SCOTUS Upholds UMs AA

[Dis]

It's all in the name of diversity.

and they can't do it for undergraduate programs.

Who gives a **** what race makes it into law school?

who cares about lawyers. They are all evil no matter what colour they are.

[KrazyHorse]

You misunderstood the decision, Diss. It didn't say that undergraduate programs couldn't have race as a factor in acceptance; it said that the University of Michigan's undergraduate admissions process as it relates to race is unacceptable (since it assigns a specific point value to race, which in the minds of 6 out of the 9 judges amounts to a racial quota...which was decided to be unacceptable 30 years ago). The law school's admissions process is different in that it applies no specific point value to race, and therefore it was acceptable to 5 out 9 judges.

[Ben Kenobi]

From now on we shall strive to live up to the words of Martin Luther King, and judge each man according to the content of his character.

And not the colour of his skin.

Gonna change my sig again, I want to get MLK on there somewhere!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Nope. I just don't see why diversity is important. Diversity can even be a negative thing - in my case, for example, I work a LOT better with people like me and get a lot more done, and am a lot more productive, than I would be if you put me with a black guy from the ghetto, a Chinese immigrant, and an illegal alien from Mexico.

Perhaps we should accomodate you and put you with lilly white liberatarians all throughout college and then in the workforce... because after all, you think you are more productive with them .

Diversity is very important in education. You get to see and meet people from different areas of the country, different classes, and different ethnicities. This broadens your horizons. Something that is a very good goal in education.

[Drake Tungsten]

Diversity is very important in education. You get to see and meet people from different areas of the country, different classes, and different ethnicities. This broadens your horizons. Something that is a very good goal in education.

That's the standard line, Imran, but where's the evidence that diversity really improves education? I think that it probably has a small positive effect, but I fail to see how diversity provides enough of a benefit to the education of students that it justifies intentional discrimination.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I think seeing many people of different backgrounds and experiences is invaluable to a person's education. It provides something different. Princeton could have just had cookie cutter type of people, but it looks for people with unique qualities that will be a benefit to others. I think anytime you can bring in intelligent people with unique experiences, everyone benefits greatly.

[Drake Tungsten]

I think anytime you can bring in intelligent people with unique experiences, everyone benefits greatly.

The question isn't really about whether or not students benefit, I think most people can agree that there is some benefit. No, the real question is whether or not the benefit to students is valuable enough to justify something as inherently wrong as racial discrimination. I personally think that there are others ways to "broaden the horizons" of students without resorting to an obviously wrong practice, so I don't harbor any love for affirmative action programs.

[Imran Siddiqui]

the real question is whether or not the benefit to students is valuable enough to justify something as inherently wrong as racial discrimination.

Yes, I believe it is, especially when the discrimination is slight enough where the minority and majority candidate are virtually equal.

[DinoDoc]

I'm still scratching my head to figure out how they could see critical mass as anything other than a code word for quota.

[Drake Tungsten]

The discrimination itself is far from the only problem with AA. The resentment it engenders in the white community, the stereotype that minorities are not qualified that it perpetuates and the precedent that someone's race is a valid quality to measure their worth by are all problems I'd rather put a stop to by eliminating AA and achieving diversity through more morally palatable means.

[KrazyHorse]

DD

I'm wondering why point system=quota in their books. There's no set number of minority students they're taking, so there's no quota.

The law school's process does seem to be much closer to a quota.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Cause it ain't a set quota. It varies from year to year depending on other factors.

[DinoDoc]

Re: DD

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
I'm wondering why point system=quota in their books.

Because they are idiots. That's the only way I can rationalize the 25 year limit they pulled out of thier arses.

[David Floyd]

Imran, I wasn't saying people should make special exceptions for me, I'm saying that special exceptions should be made for NOBODY, because diversity just is NOT that big of a deal, at least not to me or anyone I know.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I'm still scratching my head to figure out how they could see critical mass as anything other than a code word for quota.

Most people in America don't feel comfortable when they are vastly outnumbered by members of another race. Critical mass refers in part to having sufficient numbers of a group for the members of that group to feel confident in asserting themselves. If you are white and doubt this phenomena, ask yourself if you would be willing to go to the south Bronx (where the majority is black or latino or both) and assert quite boldly that there is no racism in NYC. That's how a black guy surrounded by crackers feels about asserting his or her identity.

(As for the origin of 'cracker' see here.)

As for standardized tests ...
What exactly do they demonstrate? That someone could afford a Kaplan or Princeton Review course? That someone is good at process of elimination? Why should the entire future of someone come down to the score made on on test? That's dumb.

As for grades...
Better than standardized tests. But even ignoring grade inflation, grades remain fairly subjective. Different instructors emphasize different things. When I taught philosophy, I emphasized clearness of thought and expression - and was pleased with people who could narrow their inquiry as much as possible. Some of my collegues perfered big picture/broad stroke approaches. All of us were very clear about what we expected in student papers, but where a student might get an A in a broad strokes type class, they might get a B- or even a C in my class if I did not thing they did a good job in presenting a clear and narrow thesis. Some of my collegues and I were measuring very different skillsets. Even when I taught formal logic, giving partial credit on proofs introduces subjectivity. And while I applied the same standards across all papers, another instructor might have applied different standards. Two of my collegues thought I insisted on to narrow of a focus - too much tunnel vision. I thought they accepted papers that were far too fuzzy and mushy, even if often highly creative and thoughtful.

So let's say your looking at a student for admission into your grad school program and you see they have a B- in Intro to Philosophy. Does this mean the student has only a B- intellectual capacity, or that the student just did not do well under the instructor's standards? On the other hand, if Jonny got an A in my class that means he was a clear thinker and writer who could stay within a narrow problem area without straying. But what if that isn't what your looking for? Its not as though your transcript comes with the grading methodology of the instructor who awarded the grade.

Thus even grades have an element of flexibility in how they were awarded.