyone or use our court system (with some limited exceptions, which you probably dont have). So you cant really do anything even if you did have a case.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>This is also false. All people, regardless of their immigration status, have a right for a due process and a fair trial in both directions (sueing and being sued). Besides, I am a citizen so it doesn't matter to me.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
I can't sue anyone in, say, France.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>That may be, but France and USA are not the same country... They have different laws.</p>
<p>Psionic Vision, I can tell you for a fact that you are incorrect about women's or men's colleges. If private, they are perfectly legal, as are colleges that require that you be of a particular religion. (I'm not a college applicant. I'm a lawyer with many years experience; I have no reason to "trust you" on this matter.) The case you are probably thinking of, which outlawed a single-sex college, is Virginia Military Institute (VMI). VMI, however, was a public college, using tax funds to deny women entry. Because of its public status, the court ruled that it could not discriminate, any more than a public high school could. Different situation.</p>
<p>That being said, a private institution that wishes to allow entry only to members of a certain gender, race, religion must be able to show that this discrimination is necessary to its purpose. Single sex private institutions have been able to do so. So have single religion institutions (think Wheaton College in IL - not the one in MA - or Bob Jones University). They are no more illegal than a church requiring its members to be Catholic.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
That being said, a private institution that wishes to allow entry only to members of a certain gender, race, religion must be able to show that this discrimination is necessary to its purpose.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>Can you give me one example of a situation where discrimination would be necessary for a private institution to successfully achieve its purpose?</p>
<p>Yes. It has been shown that women may learn leadership skills more effectively in a women-only environment. An institution that wishes to teach leadership skills to women (which would generally include most single-gender colleges) can therefore restrict its enrollment to women.</p>
<p>A school that wishes to instill particular religious values can restrict entry into its programs to members of that faith or those who will convert to that faith. They can require that those who teach at that institution share those convictions.</p>
<p>The institutions do not have to prove that their entry or employment criteria are the only way to achieve their goals. They only have to show that there is a relationship between the goals and the entry requirements. You may not agree with the goal or with the relationship, but it is within the purview of a private institution to require it.</p>
<p>"Can you give me one example of a situation where discrimination would be necessary for a private institution to successfully achieve its purpose?"</p>
<p>Yeah, any top 20 uni rejecting 80% of its applicants in order to maintain a diverse campus and build a class of more than just any one group.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
Yeah, any top 20 uni rejecting 80% of its applicants in order to maintain a diverse campus and build a class of more than just any one group.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>Diversity does not contribute to the main purpose of any university - education - therefore your example is not valid.</p>
<p>Speaking with absolutely no authority, here...</p>
<p>I'm almost certain that you could construct (and that people have constructed) a convincing argument to the contrary. Diversity of students = diversity of perspective (in theory, if not always practice). Plus, the constitutionality of non-quota-based affirmative action has indeed been upheld (Regents of California vs. Bakke: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regents_of_the_University_of_California_v._Bakke%5B/url%5D">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regents_of_the_University_of_California_v._Bakke</a>. There was an equally relevant case/decision quite recently in Michigan). I don't know details, I can't debate this, but there are certainly intricacies to the process, and you're not the first to question it.</p>
<p>Psionic, I think that the very clear point is that this is just not the cut-and-dry issue you'd like it to be, regardless of what the minute details of the law are, and whether or not a given example is or is not valid in your eyes. No, we don't all have the background to cite relevant court cases, but if you happen to have evidence to back up your own standpoint (which I assume you do, based on "trust me" and similar comments), then please share it. Until then, I'm not about to trust any of the info here without a loooot further research.</p>
<p>I applaud persistence and a critical eye, but at some point, both just do more harm than good to a conversation.</p>
<p>OK, I read this thread. The OP, in my opinion, is extremely misguided.</p>
<p>A) If you got denied at a private school, they can be ALL female, ALL of certain religion, and ALL of a certain race. (Barnard, Bob Jones, Spelman-both female and black)
B)If you got denied at a public school, there is more recourse-but still little. They can say you are int'l so you are held up to really high standards that your borderline stats and reasonable ECs won't suffice here.
C) MOVE ON- I have to tell you, I went to school with Jian Li- he had more reason to sue (~4.0 uw 2400 SAT 2390 SATII) and still he was met with contempt and derision. You have virtually NO chance of winning considering you are international AND not a shoo-in. Look, I'm sure there are plenty of universities that would love to have you in whichever country you reside in.
D) IF you do end up going on with this lawsuit- you don't seem strayed by the prepondarance by evidence- you probably will end up wasting a lot of money and time achieving nothing. However, I wish you the best of luck-rejection can be very hard at times but as with other life experiences it is what you learn from it. You're only 17/18, you have the rest of your life ahead of you.</p>