Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Education The Courts

Supreme Court Upholds Michigan's Ban On Affirmative Action In College Admissions 410

Posted by Soulskill
from the sensitive-subjects dept.
Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes: "The Supreme Court, by a vote of 6 — 2, has upheld a Michigan law banning the use of racial criteria in college admissions, finding that a lower court did not have the authority to set aside the measure approved in a 2006 referendum supported by 58% of voters. 'This case is not about how the debate about racial preferences should be resolved. It is about who may resolve it,' wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy. 'Michigan voters used the initiative system to bypass public officials who were deemed not responsive to the concerns of a majority of the voters with respect to a policy of granting race-based preferences that raises difficult and delicate issues.' Kennedy's core opinion in the Michigan case seems to exalt referenda as a kind of direct democracy that the courts should be particularly reluctant to disturb. This might be a problem for same-sex marriage opponents if a future Supreme Court challenge involves a state law or constitutional amendment enacted by voters.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor reacted sharply in disagreeing with the decision in a 58 page dissent. 'For members of historically marginalized groups, which rely on the federal courts to protect their constitutional rights, the decision can hardly bolster hope for a vision of democracy (PDF) that preserves for all the right to participate meaningfully and equally in self-government.' The decision was the latest step in a legal and political battle over whether state colleges can use race and gender as a factor in choosing what students to admit. Michigan has said minority enrollment at its flagship university, the University of Michigan, has not gone down since the measure was passed. Civil rights groups dispute those figures and say other states have seen fewer African-American and Hispanic students attending highly competitive schools, especially in graduate level fields like law, medicine, and science."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Supreme Court Upholds Michigan's Ban On Affirmative Action In College Admissions

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 23, 2014 @07:14AM (#46821863)
    We've made enormous strides in racial equality since this was originally needed. Time for it to go away, at least in Michigan. Other states may decide for themselves.
    • by NotDrWho (3543773) on Wednesday April 23, 2014 @07:45AM (#46822087)

      I agree. Normally I disagree with the Court on its obvious conservative bent, but I'm with them on this one. There is no excuse for factoring race into admissions for any university. This was true in 1950, and it's true today.

      And, as a practical matter, it only fuels resentment and suspicion on all sides of the equation, and it puts a permanent taint on those who many who have earned their way in, but who are perceived as having only gotten in by virtue of their race or ethnicity.

      • by Entropius (188861) on Wednesday April 23, 2014 @08:05AM (#46822241)

        It also makes teaching university classes very, very difficult -- when some of the students clearly don't have the background to be in university but are there anyway and in my class, how am I supposed to handle them? I could just assume that they have whatever background they really should have had, but I feel like if the university stuck 'em in my class there's some expectation I will do my best to help them. If I do that, though, I'm stuck explaining what a sine wave is to the affirmative action kid while the rest of the class is studying the effect of sample rate on the Nyquist cutoff. (It's a physics of music course.)

        • by serviscope_minor (664417) on Wednesday April 23, 2014 @08:41AM (#46822525) Journal

          I'm stuck explaining what a sine wave is to the affirmative action kid while the rest of the class is studying the effect of sample rate on the Nyquist cutoff.

          Yep.

          Affermative action is not necessarily a bad thing: if there is a marked bias (e.g. one segment requires on avreage higher qalifications than another for the same place), affermative action can work by equalising things. Once things are equal then it really is equal opportunity (at that one point) and affermative action really can help to achieve that. If it goes too far, it de-equalises things in the opposite direction and that's unhelpful.

          I've been in your position (not as bad). The UK government is always pressuring the better universities to "take more state school pupils". The thing is, most teaching staff would love to take a talented person and bring out the best in them. But they start so far behind it involves considerable resources such as 1 on 1 tuition for a year to get them up to the same level as the rest of the intake. Naturally the government does not provide money to this.

          Very often lecturers and professors will put in their own personal time (i.e. uncompensated) to to this. That makes it particularly galling when the government (yet again) complains how universities are biased. Though in fairness to the current bunch, that's a labour complaint, not a conservative one.

      • by WileyC (188236) on Wednesday April 23, 2014 @09:11AM (#46822895)

        Exactly! What the blurb fails to mention is that in states that have enacted 'colorblind' policies the GRADUATION rate for minorities has gone up. Yes, you see fewer freshman minority students at the Ivy League colleges but you see more minorities with diplomas... and isn't that the goal?

      • Just based on the short excerpt in the summary, Sotomayor did not base her consideration purely in the legal aspects. If her argument had merit, that bit should never have been mentioned in a ruling on authority.

    • What is wrong with giving scholarships to poor students without considering their race. As used to happen and should still happen instead of this politically correct BS.

  • by Bartles (1198017) on Wednesday April 23, 2014 @07:19AM (#46821903)
    ...seems to think it's ok to reject an Asian American applicant to make room for an African or Hispanic American. That is despicable.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 23, 2014 @07:52AM (#46822149)

      No, the politically-correct crowd doesn't like to talk about Asians. They are very uncomfortable with the fact that one racial group refused to rest on their race and former discriminatory status as a crutch and excuse for the rest of time. The Asian experience in America flies in the face of their "former oppression excuses all shitty behavior today" philosophy and demonstrates that hard work and determination can indeed overcome the ills of the past. It really pisses them off that Asians don't sit around all day on their front porches drinking 40's and bitching about how whitey is holding them back.

    • Care to explain? Affirmative action assumes that some races have disadvantages that can be compensated for. It doesn't assume all non-white races have the same disadvantage, nor is it simply a handout of "you're not white, here's some gimmies." Do you feel that Asian Americans have the same education and economic disadvantages that African or Hispanic Americans have? Because if you're making that assumption, there's undoubtedly data and graphs you could use to prove it.

      I'm not arguing they are or are
  • Blatant Racism (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Ignacio (1465) on Wednesday April 23, 2014 @07:19AM (#46821907)
    Justice Sotomayor sounds like a huge racist since she doesn't seem to believe that blacks or hispanics are capable of getting admitted on their own merit.
    • Anyone who thinks Sotomayor is a "racist" is a total idiot.

      Michigan's Law School brought this whole thing on themselves by their Frat Boy interpretation of "affirmative action"

      If you read the opinions, all the justices agree this ruling is for a narrow application of the concept of "affirmative action"

      The Michigan Law School had a stupid, reductive, over-simplified method...

      4.0 in undergrad? +1
      clerk for a judge? +1

      black.... +1

      it's fucking ridiculous...anyone who knows anything about "affirmative action" kno

      • On the contrary, such point systems are perfectly acceptible to the Supreme Court. The question isn't whether this type of affirmative action is unconstitutional--it isn't. The question is whether it is constitutional for the state to ban the colleges from using it anyways--and it is.

      • by jcr (53032)

        Anyone who thinks Sotomayor is a "racist" is a total idiot

        Anone who claims she's NOT a racist is fucking liar.

        -jcr

    • The data appears to support her stance. [huffingtonpost.com] Also the "why" matters a great deal. If she doesn't think they're capable of getting in because there's some type of discrimination against them, then no, that's not racist. If she's saying "Because hispanics, like me, are just lazy and stupid," then yeah, that's racism. But I doubt it's the latter.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 23, 2014 @07:23AM (#46821931)

    Discrimination in college admissions still exists in the form of legacy admission practices, i.e. giving a *very* significant advantage to the children of alumni.

    There can be no level playing field as long as that exists.

    • by Amtrak (2430376) on Wednesday April 23, 2014 @08:10AM (#46822279)
      I got some data for you that you won't like. I come from a family with 5 kids. All 5 of us went to top high schools in the Detroit area. All 5 of us had over a 3.4 GPA and scored over at least 23 on our ACT's. Both my mother and father are University of Michigan Alumni with Bachelor and Master degrees. All 5 of us applied to U of M. Only one of us got in. Let me repeat that for you. Only one of us got accepted. It wasn't me either, my brother got in because he had the highest grades of all of us with a 3.7 GPA and a 29 on his ACT's. I was only a little behind him 3.6 GPA 26 ACT. Clearly alumni status didn't count that much.
      • by DRJlaw (946416)

        All 5 of us applied to U of M. Only one of us got in. Let me repeat that for you. Only one of us got accepted. It wasn't me either, my brother got in because he had the highest grades of all of us with a 3.7 GPA and a 29 on his ACT's. I was only a little behind him 3.6 GPA 26 ACT. Clearly alumni status didn't count that much.

        In the University of Michigan undergraduate school suit (Gratz v. Bollinger [wikipedia.org]), 'legacy' applicants were awarded 4 points [streetlaw.org]. Racial minorities were awarded 20 points. Perfect SAT scores w

  • "Civil rights groups dispute those figures and say other states have seen fewer African-American and Hispanic students attending highly competitive schools, especially in graduate level fields like law, medicine, and science."

    I'm sure that is all about racism, and has absolutely NOTHING to do with whole "minority" thing, and there being less of them as a percentage of the population...

    • No, what they're talking about is fewer as a function of comparative numbers.

      Now, whether this is due to inherent racism in the system, or because some minorities value education and some don't, further deponent sayeth not.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 23, 2014 @07:29AM (#46821987)

    Consider the enormous advantages that say, President Obama's daughters have over say, an Asian girl from a economically disadvantaged family. Yet the check marks that each would mark on a college application would result in the President's daughters getting racial preference.

    This is 2014. The idea that race is the predominant factor, or even a sizable factor, in opportunity is held only by those who wish to use race for their own agendas. The biggest factors now are family structure, and geography. If you grow up in rich suburbia to parents who care, you will have more opportunity than someone who grows up the ghetto to a single parent that is neglectful.

    If you want a level playing field, then look for socioeconomic factors, not race.

    • by Scutter (18425) on Wednesday April 23, 2014 @07:41AM (#46822051) Journal

      Consider the enormous advantages that say, President Obama's daughters have over say, an Asian girl from a economically disadvantaged family. Yet the check marks that each would mark on a college application would result in the President's daughters getting racial preference.

      Or consider two students from the same socioeconomic background (perhaps even attending the same high school), but one is white and one is black. Under affirmative action, the white student would have to perform at an exponentially higher level to receive the same consideration. As long as race is a consideration AT ALL, then the playing field isn't level.

      • by Bartles (1198017)
        The best way to end the social injustices of racism, is to end the social injustices of racism.
    • If you grow up in rich suburbia to parents who care, you will have more opportunity than someone who grows up the ghetto to a single parent that is neglectful.

      If you want a level playing field, then look for socioeconomic factors, not race.

      Ok . . . so how would that work? A kid applying to college, with parents who care, would get points deducted, because his parents care . . .?

      And a kid whose parents don't care would get points added? And plus one for a single parent, minus one for two parents . . . and minus a half point for other relatives living in the house . . . ?

      No matter how you try to "level the playing field" . . . it will never be "fair" . . .

      • by Drethon (1445051)
        I think ultimately this shows a complete failure of the educational system in this particular aspect. People complain about the educational system taking over the jobs of parents (and I don't particularly like that either) but who is supposed to take the job when the parents aren't bothering to do it? It isn't the child's fault when no one who is responsible for the child are doing anything for that child but how do we fix it?

        Maybe saying the educational system failed is putting too much on the educatio
      • by morgauxo (974071)

        On an individual basis it's probably impossible to 'level the playing field'. People and the lives which shape them are too complicated for anyone to evaluate fully on a case by case basis. IF it's even worthwile to try to make things 'fair' at all though there could be better criteria than skin color. How about looking at the high school they went to. Students who went to under-performing high schools could get a little boost. Maybe a kid who gets a mediocre grade in a school where nobody is taking things

    • Michigan's Law School used the absolute dumbest interpretation of "Affirmative Action" which precipitated this whole mess.

      "Affirmative Action" does not mean your Law School has to use a "point system" where points are awarded for characteristics.

      1 point if you were a clerk for a judge

      1 point if you are black

      AFFIRMATIVE ACTION WAS NEVER SUPPOSED TO BE LIKE THIS

      • AFFIRMATIVE ACTION WAS NEVER SUPPOSED TO BE LIKE THIS

        No, it was supposed to be worse. "Our next entering class will be 10% black. We will admit blacks until we get our 10%, no matter how bad they are." That went away when the Supremes ruled that you can't do *that* kind of affirmative action at all.

      • AFFIRMATIVE ACTION WAS NEVER SUPPOSED TO BE LIKE THIS

        Actually, this is exactly how it was supposed to be - it was meant to address historical racial disparities by giving an extra boost to the historically deprived race(s).

        That formula does exactly that.

  • by GlobalEcho (26240) on Wednesday April 23, 2014 @07:39AM (#46822031)

    Wisest quote I saw from the pundit class:

    “I just keep wishing that the people who spend so much time trying to end racial preferences in higher ed would work to end the racial differences in the education we provide K-12”

          --Kati Haycock, Education Trust

    • by DRJlaw (946416)

      Wisest quote I saw from the pundit class:

      âoeI just keep wishing that the people who spend so much time trying to end racial preferences in higher ed would work to end the racial differences in the education we provide K-12â

      --Kati Haycock, Education Trust

      I just keep wishing the people who spend so much time trying to implement and preserve racial preferences in admissions would work to end the racial differences in K-12 education instead of taking the eas

      • by GlobalEcho (26240)

        The dirty little secret that neither Haycock nor Sotommayor (sic) want to acknowledge is that "racially sensitive admissions policies" only get the student through the door -- they do nothing to address the significant gap in minority student retention [usnews.com] and graduation

        You misread the quote...Haycock is agreeing with you.

    • by asylumx (881307)
      That's a great point. If you're trying to fix the problem when the students enter college, you're probably too late.
  • by sanosuke001 (640243) on Wednesday April 23, 2014 @07:40AM (#46822041)
    Why do people need preferential treatment because they're of a specific race? How about banning the admission based on anything other than merit (including sports). If you're smart enough and dedicated enough to get admitted, you should be. If you're not, maybe you don't deserve to be. Not everyone needs to go to the most prestigous schools. Affirmative action seems more anti-white than pro-non-white.
    • by Mashiki (184564)

      Only gets more fun when you start getting into government organizations that demand "sexual equality" in the work place, and will discriminate against best candidates in order to have their fill of lesbians, trans, bi, and who knows of what other labels people are using these days. Sadly I can remember instances here in Canada, back 15 years ago where police services were actively recruiting anyone but white. And actually had that in their recruitment posters, there was a rather huge shitstorm over it up

    • by Entropius (188861) on Wednesday April 23, 2014 @08:14AM (#46822319)

      It's funny: you say "anti-white", but in California at least it is strongly anti-Asian. There was a referendum that turned out much worse for affirmative action out there than expected because Asian voters, who are normally reliably Democratic-leaning, broke ranks with the party because affirmative action winds up screwing them over the worst.

  • by Andover Chick (1859494) on Wednesday April 23, 2014 @07:55AM (#46822167)
    Gay marriage is about gaining the SAME right as the rest of the population. Affirmative action is about granting certain racial groups EXTRA rights over the rest of the population. These are very different considerations. Affirmative action was only seen as a temporary fix to correct historical imbalances, not in perpetuity. Why should the son of a wealthy African American get admitted to a top school just because he is black? Why should someone who is tall w/blue eyes and blonde hair get extra admission consideration just because his name is Gonzalez and he speaks Spanish? This is very different than granting two lesbians who've been together for 40 years the right to marry. The two are a bad comparison.
    • Also, how the hell would gay marriage affect anyone (provided they're not gay, in which case it might have a positive effect, unless they're happy that they can NOT marry their loverboy... but I digress)?

      Affirmative action may well affect anyone negatively who isn't part of whatever group gets pulled ahead.

    • by Rockoon (1252108) on Wednesday April 23, 2014 @10:52AM (#46824213)

      Gay marriage is about gaining the SAME right as the rest of the population. Affirmative action is about granting certain racial groups EXTRA rights over the rest of the population.

      You clearly dont understand what marriage is. Marriage is not a holy bond, nor do homosexuals want to get married out of a great respect for the institution of marriage. They want to be able to get married because marriage gives them extra rights that unmarried people (the rest of the population) do not have. Note how I used your own terminology and it fits exactly.

      The push for gay marriage was never about equality. A push for equality would remove all special rights from the married class or give all the special rights the married class has to the unmarried class. Since gay marriage does neither, it cannot be about equality at all. Its about adding themselves to the special rights group that enjoys 1,138 statutory provisions [gao.gov] that use marriage as the determining factor for EXTRA benefits and privileges.

  • Affirmative action was a hackish fix for a horribly racist world. Maybe people are less-racist enough to do away with it now? Consider that these days, universities will intentionally seek to make their student body look "diverse" partly to avoid any accusations of racism, even if they have to seek them out in a town full of white folks.

  • Disadvantages in this country are more based on economics rather than race. If you want to equalize the playing field, start with paying poor people more. Choosing who gets in based on race is racist.
    • What is your goal? If you want to raise the level of education, paying people more will not solve it. Rather, make education affordable or even free, as it is in most of Europe.

      Make the brain the decider who gets what job. Not whether daddy can afford to put him into an Ivy League, no matter what a pea brain rich boy may be.

    • by ganjadude (952775)
      pay poor people more, you can only hire less people, therefore some starve. A job is only worth what someone is willing to be paid for it. Someone taking your money at a mcdonalds, doesnt deserve to make 30 bucks an hour
  • by Captain_Chaos (103843) on Wednesday April 23, 2014 @08:05AM (#46822239)

    The notion that because an individual is a member of a group which has been or is being disadvantaged compared to other groups, that individual deserves to be favoured above members of other groups, is ridiculous. It's dangerous, unfair and unjust nonsense. It's discrimination, pure and simple. There's no such thing as "positive discrimination".

    Every individual deserves to have the same chance as everybody else, and should be judged on their merits alone.

  • by swb (14022) on Wednesday April 23, 2014 @08:29AM (#46822435)

    ...why does it always seem to be "African American affirmative action" in practice?

    It often strikes me that it really seems to be a program for African Americans and not specifically designed to promote broader racial diversity. It seems like most of the examples talked about in the news reporting on MIchigan refer to African American enrollment at UMich, never to the levels of Hispanic, Asian, Native American or other ethnic group enrollment.

    You can get into an epic pissing contest over which of these groups is more historically a victim of prejudice (my vote goes to Native Americans, genocide and ethnic cleansing trumps slavery by a small margin) but there seems to be a subtle bias in these programs towards African Americans. And I'm not saying it's not statistically valid by many measures (especially in Michigan).

    But nationally Hispanics outnumber African Americans and all other non-white races combined outnumber African Americans by almost 2:1.

    It just strikes me that there's a lot unsaid in this debate and probably some painful and unpleasant facts unspoken.

    • by ShakaUVM (157947)

      >...why does it always seem to be "African American affirmative action" in practice?

      Because, according to some viewpoints, 'minority' *means* African American.

      I once wrote a grant for a school in Calexico (on the Mexican border) that was something like 90% Hispanic, with serious issues involve English skills and the like.

      Was rejected by the federal government because I, quote, "Didn't talk about minorities in the district". It was mind boggling to me.

    • by GodfatherofSoul (174979) on Wednesday April 23, 2014 @10:24AM (#46823811)

      You think that because you don't have a clue, hence your "it really seems" comment. Go look at the groups specifically targeted for AA by your college. This list at my alma mater included kids from economically advantaged communities and backgrounds in rural towns (which in Kansas means probably 99% chance of being White). AA also applies to women.

  • If someone grows up in a situation that is disadvantaged doesn't that begin before college? Aren't they being taught less in K-12? So someone decides it's not their fault (perhaps this is true) and lets them in the college anyway. Are they prepared to take the same courses as someone who went to a better school previously? So now what do they do? Do they take a bunch of remedial courses? Why does someone need a prestigious university to do that? Why can't they take those kind of courses at a community coll

    • by morgauxo (974071)

      >> Why tie up higher education resources fixing what K-12 broke?

      After submitting I realized this sounds kind of wrong. I'm not saying giving people a chance at a good education is unimportant. I'm just saying that you don't need UofM to learn something that should have been taught in high school. It isn't going to make someone any smarter to learn these things from some big name school. Get the basics out of the way at a place that focuses on the basics. Then learn the truly advanced stuff at the adv

    • by GodfatherofSoul (174979) on Wednesday April 23, 2014 @10:21AM (#46823775)

      AA isn't about letting Forrest Gump into Yale. It's about people who *have* potential but haven't had the means to exercise it. Schools want the athlete with the 3.5 GPA not the sheltered bookwork with a 4.0. For example, you might have worked 40 hours a week to pay your way through college and thus your grades may have suffered. Now, for the sake of argument say a kid who didn't have to work, didn't participate in activities, probably had all his bills and car paid for by his parents, etc. shows up with a slightly higher GPA. Universities want that guy who's a hard worker *and* doing more with less. Remember, they want people who are going to go out into the workforce and produce both alumni revenue and reputation, not disappear into quiet government lab.

      Another example, in my high school we had a girl who was just about a straight A student and took technical classes. In her senior year, a girl from another school enrolled who went to a school with AP classes (that we didn't have) in English and literature and didn't take any technical classes. Now, on paper one had a 4.0 GPA and the other had a 4.5 [sic] GPA. Who do you think a university wants?

      It's silly to think that the enrollment process is so

  • Not only is it racist (by definition). Anyone belonging to a group of people who gets pushed ahead with "positive" racism/sexism/whateverism will have to work against the stigma that s/he didn't get that job because of qualification and ability to work but just because of belonging to that group.

    Equality has to be the goal. Competition on equal ground is what makes the capitalist system strong and a powerhouse of productivity. Protectionism and favoritism weakens it. Whether that's affirmative action, "too

  • What it seems like to my vaguely educated opinion is we need to find a way to identify those capable of learning, rather than those who currently have a certain level of knowledge. The existing tests for entering college test what someone already knows, this hints at their ability to learn but does not prove someone has the ability to further their learning. Too often I've seen highly qualified, intelligent people fail miserably at college and barely qualified people find their ability to learn and excel
  • by CQDX (2720013) on Wednesday April 23, 2014 @08:45AM (#46822591)
    a black Attorney General, black Supreme Court Justices, black Secretaries of State, and numerous black Senators and Congressmen. Yet there have been few Latinos in the upper echelons of the government and even few Asians. I think affirmative action has already done it's job and is no longer needed.
  • To use discrimination to correct discrimination is not fair, and if I may be so bold, not true to our basic American principles of equal treatment under the law. I say this as a political Progressive. Did/do we have a problem with racial discrimination? Yes! Should we all fight to end unequal treatment under the law? Yes! Is Affirmative Action the tool we should use to correct it? No! If we agree that discrimination is illegal (against the principle that all citizens have a right to Equal Treatment unde

  • well.. hold on (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Charliemopps (1157495) on Wednesday April 23, 2014 @10:51AM (#46824191)

    I see everyone going off on either Libertarian or Leftist rants here... but it's not quite that simple.

    First, my son is black, I'm white... so I have a vested interest in both races succeeding :-) So that's full disclosure I guess...

    First, the reason for affirmative action is often argued as a way to help "the disadvantaged" Well, this is just flat out wrong. Diversity in a school, or anywhere for that matter, doesn't aid the minority students all that much. Yea, sure, they would have gotten in where maybe they otherwise couldn't, but does that really help them? Do get into a school they weren't qualified for? Diversity helps the SCHOOL and the students of the majority. If you went to an all white school, how well prepared do you think you would be for the modern working world? Diversity gives the school and the students have a broader view of the world. Marketing students gets more experience with other races and cultures. Programers learn how to communicate with people that might not speak English that well. (I just got out of a metting where my 60yr old co-worker was completely lost because the guy leading the meeting was teleconferencing from India. I didn't have a problem.) Engineering students learn new techniques from people that may have had different experiences.

    With regard to my son, it's really hard to find good role models for him. Yes, there are plenty of great African American Scientists form throughout history. But they are not held in that high of a regard by the African American community. I get to go to "African American Parents groups" and I see it there. It's kind of weird that an the majority of a communities basis for success is related to professional athletes. It's something I had not anticipating as being that big of a problem, but I can really see it now that I have a son that's black. Obama, though I disagree with almost all of his policies, has been a huge boon in that regard. I can point to him and say "See? The most important person in the free world looks like you!" and yes, that is something he's asked about. I think the only real problem he has now is he wishes he had strait hair because he wants to have more than 3 options (shaved, Mohawk or Afro) when he goes to the barber.

    So the question is: Should the schools garner this diversity benefit at the expense of white kids? I say no. And again, I think the arguments been reversed. It's not a dis-service to the white students. They'll get a degree from somewhere. But what does this do to the minority community? I don't want my son to EVER think he deserves something because of the color of his skin, or some injustice that happened to his ancestors. I want him to know that when he succeeds that it was on his own merits. Granted, my son will never be in poverty while I'm around (providing the job market doesn't crash) but I'd say that if poverty is your concern you should address that directly. Donate to charities that help with school and give scholarships. A scholarship can be race based, I have no problem with that. But don't you ever tell my son he's less of a person because of his ancestry and needs the states help to get into college.

  • Who cares? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by frank_adrian314159 (469671) on Wednesday April 23, 2014 @10:53AM (#46824235) Homepage

    The college admission "process" is so arbitrary and broken that doing pretty much anything to it would be an improvement.

    That being said, I have a hard time believing in equality as a tenet of our country (even equality of opportunity) when the opportunities of a poor kid from the ghetto, a farm kid from small-town America, a middle-class kid from the burbs, and a rich kid from a mansion differ so greatly. Affirmative action was a way (no matter how imperfect) to attempt to address this issue. I wonder how long the myth of American "equality" can sustain itself when even ameliorative programs such as this are shut down with nothing offered in their place to address this issue.

  • For those of you here who have actually been around the block a few times, how many black or hispanic kids are there in in your kid's classes, as opposed to when you were a kid?

    If you don't live in a city, how integrated is your neighborhood (oh, sorry, I know that (un)real estate agents get the cooties over that word, I meant "ethnically diverse")?

    And if you personally can't deal with affirmative action because you think it kept you from getting into a school, or a job, then a) maybe there's another reason, like not enough of either, or b) maybe you *ain't* that good.

                            mark "and no, it won't help me personally"

  • by ThatsNotPudding (1045640) on Wednesday April 23, 2014 @12:08PM (#46825117)
    'Michigan voters used the initiative system to bypass public officials who were deemed not responsive to the concerns of a majority of the voters with respect to a policy of granting race-based preferences that raises difficult and delicate issues.'

    The majority of those voters being White. Just trade in your judicial robe for a Klan outfit, Kennedy.

"Well, social relevance is a schtick, like mysteries, social relevance, science fiction..." -- Art Spiegelman

Working...