<p>
</p>
<p>Well, let’s not forget that, for much of the nation’s history, SCOTUS ruled that slavery and the denial of women’s suffrage were also constitutional. Indeed, we had to change the Constitution in order to ensure that those policies changed. SCOTUS had also ruled that Japanese-American WW2 internment, ‘separate-but-equal’ Jim Crow racial segregation, and the denial of citizenship to Native Americans were also constitutional.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is precisely those types of ‘cop-outs’ that were formerly used to justify the preference for WASP’s over other races and religion. An adcom could always say that a Jewish applicant lacked the necessary character and spirit for the school, and indeed, that is precisely the excuses the Ivies invoked during the early 1900’s under the ‘Jewish Quotas’. Richard Feynman was famously denied admission to Columbia because his parents were Jewish, despite the fact that he had become an atheist while a teenager.</p>
<p>I understand that the SCOTUS isnt infallible, but it sure is less fallible than we are.
It’s 9 extremely qualified men and women who have spent their lives in law, evaluating justice and fairness.
Remember the means with which SCOTUS rules race-related cases: Strict Scrutiny. That means there needs to be compelling state interest without restricting anyones’ freedoms for it to be constitutional. If you care that much, read the SCOTUS Opinion on Grutter v Bollinger (Justice O’Connor wrote it). They provide an expansive legal justification for AA.</p>
<p>Ahem. I really don’t know why, but I’ve read every single post so far.</p>
<p>As a URM, it really urks me to read some of these terribly ignorant comments. Not supporting either side of the argument, but one thing really bothered me.</p>
<p>I guess you could call me a good student, near the top of my class, leadership, varsity lax, etc. (Small class). Though I feel like I should bring up another point. Someone earlier said that an financially well-off URM should not benefit from AA. Going through school being an URM is (in my opinion) a vastly different experience than being an ORM. No matter your socio-economic class you still have to deal with racism. Blatant or otherwise. Not even just that, the feeling that you get when you look around and you are the only black student in your honours classes. Always. That is not a good feeling, it’s depressing and I honestly don’t know how to put it to words. According to a vast section of blacks, doing well in school is something that is considered “white” and not cool or okay. The feeling of going through your day, feeling like you don’t fit in anywhere? Too “white” for the black kids, and too “black” for the white kids. Don’t try and tell me it doesn’t happen. I know it does because I experience it everyday. If that doesn’t count for something, I honestly don’t know what should.</p>
<p>It’s sort of a rant I could go through, but I doubt it’s even worth posting.</p>
<p>Though, with that same argument, I suppose a victim of bullying could claim the same thing. I don’t really know how to defend my argument, but it’s irrelevant since none of us actually know what goes into denying or accepting an applicant.</p>
<p>^ I know racisim still exists to this day, even at the high income brackets. I am a south asian who goes to a school where less than 10% are minorities. We have about 100 people in our grade and there are 5 asians (including me) and 5 black kids. The other 90 or so are white. </p>
<p>I am not denying what you said. I believe every word of it. But am I not in a similar situation? Everyone in my school is also in the top 1% income bracket (very, very rich) except me and probably another 1 or 2 people. Our parents get some sort of tuition benefit so they are able to send me to this school. That in and of itself is a huge barrier in a student’s life.</p>
<p>I don’t really know what I am trying to say here. I guess AA should be practiced only at select schools then.</p>
<p>But really, like you said in your last point, bullying is pretty much the same thing. There are many people who get bullied and don’t get an advantage in the process.</p>
<p>I don’t know how to adequately respond to what you wrote.</p>
<p>
Yeah, I’m pretty sure that’s what a ■■■■■ does.</p>
<p>Stop denying that you got ■■■■■■■ and just admit broski haha. He put out the bait, and you bit. It’s what ■■■■■■ do.</p>
<p>Also, Iamright, you’re a lolzer.</p>
<p>Harry Potter defeated a ■■■■■. As did Frodo Baggins and friends.</p>
<p>Good point USA. I was watching the show Ivy Dreams and some of the Asian kids were saying there’s like only a few in the entire school.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then I have to keep invoking decisions such as Dred Scott. Once again, 9 extremely learned men (no female justices at the time) who spent much of their professional lives steeped in the law, evaluating justice and fairness, yet who still fumbled one of the easiest decisions of all time with regards to fundamental human rights and ethics by ruling slavery to be constitutional. And yes, their infamous decision provided an expansive legal justification in favor of slavery. The decision even deplored the fear of the following catastrophe should slavery be abolished:</p>
<p>…It would give to persons of the negro race, …the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, …the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs…</p>
<p>Imagine the horrors that would befall the nation: that blacks might actually move from one state to another as they please, that they might actually speak freely, and that they might actually meet to organize themselves politically. Thank God that SCOTUS precluded such a calamity, right? </p>
<p>I could possibly understand the counterargument that slavery was an institution that had been practiced by mankind since the dawn of history and was still commonplace throughout the world at the time of Dred Scott, and therefore that decision was a product of its times that would be unfair to judge via today’s lenses of morality. But the entire founding narrative of the United States of America was to denote a rupture from the benighted tyrannies of the past and shine forth a beacon of freedom for other nations to emulate. The Decl. of Independence clearly states that “All men are created equal”, not “All men except for black men are created equal.” </p>
<p>Yet, SCOTUS couldn’t even adjudicate the question of slavery correctly, hence requiring a formal change of the Constitution itself (that is: that 13th-15th Amendments) before SCOTUS could finally get it right. </p>
<p>Hence, my question is, given the ignoble history of SCOTUS, why place so much faith in them now?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I already admitted that, if he is in fact a ■■■■■, that I was indeed ■■■■■■■.</p>
<p>Again…</p>
<p>I maintain once an applicant is deemed qualified, other qualitative aspects come into play.</p>
<p>Ex.
Many athletes have sats scores in the 1800-2100 range and are admitted to elite universities because they are deemed qualified. The athlete is academically qualified and university has an athletic program they want supported. The athlete is filling a niche that the very tippy top academic applicant can not. I can go on and on with other examples.</p>
<p>This university desires to put together a class that is interesting and diverse. This requires admitting students with various talents and backgrounds. This is the university’s philosophy. If the university’s philosophy is not in keeping with yours, apply elsewhere.</p>
<p>Sakky,</p>
<p>I apologize for inciting you to write such a long response to my satirical post. I wasn’t ■■■■■■■■ you, per say, because I figured you and others would have had a good laugh at the post upon realizing its facetious nature. I never would have thought that you would overlook the humorous tone :)</p>
<p>And I’m not exactly sure what you picked up in my post history that made you think my comments are always self-consistent. They’re not.</p>
<p>Sakky,</p>
<p>The admissions committe was excluding blacks. There was no evaulation of the student. The student was denied access based on the color of their skin. Today no races are being excluded from admission to elite universities. There are many asian/white students at the college level. I’m not sure I understand your point. </p>
<p>Many ccers want a quantitative equation to evaluate applicants. The admission process does not work that way. Also, there are over 50,000 applicants with high sat(>2000) and gpa scores, far more qualified applicants than there are slots. Therefore, there will always be thousands of qualified applicants who are rejected. </p>
<p>Do ccers believe the elite universites are admitting students who are not qualified?..I would say no.</p>
<p>I can’t believe this thread is still going. It’s veered off course so much.
This was the original question
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Your analogy is not apt. The historical Numerus Clausus often times did not categorically exclude Jews or other minorities, they just put a strong cap on the numbers admitted. For example, Columbia would not admit Richard Feynman because they already had ‘too many Jews’. Similarly, Harvard and Yale did admit some blacks and Catholics (read:Irish) during the 1800’s - just relatively few. </p>
<p>My point therefore is that if it is perfectly fine for adcoms to make race-weighted admissions decisions today, then perhaps it was also perfectly fine for adcoms to have made the race-weighted admissions decisions that they did in the 1800’s and early 1900’s, right? In other words, the Jewish Numerus Clausus were perfectly valid, right? That Harvard and Yale actively discriminated against the Irish in the 1800’s was also perfectly valid, right? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But who says that the top schools need to rely solely on SAT scores and high school GPA’s? Let me put it to you this way. In the old days, top schools such as Harvard and MIT used to run their own admissions exams. Anybody who could achieve a high enough score on those exams was automatically admitted - indeed, that is how W.E.B. Dubois was admitted to Harvard. Now, obviously earning a sufficient score was immensely difficult. Nevertheless, some people did it. {And of course, during those days, plenty of ‘favorite sons’ of privileged families were nevertheless admitted to Harvard even without achieving the necessary score.} </p>
<p>The top private schools, with their billions of dollars of endowment funding, could easily afford to reinstate another admissions exam system. Heck, Caltech runs a similar system right now - not for admissions - but rather for placement in deciding which math and physics sequence you should being your studies. This is a notoriously difficult exam. Caltech could simply decide that they are going to have this exam become an admissions factor rather than merely being used for placement.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No worries. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Seems to me that it was the philosophy of the flagship state universities in the South to not admit any blacks prior to the 1960’s, in order to pursue the goals of campus harmony and social order. I suppose we could have simply thrown our hands up and concluded that for those people who disagreed with the philosophy of segregation, they could have simply chosen not to apply to those schools. </p>
<p>But we didn’t just throw our hands up and do nothing. Rather, we, through the power of the Federal government, directly intervened in the internal affairs of those schools to specifically require that those schools admit blacks.</p>