Okay, now Bush is just flat out lying

[Kontiki]

To play devil's advocate for a second (I don't necessarily agree with either of these, but they are points that have been brought up):

1) Yale, Harvard, et al are private universities, whereas the University of Michigan is public - meaning that one set doesn't receive any government funding while the other does.

2) Just because Bush or anyone else had advantages based on a system in the past, why can't they call the system unfair and call for reforms today? Despite how unlikely it is that Bush could actually draw this conclusion, maybe he realized that they way he got through was wrong.

[intrigue]

I would like to see any politician with a respectable amount of political prestige' stand against actions like what this university currently follows.
IMO most AA based rules, regulations and procedures are predjudice against whites, and more specifically white males.
I have no problem with grants and scholarships aimed at specific groups or types of people - free money can be dispursed as seen fit by those that have it to give away.
But acceptance into universities should be based soley on merit and potential. Not skin, gender or anything of the like. Especially universities that are partially funded by the nation's tax revenue.
In my view, Affirmative Action is a huge irony... Limit the possibilities for a specific type of people because the possibilities for another were limited in the past. This is NOT equality... and I am glad to see our president stand against this issue. Perhaps it is the beginning of a change over time for a flawed and predjudice system.

[ravagon]

Originally posted by Guynemer
Secondly, that chart is hardly proof. More white applicants than black got accepted with those grades/test scores, 8 to 3. Perhaps if 93 black applicants had those numbers, and 93 got in, you'd have a case. I'd have to see the actual Law School admitting criteria to make some sort of reasoned argument; statistics from a biased source aren't gonna cut it, my friend.

This doesn't really mean very much unless the ethnic ratio of Caucasian:African applicants is also 8:3 (or greater). I would suspect that isn't the case...

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Weren't minority scholarships abolished a few years ago? I thougth that back in the 1990s there was a Federal Court decision that ruled scholarships for minorities to be a form of discrimination.

nope, a good friend of mine got a scholarship just for hispanics.

[orange]

Originally posted by Guynemer
Look, you can argue with affirmative action if you want, I have no problem with that. Just don't LIE about it. Christ, just because he's an idiot he thinks the rest of us are too.

(Obviously, that wasn't directed at you, Orange.) Orange, I know your idea is for AA based solely on economic class. I think that's a fine and wonderful idea, worthy of pursuing. However, it ignores the fact that racism continues to exist throughout all economic classes. Just look at that study that came out a few days ago, which showed that applicants with "white" names got 50% more job offers than similar applicants with "black" names. Once we can honestly say that racism is on its way out in out nation, then I will be 100% behind your proposition, without any reservations. Until that time, however, I must support race-based AA, even if it is philosophically flawed on a fundamental level.

Wow. I didn't think anyone actually listened to my thoughts. You're wonderful, Guy

That study was actually discussed tonight on Hardball...definitely a problem...but that doesn't, in my opinion, mean anything for AA in Universities. If Unis begin to not admit students accept for merit, it will be shunned...

[Shi Huangdi]

Lawerence of Arabia:

"Universities take people who they think will make their student body the best possible. Grades arn't the only things that they are looking at. If a university feels that people of african american heritage will bring more to their student body then a white person with the same academic scores, then that is up to them

The government should not get involved."

So what if say, the University of Alabama decided their student body would be best if it did not have black students?

For one thing many of these universities are either state universities(such as U. Michigan) or recieve government funding in some way. Also in matters of racial discrimination their is precedent for the government to step into the affiars privately owned businesses to stop discrimination.

Guynemer:

"However, considering that the CIR is the entity behind the lawsuits, you'll have to find another source for me to buy that data."

Are you saying they made that info up? CNN also quoted CIR statistics on their page, so apparently the source can't be that non-credible.

"Secondly, that chart is hardly proof. More white applicants than black got accepted with those grades/test scores, 8 to 3. Perhaps if 93 black applicants had those numbers, and 93 got in, you'd have a case."

Thats because there were more white applicans with those stats. All the blacks with those stats were admitted, few white students with those stats were. The graph clearly shows there are much lower standards for African Americans then there are for Whites. Take a look at say, a gpa of 3.5-3.74 and a LSAT of 159-160. 3 of 3 African Americans got in, 2 out of 65 white students were.

As for whether it is a quota or not, whether you designate a certain number of spots for minorities to get a certain percent of them, or you lower the bar for them so that the same amount of them get admitted, you are still doing the same thing, you are just having two different ways of doing it. So in a sense all Affirmative Action programs are quotas.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

So what if say, the University of Alabama decided their student body would be best if it did not have black students?

Then go ahead. It's just a loss for them.

[Chris 62]

Amazing.

Bush speaks up for equality and is STILL attacked by the left!

If you really wanted racial equality Guy, you would devote more time to eliminating names like "African Americans" and replacing it with simply "Americans".

But hey, cheap shots at Bush get more more posts at Poly, don't they.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Kontiki
To play devil's advocate for a second (I don't necessarily agree with either of these, but they are points that have been brought up):

1) Yale, Harvard, et al are private universities, whereas the University of Michigan is public - meaning that one set doesn't receive any government funding while the other does.

I've no time to sink into the AA quagmire today (for the record, I basically agree with orange), but I must correct this misconception. Private universities get a great deal of money from the government, generally in the form of grants (rather than the direct taxpayer support that public universities get). And the government can, and sometimes does, tie such money to demanding specific behaviors/policies on the part of the university. The private/public distinction doesn't wash here.

[Chris 62]

Just to add more to this, when I was working on my engineering degree, my freshmen class had 5 whites, 21 blacks, 4 hispanics and two asians.

Of the Black students, only TWO of them understood BASIC algebra, NONE understood trig (which was REQUIRED for the course tract).
Myself and three of the white people, and both Asians did understand them.

The school tried to give them softer requirements, remedial courses, any number of extras, including IMMENSE finacial aid, yet all the white students were paying tution, NOT ONE of the black of Spaish students in the class were.

Two of the whites, and myself, three of the Spanish, one of the asians and two of the black students got their degrees.
All those "helped" NEVER made it.
Affirative action and quotas DON'T work, and giving "points" to admission IS a quota, after a fashion, so Bush wasn't lying.

[Zkribbler]

To me, a couple of points are clear:

First, this case is the death knell of affirmative action. The preference system used by the U of M is patterned after the preference system used by Harvard which was cited with approval by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1973 Bakke case. If the Supremes wanted affirmative action to remain, they would have never granted cert in this action. The only reason they have to hear this case is to overturn the former ruling in Bakke.

Second, this case is the death knell of any chance Bush had for re-election in 2004. One of the reasons given for the ouster of Lott is that Bush's pollsters told him he had to increase his votes in the minority community by 3-4 million votes if he were going to be re-elected. Now, he's taking a stance against affirmative action. And he's reintroducing Judge Pickering's name as a potential judge, even though Pickering has already been rejected once for being racially insensative. He's losing minority votes, not gaining them.

[Chris 62]

Elections are decided by the centrist vote, not the hardcore, this won't hurt him one iota.

[Lancer]

Zkribbler, young people who got passed over for admission to a college that took quota people instead will be pleased with the end of this biased system because their kids won't have to go through it.

If something isn't earned it isn't respected, so the freeloaders don't try. Those that earned and failed to get in won't forget, and will vote their experience.

Barbra Striesand and her crew will be up in arms as usual, but who cares? Her type would never have voted Republican anyway.

[Shi Huangdi]

I think for the long run sucsess of affirmative action, a supreme court ruling against AA is key. One Affirmative action has been taken off as an issue it will be easier to gain minority votes. Now, in the short run they will be pissed, but eventually the issue will go away. And Zkribbler, Gore won alot of White moderate votes in election 2000. If Bush can take more of those votes he can eat a loss in minority votes.

[Lancer]

What Shi***** said.