<p>^^^ Right, I want to see the language where they say white students are not eligible. In my experience, that’s neither the rule nor the effect.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not to speak of the disasterous effects on the black American community when they all lost their last names, religious identities, families and self dignity, leave alone not to have the right to inherit property from their white fathers, read, eat at the same table/ separate bathrooms, intermarry and a host of other injustices practiced against them. Which is not to say a lot of good has not been done to reverse these injustices. I believe it was said in the Michigan decision, that it may take another 25 years before we can completely do away with AA.So, I do think we are moving close to the point where AA can be dismantled, but not there yet.</p>
<p>So, should people like Obama, who never expericence slavery, be entitled to AA? If the remnants of slavery are the rationale – where does it end?</p>
<p>Why not bring up Michelle rather than her husband? She grew up in a very poor community, where college is still not the norm for local kids, and there were pressures of gangs, teen prernancy, violence in the streets, etc. Even though her family had the desire for all the kids to go to college, I can’t help but imagine that AA probably played a factor, if only to expose colleges to a high achieving African-American student from a part of Chicago that is not known for great academics. She became successful and has given back to society and her community. Do her own children deserve to be granted special status? Maybe not so much, but according to UTs rules,they would fit only one of the special circumstances, where a young African-American girl from Michelle’s neighborhood would qualify for 2-4 “considerations”.</p>
<p>But how many point would Obama’s kids get???</p>
<p>I don’t think remnants of slavery are the only rationale. Black families are in general still at a remarkable disadvantage, whether that has it’s roots in slavery or the inability to inherit property or the Jim Crow laws or school segregation or today’s criminal justice policies. It’s not a matter of the issues ending with the Civil War.</p>
<p>kayf, I guess they would have to live in Texas and be under the top 10% to find out. Though I would assume that they would also have great essays, high SAT scores and compelling demonstration of community involvement, which is also factored in at UT.</p>
<p>Obama’s kids will get points for beingObama’s kids, just like the kids of any prominent person probably will. What makes you think Malia and Sasha will need extra points? They’re getting first class educations and may have the scores,etc to go along with it. Plus, they’re legacies at Princeton and Columbia and Harvard if you count law school.</p>
<p>This thread has evolved into a discussion of pitting one racial group against another. This balkanization of America by race is disturbing, as it threatens to fragment our society into various ethnic groups fighting for a share of a shrinking pie. Whatever it is that ties us together as Americans first is slowly disappearing, and that cannot be good thing for our country. It is for this reason that I am generally very weary of affirmative action laws.</p>
<p>Not sure how AA is any more polarizing than the rest of our racial history. It’s not like there was a time when all races were equal here. </p>
<p>AA is one method to try to address a part of that inequality, thus perhaps making the “all for one” America you describe more likely.</p>
<p>Texas has legislated a system where the most competitive kids in socio-economically disadvantaged communities (i.e., the top 10%) have a decent shot at a UT education. Admission is automatic … a degree requires further accomplishment. This is a bad thing … why? It can’t be because “We don’t want to take the top kid from Pumphrey if it means rejecting the four-hundred-fiftieth best kid from Plano.”</p>
<p>Fisher isn’t challenging the guaranteed admission path based on class rank because its very existence is key to Fisher’s equal protection argument, which goes something like this: UT shouldn’t be allowed to use any form of AA in their holistic review of non-Top 10% Texas applicants because the race neutral Top 10% scheme produces minority enrollment. </p>
<p>From Fisher’s petition for cert, at p. 20:
<a href=“Home | Legal Affairs”>Home | Legal Affairs;
<p>
</p>
<p>The funny thing is, she could have graduated from UT if she had wanted to badly enough. Our law doesn’t really deny admission–it denies admission freshman year. All Texans who aren’t admitted as freshman are guaranteed sophomore admission without applying as a transfer provided they make a 3.2 GPA on approved coursework at another UT campus.</p>
<p>“Fisher isn’t challenging the guaranteed admission path based on class rank …”</p>
<p>True … but what clear-thinking citizen believes the Supreme Court will restrict its ruling to a handful of holistically-admitted blacks?</p>
<p>Why is it that in discussions concerning AA, it is rarely (if ever) mentioned that the main beneficiaries of AA are [white</a> women](<a href=“http://www.ncsu.edu/project/oeo-training/aa/beneficiaries.htm]white”>http://www.ncsu.edu/project/oeo-training/aa/beneficiaries.htm), not people of color? In fact, if we use the true definition of affirmative action, the main beneficiaries have [always</a> been white](<a href=“http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0625-02.htm]always”>http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0625-02.htm) and will continue to be white. That’s one. </p>
<p>Two, why is it that it is always some URM that “took” some white kid’s spot? Does anybody ever go back and check the transcripts and test scores of white students, or is it just assumed that if some white kid didn’t get it, it’s because some (obviously inferior) URM did? When I left school in 2005 and went back in 2011, I would not have been accepted into my mother’s alma mater had it not been for being a legacy applicant. Are we going to protest that next? In fact, I was originally rejected from the university where I currently attend! I had to go to community college and get my grades up to par. My GPA (3.8, 2.25 minimum) granted me automatic acceptance, and my associates degree (plus Pell Grant) got me a full ride. Are we going to complain about that, too? While we’re at it, why should Madison get to go to college on a tennis scholarship just because she has a 90 mph serve and I don’t? </p>
<p>Third, what are the percentages of URMs at these schools in the first place? People act like these colleges are going around recruiting Rufus the window cleaner just to fill some magical minority quota. My best friend graduated with a Ph.D. from UT Austin (4.6% African-American) and she was one of seven - count 'em, SEVEN - black students in the entire program. (Very reminiscent of when we made up two of four black students in our high school’s honors program.) Last I checked, UT Austin is 50% white. I’m just saying…that’s a lot of white students. I guarantee you that plenty of them had lower scores and lower GPAs than Average Abby here. But they had something that stood out that made UT say yes to them and no to her. If she thinks this was bad, wait until she applies for a job and gets passed over because one candidate was the nephew of somebody’s frat brother or something like that! </p>
<p>The problem is that this generation wrongly believes that college acceptance is what they are entitled to in exchange for their performance in high school. Nobody can take something from you that you did not have in the first place. Judging by Abigail’s GPA and SAT score, she seemed downright average. (3.59 - that’s BARELY an A average, isn’t it?) I didn’t even graduate in the top 10% of my class and my scores were way higher than that. I also could’ve sworn that the whole “top 10%” thing only counts for about 20% of incoming freshmen in the first place. And as TXArtemis mentioned, all she had to do was wait a year!</p>
<p>Why can’t advantage in admission based on demonstrated ability to compensate for disadvantages in life? Economics, race, physical location, health, school, etc. can all potentially be disadvantages. A 1100 from an inner city school kid impresses me a lot more than a 1400 from Andover regardless of race. A white kid from rural West Virginia has many more disadvantages than an affluent African American student attending the best private schools, just as anyone attending inner city schools is disadvantage relative to those attending affluent suburban schools.</p>
<p>While I believe that racism is still quite prevalent and therefore disadvantaged but motivated students form historically oppressed races should receive some preference not justified solely on their SAT scores, the issue could be avoided. I tend to think that class now is as pernicious as race in favoring certain groups and disadvantaging others.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m pretty sure that a large percentage of lower class citizens in this country are people of color. Why so many people keep saying ‘class’ in order to avoid saying ‘race,’ I have no idea. I guess it’s the same thing as supporting AA as long as we stress it’s for women or veterans or disabled people while condemning it for URMs in the very same breath.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I love how anti-AAers carp on slavery like the Jim Crow era never existed. Some people (everybody, actually) need to read up on Arkansas’s Lost Year, which occurred the year after the Little Rock Nine. In short: the governor closed every single high school in Little Rock the following school year. 90% of white students were able to find another way to be educated or employed, as opposed to about 50% of black students. Guess how that’s affecting Little Rock today? But anti-AAers will swear up and down that that doesn’t mean anything. Up by the bootstraps and blah blah blah. Meanwhile, our elementary school across the street just got social studies books two weeks ago. But I’m sure their education is right on par with the kids from Highland Park.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree that this is the crux of the case and also why the decision will have little application to other universities. Are there any other universities that use a two-pronged admissions process (i.e., 90% admitted via one method - stats based, and 10% admitted via another method - holistic)? If the stats-based method produces a racially diverse class, the need for a holistic method that includes race as a factor is moot and uses race-based admissions for no rational reason.</p>
<p>Hmmm… This is not a case of a Texas family getting mad and finding a local lawyer to sue. If all they accomplish at the end of the road is changing UT admissions, that will be a huge loss for the Fisher camp.</p>
<p>This case is a vehicle, the goal is political and the timing is designed to take advantage of the fact that the current composition of SCOTUS may now swing 5-4 against any form of “race conscious admissions” in public school education instead of the 5-4 grant in favor of AA given by Grutter, et al. Fisher’s counsel, dating back to the original complaint, is a DC insider who’s former law partner was, at the time this case was filed, White House Counsel to George W Bush (previously counsel to the Reagan and Nixon administrations, as well). </p>
<p>So, personally, I don’t think it much matters how you slice and dice the UT admissions scheme. This case is about shutting down AA in public school admissions, first, with the understanding that any pronouncement of the court in the AA arena is never limited to the context, but can be extended to other settings.</p>
<p>(My thoughts aren’t original. If you’re really interested in this topic, you can read this stuff everywhere. This case will be one of the most-watched and -talked about cases of the Fall Term.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because while race correlates with SES, race itself does not equal any type of disadvantage.</p>
<p>While the possible limitations to the scope of this lawsuit are disheartening, it’s good to see a major outlet of racism in the United States might finally be stopped once and for all.</p>