Now that the decision has been handed down, how do you feel about the decision? **************************************************************** 06-23-03, 06:23 PM MkStfnz I agree with the Supreme Court's decision. Each college, as a private institution (with the exception of state colleges probably) has the right to choose which students they want attending their college to fulfill their student profiles.
This decision also promotes diversity, which is certainly favorable.
06-24-03, 04:18 AM Adi Private colleges can admit who they like, but PUBLIC colleges (which are the subject of this ruling) should not. This is, in my opinion, a blatant constitutional violation. Students should be judged purely on their academic ability. This is a decision to fix a symptom and not the cause. If non-WASP students get a fair chance in the public system, then they will have the same chance of going to college later in their academic life. The problem for non-WASP students doesn't start at college; it starts long before.
06-24-03, 12:58 PM Elexina From what I've heard and read, I agree with SCOTUS. The undergraduate school was using race as too much of a deciding factor, but the law school looks at the candidate as a whole and race is only a small portion of that whole picture. I think that it is excellent to have many races and cultures and backgrounds in educational institutions. I think diversity is a wonderful thing. But when diversity comes at the expense of more qualified individuals, something is wrong with the system.
06-24-03, 03:38 PM crescen7
quote:Originally posted by Adi: ...This is, in my opinion, a blatant constitutional violation...
It most certainly is.
In writing the majority opinion Justice O'Conner even states that the "compelling interest of Diversity warrants an EXCEPTION to the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment." (that's a paraphrase not an exact quote)
This decision is so wrong, on so many levels it's hard to enumerate them all.
First, the Supreme Court isn't supposed to make up law and decide exceptions - it's supposed to decide based on Constitutionality. In this decision, O'Conner clearly states it's not Constitutional - but so what, we think it's a good idea. So why have a Constitutionn in the first place? I guess in reality we don't.
Not to mention, What is so great about diversity anyway? Why is the color of the kid sitting eight rows ahead of me in a lecture hall a benefit to either his, or my education. NO evidence of ANY kind can support this idiotic claim.
If "Diversity" was so important, why is it assumed that someone can only be "diverse" if they have a different skin color?
There is a large and growing Black middle and upper class in this country. Also, there is a significant number of poor and underprivleged white people. Why should the children of Micheal Jordan, or Oprah Winfrey (sp?) get preferential treatment over anyone else?
Too many other problems to list in this aready too wordy post!
06-24-03, 04:23 PM Leppi I strongly believe that admition to college should be based totally on your skills. NOt your race, ethnicity, or origin. Nor your parents attending it before you. In my belief, you are the one going to college, not your skin, not your parents. Therefore it should be based on YOU!
06-28-03, 04:30 PM juanruiz It has been my experience that those who champion Affirmative Action (one of those great government euphemisms like "revenue enhancement" and "friendly fire"), even though they may belong to a group traditionally harmed by it, do so because they are now not adversely affected by it. It's always great to take a moral stand when there is no danger of you personally suffering.
06-29-03, 10:02 AM frankvan juanruiz quote: "It's always great to take a moral stand when there is no danger of you personally suffering". On the other hand, if you are - or think you may be - suffering from it. isn't it impossible to be objective? As long as race is only one of many different factors being considered I think it was a good decision as well as being supported by business and the military.
06-29-03, 12:25 PM juanruiz My point is this: It's so easy for white male university presidents, provosts, deans, and admissions officers to sing the praises of Affirmative Action when they themselves are not victimized by it.
06-29-03, 07:50 PM gerry That's the point. Very few whites are affected by affirmative action. I can count the number of minority employees in my company on one hand or two (not counting women, of course, who are becoming a majority). Let it be, whether its good or bad, only the intelligent few can argue against it rationally. The rest of the bunch are mean spirited bigots.
06-30-03, 11:34 AM Kendor This issue is so trite it makes me sick. The answer is SO simple. Yafa said it well, "In my belief, you are the one going to college, not your skin, not your parents. Therefore it should be based on YOU!"
And all the folks defending AA by stating that 'race' is only one factor in admissions...' RACE SHOULD NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE ADMISSIONS CRITERION WHATSOEVER!
What the heck good is diversity, in any forum, if the representatives of a given culture aren't intellectually parallel to others in the forum?
06-30-03, 06:48 PM gatman Ditto to Cresen7. O'conner condenms herself.
Sorry Gerry, but I'm not making any sense of you reply. Let's start with how many employees are at your company. A handful of minorities is a meaningless phrase. __________________________________________ Quote: "Very few whites are affected by affirmative action."
~~~So that makes it ok? Btw the number affected is as large as the number of those who get bonus points for whatever cailm to minority status they have. ___________________________________________ Quote: "Let it be, whether its good or bad, only the intelligent few can argue against it rationally. The rest of the bunch are mean spirited bigots."
~~~What a convenient way to dismiss the opinions of the many who oppose this. Of course there are probably only a handful or two intelligent enough to argue this.
06-30-03, 08:57 PM gerry Oh, come on, now. Harvard University and others base their admissions only partly on academics, but largely on whether the student's parent(s) attended the school. But I don't hear a whimper about this policy of admitting something like 70% children of alumni, but when a state university wants a small percentage of minorities, all hell breaks loose. Why? It's called Racism, not by all, but most.
07-01-03, 10:36 AM Elexina I think that legacies are an even worse determining method than race. It is complete b.s. that just because your parent went somewhere, you get to go, too. No way. Acceptance should be based solely on academics. Diversity is good. I like diversity. But not at the expense of more qualified individuals!
quote:What the heck good is diversity, in any forum, if the representatives of a given culture aren't intellectually parallel to others in the forum?
Excellent question, Kendor.
07-01-03, 01:58 PM frankvan How do you measure "intellectually parallel"?. Einstein was dyslexic. Could his Jewishness have kept him out? Could he earn a football scholarship? I agree with gerry but not many people think of themselves as either mean-spirited or racist, unfortunately. Wink Also, if everyone makes similar scores on the same tests, how much diversity (versus homogeneity) can one expect?
07-01-03, 04:27 PM gatman Bad example using Harvard since it is a private school but I will agree that family ties is not a good measure. We could call that a form of nepotic racism.
Some may wonder where GWB would be today with out that assist. We should also wonder on how far Teddy Kennedy and Al Gore would have gone.
I call it racism without regard to who is given preferental treatment. Let's be consistant. Mean spirited is a phrase meant to embarrass and silence those not politically correct. It is past time to stop perpetuating racism in the cover of overcoming racism.
There is more to the making of leaders than pure test scores. One who is active in school and community organiztions and still maintains a high academic record is more likely to put an education to good use than a total bookworm. This takes into account the actions of the individual student. Leave the inherited name, race, religion, and such out of admissions policy. Even sports,while an individual effort, is extranuous to academics.
07-01-03, 11:23 PM Kendor Thank you, Elexina.
12-25-03, 08:10 AM Super Atheist i think its sad when people for get what affimitve action was for. it was to help to make up for the vile practice of slavery. slavery made the USA one of the richest countries in the world. black people were used and abused and then spit out. though there was never any justice for these people, someone came up with the idea for affirative action to help blacks get on there feet. i think its pretty evil for the right winger to try to take that away. people can be pretty airagant about how good america is, but if it wasnt for human explotation , this country wouldn't be much.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
