Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled that the University's action was OK, since the Univ had a "compelling interest" in diversity of its student body, and because its program was "narrowly tailored" to achieve that goal of diversity.
Today the Supremes decided that the Fifth Circuit Court was wrong... but not because the Univ had shown reverse discrimination. The 5th Circuit was wrong for not using the right DECISION METHODS. The Supremes said that, if they had applied "Strict scrutiny", as defined by three earlier Supreme Court cases, then it would have been OK to reject the caucasian student because of her race. The Supremes then sent the case back to the 5th Circuit, with instructions to try again.
What a cop-out. This was the Supremes' chance to declare flatly that one of those three previous Supreme Court (Grutter v. Bollinger) case was wrongly decided. In that case, the Supremes had ruled in 2003 that racial discrimination (aka reverse discrimination) was OK if the school could show a compelling interest in diversity (something no University has ever sensibly shown). Such reverse discrimination is flatly outlawed, of course, by the 14th amendment, no matter how nice "diversity" might look to some group of dreamy do-gooders.
But the Supremes didn't even try to look at those earlier cases. In the Opinion of the Court, Justice Kennedy wrote that those three cases were "taken as given", meaning the Court considers them automatically right despite the clear racism dictated by the Grutter case. This case was doomed from the start, as a result.
Perhaps some blame can be assigned to the student's lawyers, who apparently didn't ask the courts to reconsider the earlier case, but merely asked if the University properly followed those earlier cases. Here the Supremes decided that the 5th Circuit hadn't properly answered that question... but implied what the proper answer would be. At no point did they consider whether those three earlier cases themselves, were wrong.
So, the Supremes punted. In a way, they decided that an earlier Supreme Court decision, overruled the Constitution itself.
I guess we need to change the Oath that Supreme Court justices take. Now it needs to be, "I solemnly swear to protect and defend the previous rulings of this Court, against all enemies foreign and domestic, and against the Constitution of the United States of America, so help me Gawd."
Seems to me by inviting the specter of universities facing a tidal wave of lawsuits that in a way they have effectively killed affirmative action in admissions.
I don't disagree with you completely... but where do they get their victim mentality? It isnt ingrained in the womb, but rather learned from their parents/guardians. How do you end the victim mentality? Keep and increase secondary ed oportunities for minorities, thus increasing the percentage of minorities born to college educated parents.
This post is good enough to repeat twice. But few here will read it, because they believe that white people are being discriminated against and have an unfair disadvantage vis a vis minorities.
The essential problem with Affirmative Action, as I posted on another thread, is that it often goes to the people who don't need it. My best friend, for instance, got a scholarship to go to school because she was black. She really didn't need it - her parents were doing very well for themselves and it was precisely the environment that they created at home that allow her natural gifts to shine through. AA is certainly needed to break the cycle of poverty, and there are a good number of minority students who are first generation college students who are perhaps helped into college by AA, and will make a better life for themselves and their children. That is a GOOD thing.
Similarly, there are many whites also caught in cycles of poverty who do not get any help making it beyond their station in life. I really believe that AA needs to be awarded more on the basis of social class, not race (although in this, blacks and hispanics are far more likely to be poor than whites), and then we'll see more social mobility in this country.
With this girl from Texas, AFAIC, she should go back to where she came from and ****. I come from a very poor white family. Out of all of my aunts and uncles, only one went past grade 9. I did not have help going to college, but I had the grades to go anyway. I didn't go to the best or most expensive university for my B.A., but I went anyway. No scholarships. And I just graduated with a Ph.D. The girl obviously felt entitled to go to UofT. Her family was economically enough well off to literally make a court case out if it.
She didn't have the grades, so that's that. Move on.
also, just heard on ABC news that only 5 of the students who got into UT the year Fisher applied with test scores lower than hers were black, 42 were white.
"It's true that the university, for whatever reason, offered provisional admission to some students with lower test scores and grades than Fisher. Five of those students were black or Latino. [10] Forty-two were white. [10]
Neither Fisher nor Blum mentioned those 42 applicants in interviews. Nor did they acknowledge the 168 black and Latino students with grades as good as or better than Fisher's who were also denied entry into the university that year. "
also, just heard on ABC news that only 5 of the students who got into UT the year Fisher applied with test scores lower than hers were black, 42 were white.
"It's true that the university, for whatever reason, offered provisional admission to some students with lower test scores and grades than Fisher. Five of those students were black or Latino. [10] Forty-two were white. [10]
Neither Fisher nor Blum mentioned those 42 applicants in interviews. Nor did they acknowledge the 168 black and Latino students with grades as good as or better than Fisher's who were also denied entry into the university that year. "
so she really just has a chip on her shoulder and is whining because blacks and hispanics did better then her and got in.
the group she is being backed by also has an agenda with these type of cases.
absolutely. I knew very little about this case until today. in my opinion, a stay at home mom with just an associates degree, certainly not a lawyer, this case should have never happened in the first place. it took me just a simple google search to figure out why she wasn't accepted. hint: it wasn't because she is white.
Diversity is bull crap. The fact that we still have affirmative action in this country, which in a sense discriminates against non-colored people, is an outrage.
The Supreme Court itself is a colossal joke. The 9th circuit court is extreme comedy at it's best. The 5th
runs a close second place, but, the SCOTUS is nothing more than a bunch old, shriveled up Obama shills.
I actually think UT has the right idea here with the top 10 program, they automatically accept Texas students in the top 10 percent of their graduating class. maybe miss fisher should have went to a more diverse high school since she seems to think she is automatically superior to black and Latino students.
I actually think UT has the right idea here with the top 10 program, they automatically accept Texas students in the top 10 percent of their graduating class. maybe miss fisher should have went to a more diverse high school since she seems to think she is automatically superior to black and Latino students.
Such an odd acceptance policy. What if your school was extremely competitive? Seems it would encourage a student to go to an 'easier' high school with this acceptance policy. What happened to good old merit based acceptance?
The Supreme Court itself is a colossal joke. The 9th circuit court is extreme comedy at it's best. The 5th
runs a close second place, but, the SCOTUS is nothing more than a bunch old, shriveled up Obama shills.
Obama nominated 2 of them, Clinton nominated 2 of them, and the rest were nominated by Bush 1, Bush 2, and Reagan.
Such an odd acceptance policy. What if your school was extremely competitive? Seems it would encourage a student to go to an 'easier' high school with this acceptance policy. What happened to good old merit based acceptance?
the kids in less competitive schools worked just as hard. it is not their fault that their school is not up to par and they should not be held responsible for this. this is why there is a need for aa in the first place. too many minority students are put at a disadvantage from the first day of kindergarten.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Obama nominated 2 of them, Clinton nominated 2 of them, and the rest were nominated by Bush 1, Bush 2, and Reagan.
