Four cases does not prove that you have a clue on how widespread that scenario is. Again, neither you nor I have a clue and there's nothing you can do about it.
Actually, those are four
landmark SCOTUS cases and they represent a very big clue. Indeed, you can hardly discuss this issue without being familar with all four of them.
What is yours based on? Four cases from Wikipedia. Good luck with that.
My argument is based upon something called
LOGIC. After all, it only stands to reason that if a much more socioeconomically advantaged black student is being automatically handed an admission-clinching handicap over a far less socioeconomically advantaged white student, there is something morally foul going on.
Has this ever happened? Well, let's look at the Gratz case:
The University of Michigan College of Liberal Science and Arts (LSA) admissions system had been awarding 5 points for possessing an extraordinary talent (think Michaelangelo), 12 points for a perfect score on the SAT, and 20 points for being Black, Hispanic, or Native American. No quota system, just a rather absurd (and some might say
utterly racist) method of calculating a student's qualifications for admission.
It appears safe to assume that with the closing of so many auto plants in the state of Michigan while many of the applicants to LSA were still in El-Hi that a good number of underprivileged white students were likely getting little or no consideration on their application to LSA, while more privileged black students were getting an automatic 20 point bump for no other reason than their being black. Indeed
a great many more socioeconomically disadvantaged black applicants were likely getting an automatic 20 point bump on their application, just for being black, while white applicants of the same socioeconomic strata got absolutely zero.
Fortunately, SCOTUS saw through this derivative "end-around"
Bakke and ruled accordingly:
"
Instructive in our consideration of the LSA’s system is the example provided in the description of the Harvard College Admissions Program, which Justice Powell both discussed in, and attached to, his opinion in Bakke. The example was included to “illustrate the kind of significance attached to race” under the Harvard College program. Id., at 324. It provided as follows:
“The Admissions Committee, with only a few places left to fill, might find itself forced to choose between A, the child of a successful black physician in an academic community with promise of superior academic performance, and B, a black who grew up in an inner-city ghetto of semi-literate parents whose academic achievement was lower but who had demonstrated energy and leadership as well as an apparently abiding interest in black power. If a good number of black students much like A but few like B had already been admitted, the Committee might prefer B; and vice versa. If C, a white student with extraordinary artistic talent, were also seeking one of the remaining places, his unique quality might give him an edge over both A and B. Thus, the critical criteria are often individual qualities or experience not dependent upon race but sometimes associated with it.” Ibid. (emphasis added).
This example further demonstrates the problematic nature of the LSA’s admissions system. Even if student C’s “extraordinary artistic talent” rivaled that of Monet or Picasso, the applicant would receive, at most, five points under the LSA’s system. See App. 234—235. At the same time, every single underrepresented minority applicant, including students A and B, would automatically receive 20 points for submitting an application. Clearly, the LSA’s system does not offer applicants the individualized selection process described in Harvard’s example. Instead of considering how the differing backgrounds, experiences, and characteristics of students A, B, and C might benefit the University, admissions counselors reviewing LSA applications would simply award both A and B 20 points because their applications indicate that they are African-American, and student C would receive up to 5 points for his “extraordinary talent.”20
Respondents emphasize the fact that the LSA has created the possibility of an applicant’s file being flagged for individualized consideration by the ARC. We think that the flagging program only emphasizes the flaws of the University’s system as a whole when compared to that described by Justice Powell. Again, students A, B, and C illustrate the point. First, student A would never be flagged. This is because, as the University has conceded, the effect of automatically awarding 20 points is that virtually every qualified underrepresented minority applicant is admitted. Student A, an applicant “with promise of superior academic performance,” would certainly fit this description. Thus, the result of the automatic distribution of 20 points is that the University would never consider student A’s individual background, experiences, and characteristics to assess his individual “potential contribution to diversity,” Bakke, supra, at 317. Instead, every applicant like student A would simply be admitted.
It is possible that students B and C would be flagged and considered as individuals. This assumes that student B was not already admitted because of the automatic 20-point distribution, and that student C could muster at least 70 additional points. But the fact that the “review committee can look at the applications individually and ignore the points,” once an application is flagged, Tr. of Oral Arg. 42, is of little comfort under our strict scrutiny analysis. The record does not reveal precisely how many applications are flagged for this individualized consideration, but it is undisputed that such consideration is the exception and not the rule in the operation of the LSA’s admissions program. See App. to Pet. for Cert. 117a (“The ARC reviews only a portion of all of the applications. The bulk of admissions decisions are executed based on selection index score parameters set by the EWG”).21 Additionally, this individualized review is only provided after admissions counselors automatically distribute the University’s version of a “plus” that makes race a decisive factor for virtually every minimally qualified underrepresented minority applicant."
Respondents contend that “[t]he volume of applications and the presentation of applicant information make it impractical for [LSA] to use the … admissions system” upheld by the Court today in Grutter. Brief for Respondents 6, n. 8. But the fact that the implementation of a program capable of providing individualized consideration might present administrative challenges does not render constitutional an otherwise problematic system. See J. A. Croson Co., 488 U.S., at 508 (citing Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677, 690 (1973) (plurality opinion of Brennan, J.) (rejecting “ ‘administrative convenience’ ” as a determinant of constitutionality in the face of a suspect classification)). Nothing in Justice Powell’s opinion in Bakke signaled that a university may employ whatever means it desires to achieve the stated goal of diversity without regard to the limits imposed by our strict scrutiny analysis.
We conclude, therefore, that because the University’s use of race in its current freshman admissions policy is not narrowly tailored to achieve respondents’ asserted compelling interest in diversity, the admissions policy violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.22 We further find that the admissions policy also violates Title VI and 42 U.S.C. § 1981.23 Accordingly, we reverse that portion of the District Court’s decision granting respondents summary judgment with respect to liability and remand the case for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered."
It's not "very big of me". You asked me earlier how I felt about quota systems and I said I don't support it. Is this how you respond to people who answer your questions? "That's very big of you"? What's your end game? To ask people questions and then insult them when they agree with you?
I don't recall asking you how you feel about quotas. If I did, it would have been only to gauge the true depth of your ignorance of the subject matter. Quotas have technically been dead since the Bakke ruling. Therefore, to say that you are opposed to quotas has about as much value as saying that you are opposed to the use of asbestos as a fire retardant in the construction of public schools.
Back to the topic of discussion:
Since the Bakke ruling, colleges and universities have been beating their brains out trying to formulate a system that will allow them to admit enough minority students to keep from being sued for racial discrimination, on the basis of campus underrepresentation, while not running afoul of
Bakke. This is no easy task. Not surprisingly, some 20 years later, we have
Gratz v. Bollinger.
I've actually articulated my position on AA several times and have answered your questions. It's clear that you only want to hear one answer and consequently, block out from your mind any answer that does not fit into your worldview even though your worldview seems to have zero factual basis.
Since you are not demonstrating the slightest clue as to my worldview, your assessment of its "factual basis value" is dubious at best.
