<p>@Hanna</p>
<p>If they claim “holistic admissions” they can’t just say that she doesn’t have the stats since they would look at more than stats in a holistic approach.</p>
<p>“If they claim “holistic admissions” they can’t just say that she doesn’t have the stats since they would look at more than stats in a holistic approach.”</p>
<p>Sure they can. You can have stat cutoffs in holistic admissions, and UT did. It was called the Academic Index, and hers was too low. [Justices</a> Return To Affirmative Action In Higher Ed : NPR](<a href=“Justices Return To Affirmative Action In Higher Ed : NPR”>Justices Return To Affirmative Action In Higher Ed : NPR)</p>
<p>Thanks Hanna.
I stand corrected.</p>
<p>Seems that they have a more rigorous methodology for “holistic” in that even if she had a perfect “Personal Achievement Index” (e.g. the qualitative) that they wouldn’t accept her.</p>
<p>I wonder if she tried to get data to support her claim that other people had lower grades/scores and got in.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So what? If whites were favored 50 years ago, it does not mean whites such as Abigail Fisher should be disfavored now.</p>
<p>And she wasn’t.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Xiggi often uses such language to characterize people and groups he disagrees with, which I think is slimy.</p>
<p>Since I do “it” that “often” my positions about conservatives should be easy to catalog and predict. Or are they? </p>
<p>And, fwiw, I make no apologies for applying those “labels” on the particular groups that push racist and discriminatory agendas against … disadvantaged minorities. At least, when such disadvantages do exist. </p>
<p>I call as I see it.</p>
<p>
And if the Supreme Court agrees with them - does that then make the court racist by association? And the people who voted to confirm … the court members? (enough dots for suspense?)</p>
<p>My bet is that, if the court agrees, it will be on a technicality. NOT that the underlying fairness principle is wrong. I know someone will jump on what “fairness” means. But we should be able to strip ourselves, our own personal agenda or wants out of this one. By all means, have an opinion. But based on the issues, context, some concept of greater good. Not the “me” or “my kids.” or some attempt to relate to Fisher’s disappointment or woe.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Simply stated … NO. Standard ellipsis included.</p>
<p>It might make them racist by intent, not by association. Or it might not. And the people who voted to confirm…the same. (Alito said, in his confirmation hearing, that he would clearly be biased in a case brought by Italian-Americans, and he showed that was true in the New Haven police case. Perhaps the only totally honest one of the bunch.)</p>
<p>“Argue the merits without the labels …”</p>
<p>I’d be glad to do that if there was a common understanding of what “merit” means. For the individual with high test scores, it often means “someone with high test scores.” Bias exists in every aspect of society.</p>
<p>My complaint … unrelated to “merits” … is that this whole SES thing is really a wedge issue to avoid the real issue, which is who gets to decide admission to the University of Texas. Can’t leave THAT to the University Administrators can we? With only 12,000 freshman slots available, if Administrators are allowed to admit a few dozen SES kids they might ruin chances for my precious child! Really??? Wedge issue, pure and simple.</p>
<p>The real issue is not that there are not enough minorities who are not qualified to make the cut to UT since there are.</p>
<p>They just don’t want to go there because many choose to attend a local college or a nearby one based on financial need. So students in major cities have many local colleges to choose from rather than go to UT while those who are really interested are being kept out making UT look bad or like Caltech.</p>
<p>^ Oh, was I unclear? How 'bout this:</p>
<p>“SCOTUS voted with Fisher. PROOF that SES kids don’t belong at UTexas!”</p>
<p>[texaspg: Crossposted with yours. Comment not directed at you.]</p>
<p>^ I have really no idea what you are talking about. </p>
<p>I am speaking about what actually happens at UT where the blacks in top 7% who can clearly go there choose not to.</p>
<p>We’re talking about a handful of SES kids that</p>
<ul>
<li>The State of Texas Government; and</li>
<li>The University System Board of Directors; and</li>
<li>The University of Texas Administration</li>
</ul>
<p>have decided they want at the University of Texas. What makes this local, collective decision of nearly insignificant impact on the majority sufficiently egregious and transcendent that the Supreme Court needs to be involved? </p>
<p>[Full Disclosure: The Texas approach to Flagship University admissions is WAY fairer to disadvantaged students than the one used in my state.]</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>2 brothers, acting on principal, detonated a pressure cooker bomb which killed [only] 3 people and blew off the legs of [only] a few. It had insignificant physical injury impact on the thousands in the majority. </p>
<p>A society that observes the rule of law does not pick and choose which law breakers to give a pass to, based on how many people are hurt and what the [righteous] intentions of the law breakers are. </p>
<p>The issue at hand for SCOTUS is:
in the gray-area of holistic college admissions did UT follow the law?</p>
<p>Was the standing issue even covered in oral argument? Most legal blogs focus on Kennedy’s question to the UT lawyer to the effect that race is the deciding factor trumping all else. That is, using race as a deciding factor even after the 10% rule. My guess is that they will rule against Texas and for Michigan, the other AA case they took after Fisher. Michigan banned AA by popular referendum.</p>
<p>“Ms. Fishers lawyers took the case on to the Supreme Court last September. They raised a single question: whether prior Supreme Court decisions on racial equality, including the latest college admissions decision in 2003, permit the University of Texas to use race in the selection of its freshman classes.”</p>
<p>[College</a> admissions case: Made simple : SCOTUSblog](<a href=“College admissions case: Made simple - SCOTUSblog”>College admissions case: Made simple - SCOTUSblog)</p>
<p>Well, back to the OP … what do the posters on this thread predict (other than the Supreme Court using the despicable Tsarnaev brothers as the basis for their decision)? SCOTUS Justices’ comments suggest they would like to eliminate race as a consideration for admission. At the same time, SCOTUS precedents have acknowledged the legality of using race as a consideration when it serves the public good. Because the Court took the case, I look for a technical decision … one that neither confirms nor overturns prior SCOTUS decisions, but one which addresses the current implementation at the University.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Except that, as you yourself admit, this is a “gray area” in which no one can say definitively what the law is, or what it requires. The plaintiffs are asking the Court to come up with a new rule or standard and to apply it retroactively. That makes this case very different from the Boston Marathon bombings. There was no ambiguity or “gray area” in that case; the bombers knew it was a very serious criminal offense to do what they did, and no court would have to retroactively declare what they did unlawful. The law was clear. In Fisher, not so much. Even the savviest experts don’t know what SCOTUS is going to say, and almost anything it says will make new law.</p>
<p>So much for “judicial restraint,” which sounds nice in theory, but is almost impossible to achieve in practice.</p>