Supreme Court Upholds Michigan Affirmative Action Ban

[berzerker60]

Race has nothing to do with diversity though, and that is what these anti-AA laws keep clear. You can easily say "applicant X is from rural Kentucky and applicant Y is from inner city NY, we already have a bunch of inner city applicants accepted, so in the sake of diversity (for whatever silly reason) we will accept X instead of Y." See how that has zero to do with race? If race was a factor, Y might get accepted, despite there not actually being diversity because they are a minority that isn't Asian. Applications should be racially blind.

If society was race-blind, that might be true. In reality, unfortunately, race is correlated with economic conditions, where you live, what schools you go to, and therefore who you meet in your everyday life, the types of jobs that are available to you, and a million other factors.

Race also plays a factor in whether you've had to overcome specific racism in your life, which isn't the case for every individual person of minority status, but is an issue for some/many; similarly, it's worthwhile to have people who have overcome physical or mental disabilities, are 1st or 2nd generation immigrants, were homeschooled, etc. Race doesn't create different experiences by itself, as in black people will inherently act this way or that way, but the reality of race in America does create different experiences for different races in general.

Again, this is all at the margins. No one (that I've seen anyway) actually thinks ANY Latino person should be admitted over ANY white person just to fulfill a quota. But if you have two equally qualified (keeping in mind the low predictive power of standardized tests) people AND the Latino person seems to have had a significant different life than the average other applicant - which doesn't have to be the case, but in reality often is - than that seems reasonable to take into account.

 

[berzerker60]

Bullshit. I went to a public college which recently constructed three named buildings: an engineering school, a medical school, and a liberal arts building. It also had a named school of business that had been there for years. Not one of those buildings had armed guards to keep the poor black kids out.

You seem to be taking the tack that once a college is open (with one building), that no further construction is required to service a growing student body. That is clearly ridiculous. You have to have more seats to put more students into.

It's more a matter of priorities though. It's like military funding - each congressman wants to fund big, flashy, job-creating things, but funding mental health care for soldiers or taking care of homeless vets is much less politically 'sexy.' You get your name on an Air Force base, but you don't get it on a fund for safely decommissioning nuclear missiles or a more efficient IT system for classified files. Sure, the military isn't actively hurt by getting another load of 600 tanks, but it's not really what we need most to make the military more effective, either, so it can be frustrating for those who are interested in a more efficient, effective military.

Similarly, you can't say no to a new academic building, and lots of these big donors won't give if they have to give to a general fund, so it's still a net gain. But it's frustrating when you want to see a better university with lower tuition that does a better job training citizens and workers.

 

[smackababy]

If society was race-blind, that might be true. In reality, unfortunately, race is correlated with economic conditions, where you live, what schools you go to, and therefore who you meet in your everyday life, the types of jobs that are available to you, and a million other factors.

Race also plays a factor in whether you've had to overcome specific racism in your life, which isn't the case for every individual person of minority status, but is an issue for some/many; similarly, it's worthwhile to have people who have overcome physical or mental disabilities, are 1st or 2nd generation immigrants, were homeschooled, etc. Race doesn't create different experiences by itself, as in black people will inherently act this way or that way, but the reality of race in America does create different experiences for different races in general.

Again, this is all at the margins. No one (that I've seen anyway) actually thinks ANY Latino person should be admitted over ANY white person just to fulfill a quota. But if you have two equally qualified (keeping in mind the low predictive power of standardized tests) people AND the Latino person seems to have had a significant different life than the average other applicant - which doesn't have to be the case, but in reality often is - than that seems reasonable to take into account.

The problem with your argument is that you can easily remove race and it is perfectly acceptable. Why does the Latino that had a significantly different life have to disclose they are Latino. Wouldn't simply their location and admittance essay say that? If we allow for AA laws to be in place, the white person who had it just as diverse as the Latino gets passed up simply because they are white.

If you want to cry about equality and then be in favor for policies that give preferential treatment to those of a certain race, you're not only a hypocrite, but a moron racist as well.

 

[Incorruptible]

Affirmative action should be ended. Race shouldn't be a factor and the Supreme Court made a good decision even though leftists aren't happy.

 

[berzerker60]

The problem with your argument is that you can easily remove race and it is perfectly acceptable. Why does the Latino that had a significantly different life have to disclose they are Latino. Wouldn't simply their location and admittance essay say that? If we allow for AA laws to be in place, the white person who had it just as diverse as the Latino gets passed up simply because they are white.

If you want to cry about equality and then be in favor for policies that give preferential treatment to those of a certain race, you're not only a hypocrite, but a moron racist as well.

The law in question says the university “shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin.” If you take that to mean it's okay to give preferential treatment on the basis of the life experiences influenced by race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin, then fine. But that seems a pedantic distinction to me.

 

[TerryMathews]

It's more a matter of priorities though. It's like military funding - each congressman wants to fund big, flashy, job-creating things, but funding mental health care for soldiers or taking care of homeless vets is much less politically 'sexy.' You get your name on an Air Force base, but you don't get it on a fund for safely decommissioning nuclear missiles or a more efficient IT system for classified files. Sure, the military isn't actively hurt by getting another load of 600 tanks, but it's not really what we need most to make the military more effective, either, so it can be frustrating for those who are interested in a more efficient, effective military.

Similarly, you can't say no to a new academic building, and lots of these big donors won't give if they have to give to a general fund, so it's still a net gain. But it's frustrating when you want to see a better university with lower tuition that does a better job training citizens and workers.

Right, but I think there is a gulf of difference between a nuclear missile decommissioning station and a medical school.

Let's spin this a different direction:
Is there some reason to think a black student wouldn't benefit from having access to an accredited medical school at a public university? Because that seems to be the crux of emp and your argument: that it was a lower priority than some other random spending.

We're spinning way off the tangent here. None of you have disproved my assertion that a school's entire student body generally benefits from a "bought seat".

 

[nehalem256]

The law in question says the university “shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin.” If you take that to mean it's okay to give preferential treatment on the basis of the life experiences influenced by race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin, then fine. But that seems a pedantic distinction to me.

That would seem to be the conservative understanding of equal treatment.

It is liberals that obsess about making sure that policies that have nothing to do with race/sex/ethnicity/etc do not accidentally impact a minority group more.