<p>A couple dozen blacks out of 14,000 applicants admitted … yup, Texas has a huge problem right there. I’m sure with a little work they COULD have found a weaker Plaintiff to challenge this monumental inequity. Did I say weaker? Surely I meant stronger.</p>
<p>[Well, logic wasn’t carrying the day … thought I’d try a different approach.]</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’ve also seen the above used by certain agenda-driven groups as “evidence” that college Profs are increasingly anti-male and/or that college women gravitate towards less rigorous majors. Ummm…yeah, right. </p>
<p>In any event, the association of girls and lower SATs across the board doesn’t hold much water IME. If you went by my STEM-centered public magnet high school…while it was male dominated…it was the female students who tended to score higher on the SATs, get better GPAs, and grab the Val spot…to the tune of at least 3 years in a row. </p>
<p>Most of the lower SAT scorers IME tend to be overwhelmingly male. Granted, YMMV depending on what area of the country you happen to be in and your social circle.</p>
<p>Cobrat </p>
<p>The information was broken out into the majors and sex. Even with the traditional male dominated majors girls had lower SATs and it was only those male dominated majors that the the boys had higher GPAs but not by much considering their SAT scores difference.</p>
<p>If the court rules that discrimination based on race in college admissions is unconstitutional, then the 10% plan could be ruled unconstitutional as well. After all, as I understand it, the entire purpose of the 10% plan was to get more minorities into UT. The state knowingly enacted a law for the very purpose of discriminating based on race.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If the plan itself doesn’t inherently use race as a criterion for admission like the 10% plan which is supposed to provide auto-admit to kids ranked in the top 10% of their graduating classes…regardless of race…I’m not sure that policy would be declared unconstitutional on its face.</p>
<p>“The state knowingly enacted a law for the very purpose of discriminating based on race (so) the 10% plan could be ruled unconstitutional.”</p>
<p>This is the “if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck …” argument. It’s also “the socio-economically deprived are discriminating against the socio-economically advantaged” argument.</p>
<p>“Girls tended to have lower SATs across the board but had higher GPAs in college. This leads me to believe the the SAT test has to be gender biased some how.” - momof3</p>
<p>Or the GPAs are biased somehow. </p>
<p>(Or maybe the girls just turn in their homework?)</p>
<p>"glido - I agree with you. But the Plaintiff has no shot at UT unless the entire 75% system is overturned. All this “range stuff” is an artifact of the 75% system. " - NewHope</p>
<p>NewHope - You are correct. Her “harm” is not that she didn’t get into UT. Her harm is that she was not treated equally because of her race. If she were treated equally and not offered admission, she would have no case.</p>
<p>The 14th Amendment doesn’t give her the right to go to UT, it just gives her the right to be treated equally by the state, regardless of race (sex, national orig., etc.)</p>
<p>^ glido - No argument. Everyone SHOULD be treated equally without regard to …</p>
<p>Where this gets dicey is if the Court decides that the UTexas 75% plan is discriminatory because the result “looks like” what the incoming class would “look like” if it was generated with a clearly discriminatory approach. If the Court isn’t looking at the law as written, under what circumstances will the University of Texas ever admit the socio-economically disadvantaged? (If the Valedictorian from Pumphrey TX gets in then it MUST BE because of some hidden AA mechanism, right?)</p>
<p>‘because the result “looks like”…’</p>
<p>This some time happens. For instance, when firms are being probed on collusion"alegations, some times the courts do not have the “smoking gun” proof that firms actually met and collude; however, the courts can consider the prices of products in the market to infer whether firms colluded or not.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I suppose a counter-argument is that she was treated equally with regard to race, in that every applicant’s race (in the subject pool) is used as a factor in admissions for the purpose of creating a diverse class. Theoretically, if the class was lacking a critical mass of White students, then Fisher’s race might have been the factor that tipped her in.</p>
<p>cobrat: other laws that were not discriminatory on their face, like poll taxes or literacy tests to vote, were struck down as being unconstitutional because they affected one race (blacks) more than whites. In the days of Jim Crow, that was the purpose of passing the laws. Seems to me that the 10% rule, given the way the school districts are structured, was passed for the very purpose of giving one race an easier time getting into the UT than others. </p>
<p>I am really fed up with all this racism disguised as AA. Have any of you looked at all the summer programs for college students? A huge number of them are explicitly reserved for blacks and Hispanics and say straight up, that whites need not apply. That’s whats really got my back up these days. My kids had nothing to do with all the wrongs of the past. Why should they pay for it?</p>
<p>“A huge number of them are explicitly reserved for blacks and Hispanics and say straight up, that whites need not apply.”</p>
<p>Do you have some links? That’s not what I see in the marketplace.</p>
<p>There are several linked to my D’s state university.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Our kids still benefit from the country and economy that slaves helped build basically for free.</p>
<p>Could get started on institutional racism and how white people are still favored in almost every possible way, but maybe not the best thread for that.</p>
<p>I don’t think there is much chance of the top 10% (or 8% now) plan being overturned by the Supreme Court as it neither considers race explicitly nor has discriminatory intent. Policies that have disparate impacts on different races are allowed if there is no discriminatory intent and they relate to a legitimate school interest. In this case, UT Austin will stay have a legitimate interest in geographic diversity so I don’t see why the Supreme Court would outlaw the 10% plan.</p>
<p>This is tangential to the rest of the discussion but “Our kids still benefit from the country and economy that slaves helped build basically for free” is not really true as slavery stunted the development of Southern economies. By the time of the Civil War, the South’s reliance on slavery had led to it being far behind Northern states in terms of industrialization.</p>
<p>My kids gg grandfathers who served and died in the Civil War already paid.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course, that never gets mentioned by people who advocate racial quotas to limit the number of Asian students so that more white students can be admitted.</p>
<p>NewHope33 wrote:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>NewHope33, I thought you just made up a hick town example, but looked it up anyway:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well done! :D</p>
<p>“A huge number of them are explicitly reserved for blacks and Hispanics and say straight up, that whites need not apply.”</p>
<p>Do you have some links? That’s not what I see in the marketplace.</p>
<p>There are several linked to my D’s state university. "</p>
<p>The several links ARE the huge number, or PART of the huge number? In any case, can you share a few?</p>
<p>PS How is this “beyond race in Affirmative Action”? I haven’t read most of this, but isn’t this the usual stuff?</p>