vicarz | Speaking of UMich law school...

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&ncid=578&e=1&u=/nm/20030623/ts_nm/court_race_dc
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A divided U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) upheld on Monday the University of Michigan's affirmative action policy that favors minorities who apply to its law school, but struck down the program for its undergraduate college.

In the undergraduate case, black, Hispanic and Native American applicants get 20 extra points out of a possible 150 points under a selection index that considers academics, test scores and other factors, including race.

In the law school case, the admissions process does not involve a point system, but the university seeks the enrollment of a "critical mass" of minority students, which has ranged between 10 percent and 17 percent of each class.

That makes no sense to me - a 'quota' is preferred to a leveling point matrix? I'm thrilled they held onto it, though sometimes I find myself wishing I could believe the myth that race issues are in the past and what we really see now are socioeconomic issues being masked with the race card. I felt creepy about being admitted to UMich while other schools w/o those programs did not admit me. Go white hispanic cross-dressing boy!

BUT http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&ncid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20030623/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_affirmative_action

"Michigan's undergraduate school used a 150-point index to screen applicants. The 20 points awarded to minorities was more than the school awarded for some measures of academic excellence, writing ability or leadership skills. Outstanding athletes also got 20 points, as did impoverished applicants. "

test
test
Oh, so it's ok to discriminate for jocks, but not minorities? See no one minds quotas and discrimination, but the basis for it determines whether they support it or not. Do they not like the system itself, or their rank within it? Imagine how unpopular a gay diversity program would be, but how acceptable a N-S-E-W quota system would seem.

EDIT MORE: I can't get it to accept my < /i > command on the last P grr

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

The whole affirmative action idea is one of those issues that I still discuss with people trying to find where I stand on it.

Prejudice to fix prejudice or providing opportunity to groups of individuals that have earlier been denied the opportunity in order to level things out in the future.

I think I like them better when they're mixed with socio-economic issues. Tell me a kid with a 3.5 gpa from DC public isn't more of a standout than from a prep school in Bethesda. Race matters, race biases the measure we use for college admissions, and certainly in employment. The judicial system is downright amazing when it comes to race. To simply wipe discrimination out of the law books and think that the playing field is suddenly level is absurd.

Whites very often underestimate racism as they don't face it. I tend to think blacks may overestimate it, based on my white-appearing bias and the fact that I have known some seriously paranoid blacks.

What about a white kid with a 3.6 GPA from a DC public school versus a black kid with a 3.5 GPA from the same DC public school.

Both are trying to get admited to the same college. Do you favor the black kid. What if they have the exact GPA....does race then come into play if you can only accept one?

Issues that I have never completely resolved in my head.

It's a tough issue to resolve. Legal discrimination only ended about a generation ago!

Against AA:
Do you solve discrimination with another system of preferential treatment? How can you say discrimination is/was wrong and then replace it with anything but a level playing field? Then any minorities, females, socioeconomically disadvantaged people placed will be perceived as not being equal to their peers, continuing the biases that led to the problem in the first place.

We know of these reported biases in the court system - is the solution to include releasing convicted felons and putting innocent white people in prison to adjust the balance?

(I dont' have the time to give a real arugment atm)

What about a white kid with a 3.6 GPA from a DC public school versus a black kid with a 3.5 GPA from the same DC public school.
Even if all economic factors are equal, from a statistical standpoinf, the black kid is likely to have faced more obsticles. If the white kid was raised by a black family in a black neighborhood, then it might be more comperable. It would be lovely if we could quantify the ardships faced by each individual student and adjust their scores accordingly, but for now the best we can do is shoot for the averages.

Personally, I don't think we should even contemplate doing away with "preferential treatment" for minorities in admissions until we stop giving preferential treatment to legacies, people whose daddies make big contributions, etc...

The thing is that there will always be preferential treatment to legacies, and families taht make big contributions....it may go more "underground" but it won't stop.

I think they are two seperate issues that shouldn't be connected.

You are probably right that from a statistical point of view that the black kid faced more obstacles through life. It is of course a generalization, but as you say without a "score" of hardship maybe we have no other way but to go on generalizations. I hate generalizations though!

I hate generalizations though!

All college admissions are generalizations. They can't know how well any individual will succeed in college, so they make assumptions based on how much the individual resembles those who have succeeded in the past.

Very true statement...that was the idea I was trying to relate when I said we have no other way but to go on generalizations

I really am not in favor of the 20 points for the atheletes either but it did get me thinking....

There are some degrees/classes that benefit from diveresity more then others. Classes that deal with social issues past and present benefit from the diversity of their students - given that the students are providing unique feedback given their background.

More scientific and mathematical classes would seem to benefit less from the diversity. Don't get me wrong, people who are in the minority would benefit - but the class itself probably has little more value if it is all white, all black, all yellow, all green, from various backgrounds or a mix of all types and backgrounds.

Hope that makes sense.

Absolutely - good point, but when they talk about diversity rarely is it class of which they speak. All universities push issues related to the culture of the school, and the lessons you learn from teh institution beyond the textbook. This is why they support fraternities etc., you're supposed to learn and grow as a person based on the people you interact with at college and the unique experiences you have blah blah yadda.

In this day and age, with U of Phoenix having some push in making attendance in a university a thing of the past, the diversity of the class may become a non-issue.

You may be right that diversity of the class may begin to have less importance in the future.

I also wonder what the makeup of some of the online schools are. What I am wondering really is whether some people's prejudices aren't as effected when they don't have to encounter people face to face all the time.

The fact that someone is of a different race or speaks a different language, or responds in a duragatory tone sometimes gets shielded by technology and its means of communications.

All of this would be an interesting topic of discussion sometime when we both have more time to discuss the issues.

Speaking of UMich law school...

no subject

no subject

Re:

no subject

no subject

Re:

no subject

Re:

no subject

no subject

no subject