<p>Excuse me (once again), Fisher v. is a case about applicants at the margins. URMs would like to maintain a “critical mass” at UT. Fisher thought that was OK, as long as all average white girls who wanted to attend UT got in first. There’s certainly a case to be made that UT discriminates against high-performing students at competitive high schools. But that’s not what Fisher v. is about. (She would have sounded pretty ridiculous claiming “Some Val got my spot!” Much easier to use the Race Card.)</p>
<p>“do we publish the high performance athletes? No. Why would we do that in academics?”</p>
<p>I’m sorry Tigerdad, you weren’t clear. Who exactly is being punished in academics?</p>
<p>
All I’m doing is reporting what the statistics show. In this case, its the facts that are horrible.</p>
<p>
I’m a white male from the south. This is why I know, from personal experience, that there is a lot more to the problem than low SES. I just don’t think this is well understood by people who are recent immigrants, or perhaps by people in parts of the country where there aren’t so many URMs, especially African-Americans.</p>
<p>And let me add: the question of preferences for URMs is very different from whether Asians are being disadvantaged in college admissions in favor of white applicants. The latter has been discussed at great length on CC, and in my opinion it is a big mistake to mix it up with the issue of URM preferences.</p>
<p>@ucbalumnus, don’t think it is just in favor of european americans though based on the conversation with some of my asian friends.</p>
<p>@hunt, we should teach kids of all races that a little hard work in school can go a long way. That should be the real message to all students. And start fixing the school systems up to k12. i am half/half (white/asian) in the north. But I did go to U.T. and think there is enough diversity. The top 10% rule already ensures it and it is a race-neutral policy which the SC can perhaps support.</p>
<p>@NewHope33, continue to bury your head in the sand and pretend it’s all fine and dandy.</p>
<p>“But I did go to U.T. and think there is enough diversity.”</p>
<p>The right amount (implying endorsement of current admissions policy)? Or too much?</p>
<p>^ i said the 10% rule is a good race neutral policy that ensures diversity already. no need for additional race-based preference.</p>
<p>Here we go again. Since many of us are missing your point, please describe the “race based preference.” The school prefers URMs?</p>
<p>As I see it, the school prefers to achieve a diversity that allows different minority groups to be more than “spokespersons” for their group. Also in the Argument.</p>
<p>Earlier on this thread, we discussed factors that hamper matriculation in the x%. </p>
<p>What any of US think is “enough” doesn’t have much impact. We are observers with opinions.</p>
<p>The same old arguments are being bandied back and forth, but the bottom line is that the SC didn’t see any evidence egregious enough to cause immediate action. According to the Supreme Court, until proved differently, UT has acted within is rights morally and legally. Why do people continue to argue on behalf of the likes of Fisher?</p>
<p>^ Yes, that would be me. The reason is that emotions against anything race-based are so high in America that even a non-competitive applicant (like Fisher) can get her case to the SC by claiming “discriminated against because I am white.” </p>
<p>I’m on record as saying AA (as defined by “decisive preference”) is no longer applicable. The Fisher case asked if Race can be a “non-decisive factor.” The SC responded “Perhaps.” Many people, some on this thread, say “That’s not good enough. We don’t mind that Athletes and Internationals and Oboe Players to get DECISIVE Preference … but we don’t think Race should even be a NON-Decisive Factor.”</p>
<p>This issue isn’t going away so long as Socio-Economically Advantaged applicants with poor credentials (like Fisher) can get to the SC by crying “Racial Discrimination.”</p>
<p>Considering the recent cases, getting to the existing SCOTUS no longer requires much of a case. The obvious horsetrading that appears to take place to yield decisions that only seem to please “someone’s” agenda ought to raise serious questions about the role of this court. The SCOTUS has been all over the place in an almost comical way. The only good news is that the justices are about to take a break. They need it! </p>
<p>Anyone who pretends to be a “predicting” expert on the SCOTUS must have access to strong stuff for his or her pipe.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I cannot understand how you can come to that conclusion. The only thing the SC did was to tell the 5th that they conducted their analysis of the law incorrectly, i.e., do it over. Any new result, based on that new analysis, is still unknown.</p>
<p>That’s exactly it: since Fisher wasn’t judged, things stand as they are. The fellows doing what they have been doing, will continue to do it. So far.</p>
<p>UT will just generate better proof that what they’re doing is necessary to achieve the kind of diversity they’re trying to get. It won’t be too hard.</p>
<p>I don’t think the takeaway from the SC ruling on Monday is universities can maintain the status quo. The highest court is saying that any racial preference policy will be under “strict scrutiny”. From a legal perspective, many experts think it is a higher standards than the current “good faith” system. Therefore, I don’t see how one could draw the conclusion that universities just do what they are doing now. </p>
<p>Since I went to U.T. many years ago, there is something interesting that I am not sure everyone here is aware of. What is striking is that the UT Austin achieved remarkable levels of minority students under the earlier race-neutral system of admissions. In the year before the school changed to a race-conscious system, Hispanic and African American students constituted a total 21.4% of the entering freshman class. Asian students made up another roughly 18% of the class. This impressive success was achieved in large part by the Texas legislature enacting the 10% Law, which required the University of Texas to admit all Texas high school seniors ranking in the top 10% of their classes. That law not only achieved racial diversity but geographic and economic diversity at the university. For those of us uneasy with the use of race-conscious criteria, that record was encouraging and suggested that it is indeed possible to achieve considerable diversity without the use of race.</p>
<p>
Quite the contrary, SCOTUS did see problems with how UT was using race and sent the case back to the 5th Circuit Court because the judges there were not doing their job. SCOTUS ruled that universities’ use of race must pass strict judicial review, and the 5th Circuit erred in simply accepting UT’s word that how it was using race met that test. This opens the door to more Abigail Fishers.</p>
<p>Make no mistake, Grutter is being slowly gutted.</p>
<p>Well, let’s just say this: you will have to wait and see.<br>
In the interim, no one is stopping UT. </p>
<p>In the interim, they will pick the next class per their procedures. Maybe more.</p>
<p>Is it 2014 September yet? I am waiting for circuit court to come back and say our ruling stands.</p>
<p>“Make no mistake, Grutter is being slowly gutted.”</p>
<p>Before Fisher there was Grutter, and before Grutter there was Hopwood, and before Hopwood etc, etc, etc. Grutter is just the latest “stop gap.” In time it will go the way of Hopwood and the rest. It’s not like it Grutter was a landmark legislation.</p>