SCOTUS Upholds UMs AA

[Caligastia]

Sorry Plato, I'm not typing it again... I hate when that happens.

[PLATO]

Thought that was weird. The server has been kinda quirky lately hasn't it?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Seeker
Ge Pap:

How the heck would you go about fixing the problem of greater poverty levels for minorities while preserving a free market economy?

Massive public works? Reparations? Just give them all a big 'Cheque for Not Being White' every year? Free Education?

What you want is for minorities to be making an equal amount because THEY are making it, not because it's being 'evened up' by a government program.

Free education sounds good in theory, but it would simply drive the advantaged into private schools, like the situation with High Schools in southern states, IMO.

I don't think anyone knows how to fix it. Interraccial marriage is a good trend though. If everyone is 'mulatto' then race/minority status is no longer a problem.

Free education is good in practice. The US is the only state that guarantees higher education: and look how much better our higher educationm system is oevrall for doing it. I have no probem with the Best students going to private schools (which is nonsense, as i know from my educational experiences), as long as everyone gets a good and solid education, which is based on the quality of the teaching and the materials useds, not on the "quality" of your peers.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Ah, che, only reporting one side of the stories until you get the fact... why am I not surprised .

So what the hell does this decision mean?

Quite simply that race may be used as a small 'bump' in order for school diversity, BUT it cannot be a factor used in a formula to decide admissions. Put it simply, a black person cannot get 20 points in the formula for simply being black, however, if he is little bit below or even with a white applicant on the wait list, diversity can give the black guy a small bump.

Adding race to the acceptance formula reminded the 6 justice majority (Breyer joined the conservatives) of a quota.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Quite simply that race may be used as a small 'bump' in order for school diversity, BUT it cannot be a factor used in a formula to decide admissions.

Why bother writing a new opinion then? Why not just tell people to go look at Bakke?

[Az]

I don't realize why it should be a criteria.

[PLATO]

I have no problem if two applicants are equal to minority being the deciding issue. What I have a problem with is when more qualified people are denied opportunity simply because they do not contribute to racial diversity. Racial diversity is a good thing, but the problem must be addressed at the "root" (as GePap) put it. Until educational funding is equal, how does anyone expect minority applicants to be as qualified as non-minorities?
When they have the same opportunities, then let the chips fall as they may with NO influence from race. Until then, the tie goes to the minority. If the non-minority is BETTER QUALIFIED, then they get the position. How can a society turn away its most qualified individuals because they are not a minority. Surely that is a formula for disaster.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Why bother writing a new opinion then? Why not just tell people to go look at Bakke?

Because of Hopewood and other decisions underneath which were confused about what was a majority in Bakke (since Powell wrote a seperate opinion that kinda become the ruling, but not quite, etc). And because the facts are different from Bakke in that this case doesn't deal with a 'set-aside' but simply that a huge portion of an acceptance formula was based on race.

What they are saying is that subjective decisions of diversity (like geography, activities, and add race to that) is ok for admission, but making it part of the formula is not.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
And because the facts are different from Bakke in that this case doesn't deal with a 'set-aside' but simply that a huge portion of an acceptance formula was based on race.

I know the facts were different but the court still failed to clear up the confusion surrounding the Bakke decision and for all intents and purposes simply restated the issues of law from that opinion.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by PLATO1003
Racial diversity is a good thing

If you see it as a good thing - why do you propose that interracial marriages be encouraged in order to make us all 'mullatto' ? After all, that is an admission that different races living together is an undesirable situation. If everyone becomes 'mullatto' that will be an end to diversity, which you seem to think is a good thing. Do you only see it as a good thing because it will lead to homogenization of the races?

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by ajbera
How about stripping racial considerations from AA, and making entirely economy-based? No points for being black, NA, etc., but more points if you're from an impoverished family than if you're from a middle-class home. Since many minorities are economically disadvantaged, it'll include them, plus all the poor white kids that need a leg up as well.

Because those people who make their livelyhood pushing the race issue wouldn't have anything to push their name in the spotlight.


I agree though. If consideration was made based on economic means insteand of what color your parents were, then perhaps the whole race issue would fade into the past. Unfortuantaly though that will never happen.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I know the facts were different but the court still failed to clear up the confusion surrounding the Bakke decision and for all intents and purposes simply restated the issues of law from that opinion.

Not really. I think the opinion when seen will clear up the confusion of what WAS the opinion. Since this is a 6-3 and 5-4 (instead of 4-4-1), there will be clear opinions on the matter.

In essence it is what we already kinda know. Racial diversity can be advanced somewhat (as a minor bump, like geography is used), but you cannot assign specific weights to race whether in a strict quota, or in points for a formula.

It seems fairly clear to me.

[David Floyd]

This is silly. I can't see how government has any compelling interest in racial diversity - I don't, and neither does anyone I know. Race, to me, is a total non-issue, and it should be the same everywhere else.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Caligastia


If you see it as a good thing - why do you propose that interracial marriages be encouraged in order to make us all 'mullatto' ? After all, that is an admission that different races living together is an undesirable situation. If everyone becomes 'mullatto' that will be an end to diversity, which you seem to think is a good thing. Do you only see it as a good thing because it will lead to homogenization of the races?

I don't recall proposing interracial marriages. IMO racial diversity is a good thing as it helps create a homogeneous society with varied cultural attributes.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I can't see how government has any compelling interest in racial diversity

You can't see how government has a compelling interest in diversity in education? What are you nuts?