Supreme Court Upholds Michigan's Ban On Affirmative Action In College Admissions 410
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."
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."
Not really needed anymore. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Not really needed anymore. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Not really needed anymore. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.)
Re:Not really needed anymore. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Not really needed anymore. (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
It's a good thing to get diversity going and established, even if you have to be heavy-handed about it, and this allows anybody really talented to get into college, etc.
Except that a quota system doesn't necessarily do that. A quota system ensures that a certain percentage of your population has a certain trait. It says nothing about the qualifications of anyone involved.
In fact, if the standards have to be lowered to achieve that percentage, it means that the qualifications for that group are, on average, lower than for the other group. And if there is a limited overall population, then the presence of the lower qualified marginalized group means that many higher qualif
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re:Not really needed anymore. (Score:5, Insightful)
No, we just want the best to get into schools, not racists who can't spell veil. Protip, if you want a minority to get into a school ahead of a white kid even though the white kid worked harder and scored better, you're a racist.
Re:Not really needed anymore. (Score:5, Insightful)
Worked harder != scored better. Lots of people work very hard just to get a C, and lots of privileged kids don't work very hard at all and manage an A or at least a B. There's an important debate to be had about whether it's more important for a student to be a hard worker, or a to have higher scores.
What I'm saying is that you need to challenge your implied assumption that just because the white kid had higher scores, he must have worked harder. I'm not saying these minority quotas are a good idea by any means, but definitely the selection process needs to include more than grades, and right now there's no great way to judge if the kid is a hard worker or not.
Re:Not really needed anymore. (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because someone works harder doesn't mean they deserve to get ahead of someone who is more talented. If you're simply not very intelligent, but work really hard, would we put you in charge of things?
Probably not.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We do this with CEO's. Very few of them are actually very intelligent.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're simply not very intelligent, but work really hard, would we put you in charge of things?
I actually hire people all the time and given the choice between someone slightly more talented but less hard working, and a hard worker but slightly less talented I'll take the hard worker every time.
For one, a lot of what we call "talent" is just repetition and experience which means that after a while the hard worker will seem more talented than the original wizz kid.
Re:Not really needed anymore. (Score:5, Informative)
That's the thing, at least in the case of college admissions anyways, is that this doesn't do what it claims it does.
It's been found that Affirmative Action doesn't hinder white students from gaining admissions. Instead, it mostly just hinders Asian students by replacing them with Black and Latino. Not by a little, but by a LOT. The root cause has to do with the percent of those applying doesn't match the percent of those members of the overall population. So they feel they need to correct it by dumping off a few perfectly qualified Asian students in favor of some potentially less qualified Black or Latino ones.
Somebody speak out if I'm wrong here, but in this age of "white privilege," how is it that Asians are any less disadvantaged than Blacks or Latinos? Historically, Asians have been every bit as downtrodden in western countries, and blacks aren't the only ones who can claim being victims of slavery in western countries either (few people seem to know that Irish slaves were also common in the Americas at one point; in fact during the mid 1600's, Ireland's population dropped by almost half due to slave exports.)
The only explanation I can come up with is that since Asians are culturally very disciplined, they tend to excel academically. Likewise, you see more of them apply, and thus see more of them do well. I think whites are only slightly less disciplined than Asians, so they come at a close second. I'm generalizing of course, but when you look at the kinds of values that black culture has, it does fit the narrative (Bill Cosby once lamented this, how he hears of other blacks who often describe being successful as "acting white," as if it was a bad thing.)
But what do I know, I'm just one of those white guys who deserves to have the word "privileged" written across my face in permanent marker and therefore I can't possibly see racism due to my color.
Re: (Score:2)
The Asian immigrants were motivated to begin with which is why they're here whereas the American blacks were dragged over. Around here the black people are generally immigrants from Africa and seem to do almost as well as the Asians who generally come from wealthy backgrounds.
Re: (Score:2)
Correcting for economic status and family structure, Asians who are here 3 generations or more do no better or worse than other generations of Americans who have been here at least that long.
The reason seems to be that to come to the U.S., you have to really want to succeed and hence the kiddies are pushed harder, and they feel they have make up for their immigrant status by trying harder.
And this makes affirmative action even trickier to make work. The problem, in my eyes, are we are pushing at the wrong e
Re:Not really needed anymore. (Score:4, Funny)
Hey! I resent your characterization of Bill Cosby as a comedian!
He hasn't been funny for about thirty years!
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
You seem to have a certain idea of how affirmative action works that is different than mine.
That's OK, being wrong doesn't mean your a bad person, just misguided. Afirmamtive Action Programs are racial discrimination pure and simple and contrary to MLK's vision of a colors-blind society.
Re: (Score:3)
Affirmative Action is ultimately a futile gesture in that by the time a student reaches college, it's too late. Essentially, A.A. is closing the barn doors after the horses have fled.
Assuming two children with the same abilities, the primary indicators of academic success will be the Primary and Secondary schools and parental involvement, irrespective of economic situations, the vast majority of the time.
Efforts should be focused on improving the Primary and Secondary schools...variables that government ca
Re:Not really needed anymore. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Not really needed anymore. (Score:5, Insightful)
Having grown up in Michigan, particularly Detroit, I actually agree with you. Michigan is extremely racist on some issues. For example growing up it was very well known that if a hard working middle class black couple moved from inner city Detroit into your nice white suburb it wouldn't be long before half of the white population moved to the next town over or further away because "OH MY GOD MY NEIGHBORHOOD IS BEING INVADED! THE PROPERTY VALUES ARE GOING TO DROP" creating a self fulfilling prophecy and destroying what used to be good neighborhoods and the hopes of hard working Americans who lifted themselves out of the ghetto.
This "White Flight" destroyed the Suburb I grew up in (Redford Township) and at the beginning for no reason at all. My parents still live there because well they paid their house off and didn't want to move so screw the market values. But I have seen how the area around them has decayed as more and more people left the town for Novi, Canton, and Livonia. To make matters worse, no one seems to learn from this at all either or rather they learn the wrong lesson. Livonia is now going through the same thing that Redford did and even the Grosse Pointes [wikipedia.org] are starting to see it. It's sad and pathetic.
It's not all White Racism in that area either, I have been personally on the receiving end of resentment, hatred and harassment because of the color of my skin. I'm not bitter about it it's just the way things were. Detroit is a city that has never recovered from the race riots of the 60's and it is the real reason it has been falling apart. The seeds of this racism go all the way back to Henry Ford's hiring practices and it will probably be after I'm long dead before this ever improves.
However, the supreme court still made the right decision in that they ruled that the federal government does not have the power to regulate a state's right to implement or outlaw affirmative action. If the people of Michigan want the law changed they shouldn't cry to the feds they should stand up and vote it down. Now if Michigan had made a law that said Asians can't enter the following colleges (Insert list of top universities) then they should have struck that down. But that isn't what affirmative action is.
Affirmative action is giving preferential treatment to a "disadvantaged" group. I have failed to see how this is not a form of racism even if it is well intentioned. Is not classic racism giving the majority preferential treatment because we identify with them more? How is affirmative action different from that just not backwards in reason not result. The Michigan Universities should accept applicants based on merit alone end of story. Now lets get a law removing alumni status passed.
Re:Not really needed anymore. (Score:4, Insightful)
Here's a question though: Who would you say is disadvantaged?
I ask because Princeton did a study and found that if they ended Affirmative Action, the number of black and latino students would drop significantly while the white students wouldn't materially increase. They did however estimate that four out of every five black and latino students would be replaced with an Asian student.
Aren't Asian's supposed to be among those disadvantaged? Because presently Affirmative Action seems to disadvantage them even further.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Detroit is just toxic, too many people in power are corupt to the point 3rd world stereotype corupt; and they make to much money off race-baiting to ever let it end.
Re: (Score:3)
She's Hispanic, and a Woman. That's two checkboxes in the diversity list.
Admittedly, it would be better if her father were Black, and she were a Lesbian - that would be FOUR checkboxes. But I guess they couldn't find someone that qualified for the job....
For those who don't get the joke, a very long time ago, there was some pulp literature (the Destroyer series) that made fun of the then-current martial arts fad. The
Re: (Score:2)
The two are not mutually exclusive. It is, in fact, a politically sanction spoils system that is racist.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It may be that slavery is like original sin and it can never be washed away [...]
There is no race or nation that was not, at some point, enslaved by a other. Slavering being a sin that need to be washed is a retarded concept and you are an idiot for bringing that 'slavery' thing up. Fuck off.
Justice Sotomayor... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Justice Sotomayor... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Justice Sotomayor... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Justice Sotomayor... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not arguing they are or are
Re: (Score:2)
It means that if you live in fairyland where universities have an unlimited number of spots. But accepting an unqualified black student often means rejecting a qualified Asian student...
bullshit (Score:2)
No...she doesn't "want" that at all. Any cursory read of her decision, or...basic logic...would indicate to a thinking person that she made a proper legal opinion.
Re: (Score:3)
It sounds like what she wants is colleges to consider race during admissions. Please explain to me how race would even factor in unless a higher qualified person of one race is rejected in favor of a lesser qualified person of another race?
I'll admit I'm about as white as they c
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Then explain why he's wrong rather than posting a bunch of ad hominem garbage.
Thats does not seem to ever be the Democrat method these days.
Blatant Racism (Score:3, Insightful)
Sotomayor != racist (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Hmm...So it seems that if she was a white male, she never would have been appointed to SCOTUS because she never would have qualified as the standards are higher for them.
Hey I'm not the one saying this...it's just you know...common knowledge in this Affirmative Action world we live in.
They should ban legacy admission preferences (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:They should ban legacy admission preferences (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Don't be sorry. I'm actually quite happy I didn't get in. Not only did my education at Western Michigan University cost me less money (i.e. less debt) but I make more money than my brother now. Also I met my wife at WMU. Getting rejected worked out great! :)
Also, I'm not opposed to them getting rid of legacy status I just know that realistically it probably won't happen since a lot of U of M's donor's are Alumni. Also, as DRJlaw outlined below the effect of legacy is much lower than the affect of race or ev
Numbers? (Score:2)
"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...
Re: (Score:2)
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.
In 2014, racial affirmative action is stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:In 2014, racial affirmative action is stupid (Score:4)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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" . . .
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe saying the educational system failed is putting too much on the educatio
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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 system was stupid from the start (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Wisest quote I saw from the pundit class (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Ban Affirmative Action (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re:Ban Affirmative Action (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Bad comparison to gay marriage (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:Bad comparison to gay marriage (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Maybe it's a good thing (Score:2)
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.
Its money (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Affirmative action == discrimination (Score:3)
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.
If its "multi-racial" affirmative action in name.. (Score:4, Insightful)
...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.
Re: (Score:2)
>...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.
Re:If its "multi-racial" affirmative action in nam (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Something I don't get about affirmative action (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
>> 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
Re:Something I don't get about affirmative action (Score:4, Interesting)
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
Affirmative action breeds racism (Score:2)
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
Need to determine learning potential? (Score:2)
We have/had a black President... (Score:3)
Good, this was NEVER a fair deal anyway. (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Do you think it was needed in the past when racism was stronger and had a strong grip on the whole system?
Well now, there's a difference between "Having an all white school" / "Having an equal opportunity school" / "Having a school that gives preferential treatment to anyone that's not white" The first is moral repugnant. The second is how, at least I, think things should work. The third, again in my opinion, is just as repugnant and discriminatory as the first. How are we supposed to get past racism if our way of dealing with it is just as discriminatory as the racism it's designed to remedy? I don't think an
Who cares? (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
As someone wrote: resegregation (Score:3)
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"
Rubber Stamping Racism (Score:3)
The majority of those voters being White. Just trade in your judicial robe for a Klan outfit, Kennedy.
Re: (Score:2)
I think humanity as a whole just got dumber. You are one powerful motherfucker...
Re: (Score:2)
Yes.
I agree with "affirmative action"...Michigan's Law School brought this on themselves by how they chose to enact the policy.
Seriously...blacks and hispanics do suffer a racial bias that still exists...but Michigan's system was made as if it was intended to provoke this kind of decision.
Re: (Score:2)
1 - people keep living in the past, by this I mean black folks calling other successful black folks uncle toms. Other black folk demanding to be paid because their great great great great grandpa was a slave, by people who dont own nor have they ever owned slaves
2 - elitists propagating the myth that people of a certain color need help by the white man because they cant make it on their own. This breeds animosity among whites who feel t
Re: (Score:2)
Then the boost should not be getting them into a college, dumping a truckload of tuition debt onto their back only to have them drop out or, if they're actually lucky enough to actually have a K-12 ed worth the money (i.e. outside the usual "ghetto schools"), eventually end up in a job that pays them almost enough to eventually recover their college cost.
The fact THAT they're by no means as well connected also means that they will be indentured servants after getting them through college. The whole "affirma
Re: (Score:2)
Smartest guy in my class in my physics PhD program was Mexican.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, you're not. You'd be a racist if you said that $group can't get a job otherwise because they aren't bright enough to go to college.
I'm all for a leg-up program to get people into college, btw. I think the decision whether you may have a college degree should not be made by what's in your wallet but what's in your brain. With more people being able to start college, colleges would have a far lower incentive to carry duds through 'cause they need the money.
That's what I love about our universities.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It seems to work allright for the Swiss.
Re: (Score:2)
Um, not living in Michigan?