https://www.supremecourt.gov/o...pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdf

Here is the case.

As the issue is shaped, or the scope of the issue, I can under the Majority’s analytical framework.

The basic rationale is the race based AA in college admissions violate the Equal Protection Claude 14th Amendment, and failed the narrowly tailored prong of strict scrutiny.

Bad facts make bad law, and the colleges walked into it by placing different minorities against one another.

Now, this case presents two future issues: 1) Colleges could look at the identified deficiencies in the narrowly tailored prong and try again (this Court shall not go along w that), and 2) Comes awful close to making attending college a fundamental right (I am sure you all can see the trip wires down the road).

In fact, it would be a fair reading of this opinion that college administration is a “Fundamental Right” as it is now.

The best way to win the next case is to use the rationale, language of the case you are trying to break through.

Of all the things I'd like to see government stop doing or stop from happening, affirmative action in education is really far down the list.

I'd like to have less bombing and attacking, less Military Industrial Complex. I'd like to see less penal system, less Department of Corrections.

How about less TSA? They ain't keeping anyone safe. Less ATF?

Me? I'd rather see a 19 year old black man or Hispanic man at my local university at 11am on a Thursday morning than on a street corner and I'd be a lot happier to pay for that than his incarceration.

From s pure policy standpoint. I agree with you. I very much oppose repressions. That is because I believe true repressions and advancement comes from education. No it is not equitable nor fair to compare pure test scores between socioeconomic groups. Groups that break heavily on race.

A subpoint, the main race based AA case before this was from the University of Michigan Law school. An African American applicant was admitted with a 160 LSAT. I forget the GPA. University of Michigan Law School at the time of the case (still is) a Top 20 law school. The LSAT score of 160 is a top 25 percent score, but everything is tight. That LSAT and a 3.48 gets you in at UK, but no funds.

The student applicant was a good student. This demonstrates that race based AA in college is not giving seats away to non-preforming, lazy, waste of a seat. Whoever did not get that set had many more top schools to pick from.

What race based AA prevents is someone like me, who had the same LSAT and let’s just use my 3.48 GPA from doing is getting the set the same African American will get at a top 20 law school.

However, not so much race, but now schools offer diversity applicant space to Appalachian citizens. This is again based on socioeconomic justifications, but by region instead of race. A friend’s (who is a state prosecutor also) son got admitted to Columbia on such AA. Yes, he has good grades and test scores, but the seat is there because of that policy.

Now, this case is being declared the death mail of race based AA college admissions policies. In the now, it certainly is. However, there is a lot in the case that could see such policies or more “progressive policies” relics race based AA in college admissions.

Namely, how close the Court has come to declaring College Admission a “Fundamental Right.” I would trade race based AA in college admissions for a case that walks up to the line of declaring college admissions a Fundamental Right. This is because, it is great Ammo for those who believe in that cause when the Court flips.

Likewise, the opinion lays out why the majority finds race based AA in college admissions is not narrowly tailored. Now, lawyers and policy makers for the colleges know what they need to address for the next majority who can say they are not overturning this case, but applying its rationale.


Of course, this next majority may hold this case’s line.

This opinion was created by bad facts minorities being treated differently in college admissions based on race by AA policy. That is the factual distinction between this case and the recent Texas case. The Texas case was brought by a white applicant. The majority in the Texas case joined by Chief Roberts kept race based AA in college admissions in place.

From an analytical point of view, the Court in using the Equal Protection Claude of the 14th Amendment and strict scrutiny comes right up to the Fundamental Right. Some Law Review writers and litigants will say it has already. Thus, accepting Equal Protection application is correct (the dissent does not agree the Equsl Protection Clause mandates) this result ) the analysis is correct. The result can be reached could have been different. Like, baking a cake, you and I can follow the same steps. However, our cakes can be different in result.

Ultimately, how one comes to a conclusion under this analysis is based on how you view the distinction of minorities not being granted the same or equal consideration as other minorities.

If that is a distinction w a difference to you, you strike the race based based admissions. If that is not a distinction w a difference underlined by case precedent that focuses on African American and Latino/a course correction, you do not invalidate.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
That is because I believe true repressions and advancement comes from education. No it is not equitable nor fair to compare pure test scores between socioeconomic groups. Groups that break heavily on race.

I agree with you that education is the the best form of reparations.

I’ve always thought that if the true intent of affirmative action is to give disadvantaged students a chance at a better life, wouldn’t it make more sense to base affirmative action on the student’s family’s socioeconomic/educational background, rather than basing AA on race alone?

My reasoning: why should a black or Hispanic kid who grew up in a college educated household be given priority over a white or Asian kid who grew up in home with parents who never finished high school?

AA is objectively less fair than an alternative that looks at a slightly bigger picture.

On top of that, it is a racist. It’s hard to believe the SC didn’t strike it down earlier.

I dont see how an asian, who is a minority in this country, has to have such a high score to qualify for college. It seems that is racist, just in itself. Because they work hard is a bad thing?

I seem to recall a civil rights activist recommended judging people by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin about50 years ago. About time the court followed through on it. I’ve seen the result of AA first hand with classmates when I went to med school in the 70’s.

Chief Justice Roberts: “the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” Not as elegant as Martin Luther King, but more on point.

The interesting point lost in the lamentations of liberals is that they were screwing over another minority, Asians besides the evil whites to allocated black and brown admissions. I can see screwing over white people but how did Asians get on the democrats hit list?

The other down side to this is the social damage every black or brown student has to bear, that they didn’t get in on merit.

[quote]. I can see screwing over white people but how did Asians get on the democrats hit list?

Because they are not a significant voting block and are not traditional Dem voters…

quote:

Originally posted by JBrown:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
That is because I believe true repressions and advancement comes from education. No it is not equitable nor fair to compare pure test scores between socioeconomic groups. Groups that break heavily on race.

I agree with you that education is the the best form of reparations.

I’ve always thought that if the true intent of affirmative action is to give disadvantaged students a chance at a better life, wouldn’t it make more sense to base affirmative action on the student’s family’s socioeconomic/educational background, rather than basing AA on race alone?

My reasoning: why should a black or Hispanic kid who grew up in a college educated household be given priority over a white or Asian kid who grew up in home with parents who never finished high school?

AA is objectively less fair than an alternative that looks at a slightly bigger picture.

On top of that, it is a racist. It’s hard to believe the SC didn’t strike it down earlier.

I agree with all of that save the last paragraph. I would add the the second to last paragraph/sentence that race based AA is objectively less fair. My view AA that looks “slightly deeper” at those socioeconomic figures is not objectively less fair.

Others can have different views and be reasonable.

So they said giving priority to you because of the color of your skin is wrong, is unfair?

To distill it to one sentence, the Court held that race based Affirmative Action in college admissions violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment that requires strict scrutiny analysis.

Now, this decision only applies to Colleges that receive government funding.

The why or rationale is more important than the result. For that see my other post which summarizes the why.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
I would add the the second to last paragraph/sentence that race based AA is objectively less fair. My view AA that looks “slightly deeper” at those socioeconomic figures is not objectively less fair.

I believe that you and I are in agreement on that point.

What I intended to say was: Affirmative action based on race/origin alone is objectively less fair than an affirmative action policy that looks at multiple socioeconomic factors.

For example: A Laotian refugee whose parents never finished school should not be held to higher admission standards than everyone else due to being Asian. Just as an African American student whose parents are both college educated should not be held to the same standard as a student from the projects whose family lives in poverty.

(I used Laotian as an example because certain Asian groups do far better than average (Japanese, Korean, etc.) while other Asian groups perform less well overall.)

Excellent example.

The bottom of the line is when you uncouple AA from race, the focus goes back to the facts of the individual applicant.

However, the counter argument is race based AA in college admissions should survive Strict Scrutiny bc that policy is necessary, and tailoring that policy to African American and Latino/a citizens is narrowly done do. The dissent does not use the word, but the argument is for all kinds of historical issues race based AA in college admissions for the deficits African American citizens and Latino/a citizens have historically faced is 1) a compelling state interest (S. Ct. precedent would dictate this and the majority does not invalidate that) and 2 is narrowly tailored only to the benefit of the African American and Latino/a American because of the dissent and previous precedents reciting of those precedents holdings.

The majority invalidated race based AA in college admissions ruling the policy fails the 2 prong being narrowly tailored bc the policy unjustly treated other minorities differently.

Hence, one has to accept this case which brings an action for Asian minorities who are disadvantaged to the benefit of African American and Latino/a citizens is a distinction w a difference when one compares this case to all previous college admission cases. Those previous cases having been brought by white citizens.

The dissent sees that minority v minority game not a distinction because of the specifics of race based AA in college admissions that only extend to the benefiting minorities has been held for decades narrowly tailored to a compelling state interest to the benefiting minorities.

One needs to read the dissent, and the dissent’s supporting cases to understand how the colleges previously with guidance from the Courts developed policies that had been held to survive narrowly tailored prong.

That would take me many pages to right in detail.

This is why I say “bad facts” from pro policy point of view creates “bad law.” The colleges could have applied race based AA to college admissions to all minorities. Had the colleges done so, this would never had happened.

There is hope for the policy to be resurrected. 1) The case tells how colleges did not satisfy narrowly tailored prong. The colleges could rework their policies to address those deficiencies, cite this case for authority in support to s new majority. That new majority can then say we are applying the case, not overturning it, and permitting the policy as presented a new before us. 2) I could see new majority citing this case that college admission is a Fundamental Right creating all kinds of consequences or “chaos” from the conservative point of view.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

Hence, one has to accept this case which brings an action for Asian minorities who are disadvantaged to the benefit of African American and Latino/a citizens is a distinction w a difference when one compares this case to all previous college admission cases. Those previous cases having been brought by white citizens.

I grew up in California and AA was forbidden by the state. As I recall, the Asian’s were able to win in the state courts. This is all based on my oft faulty memory. I also recall AA coming and going quite regularly in different sectors.

As a white male, AA harmed me.

My daughter is half African so AA would help her. Ironically, she has all that it takes to rise above. She won’t need AA.

But I still wonder if we couldn’t extend opportunities to other disadvantaged people.

And I don’t think that anything should be based on race(anything?) The first thing that I learned regarding race as a child was MLKs belief that people should be judged by the context of their character, not by the color of their skin.

Interestingly, i found that that was the only reliable way to judge a person.

I'm not sure that this is going to be as big a deal as the media is making it out to be. As Jason points out, AA has been outlawed at all public universities for 25 years in California. Somehow, minorities have continued to be admitted even though racial diversity quotas go largely unmet. The reality is that admissions boards at most colleges are largely progressive and they're going to continue to consider race as a factor in the process.

That said, I continue to be concerned about the current make-up and direction of the SCOTUS. Roe was the law of the land for 50 years and suddenly...it isn't. Affirmative action was the law of the land for 50 years and suddenly....it isn't. Repeated and continued disregard for established precedent which seems to be based in large part on the political predispositions of the justices erodes confidence in and the authority of the highest court in the land. How long before we'll be saying Heller was the law of the land...and, now it isn't because of some new generation of justices appointed by a Dem POTUS say so based on political predispositions?

Meanwhile, the incoming freshman class at Harvard will be made up entirely of Asians.

quote:

Chief Justice Roberts: “the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” Not as elegant as Martin Luther King, but more on point.

Not a fan of the Chief Justice but credit where credit due.

Been saying it for years: “Only racists go about throwing the slur racist.”

Once we stop using the color of skin (ethnicity) and start only looking at the content of character (and acumen) in all admissions {schools and jobs (esp gvt jobs)}…we will have finally achieved The Dream.

quote:

Been saying it for years: “Only racists go about throwing the slur racist.”

Been saying it for years: “Only racists go about throwing the slur racist.”


Oh boy...there's a piece of wisdom.

From the man totally devoid of wisdom.

And the cause is no mystery.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Chief Justice Roberts: “the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” Not as elegant as Martin Luther King, but more on point.

Not a fan of the Chief Justice but credit where credit due.

Been saying it for years: “Only racists go about throwing the slur racist.”

Once we stop using the color of skin (ethnicity) and start only looking at the content of character (and acumen) in all admissions {schools and jobs (esp gvt jobs)}…we will have finally achieved The Dream.

Tell it to the Alabama and NC GOP drawn maps the S. Ct. invalidated.

I am sure you have not read those cases. Especially, the Alabama case that clearly explains state sponsored racism in preventing African Americans representation.

Lane's cute little phrase lets him tell himself he's not a racist. Because the only racists are the folks that point out racism, right? Pure stupidity.

As for achieving the dream, there is no denying the fact that yesterday's opinion is going to prevent a significant number of blacks, latinos and other people of color from gaining admission to colleges and the education they need to achieve their dreams. Folks like Lane may think that is a good thing. I do not.

Only a closed-minded idiot would not see the truth in the phrase: “Only racists go about throwing the slur of racist.”

Just like Roberts implied…if you want racism to go away…quit making decisions based on race. Pretty simple concept actually…but the simple often flies over the head of liberal-blinded people like MM.

The very elite schools are going to end Standardized Testing as a metric for admission.

That will filter down to all others.

Columbia is so doing.

Race based AA in college admissions did not keep a white applicant out of an equivalent institution when an African American who just misses the line gets in. That is what wax happening as it relates to white citizens. I know that bc I read the University of Michigan Law School Admissions case.

Again, the appropriate part of this case is the majority actually used the appropriate legal analysis to reach their conclusion. We can argue about which opinion either the Majority or the Dissent comes to the “right answer.” I should not be surprised or happy to see that in a Majority Opinion. It should be a given. Frankly, it is the ease part. However, that is now the bar for the High Court demonstrating it can identify the issue and apply the right law is better than Justice Alito’s personal opinion based on his false statements of “ history.”

I disagree that the remedy for decades of anti black law that allows African American education access as just as racist as the evil it tries to fix.

For that observation, I would not have invalidated this policy, or I would have joined in result writing an opinion that a policy that treated all minorities equally would survive Strict Scrutiny.

For the dissent the minority v minority dichotomy is not a distinction w a difference because the 350 years of race law directed at African Americans is the compelling state interest being addressed not racism if all minorities, the colleges are following S. Ct. direction from previous cases to be narrowly tailored. The result should be easy.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:
…As for achieving the dream, there is no denying the fact that yesterday's opinion is going to prevent a significant number of blacks, latinos and other people of color from gaining admission to colleges and the education they need to achieve their dreams. Folks like Lane may think that is a good thing. I do not.

That may not be true at all.
Some of those students may not get into schools such as Harvard, but they will certainly be accepted into other colleges and universities.
Harvard should have known this was a spurious practice.
Take two equally accomplished and qualified applicants and you chose one over the other only because they are black?
That’s a racially motivated decision, of course, but one that could be swept under the carpet in today’s political climate.
Choose a less qualified applicant because they are black and you step over into a racially motivated position which is much more indefensible.

quote:

Originally posted by Huvius:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:
…As for achieving the dream, there is no denying the fact that yesterday's opinion is going to prevent a significant number of blacks, latinos and other people of color from gaining admission to colleges and the education they need to achieve their dreams. Folks like Lane may think that is a good thing. I do not.

That may not be true at all.
Some of those students may not get into schools such as Harvard, but they will certainly be accepted into other colleges and universities.
Harvard should have known this was a spurious practice.
Take two equally accomplished and qualified applicants and you chose one over the other only because they are black?
That’s a racially motivated decision, of course, but one that could be swept under the carpet in today’s political climate.
Choose a less qualified applicant because they are black and you step over into a racially motivated position which is much more indefensible.

The fact that one person may score lower than another on a college admissions exam or an MCAT or an LSAT is not necessarily evidence that they are "less qualified." I know plenty of people that did not do particularly well on the LSAT or the Bar Exam and they went on to excell in law school and/or subsequently became very good attorneys.

I get that there has to be some sort of criteria in place in order to make evaluations and decisions. I just don't think it should necessarily be restricted to how well you do on an admissions exam or whether your daddy went to that school. I find legacy admission as a criteria far more offensive than consideration of race.

And, I don't disagree with your assertion that those of us that didn't qualify for Harvard can get an education elsewhere. As I stated, I suspect that this decision is not going to have the impact some may be expecting except at the top-tier colleges and universities and maybe not even there. It's my opinion that race will continue to be a factor in the admissions process, at least until somebody that gets denied admission can prove they had better numbers than the minority that was accepted. Then, the Human Vermin will right the situation.

The highest LSAT score in my class did not make it a full year.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
Only a closed-minded idiot would not see the truth in the phrase: “Only racists go about throwing the slur of racist.”

Just like Roberts implied…if you want racism to go away…quit making decisions based on race. Pretty simple concept actually…but the simple often flies over the head of liberal-blinded people like MM.

Only a person who doesn't have a firm grasp on the English language would advance that argument. There are plenty of folks, and I count myself among them, who correctly characterize some people as racist. So stating does not make me a racist.

And, you are an idiot if you can't understand that concept.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
The highest LSAT score in my class did not make it a full year.

Law school is not for everybody. Quite frankly, intellectual acumen is probably not as important as determination to see it through.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
The very elite schools are going to end Standardized Testing as a metric for admission.

That will filter down to all others.

Columbia is so doing.

Race based AA in college admissions did not keep a white applicant out of an equivalent institution when an African American who just misses the line gets in. That is what wax happening as it relates to white citizens. I know that bc I read the University of Michigan Law School Admissions case.

Again, the appropriate part of this case is the majority actually used the appropriate legal analysis to reach their conclusion. We can argue about which opinion either the Majority or the Dissent comes to the “right answer.” I should not be surprised or happy to see that in a Majority Opinion. It should be a given. Frankly, it is the ease part. However, that is now the bar for the High Court demonstrating it can identify the issue and apply the right law is better than Justice Alito’s personal opinion based on his false statements of “ history.”

I disagree that the remedy for decades of anti black law that allows African American education access as just as racist as the evil it tries to fix.

For that observation, I would not have invalidated this policy, or I would have joined in result writing an opinion that a policy that treated all minorities equally would survive Strict Scrutiny.

For the dissent the minority v minority dichotomy is not a distinction w a difference because the 350 years of race law directed at African Americans is the compelling state interest being addressed not racism if all minorities, the colleges are following S. Ct. direction from previous cases to be narrowly tailored. The result should be easy.

Yes, many universities have already eliminated the testing requirements.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
The highest LSAT score in my class did not make it a full year.

Law school is not for everybody. Quite frankly, intellectual acumen is probably not as important as determination to see it through.

I agree. I wanted to highlight standardized test scores does not equate merit. Sadly, it maybe a metric taken on the whole that demonstrates merit. An imperfect system which race based AA in college admissions tried to address.

I have always believed in merit based rewards. I do not like it that people are not just people, that we still can't get rid of color based 'race' and thus our Constitution is routinely violated. This is wrong.

I think universities can do a few other things to make sure they are not discriminating. One I can think of off hand is getting rid of the alumni preference.

Standardized testing scores were developed to try and make sure we were not wasting resources.

The MCAT, LSAT, GRE, SAT, etc. were correlated to likelihood of completing the degree.

Given how few seats we have in Med schools, and the costs involved in training along with the shortage of physicians in the US, I think getting rid of the tests is foolish.

We were supposedly a meritocracy. Getting rid of these tests, especially in the day and age of grade inflation seems wrong.

The difference with the elite schools is that the applicant pool is mostly capable of completing the course of study.

I know that in my Med school class while a few of the gifted students quit, there were way more of the poor students who didn’t make it through.

You want to get rid of standardized testing? What do you call the medical boards or the bar exam? Do you really want folks with “disadvantaged backgrounds” given bonus points on those?

I see this as devaluing the idea of merit for some unrelated goal.

I would prefer to see the standardized tests be used over most of the other criteria.

I’ve had family members attend Harvard.

I was the one who attended the local public university in my family.

Frankly, going to an elite school doesn’t educate you better… but it does give you immense advantages in prestige and opening otherwise closed doors via the alumni old boys network.

Columbia has already done so, because of the rationale of this decision.

Policy merge legal analysis.

I am not saying what I want. I am telling you the policy ramifications of this decision.

quote:

Originally posted by jdollar:
[quote]. I can see screwing over white people but how did Asians get on the democrats hit list?

Because they are not a significant voting block and are not traditional Dem voters…

Worse than that, Asians are a glaring example of the American Dream come true. Overcoming blatant discrimination and racism, they’ve carved out their own piece of the pie. Often stereotyped as smarter, harder working, honorable citizens and neighbors. At least the old time Irish could blend in rather easily. Not so for Asians and Blacks. Compare the two today and some pertinent questions arise. Why such success for one and not the other?

Yet you have been defending AA here.

The problem is a persistent view that letting folks in with less credentials is somehow a public good.

What they are attempting to do with AA is give a fraudulent view of a person’s merit to move them ahead of others of equal ability to achieve a stated policy goal.

No wonder there is resistance to it.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Columbia has already done so, because of the rationale of this decision.

Policy merge legal analysis.

I am not saying what I want. I am telling you the policy ramifications of this decision.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Yet you have been defending AA here.

The problem is a persistent view that letting folks in with less credentials is somehow a public good.

What they are attempting to do with AA is give a fraudulent view of a person’s merit to move them ahead of others of equal ability to achieve a stated policy goal.

No wonder there is resistance to it.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Columbia has already done so, because of the rationale of this decision.

Policy merge legal analysis.

I am not saying what I want. I am telling you the policy ramifications of this decision.

Constitutional or not, it is a public good.

Handicap accessible is a public good. Letting students in with less credentials is a public good. I wouldn't suggest lowering graduation or completion standards is a public good, but assistance and broadening opportunity in education seems a better investment than assistance and broadening opportunity in Corrections.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Yet you have been defending AA here.

The problem is a persistent view that letting folks in with less credentials is somehow a public good.

What they are attempting to do with AA is give a fraudulent view of a person’s merit to move them ahead of others of equal ability to achieve a stated policy goal.

No wonder there is resistance to it.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Columbia has already done so, because of the rationale of this decision.

Policy merge legal analysis.

I am not saying what I want. I am telling you the policy ramifications of this decision.

I am defending socioeconomic affirmative action and explaining both the majority opinion, its policy ramifications and future court battles, the dissent, and the rationale of the dissent.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:
As for achieving the dream, there is no denying the fact that yesterday's opinion is going to prevent a significant number of blacks, latinos and other people of color from gaining admission to colleges and the education they need to achieve their dreams. Folks like Lane may think that is a good thing. I do not.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

Race based AA in college admissions did not keep a white applicant out of an equivalent institution when an African American who just misses the line gets in. That is what wax happening as it relates to white citizens. I know that bc I read the University of Michigan Law School Admissions case.

These statements serve as a perfect example of the “magical thinking of liberals” that often makes real conversations impossible. I realize that these quotes are from two different people, but they illustrate a premise that is held by those who promote AA. It could be stated:

“Without affirmative action, colored students will be denied access. But with AA in place those students of color will gain access, and the white and Asian students who they displace will just go to “equivalent institutions”.

How can these two ideas coexist? Wouldn’t those “equivalent institutions” have also served as a fall back for students of color, had AA not been in place??

You can’t have it both ways. To claim that you can is disingenuous.

If we can’t agree that the consequences of allowing/outlawing AA are that it will help one group at the expense of another, then how any real discussion take place?

Handicap accessible areas are an equality in opportunity item, and a good, albeit it should be measured in cost effectiveness to some extent.

Frankly, the way to deal with the dearth of opportunity to those of lower objective merit is to expand the opportunities available to all who desire it.

Not displace some whose merit exists for another of lesser merit.

I don’t agree that affirmative action served a public good.

I’m not saying having a diverse workforce is bad, but certain opportunities are limited, and how we hand them out should be on merit and equal opportunity based on merit.

If the standardized entrance exams were generated based on successful completion, then they are by far the best view of merit. I really doubt interviews correlate well, GPA does to a lesser extent, objective academic difficulty does as well.

I do think Med schools should do background checks on applicants… because if you can’t pass a background check, while you can graduate, you can’t get a license…

I’m sure the lawyers here can point out similar restrictions in their fields.

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Yet you have been defending AA here.

The problem is a persistent view that letting folks in with less credentials is somehow a public good.

What they are attempting to do with AA is give a fraudulent view of a person’s merit to move them ahead of others of equal ability to achieve a stated policy goal.

No wonder there is resistance to it.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Columbia has already done so, because of the rationale of this decision.

Policy merge legal analysis.

I am not saying what I want. I am telling you the policy ramifications of this decision.

Constitutional or not, it is a public good.

Handicap accessible is a public good. Letting students in with less credentials is a public good. I wouldn't suggest lowering graduation or completion standards is a public good, but assistance and broadening opportunity in education seems a better investment than assistance and broadening opportunity in Corrections.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Yet you have been defending AA here.

The problem is a persistent view that letting folks in with less credentials is somehow a public good.

What they are attempting to do with AA is give a fraudulent view of a person’s merit to move them ahead of others of equal ability to achieve a stated policy goal.

No wonder there is resistance to it.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Columbia has already done so, because of the rationale of this decision.

Policy merge legal analysis.

I am not saying what I want. I am telling you the policy ramifications of this decision.

I am defending socioeconomic affirmative action and explaining both the majority opinion, its policy ramifications and future court battles, the dissent, and the rationale of the dissent.

So nice to have a self-appointed professor on the site to explain it all.

Well, reading case law and explaining it is what I do.

So, nice you have not read any of it. Have you read the case?

This is a forum for discussion of such topics. I do not need your permission to do so.

Now, you can reject those rationals. That is fine. However, those rational exists. AL GOP wrote a map to keep African Americans from electing a Congressman this Supreme Court cycle. Yeah, we have evolved to a fair, color blind society. That last sentence is sarcasm.