<p>Even in the 10% System there are cases where a rejected white applicant has better academic credentials than an admitted minority student. If the court rules that Miss Fisher was denied equal rights BECAUSE she was denied admission despite having superior academic credentials to admitted minority students, a challenge to the the 10% System seems likely IMO.</p>
<p>You’re right. We are totally not judged by anybody, at any time, if you are perceived to be a minority based by your name, your address, your high school and so on. And we all know that nobody is discriminated against in America because of race in terms of the judicial system or housing loans. Silly me for reading tons upon tons upon TONS of academia that says otherwise!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And none of the white kids can say the same? Seriously, this case confuses the heck out of me. I cannot find one single shred of evidence that suggests that Fisher had ANY right to be accepted to UT for ANY reason. Why is she so insistent that she was rejected because she was white, as opposed to what she actually was - average?</p>
<p>The girl is suing because college admissions are a zero sum game - if one under-qualified minority student is admitted to the University of Texas due to a racist policy, another student is by necessity rejected. The specifics of her situation are not on trial; the whole system is.</p>
<p>Hi, NewHope33, we’re down into technicalities here, but the thing is, the court only decides issues pleaded and presented. As one of the 5th Cir. justices succinctly stated, “No party challenged, in the district court or in this court, the validity or the wisdom of the Top Ten Percent Law. We have no briefing on those subjects, and the district court did not consider them.” Opinon at p. 57, <a href=“Home | Legal Affairs”>Home | Legal Affairs;
<p>Requesting Supreme Court review, Fisher wrote: “[T]his Petition presents important constitutional questions. Especially significant is the panels interpretation of Grutter as a blanket endorsement of racial preference in UTs so-called holistic admissions program without any regard to UT having been one of the most racially diverse universities in the nation before race was considered.” Pet. for Cert. at p. 4, <a href=“Home | Legal Affairs”>Home | Legal Affairs;
<p>I am saying that everyone is discriminated against at some point, that the discrimination faced by black people is not unique, and that people need to move on. Constantly complaining about discrimination that happened in the past is counterproductive, unnecessary, and leads to a sense of entitlement that impedes real progress.</p>
<p>From the 1880’s to the 1920’s, tens of millions of immigrants left Europe due to starvation, prosecution, war and all manner of other terrible events, yet I see no “affirmative action” for descendants of survivors of the Irish potato famine.</p>
<p>In the 1920’s and 30’s, millions of Asian immigrants faced discrimination, deportation, and imprisonment based purely upon their race right here in the United States. They face the same statistical discrimination you claim and they receive no free points in college admissions (or anywhere else, for that matter). Nobody complains about Asians status in society.</p>
<p>In the 1950’s, thousands of Jews immigrated from Europe following the holocaust, where their friends and family were murdered, yet no lobby exists demanding unfair preferences in hiring or universities based on that status.</p>
<p>In the 70’s, it was the boat people.</p>
<p>The 90’s? Survivors of the balkan genocide.</p>
<p>The point? Virtually every person living in the United States can claim their ancestors were victims of terrible atrocities at some recent point in time. In all cases those events were terrible, but they should not and cannot provide justification for policies that only perpetuate inequality.</p>
<p>TXArtemis - You’re entirely correct of course. But the Court has a way of “inviting” further challenges. Frankly, the fate of the couple dozen minorities admitted under the holistic portion of UT’s admissions is unimportant from a practical standpoint, as they constitute less than one quarter of one percent of UT admissions. In the grand scheme of things, that’s less than nothing. But it begs the question “If this case is about practically nothing, why did the Court take the case?” The likely answer is “to establish new law.” All we’re really talking about is the larger implications of that new law. If the implication is “can’t use race as criteria” then UT will have 30 less minorities next year and 30 more whites/asians. If the implication is “no system in which a minority student is admitted and a white student with higher academic credentials is rejected” then Hello 1958. I do think it unlikely that the latter will occur, so I agree with you there.</p>
<p>In other words…yes, they are true and you were just whitesplaining out of your behind. Now, was that so hard to admit?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Could the opposite be true? I remember this weird birther case that was so ridiculous that I couldn’t believe the Supremes took it on, but it seems as if it was taken on in order to be struck down in a way that it couldn’t be brought up again. Apologies for the vagueness and bad framing of the situation, but could this be the case as well?</p>
<p>Assuming no weird extreme curves…a 3.59 GPA on a 4.0 scale would actually be below an -A considering it is usually rendered as 3.667 or 3.7 on that scale. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There’s plenty of folks at my high school…including yours truly who got higher SAT scores and yet…were in the bottom half or even bottom third of our graduating class GPA-wise. Heck, I’ve known several high school dropouts with far higher scores like 1300…and on the pre-1995 scale…and most attended academically average or worse high schools before ditching.</p>
<p>In that case I do hereby demand my 300 point SAT advantage for being the great-great-great grandson of a victim of the Irish potato famine, grandson of a holocaust survivor, and son of someone who survived the Balkan genocide.</p>
<p>My point, had you bothered to read the post, was that everyone is and has been discriminated against - the situation of black people isn’t special. Making excuses for underachievement and demanding special services on that basis only masks real problems.</p>
<p>Notice how this takes us right back to the unique persecution complex?</p>
<p>All of the examples that you give are of appalling hardship, and none of them were as pervasive and systematic and authorized by state law as what African Americans have faced in this country. Segregation enforced by state ended by law in 1964 and faced violent resistance. No other minority here has faced that. Reconstruction and Jim Crow were given short shrift in American history classes where teachers did not want to take on the open racism in our past.</p>
<p>One important question you’ve left unaddressed…was the US government/society the ones who caused/instigated the Irish potato famine, Holocaust, and the Balkan genocide? </p>
<p>Unless I’m missing something…the ones you should be appealing for that SAT advantage by rights should be the British government/gentry, Germany, and the Serbs/Croats/other responsible parties depending on the area of the Balkans and who was committing the genocide. </p>
<p>Personally, I have a grandfather and an older Uncle who were killed by the Imperial Japanese army in China during the Second Sino-Japanese War/WWII. I don’t know about you…but I personally feel it makes much more logical sense to hold the Japanese government, unrepentant Japanese military vets, and their rabid right wing supporters responsible than the US government/society.</p>
<p>You missed the point. I don’t deserve compensation from the United States or any other party, nor do you - neither of us were affected by tragedy. In the same way, no 18-year-old college student applying today was the victim of institutionalized racism, so they deserve no compensation. </p>
<p>Low-level discrimination? As I noted, nearly every identifiable group can claim some current issue with it, so supporting just one favored party (in this case the class commonly referred to here as “URMs”) amounts to favoring certain groups and institutionalizing racism - something that has no place in modern America.</p>
<p>People need to move forward, not dwell on the past.</p>
<p>Easy to say when you don’t bear the burdens of the past. The top 1% don’t want to spread the wealth around a little bit either. Status quo is great for those on top, not so great for those who might benefit from change.</p>
<p>Some do – they want to limit the number of Asian students admitted to colleges so that more white students can be admitted.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>On the other hand, current levels of racial discrimination, while lower than in the past, are non-zero, and members of some groups are more likely to be adversely affected than members of other groups. Of course, it is hard to prove or disprove specific instances (“Did the police officer stop X because X is black, or because the police officer was a stickler for the rules and X really was driving 36mph in a 35mph zone?”) other than the most blatant ones.</p>
<p>Trying to compensate for something done by some long-dead people to other long-dead people may not be very productive, since it just results in arguments about entitlement by being a descendant of a victim versus an oppressor (and what about those who are descendants of both or neither?). But there is enough current racial discrimination that one can argue that a sensible and rational holistic admissions reviewer may favor, on an individual basis, an applicant whose record indicates having to overcome racial discrimination, indicating a higher level of ability and motivation that may not be reflected otherwise. And, while that may be true for some members of any race, it is likely to be more common among members of those which are more commonly the recipients of current racial discrimination. (The same type of thing may apply to overcoming other disadvantageous circumstances, like poverty.)</p>
<p>Oh, and no way has institutionalized racism all but completely destroyed the black family structure in America. I mean, it’s not racism if you actually had that bag of weed in your car and got hit with a felony charge, denying you the right to vote, to financial aid, food stamps, etc. and makes it all but impossible to find a job. So what if Biff’s son Biff Jr. got a DUI and only got community service because his family could afford an attorney? Race has nothing to do with the kind of sentence you get or what you get charged with. Everybody knows that. </p>
<p>With the probable exception of your (apparent) alma mater, most schools do discriminate against Asian students - yet another reason why Fischer’s claim is so important. A successful suit would help to protect everyone.</p>
![http://i43.■■■■■■■.com/bioykj.jpg[/IMG]](http://i43.tinypic.com/bioykj.jpg%5B/IMG%5D){kind=link}
