Michigan Affirmative Action Case

[Azred]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Tossing this extremely valid but superfluous point aside, and in response to Azred, I note that diversity in education is EXTREMELY important. Opposing views in the classroom, as here on IWF, are exceedingly educational, and people who can cite life experiences different from your own can teach you a lot. But, I guess most people actually prefer to associate with carbon copies of themselves and tell each other how they are great and everyone else is less great. Too true. What is the name of that gold club that steadfastly refuses to admit women? On the other hand, you should have seen the vehemence with which the females protested when TWU (in Denton, TX) decided to begin admitting males because of money needs. And, yes, this applies to poor/rich and "from Alabama"/"from Hawaii" as much as it does to black/white/yellow/red skin. However, the STRICT SCRUTINY test only applies where race is an issue. Unless you're denying voting, using economic status as a classification is perfectly fine in the law and done all the time. Think taxes. Think Stafford Loans. Think Fannie May. So, if a state wanted to use affirmative action for poor folks, absolutely nothing is stopping them. I agree. I have simply never seen universities actively trying to recruit students who, for whatever reason, might not be able to easily afford the tuition. Oh, well...economic equality is a fight that will probably never be won--or even fought--because it sounds too much like "spread the wealth" or a "welfare state" and runs counter to the idea of making your own way in life. Don't get me wrong, I am all for making your own way, but there is an idea in this country that a lack of money equates to a lack of worth; just an observation I have made.

[wellard]

Is not the notion of giving minorities help into universities a bit like putting the cart before the horse? If all people where given a minimum high standard of schooling at junior and high schools, instead of accepting the decayed prole farms of many poor inner city areas that pass as schooling, and many ethnics/ minority's go to. Then this whole argument would be surplus.

Or am I missing something obvious?

[Azred]

No, you're not missing anything. There are many cities whose inner-city school districts are full of money shortages, quality teacher shortages, and surpluses of rapidly-decaying buildings which may be 50 years old (or more). These do not result in a quality environment for fostering education.
However, even in school districts where money is not in short supply and the teachers are properly qualified, there are many who feel that the quality of education leaves much to be desired. These are the people who either home-school or send their children to private schools.

What would you define as a "minimum standard" for a high school education? Who should set that definition? Tough questions, indeed.