Affirmative Action Case Heard at Supreme Court

[Timber Loftis]

TL's introductory OpEd:
Let me give you some background: Bakke. Bakke held, among other things, that "diversity" could be a "compelling interest." In order for a state to pass a race-based law, it must have (1) a compelling interest and it (2) must narrowly tailor its law to serving that interest. Though the article mentions that "a [5th Circuit] federal appeals court declared that the Supreme Court's Bakke decision was no longer valid" I must tell you, as the plaintiffs' attorney's folks told him (see the "lost an internal battle" portion): the Circuit Courts of Appeals cannot overturn Bakke - which was decided by the Supreme Court. Thus, since Bakke is still good law, these affirmative action programs will clear hurdle #1, leaving the real question at hurdle #2.

So remember: "diversity in education" is, according to the Supreme Court, a compelling state interesting, i.e. a VeryGoodThing (tm). I'll say that my personal educational experiences - both in school and even today on IWF - are enriched by hearing more points of view that those of other white southerners. This is so obvious I shouldn't have to mention it.

I predict these programs will likely be upheld. You get 20 points on the Michigan 150-point scale for being black, for instance. Well, since you get 5 points for varsity sports, it seems more or less appropriate to get 20 points or so for being ethnically diverse.

More importantly these days, Chief Justice Renqhuist is an anti-federalist, and he may very well insert language (once again) as to how it is the state's right to decide.
__________________________________________________ _________
From today's NY Times:
On Affirmative Action, High Court Seeks Nuance
By LINDA GREENHOUSE

WASHINGTON, April 1 — Opponents of affirmative action came to the Supreme Court today to make an absolute case against race-conscious government policies but found the justices impatient with absolutes and hungry for nuance.

Prepared to argue the merits of the color-blind principle, the opponents found the justices more concerned about a world where color still matters and where senior military officers describe affirmative action as essential for national security.

By the end of two hours of fast-moving and sometimes surprising arguments, it appeared to many in the packed courtroom that affirmative action would survive its most important test in 25 years and that colleges and universities would still be able to take steps to ensure the presence of more than token numbers of minority students on their campuses.

Whether the precise programs the University of Michigan was defending today would survive their encounter with a more conservative Supreme Court than the one that endorsed the use of race as a vague "plus factor" in the Bakke case 25 years ago was uncertain.

The university's undergraduate admissions program gives an automatic 20 points on a 150-point scale to applicants who are black, Hispanic or American Indian. The highly selective law school does not use a formula, but regularly admits students from those three groups who have lower grades and test scores than many white students it admits.

During the arguments today, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, a regular opponent of affirmative action, criticized the undergraduate formula as a "disguised quota" and expressed doubts about the law school's program. But late in the second hour, Justice Kennedy asked a question that was potentially one of the most significant of the entire argument.

Justice Kennedy asked John Payton, the lawyer who argued in defense of the undergraduate admissions program, to assume that the court would invalidate both affirmative action plans. What would happen then? Justice Kennedy asked. Would it be the court's job to tell the university what to do, or the university's job to devise "some other system, say, more individualized assessment in order to attain some of the goals you wish to attain?"

What was important about Justice Kennedy's choice of words was that he said "individualized assessment" and not "race-neutral alternative," the formulation urged by the lawyer for the disappointed white applicants who are suing the university and also by the Bush administration, which entered the case on their behalf. An individualized assessment presumably permits consideration of race as one of the elements in an applicant's personal profile, as a race-neutral approach would not.

The Bush administration is arguing that the Michigan programs are unconstitutional because the university has failed to show that it cannot achieve diversity through a race-neutral alternative, such as the plan in use at the University of Texas, which offers admission to students graduating in the top 10 percent of every high school in the state. California and Florida use similar plans.

There was little discussion in the courtroom today of the percentage approach. Instead, the justices consumed much of the time allotted to Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson in firing questions about a brief filed in support of Michigan by a group of retired senior military officers and former military academy superintendents. The brief argued that an integrated officer corps was essential to national security and could be achieved only through affirmative action at the nation's military academies. It was obvious that of the 102 briefs filed in the two cases, this was the one that had grabbed the attention of justices across the court's ideological spectrum.

Mr. Olson did not welcome the line of questions, which not only stalled the flow of his own argument but put the administration, with its opposition to affirmative action, in a delicate position. "We respect the opinions of those individuals," he said, "but the position of the United States is that we do not accept the proposition that black soldiers will only fight for black officers." He added: "Race neutral means should be used in the academies as well as other places."

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked, "But you recognize, General Olson, that here and now, all of the military academies do have race preference programs in admissions?"

She added, "Is that illegal, what they're doing?"

Mr. Olson replied, "We haven't examined that, and we haven't presented a brief with respect to the specifics of each individual academy."

The delicacy of the solicitor general's personal, as opposed to institutional, position was also evident. As a lawyer in private practice during the 1990's, he opposed affirmative action and successfully argued the case that shut down affirmative action at the University of Texas. In that case, a federal appeals court declared that the Supreme Court's Bakke decision was no longer valid.

But the briefs that Mr. Olson filed for the administration in the Michigan cases did not go that far — Mr. Olson lost an internal battle over the wording — and assumed for the sake of argument that the Bakke ruling was still good law and that "diversity," as used in the controlling opinion by Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr., was a valid rationale for affirmative action. Justice Kennedy asked Mr. Olson whether he disagreed that diversity was a "permissible governmental goal."

Mr. Olson replied that under the law school's program, diversity was "an end in and of itself" and, as such, "obviously it's constitutionally objectionable."

So wasn't the Texas 10 percent plan just as objectionable, Justice Stephen G. Breyer wanted to know, because its motive and purpose "is to have diversity in the college?"

That was not the "stated motive," Mr. Olson replied. He said the purpose of the program was to break barriers and open access, and accepting the top 10 percent was "one very race-neutral means of accomplishing that legitimate objective."

The lawyer defending the University of Michigan Law School's program was Maureen E. Mahoney, a veteran Supreme Court litigator who was a law clerk for Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist when he was an associate justice. Her experience showed as she held her ground in a series of rapid-fire questions from Justice Antonin Scalia, who said he could not take Michigan's position seriously because "the problem is a problem of Michigan's own creation."

Having "decided to create an elite law school," Justice Scalia said, Michigan was now complaining that in order to achieve diversity, it needed to ignore "the Constitution's prohibition of distribution on the basis of race." What was so important about having a "super-duper law school," Justice Scalia, a graduate of Harvard Law School, asked.

Ms. Mahoney replied, "I don't think there's anything in this court's cases that suggests that the law school has to make an election between academic excellence and racial diversity."

Kirk O. Kolbo, a lawyer from Minneapolis, represented the white plaintiffs in both cases — Barbara Grutter, who was turned down by the law school when she applied at the age of 43, and Jennifer Gratz and Patrick Hamacher, who failed to win admission as undergraduates. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in Cincinnati, upheld the law school plan in Grutter v. Bollinger, No. 02-241. It had not yet ruled on the undergraduate plan, in Gratz v. Bollinger, No. 02-516, when the Supreme Court decided to hear both cases. The Court is due to issue its decisions by early summer.

"The Constitution protects the rights of individuals, not racial groups," Mr. Kolbo said. He described his clients as the victims of discrimination.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, whose position at the center of the court on this issue made her the object of particular attention, was the first to challenge Mr. Kolbo. Was he saying that race "can't be a factor at all," Justice O'Connor wanted to know.

"Race itself should not be a factor among others in choosing students, because of the Constitution," Mr. Kolbo replied.

Justice O'Connor objected that the court's precedents held otherwise. "You are speaking in absolutes, and it isn't quite that," she said.

[ 04-02-2003, 01:59 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[harleyquinn]

I heard a story about this on NPR yesterday. It went in depth to give the points of both sides and the remarks of the judges.
Gotta say, I'm glad I'm not a Supreme court Judge because BEFORE hearing the arguments, I was (I thought) clearly on one side of the fence about this, but after hearing the arguments, I agree with some points from both side that the attorney's made and don't agree with others. I'm not sure if I'd be able to make a decision if I had to, thought I did, but after hearing both attorney's arguments, I'm not sure what to say.
Thanks for sharing, TL.

[Bardan the Slayer]

I wish we could do away with the terrible euphemism "Affirmitive action" and replace it with the far more apt term "legalised racism" - yes, racism against white people.

If a person is applying for a job, a university post, a place at Uni, whatever - the person best qualified to go should be the one who gets the place. Adding 20 points to the 150-point scale just for being black makes as much sense as adding 15 points to my score because I wear white socks.

The colour of a person's skin in no way affects their academic ability, so it should in no way be something that is adjusted for in determining college placements.

Racial diversity is a good thing if it is taken in the proper spirit - that a person fitted for a position gets that position irrespective of the colour of their skin. Giving people bonus points for their racial background will only serve to exacerbate racial tensions by making white people feel like they are being discriminated against. Yes, racism against black people was (and is) terrible and indefensible, but two wrongs don't make a right.

I also find it terribly patronising to the black people that they are, in effect, being told "It's ok - we understand what a terrible handicap being black is, and we know that this makes you inherently inferior to white people, so we'll artificially inflate your score." That kind of thinking is just as racist as the KKK.

Yes, I can totally understand why a college wants racial diversity, but that diversity should not be artificial. If there are 100 places available and the 100 best candidates are white, then the white people should get the places. If the 100 best candidates are black, then they should get the places.

I fought like hell to get my place at my university, despite the many obstacles in my path, and if I lost out on my place simply because I was the wrong colour, that certainly wouldn't make me more tolerant to racial differences. Indeed, it would do exactly the opposite.

[Bardan the Slayer]

And as an added thought, this will also create tensions on campus, as every time someone lays eyes on a racial minority student, some part of them will wonder whether that person deserves to be there because of their academic achievements, or their melanin.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Bardan the Slayer: [QB]I wish we could do away with the terrible euphemism "Affirmitive action" and replace it with the far more apt term "legalised racism" - yes, racism against white people.

Quite wrong. YOu're talking quotas. Quotas are abolished. Taking into account the racial diversity is, IMO, as appropriate as taking into account how pretty someone is (for a hostess position) or how well they get along with other (for an HR position). I've been in a hiring position before, and at one point snapped up a black applicant. He was suited for the job. Moreover, we were quite embarrassed at the fact we had no minority employees - company image is a fair concern.

If a person is applying for a job, a university post, a place at Uni, whatever - the person best qualified to go should be the one who gets the place. Adding 20 points to the 150-point scale just for being black makes as much sense as adding 15 points to my score because I wear white socks.

White socks aren't really relevant to what you add to the learning experience. But, diversity is. This point system had several factors aimed at getting a diverse student body, such as the 5 points for varsity sports. The sports player has always been preferred - yet unless he's NCAA material, how much more competent a student is he? None. But, colleges seek to bring in and produce well-rounded individuals. Getting people from different walks of life helps that goal. Otherwise, we'd just compile an SAT/GPA matrix and do the math. That would hurth what education is though. And, let's not forget that the LEGACY applicants also got 20 points. Think those people were mostly white? I do.

The colour of a person's skin in no way affects their academic ability, so it should in no way be something that is adjusted for in determining college placements.

See above comments. The fact daddy went to the school doesn't affect an applicant's ability, but it is most certainly the single biggest trump card when applying to a school - trust me, my kids will be using it.

Racial diversity is a good thing if it is taken in the proper spirit - that a person fitted for a position gets that position irrespective of the colour of their skin. Giving people bonus points for their racial background will only serve to exacerbate racial tensions by making white people feel like they are being discriminated against. Yes, racism against black people was (and is) terrible and indefensible, but two wrongs don't make a right.

And problems can't be fixed overnight. You are lying to yourself if you think having black skin is a 0% affect on your life in America. It is a hurdle, and the playing field is still not even. Maybe one day it will be. We are simply not there yet.

I used to feel like you do on this issue. But, my mind changed as I came to understand the state of the law: while race can sometimes be taken into account, it is very VERY limited and can only account for a very minute difference. In effect, it's what you theoretically apply to "split hairs" when you have 2 or more applicants who are relatively equal in their qualifications. I see nothing wrong with it being one small factor out of many.

I also find it terribly patronising to the black people that they are, in effect, being told "It's ok - we understand what a terrible handicap being black is, and we know that this makes you inherently inferior to white people, so we'll artificially inflate your score." That kind of thinking is just as racist as the KKK.

Clarence Uncle-Thomas says the same thing. But, he got C's all through his affirmative action ride through college and would not have made it to law school, much less the Supreme Court, without affirmative action. I'll quote a lecturer I heard once: "When the gates are Harvard's, I'm willing to sit at the back of the bus, just so long as I get through them." Ultimately, this logic would be fair. Again, we're not there yet. Again, these "adjustments" serve to level an otherwise unfair white-preference playing field. They don't make it unfair for minorities, they limit the unfairness already there for whites, many would say. It's a tough issue, I know, and I myself waffle on it.

Yes, I can totally understand why a college wants racial diversity, but that diversity should not be artificial. If there are 100 places available and the 100 best candidates are white, then the white people should get the places. If the 100 best candidates are black, then they should get the places.

(A) This ignores reality. (B) The diversity can only be artificially created. Since diversity is not really quantifiable or qualifiable, it necessarily is determined on an artificial basis. Besides, 100 white candidates would not educate each other very well at all on world views, you must admit.

Good thoughts all around. I hope I've contributed in a positive way. I'm not trying to deride your point of view on this. Just show you one that is.... diverse.

[Bardan the Slayer]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Quite wrong. YOu're talking quotas. Quotas are abolished. Taking into account the racial diversity is, IMO, as appropriate as taking into account how pretty someone is (for a hostess position) or how well they get along with other (for an HR position). I've been in a hiring position before, and at one point snapped up a black applicant. He was suited for the job. Moreover, we were quite embarrassed at the fact we had no minority employees - company image is a fair concern.

Ah, but this is because the college system in the USA does seem to have a problem - the extreme tuition fees. Whereas as i understand it, State Colleges are perfectly acceptable bastions of education, the elitish colleges are financially out of reach for many. It's a two-tier system, and the amoount of money generated comes into it. From an education of the nation standpoint, I'll never agree witn this sort of thing. If you treat colleges as companies, then this is a natural step, but then - I don't think colleges should act like companies. They should act like educational establishments dedicated to educating the populace, not making money or accruing status.

White socks aren't really relevant to what you add to the learning experience. But, diversity is. This point system had several factors aimed at getting a diverse student body, such as the 5 points for varsity sports. The sports player has always been preferred - yet unless he's NCAA material, how much more competent a student is he? None. But, colleges seek to bring in and produce well-rounded individuals. Getting people from different walks of life helps that goal. Otherwise, we'd just compile an SAT/GPA matrix and do the math. That would hurth what education is though. And, let's not forget that the LEGACY applicants also got 20 points. Think those people were mostly white? I do.

And Legacy applicants are another disgrace. I'm getting the picture here that most of the problems come from differing roles of colleges/universities in our countries. You state that USA colleges seek to produce well-rounded individuals, taking into account sports and so on. Over here, the focus is on academia.

Also, American colleges have the college sport system, and this has an effect. While it is true that a good football player will not necessarily be a better student, in the USA he is going to a place where he can further himself along the path his talent is suited for. What is wrong with this? I still would have a beef with it *if* the college team system wasn't an aspect, but far less than arbitrary racial determinations. After all, sporting talent is a talent, a skill that you can develop. Skin colour is an unchangeable state (unless you have a chimp called bubbles). Again, this is alien to us - universities have sports teams, but the college sporting system as you have it simply does not exist.

See above comments. The fact daddy went to the school doesn't affect an applicant's ability, but it is most certainly the single biggest trump card when applying to a school - trust me, my kids will be using it.

As I have said, the legacy system is an equally disgusting thing in my opinion. It reminds me of the privilige afforded the royals in this country. One day, people should learn that it's what *you* do that counts, not what your daddy did.

And problems can't be fixed overnight. You are lying to yourself if you think having black skin is a 0% affect on your life in America. It is a hurdle, and the playing field is still not even. Maybe one day it will be. We are simply not there yet.

Ah, but here is the rub - many, many things are going to have an effect on your life, no matter where you live. Your social background, your skin colour, your financial state, whether your parents beat you up, whether your parents moved around alot. Why is it only the skin colour that gets singled out for treatment? Why is it that a student from a stable home, whose parents were rich, loving, educated and generally great gets a 20-mark bonus because he is black or hispanic or whatever?

In life, there are many hurdles, and you just have to deal with them. I can see your problem with the fact that there are still people prejudiced against minorities who make America an unlevel playing field. However, the solution is not to give preferential treatment to a minority over a white person who slogged their guts out for their college place, but to tackle the people who *are* racist. All tilting the field against the flow will do is create tubulence and ill-feeling, and ultimately worsen the very problem you are trying to solve.

I used to feel like you do on this issue. But, my mind changed as I came to understand the state of the law: while race can sometimes be taken into account, it is very VERY limited and can only account for a very minute difference. In effect, it's what you theoretically apply to "split hairs" when you have 2 or more applicants who are relatively equal in their qualifications. I see nothing wrong with it being one small factor out of many.

Hmm ... I would not qualify a test score that was artificially inflated by 13% as being a "small factor". The whole problem as I see it is that whereas nobody would contest that being black can have a negative influence on your life, it is blatantly unfair to say 'because there is a tendency for many minority groups to be unfairly treated by [whomever], we shall therefore grant an unfair advantage to all minority groups.

Clarence Uncle-Thomas says the same thing. But, he got C's all through his affirmative action ride through college and would not have made it to law school, much less the Supreme Court, without affirmative action.

And if he's worthy of being a Supreme Court judge, I'm glad to see him there. however, I would still ask 'was someone who was a potentially *better* Supreme Court Judge denied his place to make room'?

I'll quote a lecturer I heard once: "When the gates are Harvard's, I'm willing to sit at the back of the bus, just so long as I get through them." Ultimately, this logic would be fair. Again, we're not there yet. Again, these "adjustments" serve to level an otherwise unfair white-preference playing field. They don't make it unfair for minorities, they limit the unfairness already there for whites, many would say. It's a tough issue, I know, and I myself waffle on it.

Hmm ... but as I've said, the unfortunate result is that it makes no distinctions between those who genuinely have struggled through racially-imposed difficulties, and those who have led a rather plush lifestyle, but who are still a minority. Yes, the playing field may well be slanted towards whites, but just I just can't make the generalisation that because there is a tendency for a proportion of the minority culture to be disadvantaged, the solution is to artificially boost the scores of every minority student, therefore denying places to otherwise worthy white students who have been denied places purely because of their skin colour.

A) This ignores reality. (B) The diversity can only be artificially created. Since diversity is not really quantifiable or qualifiable, it necessarily is determined on an artificial basis. Besides, 100 white candidates would not educate each other very well at all on world views, you must admit.

True, but if they were going to make the best 100 doctorsn / linguists / mathemeticians, I wouldn't care that they were all white. I would want the best students to get the places.

Again, I see here the large difference between US colleges and Uk Universities. At UK universities, you study *one* subject for 3 years. Unis aren't inteerested in turning out people who are well-rounded as a priority. We're interested in taking poeple with a talent for their subject abd educating them in that subject. I understand that in the USA, a person who was brilliant at maths and ohysics would fail college if he couldn't spell, was rubbish at history and geography, and was a total loss at foreign languages. At UK universities, the prime test for entrance is your results at tests.

Another one of those cultural difference things, I see.

Good thoughts all around. I hope I've contributed in a positive way. I'm not trying to deride your point of view on this. Just show you one that is.... diverse.

I never have a problem with people disagreeing with me (unless their position is totally indefensible and disgusting), and I always view discussions as constructive. Anyway, I know that I am always right, so my ego is unaffected by disagreements

[Timber Loftis]

Bardan, who Slays, wrote: True, but if they were going to make the best 100 doctorsn / linguists / mathemeticians, I wouldn't care that they were all white. I would want the best students to get the places. Again, I see here the large difference between US colleges and Uk Universities. At UK universities, you study *one* subject for 3 years. Unis aren't inteerested in turning out people who are well-rounded as a priority. We're interested in taking poeple with a talent for their subject abd educating them in that subject. I understand that in the USA, a person who was brilliant at maths and ohysics would fail college if he couldn't spell, was rubbish at history and geography, and was a total loss at foreign languages. At UK universities, the prime test for entrance is your results at tests. Another one of those cultural difference things, I see.

Okay, I don't want to rehash the other arguments which I think we covered relatively well. I will admit I have shared or do share your points on many of the race issues. Frankly, I waffle on the issue, as I mentioned. As a true fence-sitter and bona fide Devil's Advocate, I'd probably have argued your side if someone posted the arguments I took up.

However, I do want to explore a large cultural difference that is important to consider on this issue. In Europe, from what I have come to understand from your many varied and beautiful women I've had the privilege to know over the years, the notion of what college is differs. Here, college is a generalized education with one specific area of "major" study. There, it is much more focused on one subject, as your post alludes to. There a benefits and drawbacks to each system.

Here, though, you must generally (there are exceptions) pursue professional or other advanced post-college degrees to be considered an expert in a field. In Germany, you can graduate High School and four years later you can practice law. Here, the law requires a college degree plus three years of law school. In general, the consensus I gather is that European college graduates are better in their respective fields while US college graduates are more generally knowledgible and well-rounded.

Personally, I went to a liberal arts college, and I prefer a great deal of cross-disciplinary studies. Of course, I'm also into the Athenian notion of a "whole citizen."

This point comes back round to diversity in colleges because the first sentence of what I quoted (100 best mathematicians, etc.) is a utilitarian view. Who doesn't want their doctor to be a truly actualized professional? But, here, that doesn't apply to the undergraduate institutions, where the education is about (1) your major field plus (2) your minor field plus (3) several general required courses plus (4) social maturity (yes, here, frat parties are considered a part of the education). So, the wholeness diversity brings to the human learning experience is more important than getting that # 1 math major.

The logic you apply applies in the US to the professional schools and higher graduate degrees. No one goes to law school or graduate school in forensics for anything other than to get a career (well, they don't stay long if they go for another reason ).

As a final aside, law school happens to be an example, BTW, where diversity is *still* a preferred characteristic. But, I think this is possible unique to law school. It finds its basis in the notion that a good part of making/interpreting/arguing the law is based in the different points of view people have about life and justice. And for that, a radical view or two, and a few different ethnic views, help the whole class.

High Court Weighs Affirmative Action

As a victim of affirmative action working against my "color" when attempting to get into college out of high school (1980), I sincerely hope that the Supreme Court weighs out the flaws of affirmative action being implemented in the college level of education and rules to change the neglect that the fairer skinned American citizens suffer in an effort to "be fair" to everyone.

I think, in the last forty+ years that this country has come a long way in dealing with issues of race. Not that there is still not room for improvement in jobs and positions of government, but denying anyone a college education, based on their skin color, while handing a college education over to someone else, based on their skin color, is beyond wrong in this day and age.

(from the opening link: "On the undergraduate level, all black, Latino and American Indian applicants to the University of Michigan receive receive 20 bonus points on the university’s 150-point scale that determines who is admitted.")

The American Association for Affirmative Action describes themselves as "dedicated to the advancement of affirmative action, equal opportunity and the elimination of discrimination on the basis of race, gender, ethnic background or any other criterion that deprives people of opportunities to live and work." (emphasis mine)

I don't have a problem with equal opportunity being enforced when segregating schools on an elementary level, or when qualified individuals are vying for the same job but this country's college-age student population is far more diverse than it was when I was laughed out of a financial aid office for being a white girl, far too diverse to call only African Americans, Latinos and Native Americans minorities when in some areas of this country whites ARE locally minorities.

Who is speaking for the Asians, and those of Middle Eastern descent at U of M??

This isn't the first time since affirmative action was implemented into our society that it has been attacked or discussed regarding the effects it can have on a society as a whole.

Dr. Mark Cooray, in articles discussing the development of affirmative action in universities in Australia makes points that can easily apply to this country as well:

"...to respond by establishing the elaborate apparatus of nationalized discrimination manifested in the continuing spate of ill-considered affirmative action legislation is no answer: it merely ensures the perpetuation of the problem in a more pervasive form. It is time to stop and consider the self-interested, illusory nature of the affirmative action movement, and to re-establish effective principles of equity, non-discrimination and merit, before any more social and personal damage is done."

If you are wondering where people like Timothy McVey come from, take a hard look at how single white men are treated in this country, being held responsible for carrying the financial burden of drug addicts and human baby factories in our Welfare programs, having to pay more taxes because they are single but being denied a better education because they are white.

Can you blame them for being angry?

Is our society going to keep looking the other way because someone wants to label it "racism" if they are treated as fairly as everyone else?

"Reverse racism" is still racism.

Affirmative action has its good qualities in a society where it is needed but not abused. To implement it on a college entry level is abuse, by the institutions who use it to bankroll their government-issued finances, and by those who would deny ANY qualified student entry based on race alone.

Merely stating that quotas are aginst the law does not mean that loopholes will not be used to disguise them which is IMO what the University of Michigan is doing.

Affirmative Action Register

A site dedicated to employment of qualified individuals through Affirmative Action. Use Affirmative Action to get yourself employed, not to deny any citizen an education.

[ 04-02-2003, 07:01 PM: Message edited by: Lil Lil ]

[HolyWarrior]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: .

Quite wrong. YOu're talking quotas. Quotas are abolished. ][/QUOTE]

What we in the US call an elevator, people in the UK call a lift. Same thing.
Liberals call it affirmative action. Conservatives call it quotas. Same thing.
And explain for me, Timber, why being black should count for more than getting a perfect score on SATs?

WTF did you get the idea that diversity is America's strength? Sure, diversity's nice, but not if you sacrifice quality to get it. Look at the TV show Who Wants to Be a Millionaire for proof.

Ratings through the roof when it started. Why? ANYBODY could get on, as long as they passed the tests. You didn't HAVE to look like someone from central casting. BUT NOOOOOOO, the politically correct liberals had to whine that the contestants were over 90% white. So, the show caved and went to auditions, killing off rural America's chance to be on the show. Quality suffered and ratings tanked. Killed by PC, ^%$! you very much.

[Seraph]

Liberals call it affirmative action. Conservatives call it quotas. Same thing.

Quotas are specific numbers, eg you must admit X number of blacks regardless of how qualified they are.
'Affirmative action' is a lose guide that gives (in most cases) fairly small boosts to applicants who are disadvantaged in some way. I won't say its fair, but its less unfair.

In particular at a University, there are other things to consider then just how smart an applicant is. Interacting with people you might not otherwise meet is a very important part of college, and a University that fails to provide this opportunity has IMO failed misserably.

Look at the TV show Who Wants to Be a Millionaire for proof. Ratings through the roof when it started. Why? ANYBODY could get on, as long as they passed the tests. You didn't HAVE to look like someone from central casting. BUT NOOOOOOO, the politically correct liberals had to whine that the contestants were over 90% white. So, the show caved and went to auditions, killing off rural America's chance to be on the show. Quality suffered and ratings tanked. Killed by PC, ^%$! you very much.

Who Wants to be a Millionaire (Millionaire) tanked because they showed it far to often. It was fun when it was on once a week, but at some point someone decided that it would be neet to have it shown like a dozen times a week. An audiance can only take so much of something before they become sick of it. There was no real way for Millionaire to really reinvent itself to be more interesting, and once the audiance got board, the show tanked.