Supreme Court Looking At Affirmative Action In College Admissions

Comet · #1 (**permalink**) 10-08-2012, 09:18 PM

Anyone want to take a stab at how the Supreme Court will rule on this if it comes to them?

I have never been a fan of using race as a factor in determining who is admitted to college, personally. You should be admitted based on your mind, not color of your skin.

Quote:

WASHINGTON -- Nine years after the Supreme Court said colleges and universities can use race in their quest for diverse student bodies, the justices have put this divisive social issue back on their agenda in the middle of a presidential election campaign.

Nine years is a blink of the eye on a court where justices can look back two centuries for legal precedents. But with an ascendant conservative majority, the high court in arguments Wednesday will weigh whether to limit or even rule out taking race into account in college admissions.

The justices will be looking at the University of Texas program that is used to help fill the last quarter or so of its incoming freshman classes. Race is one of many factors considered by admissions officers. The rest of the roughly 7,100 freshman spots automatically go to Texans who graduated in the top 8 percent of their high school classes.

A white Texan, Abigail Fisher, sued the university after she was denied a spot in 2008.

The simplest explanation for why affirmative action is back on the court's calendar so soon after its 2003 decision in Grutter v. Bollinger is that the author of that opinion, Sandra Day O'Connor, has retired. Her successor, Justice Samuel Alito, has been highly skeptical of any use of racial preference.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, a dissenter in the 2003 decision, probably holds the deciding vote, and he, too, has never voted in favor of racial preference.

As a result, said Supreme Court lawyer Thomas Goldstein, "No matter what the court does, it is quite likely that the UT program is going to be in big trouble."

The challenge to the Texas plan has gained traction in part because the university has produced significant diversity by automatically offering about three-quarters of its spots to graduates in the top 10 percent of their Texas high schools, under a 1990s state law signed by then-Gov. George W. Bush. The admissions program has been changed so that now only the top 8 percent gain automatic admission.

More than eight in ten African-American and Latino students who enrolled at the flagship campus in Austin last year were automatically admitted, according to university statistics. Even among the rest, both sides acknowledge that the use of race is modest.

In all, black and Hispanic students made up more than a quarter of the incoming freshmen class. White students constituted less than half the entering class when students with Asian backgrounds and other minorites were added in.

"For decades, the defense of racial preferences was, `We'd love to find a way to get diversity without using race, but it's just not possible. There's just no other way.' And Texas found another way," said Richard Kahlenburg, a senior fellow at the Century Foundation and prominent advocate of class-based affirmative action.

The university says the extra measure of diversity it gets from the slots outside automatic admission is crucial because too many of its classrooms have only token minority representation, at best. At the same time, Texas argues that race is one of many factors considered and that it "is impossible to tell whether an applicant's race was a tipping factor."

The Obama administration, 57 of the Fortune 100 companies and large numbers of public and private colleges that could be affected by the outcome are backing the Texas program. Among the benefits of affirmative action, the administration argues, is that it creates a pipeline for a diverse officer corps that it called "essential to the military's operational readiness." In 2003, the court cited the importance of a similar message from military leaders.

But lawyers for Fisher, of Sugar Land, Texas, said the race-blind method under which the university automatically admits most of its students has been successful. They say Fisher, who has since graduated from Louisiana State University, was excluded because of her race, and they point to a handful of African-American and Latino students who were admitted with lower scores than hers.

"If any state action should respect racial equality, it is university admission," Fisher's lawyers said in their written submission to the court.

The university says that a fuller picture of the process shows that white students with lower scores also were admitted, while many more minority students with higher scores than Fisher also were not offered admission.

The case also raises several contentious side issues, including whether affirmative-action programs hurt the very people they are supposed to be helping. A new book by law professor Richard Sander and journalist Stuart Taylor argues that "large preferences often place students in environments where they can neither learn nor compete effectively, even though these same students would thrive had they gone to less competitive but still quite good schools."

Their book, "Mismatch," says these students are set up to fail, getting lower grades and dropping out more often than white students with similar backgrounds.

Taylor and Sander, a law professor at the University of California at Los Angeles, point to statistics in California to support their argument. After voters changed the state constitution to outlaw racial preferences, UCLA saw significant declines in enrollment by black and Hispanic students.

But the number of African-American and Latino graduates was unchanged for the five classes after the ban when compared to the five years before the change in state law, they said.

The dozens of legal briefs in the Texas case also highlight a debate over whether racial preference programs actually limit the number of students from Asian backgrounds, who are disproportionately represented in student bodies relative to their share of the population.

The university says Asian-American enrollment has increased under the policy that is being challenged. The numbers would be even higher if Texas stopped factoring in race, Fisher and others say.

Supreme Court Looking At Affirmative Action In College Admissions

foundit66 · #2 (**permalink**) 10-09-2012, 10:38 PM

Supreme court?
This is a STATE'S RIGHTS issue!!!

I don't see anywhere in the constitution where it dictates that states are forbidden from giving different treatment in university admission based on race!

Without sarcasm, if I remember right, the last time they ruled SCOTUS essentially said that affirmative action had an expiration date.
Could it be possible that they could rule we've reached that date?

If they ruled against affirmative action, it would be fascinating to see the fallout.
I would think a large number of college / universities employ such affirmative action.

Quote:

Taylor and Sander, a law professor at the University of California at Los Angeles, point to statistics in California to support their argument. After voters changed the state constitution to outlaw racial preferences, UCLA saw significant declines in enrollment by black and Hispanic students.

But the number of African-American and Latino graduates was unchanged for the five classes after the ban when compared to the five years before the change in state law, they said.

Holy cow dung!
This actually doesn't surprise me that much. But the fact that it is called out so explicitly is eye-popping.

By the same token, I can't help but wonder about the flip side of the coin.
After ending the affirmative action, was there any change in the white / Asian graduates?
(And I'm not assuming a hard and fast answer. I would expect it would vary based on the college / area.)

Quote:

The dozens of legal briefs in the Texas case also highlight a debate over whether racial preference programs actually limit the number of students from Asian backgrounds, who are disproportionately represented in student bodies relative to their share of the population.

rivrrat · #3 (**permalink**) 10-10-2012, 12:00 PM

That racist policy should be eliminated in everything across the country. Colleges, employers, wherever.

AZRWinger · #4 (**permalink**) 10-11-2012, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by foundit66

Supreme court?
This is a STATE'S RIGHTS issue!!!

I don't see anywhere in the constitution where it dictates that states are forbidden from giving different treatment in university admission based on race!

Without sarcasm, if I remember right, the last time they ruled SCOTUS essentially said that affirmative action had an expiration date.
Could it be possible that they could rule we've reached that date?

If they ruled against affirmative action, it would be fascinating to see the fallout.
I would think a large number of college / universities employ such affirmative action.

Holy cow dung!
This actually doesn't surprise me that much. But the fact that it is called out so explicitly is eye-popping.

By the same token, I can't help but wonder about the flip side of the coin.
After ending the affirmative action, was there any change in the white / Asian graduates?
(And I'm not assuming a hard and fast answer. I would expect it would vary based on the college / area.)

Everything must be interpreted through the lens of your gay marriage hobby horse.

The idea that somehow the SCOTUS is empowered to set an expiration date on violations of our rights to promote social justice is yet another power grab by the judiciary. Affirmative action is either Constitutional or it is not. If it is to have an expiration date, that is something for Congress to decide.

As the California graduation rates show admission racial preferences do not impact graduation. They inflate the number of minority students without the qualifications to succeed to the detriment of other applicants.

foundit66 · #5 (**permalink**) 10-11-2012, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AZRWinger

Everything must be interpreted through the lens of your gay marriage hobby horse.

I didn't say anything about gay marriage.
My point is on the hypocrisy of the right.

"States rights" and super-literal interpretations of the constitution are only required when it's convenient for the right to demand so...

Quote:

Originally Posted by AZRWinger

The idea that somehow the SCOTUS is empowered to set an expiration date on violations of our rights to promote social justice is yet another power grab by the judiciary. Affirmative action is either Constitutional or it is not. If it is to have an expiration date, that is something for Congress to decide.

The upshot of what you're saying is that Congress has passed NO expiration date (and realistically they won't either), and affirmative action IS constitutional...

The funny thing about the legal situation is that there is no constitutional requirement for affirmative action.
The courts have effectively said that the colleges CAN have a policy of affirmative action, but that is not a mandate that they HAVE TO have affirmative action.

Ergo, if the state legislatures banished affirmative action, there is no legal recourse to demand that not happen.
And in some places that happens. Others, no.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AZRWinger

As the California graduation rates show admission racial preferences do not impact graduation. They inflate the number of minority students without the qualifications to succeed to the detriment of other applicants.

I would love to see a broader study (because I think it would be more wide-spread evidence of your summary), but due to how specific the conditions are I suspect we can't effectively get one.

How far down the colleges have to go in the "worthy student" chain should not get ignored. It's obvious that at least in some colleges, they are picking some "affirmative action" students to go to college who will never finish.
Tragically, possibly passing up some students who would complete graduation.

Dave1 · #6 (**permalink**) 10-11-2012, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AZRWinger

Everything must be interpreted through the lens of your gay marriage hobby horse.

The idea that somehow the SCOTUS is empowered to set an expiration date on violations of our rights to promote social justice is yet another power grab by the judiciary. Affirmative action is either Constitutional or it is not. If it is to have an expiration date, that is something for Congress to decide.

As the California graduation rates show admission racial preferences do not impact graduation. They inflate the number of minority students without the qualifications to succeed to the detriment of other applicants.

Let's get back to AA and leave gay marriage alone for a moment.....

Timing is everything and things happen for a reason more often than not.....

America and her problems with racial hatred bore the seed of AA to begin with. It took generations to cultivate but, it finally happened when education met up with reality and something had to change....

With a country this large, it had to be a sweeping action across the board because otherwise it couldn't be enforced, period.....

Well guess what, it worked. Those days are gone and we don't need to have something that strict enforced on a population that is no longer as closed minded as those in the past....

AA was radical at the time and was necessary in my opinion and it worked.....

I don't expect the SC to keep it alive any longer. It served it's purpose and is no longer viable the way it's set up......

It's become a dinosaur.....

Spencer Collins · #7 (**permalink**) 10-11-2012, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave1

Let's get back to AA and leave gay marriage alone for a moment.....

Timing is everything and things happen for a reason more often than not.....

America and her problems with racial hatred bore the seed of AA to begin with. It took generations to cultivate but, it finally happened when education met up with reality and something had to change....

With a country this large, it had to be a sweeping action across the board because otherwise it couldn't be enforced, period.....

Well guess what, it worked. Those days are gone and we don't need to have something that strict enforced on a population that is no longer as closed minded as those in the past....

AA was radical at the time and was necessary in my opinion and it worked.....

I don't expect the SC to keep it alive any longer. It served it's purpose and is no longer viable the way it's set up......

It's become a dinosaur.....

Exactly...

And I've said much the same for years. I supported AA at it's inception but it's now time to move on.

Coyote · #8 (**permalink**) 10-11-2012, 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave1

Let's get back to AA and leave gay marriage alone for a moment.....

Timing is everything and things happen for a reason more often than not.....

America and her problems with racial hatred bore the seed of AA to begin with. It took generations to cultivate but, it finally happened when education met up with reality and something had to change....

With a country this large, it had to be a sweeping action across the board because otherwise it couldn't be enforced, period.....

Well guess what, it worked. Those days are gone and we don't need to have something that strict enforced on a population that is no longer as closed minded as those in the past....

AA was radical at the time and was necessary in my opinion and it worked.....

I don't expect the SC to keep it alive any longer. It served it's purpose and is no longer viable the way it's set up......

It's become a dinosaur.....

Well put, I totally agree - it was needed at one point in time, and now the need for it is over and we need to move on

faithful_servant · #9 (**permalink**) 10-11-2012, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by foundit66

"States rights" and super-literal interpretations of the constitution are only required when it's convenient for the right to demand so...

So the Civil Rights Act should have been left up to the States and not the Fed. gov't?? How about the legalization of recreational drugs?? Maybe we should let the States decide if abortion should be legal as well... Oh wait, that would be applying the same standard to both sides and we can't be having that. I'm a BIG fan of those super-literal interpretations of the US Constitution, since any other interpretation is the equivalent of amending the Constitution without following the legal process for doing so. By that standard, probably 90% of the crap that the Fed. pushes the States around with would be illegal. Let's get the Fed out of anything that the Constitution doesn't EXPLICITLY state that it's supposed to be involved in. If there's an area where the American People think that the Fed. gov't should be involved, then amend the Constitution to state that.

foundit66 · #10 (**permalink**) 10-12-2012, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by faithful_servant

So the Civil Rights Act should have been left up to the States and not the Fed. gov't??

I swear.
Sometimes I feel like I want to force people to pass a test on Venn diagrams and logic before they're allowed to respond, cause inevitably some people say just abjectly absurd crap.

My answer to your question is "No, that is not my opinion"
I have no idea why you think that would be an intelligent question to me. Especially considering I have pushed the Civil Rights Act in different threads.

On the other hand, I have talked to a few people on the right who have fervently argued that the Civil Rights Act (or at least sections like employment, etc) are a violation of state rights.
That's something I've seen on the right. Not the left.

Quote:

Originally Posted by faithful_servant

How about the legalization of recreational drugs?? Maybe we should let the States decide if abortion should be legal as well... Oh wait, that would be applying the same standard to both sides and we can't be having that.

What the heck do you think you mean by "same standard"?
"Legalization of recreational drugs"? Are you assuming my stance regarding federal / state positions? Or are you actually interested?
Some of the posts I have seen from you in the past indicate to me you're not interested. More interested in telling people what you think their position is.

Regardless, the legalization of recreational drugs brings up an interesting point that the states and the federal government do not have to have the same rules. Something can be illegal at the federal level, but not at the state level.
If you can elaborate on what you THINK you're driving towards, enlighten me. You would do well to NOT assume my position though.

Regarding states and abortion, you are seriously clueless.
Nothing I have said can rationally be construed to imply that I think states should decide for themselves on abortion.
You're lost somewhere here...

Quote:

Originally Posted by faithful_servant

I'm a BIG fan of those super-literal interpretations of the US Constitution, since any other interpretation is the equivalent of amending the Constitution without following the legal process for doing so. By that standard, probably 90% of the crap that the Fed. pushes the States around with would be illegal. Let's get the Fed out of anything that the Constitution doesn't EXPLICITLY state that it's supposed to be involved in. If there's an area where the American People think that the Fed. gov't should be involved, then amend the Constitution to state that.

First off, 9th amendment.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The right has a SERIOUS problem grasping the importance of that amendment.

Secondly, I can't help but notice YOU'RE REFUSING TO COMMENT ON THE TOPIC...
Supreme Court? Affirmative action?
By your policy, SCOTUS shouldn't hear this case at all.
Right?

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to rivrrat For This Useful Post:
jamesrage, MrLiberty, Spencer Collins

The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Dave1 For This Useful Post:
Comet, Coyote, foundit66, GottaGo, MrLiberty, Spencer Collins

The Following User Says Thank You to Spencer Collins For This Useful Post:
foundit66

The Following User Says Thank You to faithful_servant For This Useful Post:
lurch907

The Following User Says Thank You to foundit66 For This Useful Post:
operanut2008