Fisher v. University of Texas: Predict the SCOTUS decision

Parents Forum
481

<p>There are many who feel that City Unversity here in NYC, the former “Harvard of the masses”, when it was City College has plummeted in quality, standards, everything, to the point that those who can possibly go elsewhere now do. I know some very talented, brilliant really, grads from that school who will tell you that the education that they got there was second to none anywhere, but today, that is no longer the case. That back in their time, going there assured an education far better than most choices. and a degree from there truly meant quite an achievement. That has been lost as merit has taken a back seat to other considerations such as making the college more available to the local population and reflecting those demographics more closely. </p>

<p>You see, when you start changing the demographics in any population, you have to understand that you only have so much control, and where you can lose is with those who have the choices and means to go elsewhere. </p>

<p>When a certain school district where I used to live, started forcing busing to integrate their schools, both for racial and economic diversity reasons, they ended up losing nearly all of the those in the districts that could afford to move and could put their kids in private schools. Though they claim success, in that the bottom strata have been brought up the school district, once considered a desirable one, is no longer so considered. It’s all URMs, and low income, The housing and neighborhoods have gone that way too. I bring this up because a friend of mine returned there last week, and did the tour. She would not move back there if someone gave her nice house to live there. She’ d rather pay to live elsewhere and she can afford it. And so would be the reaction of many with that choice, living the area one fo those without such choices. So who won there? </p>

<p>The whole racial, ethnic representation thing is a difficult one to figure out because there is no magic number that makes it right. Most people, the courts, the schools, pretty much get it that having, say a group of all white, all rich, all male/female folks making decisions for those of colors, the opposite sex, the not so wealthy does not work well. What the heck kind of discussion and learning experience are you going to get discussing the problems of race without one single person of color there? Talk about preaching to the choir! But what is the magic number that brings in enough fresh perspectives and personal experience ? I sure as heck don’t know.</p>

482

<p>“If you’ve already reached “critical mass” (defining that is one of the issues SCOTUS may try to answer…and would be the most interesting item to come out of any rulings on Fisher…), then you no longer justified in using race.”</p>

<p>So SCOTUS defines what “critical mass” is. If URM admissions drops below that, it’s then OK to consider race to “build it back up.” Got it.</p>

483

<p>Each district sets how rank is calculated. Some districts count every class; some count only core courses. It’s scary how variable it all is.</p>

<p>I have a problem with people having a problem in how the top 10% captures some kids who may not be as academically prepared as others. Aren’t we always preaching on cc that select colleges consider you in your context and that if your school only offers four APs and you take all four then that’s enough? Despite the fact that you’re competing against kids who go to schools that offer 20+ APs? Thetop 10% is doing the same thing – rewarding those kids with a high rank in their context despite the fact that their schools may not be as rigorous at the Highland Parks and Westlakes of the world. Are you going to get some kids who are less prepared than others? Sure, but I like that the rule give rural kids without a lot of APs at their schools a chance.</p>

<p>I would, however, like to see an SAT stipulation put in – like top 10% plus at least a 1200 on the SAT CR+M. Similar to A&M’s academic admit program.</p>

484

<p>So what time do decisions come out?</p>

485

<p>SCOTUS blog is going to start blogging live in about a half-hour, so I’m guessing about 10 a.m. Eastern.</p>

486

<p>Hasn’t there been a resurgence at CUNY, caused be a reinstatement of academic standards?</p>

<p>[Editorial:</a> CUNY, Resurgent | Observer](<a href=“http://observer.com/2013/04/cuny-resurgent/]Editorial:”>http://observer.com/2013/04/cuny-resurgent/)

</p>

487

<p>I don’t think the court can define critical mass, only reflect on it. They could ask UT to explain their version, which they did. But, when “quota” is disallowed, critical mass gets soft, touchy-feely. When Vassar went coed, a few years later, even with a distinct minority of males, a report noted a disproportionate number of the campus leadership positions were held by them. Stu Govt, coed intramural sports teams, etc. I think that’s an example of critical mass being achieved too quickly, something else at work.</p>

<p>So, when minority groups find some better representation on campus, beyond the percentage of students, then they will be exerting the targeted influence, not simply existing. That’s the conundrum. No matter what % of Texas is, say, Hispanic, what influence does the group have on campus, beyond their size. There is no fixed target number; you are looking for an empowered result.</p>

488

<p>You are never going to end up with a representative number of URMs until you kick out the ORMs. That’s how a pie chart works.</p>

489

<p>^ If the state is x % Hispanic, and the U better reflects that, yes, it means some white kid didn’t get the seat the Hispanic did. What’s the better solution, fewer Hispanics? This is what I mean about, to me, how the argument doesn’t build. No disrespect intended.</p>

490

<p>

Is that what you are arguing? That “critical mass” means proportional representation as per the state’s demographics? How far are you prepared to defend this? Should we also make sure the number of multi-racial kids are proportional to the state’s percentage and make sure that they have the same combinations of multi-race?</p>

<p>In any case, I think it’s not the White slice of the pie that is out of proportion with the Texas’ demographics, but the Asian slice of the pie. To achieve the proportional representation as per the state’s demographics, you need to kick out the Asian kids.</p>

491

<p>“You are never going to end up with a representative number of URMs until you kick out the ORMs. That’s how a pie chart works.”</p>

<p>Yeah. And I think it’s entirely appropriate for SCOTOS to be asking “are you giving a tip to URMs to provide reasonable access? or are you doing it just to reach a number?” </p>

<p>That’s different than “race can’t be considered, and if URM admittances fall to zero (as they nearly did after Hopwood), so be it.”</p>

492

<p>Uh-oh, we’re back to Asians. </p>

<p>I’m not arguing CM is proportional to state pop. Instead: There is no fixed target number; you are looking for an empowered result.</p>

<p>But, a hint: as long as this is couched as the unfortunate White kids who get set aside, it sounds self-serving. Can you get me past that? Why shouldn’t the U seek a better balance? Without someone summarily stating, well because minorities have lower IQ or don’t have the stats or don’t grad at the same rates. Or because someone I know really, really wanted UT. Or, well, just look at the composition of the football team.</p>

493

<p>

The Percentage plan facilitates reasonable access</p>

494

<p>^^ re: #492, I can address that:</p>

<p>No preferences are acceptable with exception of athletes, legacies, full-pays, performing artists, children of Faculty, children of Board Members, children of celebrities, children of donors, children of corporate executives, children of the politically-connected, the socially well-connected … um, well I’m sure I’ve missed some.</p>

495

<p>There are URMs that fall into those categories. No doubt Obama’s girls will get into any college of their choice, not because they are black, but because they are the children of the POTUS</p>

496

<p>No Ruling Today. Next possible day would be next Monday. :)</p>

497

<p>“The Percentage plan facilitates reasonable access”</p>

<p>Finally, a solution! All admittance will be done by the Percentage Plan. (No football for you guys!)</p>

498

<p>

</p>

<p>Or better yet, pro se like Gideon v Wainwright. ;)</p>

499

<p>^^ or stated another way, if the Percentage Plan is good enough for black/hispanic access then it’s good enough for white/asian access.</p>

500

<p>@lookingforward</p>

<p>“Critical Mass” has nothing to do with empowerment. In Grutter, it has to do with:</p>

<p>“a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body”</p>

<p>As Cptofthehouse has pointed out, Universities use admissions to meet several goals, not just racial balance.</p>