<p>“The Law School has determined, based on its experience and expertise, that a ‘critical mass’ of underrepresented minorities is necessary to further its compelling interest in securing the educational benefits of a diverse student body.”</p>
<p>Necessary is a strong word. Does it matter how many minorities we enroll if we don’t have a critical mass? Does UT have to show that it succeeds in enrolling a critical mass with the help of its preference program?</p>
<p>@lookingforward, I am not questioning how it is done today. I am questioning the rationale why it’s done this way by the colleges and universities. </p>
<p>if by identity, i would identify self as an american.</p>
<p>^^^I also wonder that tigerdad. My nieces and nephews are multi-ethnic. They are a happy combination of Hopi, Navajo, Caucasian and Korean ancestry. They view themselves as “light brown” . My SIL (adopted) is Korean and never considered herself as a minority until applying to college and was told she was eligible for a minority scholarship. She was very surprised!</p>
<p>I am not aware that there has been any significant issue with students identifying themselves are URMs improperly. I’ve heard of a few isolated cases, all involving how much of a Native American somebody is. Surprisingly, few white Americans claim to be black. Wonder why that is?</p>
<p>
I was going to say that encouraging these kinds of marriages is another good reason for affirmative action. If I were the chief social engineer, I would encourage as much multiracialism as possible, to grind down the sharp borders.</p>
<p>@perazziman, Colleges are required to use self-reported race/ethnicity data for admissions, they will not check ECs, schools and Church affiliation to verify race. Of course, that doesn’t stop them for taking those 3 items (not really churches, unless it’s part of an EC) into account as part of the holistic admission process.</p>
<p>Even so, a sizable number of URMs don’t go to majority URM schools or churches, or particapate in URM EC’s. Does that make them not “real” URMs?</p>
<p>“The reviewing court must ultimately be satisfied that no workable race-neutral alternatives would produce the educational benefits of diversity.”</p>
<p>As in Grutter, diversity is described in binary terms. We either have it or we don’t. Does UT have diversity now?</p>
<p>^In that respect, the words and their meaning, I’m just sharing my own take. Note that “no workable race-neutral…” It’s a loophole. On this thread, we talked about better aid. I think some feel it would encourage more kids to take the auto deal and matriculate. It could improve the number of (low SES) minority students on campus. If the U shows it’s either not affordable or that some reviewed group with high aid offers still did not matriculate in improved numbers or that it violates some conditions about applying finaid equally, across groups, etc, it’s not ultimately workable (in pursuit of the goal.) I don’t have easy answers on this. </p>
<p>Then you run it against “strict scrutiny” - “It must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. While the Courts have never brightly defined how to determine if an interest is compelling, the concept generally refers to something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred. Examples include national security, preserving the lives of multiple individuals, and not violating explicit constitutional protections.” </p>
<p>That’s where my sense of “compelling” fits. It suggests many factors weigh, some greater good, a reason to press forward on those selected issues, etc. (Yes, now it leaves how to interpret explicit constitutional protections. And that sticky wicket: critical mass.)</p>
<p>Yes, imo, UT has diversity, in that it has multiple identity groups. They say, not enough.</p>
<p>At this point, I’m backing off this issue, if I can. I think you and I agree it’s vague.</p>
<p>tigerdad - This isn’t about AA … at least so far as AA means “admitted, though not normally qualified.” (Ironically, this is what Fisher was promoting for herself.) </p>
<p>As for defining what “critical mass” is, well, if UT can’t define it and the Texas Legislature can’t define it and Congress can’t define it and the SC can’t define it …</p>
<p>The average income of Asian Americans exceeded that of whites in 2010, $66K to $54K – see [The</a> Rise of Asian Americans | Pew Social & Demographic Trends](<a href=“http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2012/06/19/the-rise-of-asian-americans/]The”>The Rise of Asian Americans | Pew Research Center) . Did whites socially engineer American society to favor Asians? It is simplistic to observe group differences in SES and jump to the conclusion that discrimination explains those differences.</p>
<p>Some would argue that AA has been primarily social engineering for the benefit of rich white folks. It produces token URM’s who can be held up to the masses as success stories, and so there is less pressure to actually provide real change to the millions of low-SES URM families out there. The rich white folks don’t need to pay anything, and certainly not the higher taxes necessary to provide real change, as they only need to shove aside some middle-class white and Asian kids to make more room.</p>
<p>Some will argue that real change has been tried, but I would say that the efforts at real change have been sabotaged. However, instead of arguing about what anti-poverty programs may or may not have worked if the leadership in Washington had been continuously supportive, I would just propose the creation of a large number of federally-funded, high-quality K-12 boarding schools that would be open only for low-SES kids, with acceptance based not on ability but on need (and URM status could be a factor in determining need).</p>
<p>^^ Bel - By that logic, if a brilliant individual is identified as dyslexic … we shouldn’t help. “After all, everyone settles at the level God intends” (to quote my Bible Belt in-laws).</p>
</p>