<p>
</p>
<p>exactly!!!</p>
<p>"Bakke vs Cal concerned quotas, not AA…</p>
<p>Point systems and other AA systems have been affirmed by SCOTUS… It’s a non-issue…" </p>
<p>Quota’s have to deal with AA. Also, the U-M undergraduate point system was not affirmed by SCOTUS.</p>
<p>Also, just because SCOTUS makes a ruling does not mean that it is forever binding. Brown v. Board overturned Plessy v. Ferguson.</p>
<p>“Imo, me not listing myself as black is like an Asian/White not taking test prep classes or hiring a private tutors when their parents can afford it and are willing to pay for it”</p>
<p>What about the minority students who take prep classes, hire private tutors, etc? Additionally, I know plenty of people who got into Michigan and other great schools without prep classes and paid private tutors.</p>
<p>xstatus, male vs female is not the same as black vs white vs hispanic etc.</p>
<p>dimorphism between male and females is quite established, and what is being pursued by modern feminists is not the attitude of “we can do exactly the same thing as females”</p>
<p>claiming dimorphism amongst race is just going to bring strong sentiments. To claim that and that would group would need help would be to call them unequal.</p>
<p>They just are not the same thing.</p>
<p>I am saying that AA is an advantage. And if we get rid of this advantage, we should get rid of the other ones too</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wrong. Quotas were a specific implementation of AA. That implementation was overturned. Point systems weren’t overturned. Michigan’s implementation of the point system was overturned.</p>
<p>Do you really think they’ll ever overturn AA? LOL… That’ll happen the same time they revoke Native American reservation sovereignty. Which means NOT in your grandchildren’s lifetime…</p>
<p>“Also, your race is a part of who you are. Yes there are other factors, but I is idiotic to not consider race in the application process. Aren’t we supposed to be telling the colleges about ourselves?”</p>
<p>There are plenty of things that influenced my life, but I did not put them all on my application.</p>
<p>@rythm - I’m not claiming dimorphism. I am stating that historical disadvantage is the reason. Which it is…</p>
<p>You can’t deny inequitable footing among the races…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I severely doubt ANYTHING in your life affected you as much as our race did ours…</p>
<p>Anything…</p>
<p>Well Blue you should have</p>
<p>"Quote:
Quota’s have to deal with AA. Also, the U-M undergraduate point system was not affirmed by SCOTUS. </p>
<p>Wrong. Quotas were a specific implementation of AA. That implementation was overturned. Point systems weren’t overturned. Michigan’s implementation of the point system was overturned."</p>
<p>So you are telling quotas are specific implementations of AA, yet you call me wrong for saying that they have to deal with AA. How am I wrong in that regard?</p>
<p>I said U-M’s point system was not affirmed by SCOTUS, and it was not. U-M had to adpat a new system after the ruling.</p>
<p>What did I say that was wrong?</p>
<p>And I concur Slacker</p>
<p>The system gave 20 points to certain minorities right off the bat. The system had to get rid of that portion.</p>
<p>Why do we keep on talking about quotas? If the fact that my ancestors were enslaved, and that for the LONGEST we were treated as less than (still are sometimes) and the fact that whites were the ones who started discrimination against my people have all been deemed as mute points, why are we talking about quotas and Bakke ?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Your implication was that because Quotas were overturned and because they are a part of AA AA should be or will be overturned.</p>
<p>That was wrong…</p>
<p>In Grutter v. Bollinger, the supreme court held 5-4 that Michigan’s law school may consider race in admissions to diversify its student body and achieve an unspecified “critical mass” of minority students.</p>
<p>Affirming AA</p>
<p>then</p>
<p>In Gratz v. Bollinger, the supreme court ruled 6-3 that the university’s system of awarding a specific number of extra points to minorities applying for undergraduate studies, was unconstitutional. </p>
<p>Denying the point system much like Bakke stopped specific quotas…</p>
<p>And now the ban on AA was ruled unconstitutional. No matter your argument between this case and GruttervBollinger AA HAS been affirmed.</p>
<p>Not one case has been affirmed more than once by the Supreme court and then overturned ever…</p>
<p>@jojouhgogo yes you are supposed to be telling colleges but i don’t believe that being black should give you a boost on your sat. i forgot where i read it, but there was a study what certain advantages like being a URM, legacy, athlete etc. did in comparison to sat scores. the study concluded that being black was like getting an extra 200 points on your sats. that is a HUGE difference. raise is not just being considered, it is integral in the AA system.</p>
<p>also, i believe this isn’t a debate on whether or not AA is constitutional but debate on whether or not it is ethical</p>
<p>@jojouhgogo you seem to harbor a lot of resentment towards white people. the reason slavery can’t be used as an excuse is because neither you nor your parents nor their parents were slaves. that is at least 3 generations free so it can’t be used to justify AA. the economic result of slavery may be used when it is applicable but not slavery as a whole</p>
<p>But whites and asians raise their scores by hundreds of points with sat prep. Is that fair if it is not equally accessible?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>From… [Harvard</a> Educational Review - Unfair Treatment?](<a href=“http://www.hepg.org/her/abstract/769]Harvard”>http://www.hepg.org/her/abstract/769)</p>
<p>The SAT is known to be biased against blacks. Why shouldn’t they receive a bump???</p>
<p>i am sorry but your generalization is complete ********. i don’t know ANYONE who has taken an sat or act prep course. also, what is wrong with that? they can spend their money anyway they want. that is what a free society is about. it is not a right for everyone to have sat prep so quit whining that everyone doesn’t.</p>