<p>
</p>
<p>Correct. But that is much different from your earlier post:</p>
<p>“According to the Supreme Court, until proved differently, UT has acted within is rights morally and legally.”</p>
<p>The Supreme Court made no such decision. (And no, your parenthetical doesn’t change the meaning.)</p>
<p>The only thing anyone can conclude is that the SC told the 5th that they interpreted the law incorrectly. Thus, go back and look at it again. (The 5th’s decision may be the same, or different.)</p>
<p>
SCOTUS argued that the 5th Circuit made a ruling without investigating what UT was really doing. </p>
<p>The 5th Circuit used 3-judge panel and did not review the case en banc. No doubt since the 5th Circuit ruling, it has been hanging on every word that was spoken in the SCOTUS oral arguments, including the eyebrow-raising “diversity within diversity” privileged URM defense, and the “need for a critical mass of URMs in every classroom” defense. SCOTUS has laid a roadmap for what the 5th Circuit needs to scrutinize.</p>
<p>You think the universities are not quietly worried?</p>
<p>I can’t claim the morally and legally; that’s another poster.</p>
<p>Btw, are we all reading the same documents? If so, it only proves how law is subject to…interpretation. If we aren’t, why not?</p>
<p>MR. GARRE: No, Your Honor, and let me try to be clear on this. The university has never asserted a compelling interest in any specific diversity in every single classroom. It has simply looked to classroom diversity as one dimension of student body diversity.</p>
<p>The point is that UT is indeed looking at diversity on the classroon level, but will not commit to a exact breakdown per classroom because that would be a quota.</p>
<p>^^ Essentially, U.T. Austin was saying that this roughly 40% minority rate achieved under the 10% rule without race-conscious admission policy was still NOT sufficient because it wanted to see a greater percentage in individual programs and classes – requiring an even higher percentage. Therefore, the school turned back to race-conscious admissions and the federal appellate court upheld the change. </p>
<p>The race conscious rules are also likely to result in further discrimination on the basis of race. IMHO, what the U.T. is doing is wrong no matter who brings the lawsuit. Fisher may not be a perfect plaintiff but the question before the courts is still very much relevant and valid.</p>
<p>I would just like to note, if it hasn’t been noted before, that the 10% plan isn’t really race-neutral. It only worked, if it did work, because of racial disparities in housing patterns. It’s just a way of using an apparently race-neutral method that you’ve figured out–in advance–will create more racial diversity.</p>
<p>^ 40% non-Caucasian. 24% Black plus Hispanic.</p>
<p>On reason I suggest that “losing Grutter” isn’t disastrous is that American is (also) losing the ability to define Race for much of the population. George Zimmerman has a white father and Peruvian mother. He self identifies Hispanic. But if his mother had just one drop of Asian blood then he’s primarily Caucasian. I believe that use of “check box Race” will shortly be replaced with implicit (i.e., derived) SES. The value of maintaining diversity hasn’t been challenged, so I won’t start worrying until the SC accepts a “defacto race-conscious” discrimination case … you know, “UT calls it SES-conscious but since the number of URM admits are the same as with Grutter …” </p>
<p>PS, What race am I? I always check “Other” when that box is available.</p>
<p>Some have cited continuing racism against URMs as a justification for affirmative action. Large segments of the population (not just Asian parents on CC) do not agree with this. A poll from 2011 found that whites think bias against them is now more common:
[Jockeying for Stigma
by Michael I. Norton and Samuel R. Sommers
New York Times
May 23, 2011](<a href=“Jockeying for Stigma - NYTimes.com”>http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/05/22/is-anti-white-bias-a-problem/jockeying-for-stigma</a>)
</p>
<p>Even if universities successfully defend their AA programs in court, they risk losing public support.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, you’re reading way to much into the opinion. SCOTUS did not “see problems with how UT was using race.” It expressed no opinion whatsoever on that question. It made a purely procedural ruling, holding that the 5th Circuit applied the wrong standard by extending too much deference to UT, rather than requiring UT to “make a showing that its plan is narrowly tailored to achieve . . . the benefits of . . . student body diversity.” The “strict scrutiny” that SCOTUS demands here is nothing new: that’s always the standard when governmental bodies (including public universities) use racial classifications. That was the standard in Bakke and Grutter. It’s the standard that all parties in Fisher agreed was applicable. It’s the standard the 5th Circuit said it was applying, but SCOTUS said the 5th Circuit misapplied it. That means the 5th Circuit needs to go back for a re-do. But that does not in any way pre-judge the outcome on remand. The SCOTUS opinion contains not even a whiff of a suggestion as to what the substantive outcome should be on remand. This case could ultimately go either way.</p>
<p>Bel - I wasn’t aware the definition of AA has changed from “decisive preference” to “non-decisive factor.” When did that happen? (In other words, does your definition of AA include “maintenance of existing critical mass?”)</p>
<p>
At last, definitive proof that black people are smarter than white people. Give me a break.</p>
<p>^ Given the massive preferences given to blacks these days, I’m considering giving my children DNA therapy so they qualify as black. Does anyone know where to get that done?</p>
<p>PS, Are both poor AND rich blacks now getting that “free ride?” Or just poor? Do I need to also disinherit my kids to get them that “made in the shade” black life?</p>
<p>It’s pretty simple. The SC did not act. Fisher lost at the district court level so The UT system of admissions has been upheld. It’s over folks. All that’s left is more fundraising from the rich and paranoid and those who do it will be paid handsomely all along the way. BTW, it was always about the money. Fisher was a pawn in a much bigger game of fundraising.</p>
<p>"You think the universities are not quietly worried? "</p>
<p>I was wondering about the impact if supreme court gave a serious ruling rather than punt. This is was the most boring outcome ever. </p>
<p>Universities at this point wont care a whit since this means absolutely nothing to them. SCOTUS told a lower court to ask some tough questions about a policy - a big whoop dee daa. Unless something comes out of the next case on the docket next june, it will be another year before 5th circuit court comes back with a decision, another 1 or 2 years if supremes want to review that one and rule. Universities won’t need to worry about holistic policies for another year at the least.</p>
<p>I think it’s pretty simple too. Techniques for assembling public university classes have advanced to the point where “Race” in no longer a significant contributor. The SC is ready to knock Race out completely … see Robert’s and Scalia’s and Thomas’ and comments … but hasn’t yet. By the time Fisher v. makes a couple more rounds between the Appeals Court and the Supreme Court, UT will be ready to remove Race from the application form. (I believe they’re ready to remove it now, but for reasons of their own UT wants to retain Race as a “non-decisive factor.”)</p>
<p>I think some have now been just teasing this thread out with wild statements.
For some time now.</p>
<p>BTW, despite some notion that adcoms are stoopid, they got the wake up call s long time ago and have had plenty of time to line their ducks up.</p>
<p>^ Fortunately the persons on CC are smart enough to “tease out” any helpful information!</p>
<p>The blatant misrepresentations make it hard, don’t you think? Especially for a casual reader.</p>
<p>lf - I think the people on this thread are smart, educated and interested. I’m not at all certain we have “casual readers” here. Interested and opinionated, sure. Willing to post their views, absolutely. Willing to challenge the views of others, yes. We do swing out into the 3rd Standard Deviation occasionally … (well I do at least) … but I value the experiences and perspectives of others on this Board, ESPECIALLY when they suggest things I haven’t thought of.</p>
<p>And now, back to your regularly scheduled programming …</p>
<p>Suggesting is one thing, Opinions, sure. Blanket statements (when the sources say otherwise) are questionable. Since I agree with “smart, educated and interested,” I’m questioning it. (But, willing to stop there, for now.)</p>