Supreme Court: Race-based High School Admission Illegal

Pre-College Issues High School Life
221

<p>The solution to this affirmative action (which is racism) is to let Universities accept who they want. </p>

<p>Let me summarize what Milton Friedman said in his book: he said that if jobs (college in this case) only took the best, most capable workers, they would do much better than those who are forced to meet certain quotas b/c they will take the best workers regardless of race, sex, creed, beliefs etc. Whereas those companies that discriminate (AA in this case) are forced to skip out on some of the best workers. That is why people like me are against discrimination, equal opportunity, AA laws and regulations.</p>

222

<p>That's ridiculous "AA only benefits the privileged" .</p>

<p>The only way that that statement could possible be true is if ALL black college applicants were privileged. So i'll excuse that temporary moment of insanity.</p>

<p>Yes, at the top 10 schools 50-70% of those urms helped are privileged, but because urms are being admitted to more schools at higher volumes, the majority of those being helped ARE underprivileged and lower middle class urms. It's simply logic.</p>

<p>If the wealthy privileged urms are the ones that would get in anyway, and if when AA is enacted we all know the amount of urms admitted to the college system as a whole GREATLY increases, then the ones being helped most by AA are NOT the privileged urms.</p>

<p>The statement that admitting wealthy urms does not increase diversity is ignorant as well. You don't have to be a poor black kid from the ghetto to contribute to diversity. That belief only stems from the common subtly racist belief that wealthy, black, high performing students aren't really black. Whether or not you meant to communicate that, that's the message behind those words.</p>

<p>The point of race based AA is to help those under-represented races because there current situation is a societal epidemic. If you are going to replace it you need to replace it with a program that give as much or more benefit to those races. </p>

<p>And aristotle, yes AA has a TON to do with the numbers of women on campuses. Because of AA colleges were recruiting women at large numbers and the result was the very positive education situation of women today. Just because women benefitted at a much faster rate, due to less societal resistance and attitude, doesn't mean that we shouldn't allow urms to reach the same point of benefit. </p>

<p>Asians also benefited from AA and as an already culturally driven group, they benefited the fastest and the most of all.</p>

<p>proletariat, what other people were trying to communicate to you is that the majority of the people that would benefit from socioeconomic AA would be poor whites, which wouldn't help fix the problem of low urm representation in colleges.</p>

<p>^^^Not true, it is the universities that WANT to practice AA. Neither the cal system nor the UMich system were on board with abolishing AA. I do agree that colleges should be able to choose whoever they want. But forcing schools to abolish AA is doing just the opposite. If a university wants racial diversity and AA then it should have the right to do so. Nobody is forcing any of those universities to practice AA.</p>

223

<p>
[quote]
Yes it would. The goal of AA wasn't to help African-Americans. It was to increase opportunity for the underprivileged. Socioeconomically based AA would help all underprivileged kids.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Thanks for making my point proletariat</p>

224

<p>but the goal of AA NOW, IS to help african americans. hence, RACIAL AA.</p>

225

<p>
[quote]
The true face of America.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You're absolutely right. It's truly amazing how many people still favor outright racial preferences, when they're so clearly illegal and unconstitutional.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Because you see some Black kids in college that are "articulate", as you like to point out you just assume that AA only helps privileged Black people.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You're assuming that I'm assuming, and when you do that, you always run the risk that the person whom you assume to be assuming actually knows more about the situation than you do and is basing his assessment on actual data. In this case, you've come upon exactly this problem. From Peter Schmidt, deputy editor of the Chronicle of Higher Education:</p>

<p>
[quote]
As of 1969, when Harvard’s efforts to recruit blacks from the inner cities were at their peak, nearly 40 percent of its black students came from lower-income backgrounds. By 1973, fewer than 25 percent did. Other colleges similarly scaled back their efforts to recruit black students from poor urban environments. </p>

<p>In a very short time frame, college affirmative action had evolved from a means of promoting social justice or keeping a lid on black unrest to a contest among colleges vying for members of the emerging black middle class. Colleges began regarding black skin, in and of itself, as a disadvantage.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Source: <a href="http://www.box.net/shared/roofpviqgp%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.box.net/shared/roofpviqgp&lt;/a>, page 6.</p>

<p>
[quote]
There are smarter people with power out there to stop people like you. AA will persevere till things are equal.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And there are still smarter people to stop people like you. Affirmative action was recently banned in Michigan by a wide margin. Similar proposals are on the ballots in a number of other states, including Colorado and Arizona, and will be voted on in 2008. If Michigan is any indication, affirmative action is going down there too. The majority of United States citizens don't support it. Its time has long past.</p>

<p>
[quote]
It's funny because people would say stuff like this when civil rights activists wanted to integrate schools 50 years ago. Funny how history repeats itself.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yeah, it is kind of funny. I totally agree. What's more odd, however, is that you're arguing on my behalf. From Clarence Thomas:</p>

<p>
[quote]
Like the dissent, the segregationists repeatedly cautioned the Court to consider practicalities and not to embrace too theoretical a view of the Fourteenth Amendment. And just as the dissent argues that the need for these programs will lessen over time, the segregationists claimed that reliance on segregation was lessening and might eventually end. What was wrong in 1954 cannot be right today.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Anyway...</p>

<p>
[quote]
The only way that that statement could possible be true is if ALL black college applicants were privileged.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Most black applicants to Ivy Leagues are indeed privileged.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Asians also benefited from AA and as an already culturally driven group, they benefited the fastest and the most of all....Just because women benefitted at a much faster rate, due to less societal resistance and attitude, doesn't mean that we shouldn't allow urms to reach the same point of benefit....Asians also benefited from AA and as an already culturally driven group, they benefited the fastest and the most of all.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Like the Jews in the late 19th century in Germany, you didn't need affirmative action for Asians, all you needed was a relaxation of the law. There's no reason to assume that AA will eventually help blacks; indeed, Caltech has had 0-5 black freshmen for the past ten years. If affirmative action were working, one might assume that these numbers would rise, regardless of whether Caltech used it or not.</p>

<p>
[quote]
The statement that admitting wealthy urms does not increase diversity is ignorant as well. You don't have to be a poor black kid from the ghetto to contribute to diversity. That belief only stems from the common subtly racist belief that wealthy, black, high performing students aren't really black. Whether or not you meant to communicate that, that's the message behind those words.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Who said that? Besides, is "diversity" (here defined as a system of racial preference) really worth discriminating against certain racial groups? You have not made it clear why denying spots to more qualified applicants is a just price to pay for a few more blacks on campus. As Thomas has made clear, the educational benefits of diversity are nebulous at best. Not that there's something wrong with it, just that there's no compelling reason to pursue it whilst discriminating against whites and Asians.</p>

<p>Also, for those of you assuming that an end to affirmative action inevitably means an end to blacks on campus and more whites, you're wrong. It always means fewer whites, often only slightly fewer blacks, and always a lot more Asians.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.discriminations.us/2007/06/university_of_california_admis.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.discriminations.us/2007/06/university_of_california_admis.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

226

<p>No, it means fewer black students, in the cal system a drop of 70% at many campuses, slightly fewer white students, which does show that asians were being discriminated against which i dont support, and more asian students.</p>

<p>And whether or not diversity is important enough to build a class around should be up to the university. To many diversity is a compelling reason, whether you personally value it or not.</p>

<p>and aristotle, it was proletariat that made the quote of wealthy african americans not contributing to diversity.</p>

<p>and AA HAS helped african americans, the intitial start of AA is what allowed them to get off to a good start in the 1970s. It is only recently that the progress has slowed as more issues have arisen. AA is not the cause of those issues, it just shows that we need to add to our efforts.</p>

<p>But aristotle, you use the same double standard that many AA opponents use. You say that diversity isn't worth "discriminating against All white and asian people in order to gain a few black students" Well, you can only "discriminate" against as many students as you admit through AA. So if 8% of the student body is helped by AA, no more than 8% of the student body is "discriminated against"</p>

<p>The reason Harvard stopped focusing its efforts solely on underprivileged black students is because it found that they simply weren't prepared for that caliber of a university. </p>

<p>AA stems from the belief that higher education should reflect the diversity of our country if equal opportunities are to be achieved. </p>

<p>The suit against michigan was because the quota system they used was unlawful, not the belief in admitting more urm students.</p>

<p>And aristotle, Note that the supreme court ruled that if IS constitutional to use race as a factor in university admissions. </p>

<p>Also, in the upcoming future, proposals to eliminate proposal 2 and reinstate affirmative action in Michigan are eminent.</p>

227

<p>When you favor one race, no matter how few people are favored, you always, invariably, discriminate against another. That's racism, no matter how you spin it. If you favor affirmative action, you must favor discrimination against Asians in college admissions.</p>

<p>
[quote]
in the cal system a drop of 70% at many campuses

[/quote]

Please cite your sources. I'll give you one of my own: "the Court is willfully blind to the very real experience in California and elsewhere, which raises the inference that institutions with "reputations for excellence" [...] rivaling the Law School's have satisfied their sense of mission without resorting to prohibited racial discrimination." -Thomas in the Grutter case to which you refer.</p>

<p>
[quote]
And whether or not diversity is important enough to build a class around should be up to the university. To many diversity is a compelling reason, whether you personally value it or not.

[/quote]

Actually, I personally like geographic and ethnic and racial diversity; I do find it interesting. I'd rather be on a racially mixed campus than on a 100% white or Asian campus. However, that doesn't mean that I favor discrimination to achieve that goal.</p>

<p>
[quote]
and AA HAS helped african americans, the intitial start of AA is what allowed them to get off to a good start in the 1970s.

[/quote]

Can you present some sort of hard data that shows that affirmative action actually works? I mean, it's been in use for about 40 years now, and it seems that it will continue to progress inevitably.</p>

<p>
[quote]
And aristotle, Note that the supreme court ruled that if IS constitutional to use race as a factor in university admissions.

[/quote]

That was a while ago. It has just ruled that race can't be used in high school admissions, and will hopefully move the decision up the ladder.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Also, in the upcoming future, proposals to eliminate proposal 2 and reinstate affirmative action in Michigan are eminent.

[/quote]

Though they might be "eminent," they'll never pass, not when 58% of Michigan voters oppose affirmative action.</p>

228

<p>With the majority of people on the fence about AA, a 9% swing vote isn't very unreasonable.</p>

229

<p>Another moving quote from Frederick Douglas:</p>

<p>
[quote]
Everybody has asked the question. . ."What shall we do with the Negro?" I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with us! Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us. Do nothing with us! If the apples will not remain on the tree of their own strength, if they are worm eaten at the core, if they are early ripe and disposed to fall, let them fall! I am not for tying or fastening them on the tree in any way, except by nature's plan, and if they will not stay there, let them fall. And if the Negro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall also. All I ask is, give him a chance to stand on his own legs! Let him alone!

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I would argue that, in not heeding Douglas' advice, we've created black nationalism and that sense of entitlement that many black inner-city kids have. Affirmative action's only made things worse.</p>

<p>
[quote]
With the majority of people on the fence about AA, a 9% swing vote isn't very unreasonable.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yes it is. Ronald Reagan won in 1984 with a 58.8% majority, and everyone called that a landslide.</p>

230

<p>That quotation from Frederick Douglas has been sadly unheeded.</p>

<p>In post 218, aristotle1990 mentioned an article by the late Dr. John Ogbu. As he knew that his findings could be considered politically incorrect, he waited a year before publishing. During this time period, he invited any parent and educator in Shaker Heights to discuss his research and their implications. No one came to him. He published and was subsequently the target of a firestorm of hatred from the community. Comically, a local administrator claimed that the reasons for black underachievement were racism, underfunding, and poor teaching. In reality, the Shaker Heights community is very integrated and historically shunned the phenomena of white flight. Its schools are very well funded, and its teachers are excellent. Despite these optimal conditions, the GPAs between black and white students differed markedly. Ogbu notes that many of the black students didn’t turn in their homework as often as their other peers did. For noting that, he was castigated as a “victim blamer.”</p>

231

<p>^^^^</p>

<p>The views of one man does not speak for the views of an entire race of people, in fact the majority of african americans would side with martin luther kings statement that it IS the duty of society to help them. </p>

<p>And i have repeatedly said that i am neutral about the use of AA to make up for past racial injustices, while i believe that it is the duty of society to help that group, i also believe that much of the problem is internal as much as external.</p>

<p>But what i DO believe is that diversity is important and valuable and vital in higher education. If we want to accomplish the goal of true integration, it starts with higher education where people truly build the foundation for the rest of their lives.</p>

232

<p>I remember a few years back when I had a debate topic about Texas school funding and came across some data that showed just how much most low-income children's development is affected. Before they can even make it to these sub par schools in their districts, they're already at a HUGE disadvantage in comparison to the average kid from a middle or upper class family. </p>

<p>I may be recalling the numbers wrong so sorry if I am, but I believe that the statistic was something like the average kid from a middle to upper class household had four times the vocabulary upon entering kindergarten than the average kid from a low income family. So not only do children from low income homes largely attend sub par schools in the first place, but even if they did attend a great school, they'd still be incredibly behind their peers from the middle to upper class families. And that's just looking at vocabulary...no mention of other gaps in development or the possible differences in the amount of encouragement and value placed on education from home. </p>

<p>Obviously there needs to be more programs offered to low income families if we ever hope to close the educational gap and finally be able to do blind admissions to colleges and what-not. Because yeah, I agree that socioeconomic AA would be better than racial AA for the simple fact that children of all races can be of great disadvantage...but when it comes down to it, AA of either type only helps those who apply AND are adequately qualified...and not even all of them...so there obviously needs to be MUCH more done in the early stages of their lives to prepare them. </p>

<p>Not only that, but do you ever wonder what happens to a large number of these kids that do manage to make it to college? A large number of them drop out because they can't handle it either academically or financially. But hey, college isn't for everyone so maybe having better vocational learning programs would also be an advantage so that these kids have the opportunity to learn a skill (haha...also a debate topic I had in high school)? </p>

<p>There's obviously no simple answer, but I just think that AA doesn't really do that much good in the long run.</p>

233

<p>Tyler,</p>

<p>I agree that the views of a person do not represent the views of an entire race. Indeed, a person only speaks for himself.</p>

<p>I also believe that diversity is important, valuable, and vital. That’s why I’m totally against “numbers only” and segregation. “Numbers only” makes it difficult for universities to select students who excel at contest mathematics, debate, science Olympiad, athletics, community service, and so forth. Segregation destroys diversity by restricting freedom. Nevertheless, diversity can still be obtained through race-blind admissions.</p>

<p>I disagree that the goal of true integration starts with higher education. I believe that it should start much earlier during the K-5 years. These are the formative years, where the time is ripe to introduce the ideas of colorblindness and tolerance. By the time students hit high school, it’s a bit late.</p>

234

<p>Right and we should instate those K-12 programs WHILE keeping AA. </p>

<p>AA will resolve itself as it becomes needed less. As the achievement gap narrows as a result of AA and those K-12 programs there will be less and less AA admits until eventually there will be no AA admits because the achievement gap won't exist. At that point AA will exist only in name. If anything AA could be use as an incentive for society to take initiative in enacting these programs.</p>

235

<p>
[QUOTE]
agreed Wow you all really don't understand. Because you see some Black kids in college that are "articulate", as you like to point out you just assume that AA only helps privileged Black people. It doesn't even matter what you think anyway. There are smarter people with power out there to stop people like you. AA will persevere till things are equal.

[/QUOTE]
</p>

<p>So the voters of Michigan and California don't matter...right. Okay. If you say so. I have explained my logic, and you can't follow it.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
Yes, at the top 10 schools 50-70% of those urms helped are privileged, but because urms are being admitted to more schools at higher volumes, the majority of those being helped ARE underprivileged and lower middle class urms. It's simply logic.

[/QUOTE]
</p>

<p>Nope. 1-0.5 and 1-0.7=< 0.5. It's simply mathematics. Your facts contradict your reasoning.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
If the wealthy privileged urms are the ones that would get in anyway, and if when AA is enacted we all know the amount of urms admitted to the college system as a whole GREATLY increases, then the ones being helped most by AA are NOT the privileged urms.

[/QUOTE]
</p>

<p>Not necessarily the ones who would get in anyway. The amount of URMs as whole increase, but most of the difference is also some of the more privileged URMs.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
The statement that admitting wealthy urms does not increase diversity is ignorant as well. You don't have to be a poor black kid from the ghetto to contribute to diversity. That belief only stems from the common subtly racist belief that wealthy, black, high performing students aren't really black. Whether or not you meant to communicate that, that's the message behind those words.

[/QUOTE]
</p>

<p>Actually, the only real difference is the color of their skin, which really makes no difference (melanin after all, was designed only to block sunlight). Of the few African-Americans who have managed to retain their African culture, thereby contributing diversity, they can show this through ECs or essays.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
Asians also benefited from AA and as an already culturally driven group, they benefited the fastest and the most of all.

[/QUOTE]
</p>

<p>But they rarely if ever do anymore. Many of those who had come over were already college educated (though from poorer colleges) anyway.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
But forcing schools to abolish AA is doing just the opposite. If a university wants racial diversity and AA then it should have the right to do so. Nobody is forcing any of those universities to practice AA.

[/QUOTE]
</p>

<p>I'm not trying to make a practical argument, such as the affirmative action should be banned, even racially (I don't think it should). I'm just trying to make an argument that it is bad. Banning it would be unnecessary government interference where there need be none.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
proletariat, what other people were trying to communicate to you is that the majority of the people that would benefit from socioeconomic AA would be poor whites, which wouldn't help fix the problem of low urm representation in colleges.

[/QUOTE]
</p>

<p>But it would increase the percentage of URMs, as they are in general more likely to be poor. It would also increase of the poor whites, a very underrepresented group, which, yes, could add diversity.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
but the goal of AA NOW, IS to help african americans. hence, RACIAL AA.

[/QUOTE]
</p>

<p>But it souldn't be.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
Most black applicants to Ivy Leagues are indeed privileged.

[/QUOTE]
</p>

<p>Yep, and they're hardly just helping the ones who aren't.</p>

236

<p>
[QUOTE]
So if 8% of the student body is helped by AA, no more than 8% of the student body is "discriminated against"

[/QUOTE]
</p>

<p>This is only true is an accepance rate is exactly 50%. At most top colleges, it's much lower.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
Also, in the upcoming future, proposals to eliminate proposal 2 and reinstate affirmative action in Michigan are eminent.

[/QUOTE]
</p>

<p>It's interesting how, when I was working at the Democratic phone booth, a lady, referring to gender-based AA, explained to my mom, "If affirmative action is eliminated, neither of us will have a job!" As a Michigander, I can tell you with certainty that very few people here like affirmative action at all, and the Republicans across the state certainly won't.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
With the majority of people on the fence about AA, a 9% swing vote isn't very unreasonable.

[/QUOTE]
</p>

<p>The majority of people here who are not straight party-lines voters have strong opinions on AA.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
Obviously there needs to be more programs offered to low income families if we ever hope to close the educational gap and finally be able to do blind admissions to colleges and what-not. Because yeah, I agree that socioeconomic AA would be better than racial AA for the simple fact that children of all races can be of great disadvantage...but when it comes down to it, AA of either type only helps those who apply AND are adequately qualified...and not even all of them...so there obviously needs to be MUCH more done in the early stages of their lives to prepare them.

[/QUOTE]
</p>

<p>Yes, we need more help for underprivileged kids of all races. This is a lot like fabrizio's most recent post.</p>

237

<p>haha i get it proletariat, you simply arent bright. </p>

<p>I said at the top 10 schools the majority are privileged...but AA IS practiced outside the top 10 schools, you know that right?</p>

<p>You can't look at the top 10 schools and then say the majority of those being helped are privileged because, the majority of schools that practice AA aren't the top 10 schools (duh moment).</p>

<p>Your argument about poor whites doesn't work both ways. A larger portion of african americans are poor, but the majority of the poor are whites. So if you help the poor, the majority of people you will be helping are poor whites. Which does not resolve the issue of under-represented minorities. </p>

<p>Whether or not you find the under-representation of minorities to be a problem simply depends on how self-centered you are. </p>

<p>Whether or not asians benefit anymore doesn't matter, what matters is that they DID. You can't say "ok, well Asians were the first group to suceed so THEY WIN!!!, pull the plug." As i said above, AA resolves itself as the achievement gap narrows. </p>

<p>I've got to say that i'm so glad that we don't have any of those ignorant people that argue that "AA makes blacks lazy." I applaud all the AA opponents for being at least reasonable in their arguments.</p>

238

<p>^^^Yes we do need help for underprivileged kids of all races. But that is a completely different issue than the crisis of minority under-representation. BOTH issues need to be resolved, not just one.</p>

239

<p>
[quote]
<br>
Supreme Court: Race-based High School Admission Illegal

[/quote]

so basically schools can't use the 100 metre dash to determine who should be accepted?</p>

240

<p>So all black people are fast runners?</p>