The overwhelming effect of this decision will be further punishment for high-achieving Asian-American students applying to ivy-league and elite schools. Many of these schools already discriminate against this student group and the SCOTUS decision gives them cover from scrutiny.
One solution would be to force schools to admit student purely on merit and then allocate on a probationary basis an additional number of seats (20%) to deserving minority groups who are under-represented. The additional seats should be federally funded.
One solution would be to force schools to admit student purely on merit and then allocate on a probationary basis an additional number of seats (20%) to deserving minority groups who are under-represented. The additional seats should be federally funded.
5
Government actions like AA which try to achieve social aims are often heavy-handed. Of course there is complaint from those who lose out, but the need to right old wrongs and achieve balance outweighs this. The problem here is that absent AA, still after all these years and some measure of increased opportunity and equality for Blacks from its prolonged use, things would snap back to the old ways immediately if it were scrapped. (For a case in point, look at what happened immediately after the SC found Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act unconstitutional.)
Given the history of our country, 50 years of AA, no matter how heavy handed, may be barely the beginning of what is needed.
Given the history of our country, 50 years of AA, no matter how heavy handed, may be barely the beginning of what is needed.
4
This is a victory for racism, and a tragedy for America. Over the past 4 decades liberals have been tearing the country apart with their relentless promotion of identity politics and victim hood mentality. This is just another step in further tearing the country apart. Ultimately thanks to academic mismatch the real victims of this decision are the blacks, Hispanics and native Americans who will fall further behind with this continued soft bigotry of low expectations from the patronizing white liberals. Read Jason Riley's "Please Stop Helping Us".
9
These same judges who voted for affirmative action also voted at the same time against the Newtown parents on their right to sue gun manufacturers. It isn't just our lawmakers who are failing the American people, our Supreme Court is now a big massive failure!
3
Although I believe strongly in equal opportunity, I am opposed to almost all aspects of affirmative action. For over 35 years, I worked as a mid-level manager at a large corporation that was primarily dependent on federal government contracts. As a manager, I was responsible for hiring decisions and selecting individuals for promotion, and though we did not have affirmative action "quotas" we had federally approved "goals"; and to ensure that our company did not incur the wrath of the government we were strongly "urged" by upper management to hire and promote women and minorities.
Although I did not keep records, I would estimate that in 40 to 50 percent of hiring and promotion decisions women and minority candidates were the best qualified individuals; however in the remaining 50 to 60 percent of cases in which women and minorities were hired or promoted, the most qualified candidate was a white male, who was passed over; in the case of promotions, the careers of many of these "passed over" individuals were ruined. In addition, about 30 percent of the individuals promoted primarily because of affirmative action had to be removed because of mediocre performance. As a result, I believe that we ought to forego affirmative action, and instead select the most qualified candidate regardless of race or sex.
Although I did not keep records, I would estimate that in 40 to 50 percent of hiring and promotion decisions women and minority candidates were the best qualified individuals; however in the remaining 50 to 60 percent of cases in which women and minorities were hired or promoted, the most qualified candidate was a white male, who was passed over; in the case of promotions, the careers of many of these "passed over" individuals were ruined. In addition, about 30 percent of the individuals promoted primarily because of affirmative action had to be removed because of mediocre performance. As a result, I believe that we ought to forego affirmative action, and instead select the most qualified candidate regardless of race or sex.
8
Perhaps, now that the Court acknowledges the reality of race in America, it will ungut the Voting Rights Act.
Now we will wonder whether every black kid coming out of an IVY league school earned his position there or was gifted it. This is not good. I am all for inclusion but I am also all for meritocracy. This ruling will be challenged again. Should we take religion into account too when selecting students? How about sexuality? I think I would have voted the opposite of this ruling.
6
I hate racism. My little boy, who will be Asian and is due early next year, will need to score 400 points higher on the SAT than other minorities to get into the same college. That's racism by definition.
I'm seriously considering making his last name race-neutral. How else do I explain to him that in his country, he needs to work 10x harder than the kid next to him simply because of the color of his skin?
I'm seriously considering making his last name race-neutral. How else do I explain to him that in his country, he needs to work 10x harder than the kid next to him simply because of the color of his skin?
5
I have always felt that one should evaluate a person based on what that person has accomplished with the resources available to that person. In this light, being in the upper 10% of a high school class is the same accomplishment irrespective of the actual test scores of the person or the person's race. Similarly, such things as poverty, race, illiterate parents, and many other factors contributing to the resources or lack of resources of an individual should be taken into account in evaluating the accomplishments of the person. Race can contribute to the lack of resources available to a person. What a person accomplished given the resources available is the proper way to evaluate a person.
1
The Texas legislature seem almost certain to react to the ruling in Fisher v. Texas by prohibiting racial and ethnic preferences at Texas universities. The intent of the Texas legislature was to replace racial and ethnic preferences at state college and universities with the top 10-percent admission policy, which put students enrolled in poor school district on an even footing with students enrolled in affluent suburban school districts. After the Supreme Court ruled in Gutter v. Bollinger that racial and ethnic preferences are permissible to achieve diversity, the University of Texas regents decided to restore racial and ethnic preferences in its holistic admission process without consulting the legislature. California and Michigan have already reacted to Gutter v. Bollinger by prohibiting affirmative action. Texas will follow suit.
1
There is nothing more racist than affirmative action.
4
I have mixed feelings about affirmative action. I grew up poor & white in a big city & I saw the horrible values some young blacks had & knew that a good education might be of value in helping them to escape from their self-destructive milieu. On the other hand, the same could be said for many poor whites there. And if poor blacks are given an advantage in school admissions based on ethnics, it will be mostly the poor whites who will effectively get the compensatory disadvantage based on ethnics.
I worked and studied very hard during my education. I barely got into graduate school and was the only one in my class who grew up in a poor urban environment and I was the only one who didn't get financial help, except finally for a small government loan I applied for. I didn't ask for any further help & applied myself studiously regardless. And I paid back the loan ahead of when it was due.
I've seen white racism & black racism. They are both unjust and ugly.
I worked and studied very hard during my education. I barely got into graduate school and was the only one in my class who grew up in a poor urban environment and I was the only one who didn't get financial help, except finally for a small government loan I applied for. I didn't ask for any further help & applied myself studiously regardless. And I paid back the loan ahead of when it was due.
I've seen white racism & black racism. They are both unjust and ugly.
7
What we need is an economy and society where people of all races have an equal chance at getting good grades and attending good high schools, so that when admissions departments accept applicants based solely on academic/extracurricular/personality-merit, their incoming freshman class ends up reflecting the racial makeup of the country.
Will AA help us one day achieve this? Maybe, but we certainly need to do a lot more than AA to decrease racial and economic inequality. Get to the root of the problem of inequality and universities won't have to make the color of one's skin part of the admissions decision. Unfortunately, the one candidate who's platform involved addressing inequality at its root cause lost and is remaining in limbo until the convention.
Will AA help us one day achieve this? Maybe, but we certainly need to do a lot more than AA to decrease racial and economic inequality. Get to the root of the problem of inequality and universities won't have to make the color of one's skin part of the admissions decision. Unfortunately, the one candidate who's platform involved addressing inequality at its root cause lost and is remaining in limbo until the convention.
1
The right to discriminate based on the color of one's skin is revived and lives in liberal land.
6
The whole argument delves into the idea of "meritocracy". The word came into being with a 1958 book, "The Rise of Meritocracy," which was a satire meant to be a warning about the dangers of the whole notion: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/jun/29/comment . There are any number of problems with how we measure merit: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/12/meritocracy/418074/ .
The SCOTUS has done the best it could in a difficult situation, recognizing that we have never been and may never be a color-blind society, and that the judges of merit have their own blinders.
The SCOTUS has done the best it could in a difficult situation, recognizing that we have never been and may never be a color-blind society, and that the judges of merit have their own blinders.
1
Let me point out a few things:
1. The prob has been that for centuries, straight white guys have been grabbing all the goodies for themselves, and passing their grabbing off as simple meritocracy. If you really think that rich and successful white guys are rich and successful simply because they're better, I suggest that you take a good hard look at geniuses like Dan Quayle.
2. In other words, white guys have gotten away with getting everybody else to agree that they're the reference standard against which everybody else needs to be measured, the zero on the dial. Or more precisely, they've got away with being invisible without giving up their willingness to scream that they're being oppressed when Binky's Cs don't get him into Harvard any more.
3. Nobody LIKES affirmative action, any more than anybody LIKES abortion. They simply observe that yea, Virginia, people of color and women still get shabbily treated by this society, and there needs to be some way of giving every kid something resembling an even start.
That's all it is, folks. A roughly-even start, and a roughly-even track to run on.
But go right ahead yelling about how badly the white man's treated, in illiterate sentences, without facts to back you up. I mean, you may even be dumb enough to think you're as smart and well-educated as the current President, who only got anywhere because he's black.
Try lengthening your own line--improving yourself, in other words--rather than whining at others.
1. The prob has been that for centuries, straight white guys have been grabbing all the goodies for themselves, and passing their grabbing off as simple meritocracy. If you really think that rich and successful white guys are rich and successful simply because they're better, I suggest that you take a good hard look at geniuses like Dan Quayle.
2. In other words, white guys have gotten away with getting everybody else to agree that they're the reference standard against which everybody else needs to be measured, the zero on the dial. Or more precisely, they've got away with being invisible without giving up their willingness to scream that they're being oppressed when Binky's Cs don't get him into Harvard any more.
3. Nobody LIKES affirmative action, any more than anybody LIKES abortion. They simply observe that yea, Virginia, people of color and women still get shabbily treated by this society, and there needs to be some way of giving every kid something resembling an even start.
That's all it is, folks. A roughly-even start, and a roughly-even track to run on.
But go right ahead yelling about how badly the white man's treated, in illiterate sentences, without facts to back you up. I mean, you may even be dumb enough to think you're as smart and well-educated as the current President, who only got anywhere because he's black.
Try lengthening your own line--improving yourself, in other words--rather than whining at others.
8
Reverse discrimination in action.
1
"Race conscious"= racial discrimination=racial preferences=racial profiling
3
Just focus on the facts for a sec - Is anyone aware of the fact that Abigail Fisher did NOT qualify to go to UT no matter her race? Her application was not good enough. Many Black applicants with better scores didn't get in either. Actually a large majority of the applicants with worse scores than Miss Fisher that were accepted that year were White. These applicants were accepted over Black applicants with better scores....And so I am really tired of hearing about poor White people suffering from the big bad affirmative action. I am a multiple generation UT grad (undergrad and graduate) who attended pre-Hopkins and got in on my own merit (thanks to Littlefield dorm for helping me realize how much so). My lifelong dream was to attend UT and I put every effort into it - graduating top 2%. Even with legacy and affirmative action, I did not leave it to chance AND because I believe in hard work and merit (and trust me, most Black people do). I left no rock unturned in my quest, so it annoys me beyond measure when Average Abby comes sashaying in claiming reverse racism. My siblings went to the same high school she did, so I know how competitive it is (they both attended UT on better applications than Miss Fisher). She knew the stacks, the competition and still didn't bother giving more than average. So, she finds herself having to compete, doesn't like the results and goes after the lowest hanging fruit. Unfortunately, UT does not give participation awards.
3
Dear Editors
I read almost every day about this decision or that decision based on "race" so may I suggest that you might tell us how each American is unambiguously assigned to a "race" - or even to two.
And, after you have done that, perhaps you could ask a selection of commenters how each understands "race" and how they know on meeting a new individual what "race" (USCB terminology) that individual belongs to.
If public universities are to continue through the 21st century the practice of considering an applicant's "race" then would they not need a foolproof method to assign Ms. A to "race" X and Mr. B to "race" not X.
May I suggest you talk with serious researchers in relevant fields; I suggest for starters Svante Pääbo and Dorothy Roberts.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Dual citizen US SE
"Race" human
I read almost every day about this decision or that decision based on "race" so may I suggest that you might tell us how each American is unambiguously assigned to a "race" - or even to two.
And, after you have done that, perhaps you could ask a selection of commenters how each understands "race" and how they know on meeting a new individual what "race" (USCB terminology) that individual belongs to.
If public universities are to continue through the 21st century the practice of considering an applicant's "race" then would they not need a foolproof method to assign Ms. A to "race" X and Mr. B to "race" not X.
May I suggest you talk with serious researchers in relevant fields; I suggest for starters Svante Pääbo and Dorothy Roberts.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Dual citizen US SE
"Race" human
I hate to burst this bubble, but Affirmative Action was gutted and placed on life support with the Bakke v. CA decision in 1978 and with Proposition 209 in CA in 1997. The final nail in the coffin was by Chief Justice Roberts in 2007, All under a Republican controlled Supreme court.
Blacks admitted to UT in 2009 outside of the 10% rule achieved an average GPA of 2.57 and SAT scores at the 52nd percentile. That's all we need to know. If you are getting in to one of the top public universities in the country with those kind of scores, you're being admitted wholly by your race (errhhmm, sorry, the "diversity" you bring).
2
Hopefully, when certain colleges will give preference to "non-minority" applicants, the Supreme Court will live with their assessment that there is no such thing as color blind society.
You do wonder if some of these justices ever step outside of their wood paneled offices into real America, where race, in the words of Ken Burns, guides everything we do. The mere fact that they are sitting with one missing judge is a testament to a Senate whose only goal is to keep this country out of the hands of minorities. Tell me truthfully, are the McConnells, the Ryans, the Alitos, color blind. As to Thomas, well only Freud could find an answer to his opinions.
Our Government preaches equality yet openly practices discrimination. Is it any wonder we are so screwed up as a nation with 2 sets of rules for those in power and the serfs?
when hillary gets to DC next year, she can appoint a hard left liberal to take scalia's spot---the court can then get a bunch of guns banned and open up the immigration laws again--i'm tired of this!
1
The Supreme Court upheld the right to discriminate. What a politically correct but morally corrupt decision. The Supreme Court has had little credibility since unilaterally handing George Bush an election he had lost. This decision does not help restore the Court to a position of respect.
1
There should be affirmative action for Asians, who need 400 higher SAT points higher than blacks to get into the same school, on average.
2
This is what is commonly known as black privilege. Unlike white privilege, black privilege actually exists.
3
How does Affirmative Action survive the scrutiny of the 1964 Civil Rights Act which outlawed discrimination based on race in "public accommodations".
Although the word "discriminate" has a negative connotation, it actually means simply to differentiate. Notwithstanding this, the Courts seem to have interpreted the Civil Rights Act to suggest that it is perfectly acceptable to differentiate in favor of some because of their race, but prohibited to differentiate against others.
While this sounds benevolent in theory, it violates Constitutional Due Process and our understanding that achievement in any walk of life should be based on what you do not what skin color you are. This asymmetric view is also myopic since for any process which selects only a limited set of applicants, preferring one person necessarily (even if unintentionally) means conferring a disadvantage on another.
Espenshade of Princeton has demonstrated that Affirmative Action results in the need for Asian Americans to score 450 points higher on the SAT to obtain the same chance of admission to a highly selective college as an African American.
https://www.princeton.edu/~tje/files/webOpportunity%20Cost%20of%20Admiss...
Is this really the America in which we want to live where some must pass a more onerous burden than others to achieve the same goal ? Or is this all just compensation for past harms ? If so, when does it end ?
Although the word "discriminate" has a negative connotation, it actually means simply to differentiate. Notwithstanding this, the Courts seem to have interpreted the Civil Rights Act to suggest that it is perfectly acceptable to differentiate in favor of some because of their race, but prohibited to differentiate against others.
While this sounds benevolent in theory, it violates Constitutional Due Process and our understanding that achievement in any walk of life should be based on what you do not what skin color you are. This asymmetric view is also myopic since for any process which selects only a limited set of applicants, preferring one person necessarily (even if unintentionally) means conferring a disadvantage on another.
Espenshade of Princeton has demonstrated that Affirmative Action results in the need for Asian Americans to score 450 points higher on the SAT to obtain the same chance of admission to a highly selective college as an African American.
https://www.princeton.edu/~tje/files/webOpportunity%20Cost%20of%20Admiss...
Is this really the America in which we want to live where some must pass a more onerous burden than others to achieve the same goal ? Or is this all just compensation for past harms ? If so, when does it end ?
1
Affirmative Action is an appearance-saving gimmick. As long as the alumni magazine has multi-colored students, all is well, right? No even close. AA has led to resentment and anger among minority students who discover that they can't compete with students who got in on their merits. Despite their preferred admission, some decide that the universities are rife with "racism." Then they are attracted to counter-productive activities like Black Lives Matter, which doubles down on the charge that black failure or under-achievement are always the result of racism. Meanwhile, the minority students who succeed have to live with self-doubts and suspicions from others about their achievement. And AA continues to drive resentment among poor whites. How ridiculous is is that the NYT, which sees racism everywhere in "dog whistles" and "disparate" outcomes, can't recognize it when it's staring them in the face.
2
This is the same Court- minus Scalia- that decided in Shelby vs Holder that the south no longer needed the special coverage formula of Section five of the Voting Rights Act?
But they think we still need affirmative action, based upon radically different SAT scores that reflect state prejudice in public educational standards.
All the gerrymandering that has since sprouted works against the maintenance of educational standards statewide while doping up Republican political outcomes at the same time.
What a mess!
But they think we still need affirmative action, based upon radically different SAT scores that reflect state prejudice in public educational standards.
All the gerrymandering that has since sprouted works against the maintenance of educational standards statewide while doping up Republican political outcomes at the same time.
What a mess!
4
Bravo! As one who was involved (on the periphery) of this case and read dozens of briefs, this is the only rational outcome. Had the Court failed to reaffirm the principles involved in this case, race would have been the only criterion that could not be considered in admissions. How ironic that would be. Race is arguably the factor that most influences the experiences of folks of color and most defines the unique perspective a student of color brings to a campus. Had Fisher prevailed, alumni status, athletic interests, instrument played, legacy relationships, chess prowess, geographic origin, gender, summer experiences, love of orphaned animals, stamp collecting . . . and myriad other variables could be weighed, but not an applicant's race. How crazy would that have been?
A good day for rationality in America. Britain? Not so good.
A good day for rationality in America. Britain? Not so good.
2
The goal of affirmative action is not to achieve diversity. Diversity is a buzz-word. The goal is to achieve equality, meaning. giving blacks and other minorities equal outcomes in terms of jobs and positions of power in the hierarchy. If the merit system fails to do this, the authorities must step in with rules to make things right. In the federal government, every agency is under intense pressure to show they making progress in this area, which cannot be done without profiling all the employees. They are all officially labelled as White Male Caucasian, Woman, Mexican, etc., and points are awarded for how many of the preferred categories get checked. The most valuable applicant would be someone like a woman from Puerto Rico who calls her self biracial, maybe black and Mexican. Liberals think these methods are justified in a noble cause, but it is hard to distinguish their cause from Marxism. Many Supreme Court justices think it is their mission to fit this square peg--reverse discrimination-- into a round hole, meaning, to find a way to make it constitutional.
5
As long as we keep looking at the color instead of the person we will continue to have the rancor and bigotry we have today.
The argument for Affirmative Action is based on a reductio ad absurdem argument that, logically pushed, requires that all our differing characteristics must be considered. Is LGBT adequately represented at our public universities? Non-Americans? Atheists? Agnostics? Liberals? Conservatives? Special Needs? Handicapped? Are these groups admitted in the same proportion they reflect our society?
We are on slippery slope with these Affirmative Action policies, sliding further and further from our divisive considerations based on accidentals and not on who we are.
The argument for Affirmative Action is based on a reductio ad absurdem argument that, logically pushed, requires that all our differing characteristics must be considered. Is LGBT adequately represented at our public universities? Non-Americans? Atheists? Agnostics? Liberals? Conservatives? Special Needs? Handicapped? Are these groups admitted in the same proportion they reflect our society?
We are on slippery slope with these Affirmative Action policies, sliding further and further from our divisive considerations based on accidentals and not on who we are.
4
College admissions have taken "differing characteristics," into account for at least sixty years.
Among the commie liberal govenment oppressor laws that helped this along? The GI Bill.
Among the commie liberal govenment oppressor laws that helped this along? The GI Bill.
U of TX Admits 75% of its students based solely on merit without consideration of race and only 25% of its students using a holistic formula that includes "leadership qualities, talents, socioeconomic status and race." However, admissions policies are changing nationwide to allow for factors above and beyond GPA and SAT scores. Ms. Fisher was not among the top 10% of the high school applicants academically, and did not score highly enough in criteria used nationwide. Yet even though she did not meet criteria for the population of incoming students evaluated holistically, she decided to use her 15 minutes of fame in bringing her complaint to the Supreme Court, as a GOP operative whom I believe was well-paid for her pains. Solely on the facts, it seems as if Ms. Fisher values notoriety over getting on with her studies and earning a degree that will result in a well-paid secure job. It's her right, of course, to protest; but at what point does the protest open up further opportunities for the plaintiff academically, and when does the process of going to the Supreme Court become the central focus of a student's efforts to use educational opportunity for the purpose of advancing her skills and professional credentials? Given the fact that top schools nationwide are adopting holistic acceptance criteria, the Court's findings hardly stand out as getting ahead of the curve. One expectable response is that Thomas voted against the policy that helped him to get ahead. Selfish!
1
"The court has acknowledged over and over that universities have a compelling interest in achieving the social and educational benefits that flow from a racially and ethnically diverse student body."
To restate this, the primary reason for affirmative action in university admissions is so that members of under-represented racial and ethic groups can achieve the social, educational and economic benefits of a college education.
Please, let's put to rest, for once and for all, the condescending notion that students admitted to college under affirmative action are there to "enhance" the college experiences of more privileged students.
To restate this, the primary reason for affirmative action in university admissions is so that members of under-represented racial and ethic groups can achieve the social, educational and economic benefits of a college education.
Please, let's put to rest, for once and for all, the condescending notion that students admitted to college under affirmative action are there to "enhance" the college experiences of more privileged students.
7
So what is the purpose of affirmative action?
Diversity? Then we need to diversify basketball teams and historically black colleges as well. We will also need to dismantle exclusively black organizations such as BET.
Redress? Then we need to assist all whites who have been racially persecuted. Including those denied admission or jobs.
To provide a better education? Perhaps we have the reason why most college educated kids can't get a job that actually needs a college degree. We are not focusing on academics.
Finally, racial genetics is tricky. Elizabeth Warren was advertised as Native-American. Seriously? She has been discriminated based on her "Native-American" background? She brings her "Native-American" experience to add diversity?
What we are teetering towards is "racial gaming". It's silly, pointless and destructive.
Let's focus on whatever it is we are learning and stop playing racial games.
Diversity? Then we need to diversify basketball teams and historically black colleges as well. We will also need to dismantle exclusively black organizations such as BET.
Redress? Then we need to assist all whites who have been racially persecuted. Including those denied admission or jobs.
To provide a better education? Perhaps we have the reason why most college educated kids can't get a job that actually needs a college degree. We are not focusing on academics.
Finally, racial genetics is tricky. Elizabeth Warren was advertised as Native-American. Seriously? She has been discriminated based on her "Native-American" background? She brings her "Native-American" experience to add diversity?
What we are teetering towards is "racial gaming". It's silly, pointless and destructive.
Let's focus on whatever it is we are learning and stop playing racial games.
15
Give a clear, well-documented example of a white guy who's been "racially oppressed."
1
This is just the latest social experiment designed to equalize the academic achievements of Black and White students.
Like all the other social experiments before this, it will fail.
Countries that consider academic merit only in college admissions are already overtaking us and will continue to do so as long as these kind of social policies persist.
Only in America.
Like all the other social experiments before this, it will fail.
Countries that consider academic merit only in college admissions are already overtaking us and will continue to do so as long as these kind of social policies persist.
Only in America.
8
"Some insist simplistically that America is already a colorblind society or, even more perversely, that ending race-conscious policies would lead the way to such a society. " I don't know why you consider the thought that ending racially motivated programs might help people pull together is perverse. In fact, the few organizations that have little problem with racism on a group level (The army, firefighters) explicitly ignore race and focus more on an overriding identity, usually squad or truck respectively. There is much evidence that shows this is the better way to combat racism than constantly harping on the differences between groups. It's distressing you would consider my thoughts perverse even though they are empirically grounded and, I believe, well thought out, for no other reason than they disagree with the current intellectual dogma, which has benefited from more than three decades of having virtually zero conservative or even independent voices in academia
6
And this was achieved how? Can you put this in historical context?
Note that the majority decision does not cite or rely on the Constitution, any law or precedent. The majority have chosen to substitute personal optinion and ideology for law and reason. Their opinion says, simply, that an American can be duscriminated against because of race to meet some vague, largely undefined, evidence free, political and ideologically driven agenda of a government entity. It enshrines discrimination as did Dred Scott. It also makes clear the stakes riding on the confused thinking of one old, timid, confused man. The people will understand this core meaning of the decision and it will add to the growing unrest in this country. The day before the Brexit message was delivered. Ironic but demonstrative of the establishment detachment from reality. The establishment may ignore or deny this but it is the simple truth. Another horrible decision and more evidence that SCOTUS is in dire need of revolutionary reform as are the rest of our institutions.
4
Speaking of confused, a) Anthony Kennedy is pretty much nobody's idea of a bug-eyed leftist, and b) you might want to notice what a hole Kansas has dug for itself, using exactly this sort of ridiculous and ignorant thinking.
1
We should all feel sorry for the students in those countries that do not have a large number of minority members that can "enrich" their education by being present in their classrooms. Countries where their populations are more racially and culturally homogeneous then the United States like Japan, China and the Scandinavian countries lack the ability to statistically ensure that their children will benefit educationally from multiculturalism. They must do terrible in latter life.
10
The time for race-based affirmative action has passed. The underlying goal was worthy, but the execution continues to be terrible. AA is social engineering through discrimination. As a few lawsuits, currently winding through the courts, aptly show, Asian Americans suffer even worse losses due to unfair affirmative action policies simply because the elites in charge of the top schools want a campus that looks a certain way. Asian Americans would be "overrepresented" based on academic metrics. So the schools cap how many can be admitted -- even if these applicants come from the poorest backgrounds yet still succeeded in getting a 4.0 and a perfect SAT score. How is taking a seat at a top school from an Asian American with top credentials and giving it to person from another "racial group" with lesser credentials in any way good for social justice?
14
This was clearly another fictional case where simply one’s “white skin” was presumed superior at the expense of merit. Thankfully, the Court recognized the fiction and appropriately squashed it.
As the conservative 5th Circuit noted, there were over 140 white students that were admitted to UT whose grades and scores where equal to or less than Fisher's while there were over 160 black students that were not admitted who had grades and scores equal to or greater than Fisher's.
Fisher was mediocre at best yet blinded by the belief that her white skin privilege should trump Black and Brown applicants while not raising a whimper about the 140 white applicants admitted who scores were equal to or less than hers.
Not raising the point about how she compared to the 140 white applicants continues the false narrative of white supremacy.
As the conservative 5th Circuit noted, there were over 140 white students that were admitted to UT whose grades and scores where equal to or less than Fisher's while there were over 160 black students that were not admitted who had grades and scores equal to or greater than Fisher's.
Fisher was mediocre at best yet blinded by the belief that her white skin privilege should trump Black and Brown applicants while not raising a whimper about the 140 white applicants admitted who scores were equal to or less than hers.
Not raising the point about how she compared to the 140 white applicants continues the false narrative of white supremacy.
8
In an amicus brief filed in the Fisher vs. Texas case, UCLA law profession Richard Sander pointed out that racial preferences at the University of Texas are decisive factors: “For example, among freshmen entering the University of Texas at Austin in 2009 who were admitted outside the top-ten-percent system, the mean SAT score (on a scale of 2400) of Asians was a staggering 467 points and the mean score of whites was 390 points above the mean black score. In percentile terms, these Asians scored at the 93rd percentile of 2009 SAT takers nationwide, whites at the 89th percentile, Hispanics at the 80th percentile, and blacks at the 52nd percentile.”
http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Sander-Taylor-b...
http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Sander-Taylor-b...
1
Although obviously important, a diverse student body seems secondary to the greater point that these are state educational systems. The Constitution clearly leaves issues like these to the states. I do not know how three justices even could argue that UT does not have the right to do as it pleases in this case.
2
Completely incorrect. The US Constitution provides for equal protection under the law. (14th Amendment) States do not have the right to abrogate those provisions. And most importantly, when they accept Federal education funds. Only by showing "compelling interest" can any deviation occur. Texas has primarily resorted to the 10% Rule. Implemented shortly before George W. Bush's hotly contested, and US Supreme Court appointed, Presidency of 2000. However, it failed in its goals. Highly qualified students from extremely competitive suburban schools were discriminated. (Irrespective of their ethnicity.) Main beneficiary was the student from less competitive rural and urban schools. By in large, these were not the "highly-qualified specific minority ethnic candidates" the state universities were seeking. Reason for the implementation in Texas of a second criteria in its placement selection. And that was the main argument in the Fisher case.
Discriminating on the basis of race is prohibited by our Federal Constition as interpreted by the Court. That is why it is a Federal case. Ms Fisher argued that she was discriminated against because she was white. The State of Texas is prohibited from discriminating on this basis. The Court said that in some circumstances the state may consider race. Three justices see it as impermissible race discrimination primarily because they do not believe diversity as a value outweighs considering race and they question whether diversity is even achieved.
I'm lost in the twists and snarls in this ruling. Just one among many is Justice Ginsburg's opinion that affirmative action must be for a limited time only. So when does it end? When someone brings another lawsuit some time? When will that time be right?
Like many of us, I tend to like the Supreme Court (gays can marry) and find them dangerous at other times (the 2nd amendment means you can buy a military weapon - a highly effective means to mow down children).
That is the system we live in; a whole lot better than pretty much the rest of the world. So we keep living with affirmative action on admissions. Maybe the other side of that will remain in place, and schools can continue to flunk out anyone they want.
Like many of us, I tend to like the Supreme Court (gays can marry) and find them dangerous at other times (the 2nd amendment means you can buy a military weapon - a highly effective means to mow down children).
That is the system we live in; a whole lot better than pretty much the rest of the world. So we keep living with affirmative action on admissions. Maybe the other side of that will remain in place, and schools can continue to flunk out anyone they want.
1
Great! Let's keep letting students who are not smart/prepared enough for academically rigorous schools gain admittance simply because they're a minority. Letting people into schools where they are not smart enough to attend is not progress- it sets such students back. Black people who are well below the median SAT score at universities like Texas have a small chance of succeeding at such rigorous schools. Another misguided attempt by liberals to make everyone equal. Interventions in education need to begin at the pre school level and in elementary schools. Unfortunately, if you are very far behind when entering college, there simply is not enough time to help you catch up
13
It is probably best not to yell at others for their supposed intellectual inferiority while you're demonstrating this level of willful ignorance: for one thing, the editorial specifically addressed the problem of poor schools due to de facto segregation, and for another Texas' programs doesn't send the incapable to college.
You make the assumption that those admitted under th UT system that considers race a factor are not smart enough to succeed at UT. At some level admissions are arbitrary. For example Texas requires admission of the top ten percent. Does that means if you are in the top eleven percent you cannot succeed or only that when you took some test you had a bad day. Ms Fisher was not in the top ten percent, which is why she did not automatically get in. Her argument is that some minority person was admitted with poorer grades or scores than she and took "her" place and that person was admitted solely because of race. But that admittee's grades and test scores may have been just about as good as Ms Fisher's and that person brought something else to the table namely diversity, which UT values. That hardly makes that person unqualified.
1
The universities need people to major in ethnic and regional studies, the only areas where minorities are recruited so they can fill their minority quota for the faculty.
1
In his book, “When Affirmative was White,” Professor Ira Katznelson, powerfully illustrates how the New Deal programs (Social Security, G.I. Bill, Federal Housing Administration mortgages, Veteran Administration loans, etc) that effectively built the white middle class and undergirded the creation of white wealth, especially as it relates to home equity, were summarily denied to Blacks.
This is on top of the benefits Whites received as a result of 300 years of uncompensated labor and 100 years of Jim Crow segregation that created enormous institutional and individual white wealth.
Where is/was the white uproar about this massive affirmative action programs?
This is on top of the benefits Whites received as a result of 300 years of uncompensated labor and 100 years of Jim Crow segregation that created enormous institutional and individual white wealth.
Where is/was the white uproar about this massive affirmative action programs?
11
Most students who receive affirmative action preference at the University of Texas are middle- and upper-middle class white students with Hispanic surnames.
1
I see. Two wrongs do make a right.
1
"race-neutral policies were inadequate in achieving a diverse student body". So in other words, unless you give special preference to people based on the color of their skin, they won't get in. That's called racism in my book.
2
Texas demographics adds a twist to the affirmative action ruling. The Editorial Board alleges that the Texas top 10-percent admission policy increases diversity only “because so many Texas high schools are either overwhelmingly white or minority.” However, the real reason it increases diversity is that Anglos, as non-Hispanic whites are called in Texas, make up only 31% of the state’s K-12 students. There are not enough Anglo students to make many Texas high schools overwhelming white. Texas demographics also adds a twist to racial and ethnic preferences. Hispanics make up 51 percent, African Americans make up 13 percent and Southeast Asian Americans students make up about 3 percent of Texas K-12 students. Mixed race and Native American students make up about 2 percent. In Texas, an astonishing 69% of K-12 students are eligible for racial or ethnic preference in college admissions.
1
Yet another example of our elites' cluelessness, combined with disdain for actual principles of equal treatment under law.
Can anyone explain what social interest is served by privileging the children of upper middle-class black or Hispanic professionals over working-class Asian or white kids?
How is that policy even considered progressive?
If "diversity" in this narrow, racialist sense is so essential to higher education, then why does the nation's best, most rigorous and most selective higher education institution - CalTech - ignore race entirely and focus overwhelmingly on academic merit?
Does anyone still wonder why tens of millions of ordinary Americans are disgusted and outraged by our foolish political class and its detachment from reality?
Can anyone explain what social interest is served by privileging the children of upper middle-class black or Hispanic professionals over working-class Asian or white kids?
How is that policy even considered progressive?
If "diversity" in this narrow, racialist sense is so essential to higher education, then why does the nation's best, most rigorous and most selective higher education institution - CalTech - ignore race entirely and focus overwhelmingly on academic merit?
Does anyone still wonder why tens of millions of ordinary Americans are disgusted and outraged by our foolish political class and its detachment from reality?
4
We have laws against age discrimination, racial discrimination and gender discrimination, but insurance companies discriminate in all 3 areas. They are permitted to set different premium costs because their actuarial tables offer statistical evidence that youthful drivers are greater risks than older drivers. Similar statistics show that, on average, whites have a greater life expectancy than African Americans and women live longer than men; hence, these disparate charges for life insurance are permitted.
Why haven’t there been suits against insurance companies for racial bias as there have been against colleges?
Why haven’t there been suits against insurance companies for racial bias as there have been against colleges?
1
Soon, Texas voters will ratify a Civil Rights Initiative to the Texas Constitution that will ban the racial discrimination and racial quota schemes practiced by the University of Texas. Then, the legislature will pass legislation making such racial discrimination and racial quota schemes a criminal offense. Let's hope the outstanding Texas legislature sets a minimum 20-year prison sentence for any college administrator who discriminates on the basis of race. That will shut-down such racial discrimination and racial quota schemes dead in their tracks.
A study should be undertaken to gauge the relative success of students admitted under affirmative action vs. the student population at large. The results would prove the efficacy of the program.
I read: “Some insist simplistically that America is already a colorblind society or, even more perversely, that ending race-conscious policies would lead the way to such a society."
I suggest that this sentence is nonsense. There has never been a colorblind society. Anyone who asserts this simply displays an ignorance of reality. That person might begin by reading Toni Morrison’s “God Help The Child” and Helen Oyeyemi’s “Boy, Snow, Bird” for a view from two great novelists, one African American the other Nigerian.
The problem with the sentence I quote is that it illustrates the standard practice in Times writing of conflating color with “race”, something Charles Blow routinely does. I have suggested to Blow and the Editors that they read Dorothy Roberts’ “Fatal Invention-How Science, Politics, and Big Business Recreate Race In The Twenty-first Century.” I get no response. A reading of this study by an author who tells me “I am black, but not African American” might awaken Times Editors – and Blow - to the importance of finally providing a series on the archaic and uniquely American practice of using “race” to classify Americans.
Color does not equal “race”. Color is just color. “Race” is the fatal invention of racists. Do not conflate the one with the other.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Dual citizen US SE
I suggest that this sentence is nonsense. There has never been a colorblind society. Anyone who asserts this simply displays an ignorance of reality. That person might begin by reading Toni Morrison’s “God Help The Child” and Helen Oyeyemi’s “Boy, Snow, Bird” for a view from two great novelists, one African American the other Nigerian.
The problem with the sentence I quote is that it illustrates the standard practice in Times writing of conflating color with “race”, something Charles Blow routinely does. I have suggested to Blow and the Editors that they read Dorothy Roberts’ “Fatal Invention-How Science, Politics, and Big Business Recreate Race In The Twenty-first Century.” I get no response. A reading of this study by an author who tells me “I am black, but not African American” might awaken Times Editors – and Blow - to the importance of finally providing a series on the archaic and uniquely American practice of using “race” to classify Americans.
Color does not equal “race”. Color is just color. “Race” is the fatal invention of racists. Do not conflate the one with the other.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Dual citizen US SE
5
The Supreme Court just affirmed tremendous racism against Asians -- they came to this country with few advantages, their children are extremely high achievers, and are routinely sent to schools below what they've earned because the schools have an Asian quota, an African-American quota, and a Latino quota.
10
As usual the NY Times Editorial Board shows how naive it is.
The only extraordinary factor in admissions should be the income of one's
parents, or if one lives on one's own.
Yes, you can take into account that the school the applicant went to did not
offer any or only a few AP courses. That the school is dysfunctional.
But that the colour of your skin is absolutely indicative of your race which means
you must be socially disadvantaged and your schooling miserable.....?
It will never help disadvantages students if they are admitted to colleges because of the colour of their skin. If their grades are not high enough, if
their SAT scores are not high enough, then improve their schools, let them go to Community College ( Which would save them a lot of money ) and then transfer
to the 4 year college, let them study even harder as many of the Asian students who come to America have done and continue to do.
When will the NY Times finally learn it is all about income level in America
and not the colour of your skin ?
The only extraordinary factor in admissions should be the income of one's
parents, or if one lives on one's own.
Yes, you can take into account that the school the applicant went to did not
offer any or only a few AP courses. That the school is dysfunctional.
But that the colour of your skin is absolutely indicative of your race which means
you must be socially disadvantaged and your schooling miserable.....?
It will never help disadvantages students if they are admitted to colleges because of the colour of their skin. If their grades are not high enough, if
their SAT scores are not high enough, then improve their schools, let them go to Community College ( Which would save them a lot of money ) and then transfer
to the 4 year college, let them study even harder as many of the Asian students who come to America have done and continue to do.
When will the NY Times finally learn it is all about income level in America
and not the colour of your skin ?
3
The only way to end racism is to stop making decisions based on race.
Affirmative action is institutionalized racism of the crudest, most repellent, form.
Affirmative action is institutionalized racism of the crudest, most repellent, form.
8
In what kind of universe is a 4-3 decision a defining judgement on affirmative action??? How did you arrive at that conclusion???This precedent will be under constant attack in the immediate future. The mere fact that Justice Kennedy cautioned that a university’s goals “must be sufficiently measurable to permit judicial scrutiny of the policies adopted to reach them,” and that officials must continue to monitor and change those policies if necessary will engender more lawsuits. Couple that with the fact Justice Kennedy has been a strong skeptic of affirmative-action programs...well ....this fight is hardly over...it's just beginning.
5
Many experts have proclaimed that the 20st Century will be the African Century.
This can already be seen by the scientific & cultural leadership so evident through much of Africa.
To guarantee this dream Affirmative Action must be made permanent in every facet of national decision.
Likewise, any criticism or mention of Affirmative Action must be stigmatized for being as racist as Klan cross burning!
This can already be seen by the scientific & cultural leadership so evident through much of Africa.
To guarantee this dream Affirmative Action must be made permanent in every facet of national decision.
Likewise, any criticism or mention of Affirmative Action must be stigmatized for being as racist as Klan cross burning!
I worked for the Corps of Engineers for several years and was totally disgusted by their affirmative action. One needed to be black or female to get a promotion, a bonus or anything worthwhile. They wouldn't even look at my college degree instead kept on tagging me along as a Temporary worker for several years.
If our country is going to allow such blatant discrimination, businesses, schools, and government agencies should post on their entrances and in the hallways signs saying they adhere to such practices.
I've always thought of our nation as based somewhat on the French slogan: Equality, fraternity, and liberty. We have turned our back of this concept. The rot in our society is showing and this helps lead the way.
If our country is going to allow such blatant discrimination, businesses, schools, and government agencies should post on their entrances and in the hallways signs saying they adhere to such practices.
I've always thought of our nation as based somewhat on the French slogan: Equality, fraternity, and liberty. We have turned our back of this concept. The rot in our society is showing and this helps lead the way.
4
No matter how sophistic you get, affirmative action is discrimination.
5
It should be noted, for all the folks thinking blacks always underachieve, that the University of Michigan, arguably the best public university in the land, and where the state outlawed affirmative action some time ago, had its largest black freshman class in many years enter in 2015. The young minorities getting into these schools are qualified. Move on.
5
Yes, in a totally bizarre ruling, SCOTUS has held that affirmative action is "constitutional."
To those of use who have mastered English, this is not the case; the 14th Amendment states "nor shall any state .... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." This is a clear Constitutional mandate. No where in our Consitution is the word "diversity"; no where in the Constitution is the concept of diversity mentioned.
Yet, the court has sacrificed equality, prominently protected in the Constitution, our laws, and our traditions, in the name of diversity. To those of use who value the word of law, this is both unbelievable and tragic.
AA was originally conceived to correct present and past discrimination; for this end, perhaps it should have passed Constitutional muster. But this rationale no longer holds. The rationale today is "diversity."
The job of SCOTUS is to interpret our laws when they are ambiguous, and to insure that they are consistent with the Constitution. Here the court has done neither. Instead, the unelected, lifetime-tenured Justices have taken it on themselves to invent a new Constitution. This is not, and should not be, their job. It was surely not the intent of authors of our Constitution. This is why the appointment and senate confirmation of Justices has become so politicized.
The President appoints Justices. It would not be surprising if this decision will garner more than a few votes for Mr. Trump.
To those of use who have mastered English, this is not the case; the 14th Amendment states "nor shall any state .... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." This is a clear Constitutional mandate. No where in our Consitution is the word "diversity"; no where in the Constitution is the concept of diversity mentioned.
Yet, the court has sacrificed equality, prominently protected in the Constitution, our laws, and our traditions, in the name of diversity. To those of use who value the word of law, this is both unbelievable and tragic.
AA was originally conceived to correct present and past discrimination; for this end, perhaps it should have passed Constitutional muster. But this rationale no longer holds. The rationale today is "diversity."
The job of SCOTUS is to interpret our laws when they are ambiguous, and to insure that they are consistent with the Constitution. Here the court has done neither. Instead, the unelected, lifetime-tenured Justices have taken it on themselves to invent a new Constitution. This is not, and should not be, their job. It was surely not the intent of authors of our Constitution. This is why the appointment and senate confirmation of Justices has become so politicized.
The President appoints Justices. It would not be surprising if this decision will garner more than a few votes for Mr. Trump.
6
And what about poor whites?
Are they to be given support and succor or are they just considered poor white trash.
Are they to be given support and succor or are they just considered poor white trash.
1
This action completes the Supreme Court's betrayal of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Title VII of the 1964 Act provided that it shall be an unlawful employment practice to discriminate against any individual on the basis of race, etc. That language was echoed elsewhere in the Act too.
"Against any individual." That means the Act stood for the principle that everyone was entitled to be hired, fired, promoted, admitted and so on WITHOUT RESPECT TO RACE. It prohibited the use of race at all, as in affirmative action, racial preferences, reverse discrimination, quotas, set asides.
That was before the Court decided that it knew best what was good for Americans. The Court proceeded to stand the Act on its head. The 1964 Act came to authorize precisely what it clearly barred. The Court made a liar out of Sen. Hubert Humphrey who specifically assured the Senate that this outcome was unthinkable.
Thanks to this dishonest grab for power by the court, the use of race has become entrenched in our law -- ineradicably so. Does anyone believe former Justice O'Connor when she said in Grutter that racial preferences would no longer be needed in 25 years? The lies just keep on coming.
The tortured defense of racism that we need it to get past race was always a pretext for more racism. Racism is as evil today as it was in 1964. Today's racists have racialized our society, used identity politics to divide us against one another, and they profit electorally from our racial spoils system.
Title VII of the 1964 Act provided that it shall be an unlawful employment practice to discriminate against any individual on the basis of race, etc. That language was echoed elsewhere in the Act too.
"Against any individual." That means the Act stood for the principle that everyone was entitled to be hired, fired, promoted, admitted and so on WITHOUT RESPECT TO RACE. It prohibited the use of race at all, as in affirmative action, racial preferences, reverse discrimination, quotas, set asides.
That was before the Court decided that it knew best what was good for Americans. The Court proceeded to stand the Act on its head. The 1964 Act came to authorize precisely what it clearly barred. The Court made a liar out of Sen. Hubert Humphrey who specifically assured the Senate that this outcome was unthinkable.
Thanks to this dishonest grab for power by the court, the use of race has become entrenched in our law -- ineradicably so. Does anyone believe former Justice O'Connor when she said in Grutter that racial preferences would no longer be needed in 25 years? The lies just keep on coming.
The tortured defense of racism that we need it to get past race was always a pretext for more racism. Racism is as evil today as it was in 1964. Today's racists have racialized our society, used identity politics to divide us against one another, and they profit electorally from our racial spoils system.
12
If we want diversity at all levels of society we need to start somewhere. It should start before college since the younger we are when we encounter people who are different from us the earlier we learn that looking one way or another has no effect on intelligence or ability. America should also be striving to ensure that children in all economic classes are receiving the proper medical care, a stimulating environment that encourages their natural curiosity and helps them to develop the skills they will need to start school and succeed there. Success in school should not be determined by the economic class one is born into. To that end we should start to treat teaching as a profession rather than acting like teachers are babysitters or stand in parents.
Race will always be there. We cannot close our eyes to the differences in our skin colors, the shape of our eyes, the color of our hair, etc. So will ethnicity be in the mix along with religion, gender, and who knows what else. However, a person's race, religion, or gender should not be what stops her from reaching her goals if she can. Too many people in America have been unable to lead productive lives because of the artificial barriers of skin color, religion, sexual preference, none of which have anything to do with the ability to learn or do the job. If Affirmative Action can right those imbalances it's a good thing.
Race will always be there. We cannot close our eyes to the differences in our skin colors, the shape of our eyes, the color of our hair, etc. So will ethnicity be in the mix along with religion, gender, and who knows what else. However, a person's race, religion, or gender should not be what stops her from reaching her goals if she can. Too many people in America have been unable to lead productive lives because of the artificial barriers of skin color, religion, sexual preference, none of which have anything to do with the ability to learn or do the job. If Affirmative Action can right those imbalances it's a good thing.
3
Discrimination based on skin color doesn't become okay because you like the outcome.
1
The solution to old racism is NOT new racism, government sanctioned. The remedy is to exclude any information about race and ethnicity on the application. Drug trials use double blind studies to prevent bias, so should University admissions, anything else is pure and simple racism, in this case against whites. The only way to be colorblind is to be colorblind, then you cannot argue it is not fair. Once one group gets special treatment by government decree, it becomes unfair, then more are added, others are left out, who decides ?
1
A right step towards promoting diversity and rich multicultural ethos in the institutions of higher learning.
12
The University of Texas’ assertion that it uses racial and ethnic preferences to promote diversity is a lie. It uses them to promote racial quotas. It gives Hispanic applicants preference over Asian applicants even though Hispanic students outnumber Asian students. The reason is that Hispanics make up a much larger share of the Texas population than Asians.
1
What happens when whites are in the minority? Which is in a mere 30 years.
1
OK, do you mind if we apply it to professors also? Universities in the US are about 85 to 90% Democrat, I think we should insist on a mix that represents the population of the US, and gives preferential treatment to Republicans for all new university professorships until they are about 50% Republicans and about 50% made up of Democrats. Because clearly by the data Republicans are being discriminated against in their chances for employment at Universites, they are drastically under represented correct ? Isn't it as important to have multiple political cultures on campus as it is for multicultures ?
1
The holistic approach at the University of Texas may consider race as a “factor of a factor of a factor of a factor” as the article indicates, but is the decisive factor. In an amicus brief filed in the Fisher vs. Texas case, UCLA law profession Richard Sander pointed out that racial preferences at the University of Texas are decisive factors: “For example, among freshmen entering the University of Texas at Austin in 2009 who were admitted outside the top-ten-percent system, the mean SAT score (on a scale of 2400) of Asians was a staggering 467 points and the mean score of whites was 390 points above the mean black score. In percentile terms, these Asians scored at the 93rd percentile of 2009 SAT takers nationwide, whites at the 89th percentile, Hispanics at the 80th percentile, and blacks at the 52nd percentile
43
So either (a) blacks are more stupid than whites, who are more stupid than asians, or (b) the SAT isn't race-neutral.
Which do you believe?
Which do you believe?
3
William Case:
It is no surprise that an amicus brief would push a single viewpoint.
The situation is infinitely more complex: http://educationnext.org/texas-ten-percent-plans-impact-college-enrollment/ . Those students admitted under the 10% plan end up doing just fine, and the SATs have long been known to be a flawed measure of success. AP and IB program performance may be better predictors. GPA alone appears to be a reasonable predictor in many circumstance.
From that link:
"...We do find some evidence that TTP eligibility leads to attending colleges with lower tuitions, however, as would be expected if students are attending a public flagship instead of a private college. An important question is whether students who are admitted under the TTP Plan drop out of these highly selective schools at a higher rate than other students. ... it may be that students admitted because of TTP are not able to do well in the rigorous academic environment of the flagship universities. However, we found no evidence that being in the top 10 percent affected the likelihood of transferring to a less-selective institution (as measured by the Barron’s competitive admissions ratings) or the probability of dropping out of college. ..."
Whatever the complexities, over-reliance on SAT scores is itself problematic at many levels.
It is no surprise that an amicus brief would push a single viewpoint.
The situation is infinitely more complex: http://educationnext.org/texas-ten-percent-plans-impact-college-enrollment/ . Those students admitted under the 10% plan end up doing just fine, and the SATs have long been known to be a flawed measure of success. AP and IB program performance may be better predictors. GPA alone appears to be a reasonable predictor in many circumstance.
From that link:
"...We do find some evidence that TTP eligibility leads to attending colleges with lower tuitions, however, as would be expected if students are attending a public flagship instead of a private college. An important question is whether students who are admitted under the TTP Plan drop out of these highly selective schools at a higher rate than other students. ... it may be that students admitted because of TTP are not able to do well in the rigorous academic environment of the flagship universities. However, we found no evidence that being in the top 10 percent affected the likelihood of transferring to a less-selective institution (as measured by the Barron’s competitive admissions ratings) or the probability of dropping out of college. ..."
Whatever the complexities, over-reliance on SAT scores is itself problematic at many levels.
4
First of all, not everyone scores well on standardized tests, so that's not valid as a sole metric.
Second, I worked in higher ed admissions and the problem there is that those score disparities reach down all the way into the applicant pool. In the case of the GMAT, as of several years ago (unlikely to have changed since it was this way for 5+ years) around 60k self-described caucasian american citizens took that test, of which around 5k got a score of 700 or up (out of 800).
Fewer than 5k self-declared african americans take the test and fewer than ONE HUNDRED got a score of 700 or up.
Not everyone who takes the test in a particular year actually applies in that year (or ever). Granted undergraduates usually don't hold off a year to apply again later, but that disparity still exists and isn't the fault of the admitting colleges. They have to take from what they are given. Any attempt to apply the same exact standards in regards to standardized tests would result in massively skewed demographics. There would be no black MBA students in the country, for example.
Now we can discuss the reasons as to why the scores are lower and how it should be fixed, but that's not something that the individual schools can influence. It's insane to hold them responsible for it, and focus on this issue to the exclusion of the elephant in the room which is nepotism around admission for children of donors and faculty. That is a much bigger meritocratic distortion than this issue.
Second, I worked in higher ed admissions and the problem there is that those score disparities reach down all the way into the applicant pool. In the case of the GMAT, as of several years ago (unlikely to have changed since it was this way for 5+ years) around 60k self-described caucasian american citizens took that test, of which around 5k got a score of 700 or up (out of 800).
Fewer than 5k self-declared african americans take the test and fewer than ONE HUNDRED got a score of 700 or up.
Not everyone who takes the test in a particular year actually applies in that year (or ever). Granted undergraduates usually don't hold off a year to apply again later, but that disparity still exists and isn't the fault of the admitting colleges. They have to take from what they are given. Any attempt to apply the same exact standards in regards to standardized tests would result in massively skewed demographics. There would be no black MBA students in the country, for example.
Now we can discuss the reasons as to why the scores are lower and how it should be fixed, but that's not something that the individual schools can influence. It's insane to hold them responsible for it, and focus on this issue to the exclusion of the elephant in the room which is nepotism around admission for children of donors and faculty. That is a much bigger meritocratic distortion than this issue.
2
Justice Sandra Day O’Conner cast the deciding vote in Grutter vs. Bollinger, which in 2002 granted affirmative action a temporary reprieve. However, in her majority decision, she wrote, “We are mindful, however, that a core purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to do away with all governmentally imposed discrimination based on race. Accordingly, race-conscious admissions policies must be limited in time. This requirement reflects that racial classifications, however compelling their goals, are potentially so dangerous that they may be employed no more broadly than the interest demands. Enshrining a permanent justification for racial preferences would offend this fundamental equal protection principle. We see no reason to exempt race-conscious admissions programs from the requirement that all governmental use of race must have a logical end point.” Justice O’Conner added, “The requirement that all race-conscious admissions programs have a termination point assures all citizens that the deviation from the norm of equal treatment of all racial and ethnic groups is a temporary matter.”
10
The logical end point will be when there is no longer evidence of racial bias,..... yeah I'll say it, racial bias in certain states and locations. I guess any person with fair to midland observational skills can the obviousness of that.
The logical way to end racial bias in college admission is to end racial preferences in college admissions.
And the exact same justices who ruled (in the gay marriage case) that everyone must be treated equally, turned right around and ruled (in this affirmative action case) that...well...we didn't mean EQUAL equal. Some can be a little "more equal" than others.
53
The gay marriage decision was a joke. Please read it. The justices in the majority had no basis of law to make their decision- they decided that they felt like it was time for marriage equality. I'm for gay marriage, but that was not a decision for a federal court to make. We have the legislature for a reason
1
Basic notions of equality and fairness mean nothing to the far left. When they don't get their way, they simply organize a sit in and scream racism. You highlight an obvious logical hole in such grievance politics.
1
Who are you, George Orwell?
1
This ruling fully permits employers to once again consider race in hiring. Let's just describe it as a factor of a factor.
11
Justice Alito is _almost_ right in his opinion that top 10 percent itself produces diversity. The reason he is not 100% correct, is such a system can produce all types of diversity except economic diversity -- Education costs have become high and only people above a certain economic level can afford it.
The Supreme Court is correct that it did not rule carte blanch on affirmative action, but did favorably only on a very narrow method that UT Austin has created.
That still leaves the option open -- and I hope it is done this way -- to make affirmative action based purely on merit _and_ economic status, and not on any other factor like ethnicity, race, etc.
The Supreme Court is correct that it did not rule carte blanch on affirmative action, but did favorably only on a very narrow method that UT Austin has created.
That still leaves the option open -- and I hope it is done this way -- to make affirmative action based purely on merit _and_ economic status, and not on any other factor like ethnicity, race, etc.
5
The 10 percent admissions policy creates tremendous economic diversity because it admits students from poor high schools at the same rate as it admits students from affluent high schools. Virtually all the students accepted from the supplemental holistic process come from affluent suburban high schools. The purpose of the supplemental pool is to recruit students who finish just outside the top 10 percent at elite high schools.
2
The purpose of a university is academic excellence, not reflecting "today's America". The reason places at UT are so coveted is precisely because that institution has developed such standards over the years. There are plenty of other higher education venues available to students who are not academically prepared to compete based upon their own abilities. To blame bad high schools is nonsense. This is the era of the internet and the public library. Any young person who has the ambition to learn can take advantage of numerous routes to higher education. There are masses of stuff on line and in the library showing students how to prepare for and apply to college. Stop casting people as victims. Stop rationalizing indolence.
37
Rob of NC, universities offer courses in sociology, anthropology, history. Part of "academic excellence" involves understanding people of other countries and other eras. If you don't understand today's world, you may have difficulty doing well understanding yesterday's world and third world countries. The mark of a well-educated person is not one who has done well only in math, science, and engineering; it is one who has also studied the humanities and social sciences.
Diversity can also be in age. As a young college student, I learned more about the real world from my classmates in their 40s and 50s than from my wet-behind-the-ears agemates.
Diversity can also be in age. As a young college student, I learned more about the real world from my classmates in their 40s and 50s than from my wet-behind-the-ears agemates.
2
@ NC: while it is true that in this electronic age anyone who is so motivated can indeed advance her education, the reality is that bad schools (primary and secondary) engender a culture where students are not expected to succeed, where there is a strong peer pressure not to appear "white" and play classical violin, for example. In these places especially, pop stars and hoop stars are venerated, teen pregnancy and drug abuse are rampant. It is a miserable world and difficult to escape.
Investment in improving education must take place at primary and secondary schools, to provide kids encouragement and hope.
I oppose Affirmative Action at the college level, because it perpetuates the notion that a black person cannot succeed on the strength of his intellect. The place for action is during a child's earliest formative years, when children are developing their intellects.
Investment in improving education must take place at primary and secondary schools, to provide kids encouragement and hope.
I oppose Affirmative Action at the college level, because it perpetuates the notion that a black person cannot succeed on the strength of his intellect. The place for action is during a child's earliest formative years, when children are developing their intellects.
Rob: "[...] There are plenty of other higher education venues available to students who are not academically prepared to compete based upon their own abilities. [...] Any young person who has the ambition to learn can take advantage of numerous routes to higher education. [...]"
Yet, Abigail Fisher herself turned down the "[...] standard UT offer under which she could have gone to the university her sophomore year if she earned a 3.2 GPA at another Texas university school in her freshman year. [...]".
[from ProPublica]:
https://www.propublica.org/article/a-colorblind-constitution-what-abigai...
Yet, Abigail Fisher herself turned down the "[...] standard UT offer under which she could have gone to the university her sophomore year if she earned a 3.2 GPA at another Texas university school in her freshman year. [...]".
[from ProPublica]:
https://www.propublica.org/article/a-colorblind-constitution-what-abigai...
1
Racist discrimination has nothing whatsoever to do with education -- unless one believes that race/ethnicity is a surrogate for different views, which is, of itself, racists and wrong.
Why, for instance, is the 100th Mexican considered as an advancement for "diversity", while the first Vietnamese is not?
AA is nothing more than racist groupthink, which creates real victims of racial discrimination. You don't care, because the victims here are white, and you believe that their loss is acceptable in furtherance of a societal goal. Of course, were the tables were turned, no matter how much society (allegedly) benefitted from a more "diverse" (fill in the blank), if the person taking the hit were a member of a Politically Correct group, you'd never tolerate those "diversity" efforts. If Fischer were Black, and suffered, as Asians do, from an effective ceiling on the numbers of her group admitted, you'd be outraged.
That last sentence should read, "universities will continue to have the right to shape their student bodies through blatant racial discrimination."
Either racial discrimination is wrong -- and unconstitutional -- for everyone, or it is neither wrong nor illegal for anyone. It does not become right because you happen to like the outcome.
All people must be treated equally, without regard to their race. And EVERY victim of governmental racial discrimination should have a remedy, not just those of Politically Correct groups.
Why, for instance, is the 100th Mexican considered as an advancement for "diversity", while the first Vietnamese is not?
AA is nothing more than racist groupthink, which creates real victims of racial discrimination. You don't care, because the victims here are white, and you believe that their loss is acceptable in furtherance of a societal goal. Of course, were the tables were turned, no matter how much society (allegedly) benefitted from a more "diverse" (fill in the blank), if the person taking the hit were a member of a Politically Correct group, you'd never tolerate those "diversity" efforts. If Fischer were Black, and suffered, as Asians do, from an effective ceiling on the numbers of her group admitted, you'd be outraged.
That last sentence should read, "universities will continue to have the right to shape their student bodies through blatant racial discrimination."
Either racial discrimination is wrong -- and unconstitutional -- for everyone, or it is neither wrong nor illegal for anyone. It does not become right because you happen to like the outcome.
All people must be treated equally, without regard to their race. And EVERY victim of governmental racial discrimination should have a remedy, not just those of Politically Correct groups.
75
Michael of Morris Township,NJ, if everyone had started on a level playing field, I'd agree with you. However, some groups historically weren't allowed to enter the contest, so to speak. Others were given severe handicaps. Some were favored, usually white males, over more qualified non-white males or white females. Because of the historical advantages given white males, they attended better schools, were accepted into better colleges, were selected for better jobs and promotions, and were able to provide more advantages to their children.
Since we now know that a lot of wealth is inherited, not earned, the offspring of these largely white males have advantages due to the race of their fathers. The children of the disadvantaged, mostly black males, tend to be much less affluent and educated due to the discrimination practiced against their fathers. Affirmative Action was an attempt to level the playing field.
Growing up in racially and ethnically diverse Hawai'i, I took diversity for granted until I lived and worked in less diverse areas and got to know more residents of these monoculture areas. Those from more diverse areas were much more understanding and accepting of others who were different; they were more interesting and less dogmatic than their monoculture counterparts.
Since we now know that a lot of wealth is inherited, not earned, the offspring of these largely white males have advantages due to the race of their fathers. The children of the disadvantaged, mostly black males, tend to be much less affluent and educated due to the discrimination practiced against their fathers. Affirmative Action was an attempt to level the playing field.
Growing up in racially and ethnically diverse Hawai'i, I took diversity for granted until I lived and worked in less diverse areas and got to know more residents of these monoculture areas. Those from more diverse areas were much more understanding and accepting of others who were different; they were more interesting and less dogmatic than their monoculture counterparts.
4
FYI it was called "slavery".
1
Note that the plaintiff was recruited and funded by a group that wants to end affirmative action in any form--an idea that would further entrench systemic advantages and disadvantages.
In a better world we wouldn't need affirmative action. In the world we have, programs like the one at the University of Texas--which is thoughtfully designed and implemented--help to temper inequities without establishing arbitrary quotas and running afoul of the Constitution.
In a better world we wouldn't need affirmative action. In the world we have, programs like the one at the University of Texas--which is thoughtfully designed and implemented--help to temper inequities without establishing arbitrary quotas and running afoul of the Constitution.
33
In the past and today, numerous activist organizations, including the NAACP, seek URM plaintiffs for lawsuits in order to advance their goals in the courts. So what? Just because you don't agree with the goal of this organization doesn't mean that the method for recruiting plaintiffs is illegitimate -- as it is a tried and true way of building a record for appeal through an active case or controversy.
If America were "a colorblind society", there would be no need for affirmative action. Three years ago, in deciding for Shelby County vs. the Obama Administration, Chief Justice John Roberts actually had the effrontery to write "Blatantly discriminatory evasions of federal decrees are rare." This opened the door to attacks on voter ID laws in Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, North Carolina, Ohio, Wisconsin and Texas. How do voting rights affect affirmative action vis-a-vis American universities?
The fundamental issue in opposition to affirmative action is the considered and deliberate attempt to return the American educational process to as close to a pre-Brown vs. Topeka (1954) society as is legislatively possible. Race was the issue in Brown: separate or equal. In affirmative action the issue, according to conservatives, is "why must we make the effort to accommodate non-white students to any school, anywhere."
What the Right does *not* want is a diverse educational dynamic. Texas, with overwhelmingly segregated schools, essentially admits the racial divide and has in place its 10 percent quota in attempt to squeeze out some semblance of diversity.
Attorneys for the good--but not exceptional Abigail Fisher, the plaintiff in this case--argued essentially that her race should guarantee her a place in the state's university school system even if she replaces a Latino or African-American student of greater intellectual achievement.
Call it affirmative action for whites.
The fundamental issue in opposition to affirmative action is the considered and deliberate attempt to return the American educational process to as close to a pre-Brown vs. Topeka (1954) society as is legislatively possible. Race was the issue in Brown: separate or equal. In affirmative action the issue, according to conservatives, is "why must we make the effort to accommodate non-white students to any school, anywhere."
What the Right does *not* want is a diverse educational dynamic. Texas, with overwhelmingly segregated schools, essentially admits the racial divide and has in place its 10 percent quota in attempt to squeeze out some semblance of diversity.
Attorneys for the good--but not exceptional Abigail Fisher, the plaintiff in this case--argued essentially that her race should guarantee her a place in the state's university school system even if she replaces a Latino or African-American student of greater intellectual achievement.
Call it affirmative action for whites.
21
Affirmative Action at the post-secondary school level means that blacks in college will automatically be stereotyped as incapable of succeeding on the strength of their intellectual abilities. This is not progress.
2
The author writes that universities have a "compelling interest in achieving the social and educational benefits that flow from a racially and ethnically diverse student body". No evidence exists to support such a claim. Show me the evidence...
26
There are actually a lot of studies that have been done on the benefits to all students from having diverse classmates. At all grade levels. You could Google it. The social benefits include improving the lifelong achievements of minority students. The NYT has an article today on that -- http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/24/opinion/the-supreme-court-has-upheld-a.... Our country desperately needs that -- that is a compelling interest. If you think conscious, institutional racism does not still exist you have not been watching what many states have been doing to reduce minority voting. Voting is power. The GOP is devoted to reducing minority voting power. The affirmative action in higher education is a very small effort to redress the effects of historical and present-day racism in our country. It would also help a lot if the GOP would let minority people vote!
9
Since I am an academic researcher, I have access to every journal article available on the topic and yet no evidence in there. An NYT article, unfortunately, is not empirical evidence. If you ever find some, please do let me know where but keep in mind, we are looking for empirical data, not your or the NYT opinions.
2
When Justice Thomas replaced Thurgood Marshall, a true advocate for racial equality, he was fulfilling the "faddish theory" that any black man would make the Supreme Court racially diverse. If he is under the impression that his skin color had nothing to do with him being nominated to replace a giant in the black community then he is as naive and clueless as his rulings have shown him to be.
49
Does anyone think Malia Obama adds diversity to Harvard? Her life experiences are closer to Chelsea Clinton's than any other black student.
If considering race makes a difference, there will be at least some black students admitted who would not otherwise have qualified. So in the end it is racial preferences, whether you want to call it that or not.
Affirmative advantage should benefit the disadvantaged of all races, not blacks that likely already have some advantage. (How many blacks from failing schools in inner city Chicago will benefit from affirmative action?) It should be based on income or class, not skin color. Texas' 10% rule was effectively a classed based system, the newer proposal to bring in more middle class black students was purely race based.
If considering race makes a difference, there will be at least some black students admitted who would not otherwise have qualified. So in the end it is racial preferences, whether you want to call it that or not.
Affirmative advantage should benefit the disadvantaged of all races, not blacks that likely already have some advantage. (How many blacks from failing schools in inner city Chicago will benefit from affirmative action?) It should be based on income or class, not skin color. Texas' 10% rule was effectively a classed based system, the newer proposal to bring in more middle class black students was purely race based.
27
The article says that 3/4 of the UT spots are based on the 10% method. That method results in racial and class preferences, because Texas is very segregated by both criteria. Everyone knows that and the Supreme Court recognized that. So the explicit use of race as a factor is simply another way of trying to achieve diversity and compensate for inequalities in the state population. Wouldn't it be nice if our society did not have such enormous income inequality? We wouldn't need so much after-the-fact social engineering to try to compensate for unequal opportunities in childhood. But we do have those tremendous inequalities and we need to recognize them.
3
Actually, yes, I do believe Malia Obama brings diversity to Harvard.
Of course there is no such thing as a colorblind society. How can there be? Blacks (a minority) commit the majority of violent crimes. Whites commit the majority of financial crimes. Middle-east Muslims commit pretty much all of the terrorist crimes. Hispanics constitute most of the illegal aliens in this country. How can we even think that we have a colorblind society when the evidences of color differences are everywhere?
Yet, under our Constitution, all men are equal. Colorblind society or not, this ruling is discriminatory, favoring one racial group over another and hastening the balkanization of this country. Equally bad, it destroys the ideal of meritocracy - because, let's face it, those admitted under race quotas are not likely to be as qualified or intelligent as the general body of students.
As a non-white, non-black legal immigrant, this makes me depressed about the future of the country.
Yet, under our Constitution, all men are equal. Colorblind society or not, this ruling is discriminatory, favoring one racial group over another and hastening the balkanization of this country. Equally bad, it destroys the ideal of meritocracy - because, let's face it, those admitted under race quotas are not likely to be as qualified or intelligent as the general body of students.
As a non-white, non-black legal immigrant, this makes me depressed about the future of the country.
44
I can't even begin to address most of your comment - because I have no words. But with regard to race quotas - those have been illegal for a while now. If you read the article, you would know that what UT was doing was in no way a race quota.
3
"Some insist simplistically that America is already a colorblind society or, even more perversely, that ending race-conscious policies would lead the way to such a society."
We've been hyperfocusing on things Affirmative Action did not primarily intent to cure, and away from the reparative intent in the decision.
Affirmative Action should be taught as a civics topic from middle school on in our public schools. Understanding the issues it addresses would go some distance in demystifying a misunderstood topic. It would be great if, as a public service, the Times made freely available all of the works the great Ronald Dworkin wrote for the New York Times on Affirmative Action. I believe it was one of Justice Scalia's missions to prevail over Dworkin on Affirmative Action. He didn't and I can't think of a better way to celebrate that.
We've been hyperfocusing on things Affirmative Action did not primarily intent to cure, and away from the reparative intent in the decision.
Affirmative Action should be taught as a civics topic from middle school on in our public schools. Understanding the issues it addresses would go some distance in demystifying a misunderstood topic. It would be great if, as a public service, the Times made freely available all of the works the great Ronald Dworkin wrote for the New York Times on Affirmative Action. I believe it was one of Justice Scalia's missions to prevail over Dworkin on Affirmative Action. He didn't and I can't think of a better way to celebrate that.
27
Great comment, Rima!
2
Michael Sandel's Harvard University lecture answers the questions one must continue to ponder and answer when thinking about the kind of justice involved in affirmative action: what's the right thing to do?
https://youtu.be/AUhReMT5uqA?list=PLUzL4fyKoSCsTnOmYqSho4Hf9SZA1Ucix
https://youtu.be/AUhReMT5uqA?list=PLUzL4fyKoSCsTnOmYqSho4Hf9SZA1Ucix
4
Ms Regas: reparative intent, however honorable and understandable, is different than reparative outcome.
I am a research physician. I get research grants because I can provide evidence for reparative outcomes in healthcare, not for my noble intentions.
Shouldn't it be that way in education as well? Shouldn't education policy be evidence-based?
I am a research physician. I get research grants because I can provide evidence for reparative outcomes in healthcare, not for my noble intentions.
Shouldn't it be that way in education as well? Shouldn't education policy be evidence-based?
2
Good decision, even if no one can understand it.