• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The end of affirmative action?

gdgyva

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2014
Messages
13,025
Reaction score
6,994
Location
Near Atlanta Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
The Supreme Court will hear arguments Wednesday in a case that revolves around whether it's legal for colleges to consider applicants' race to ensure a diverse student body — a decades-old policy known as affirmative action.

The case focuses on the University of Texas at Austin, which automatically admits the top 10% of students from every class in the state.
Students who don't get in through the so-called Top-10 plan can still gain admission, and the university considers a number of factors including extracurricular activities and race.

Texas native Abigail Fisher — who was rejected by UT in 2008 — is challenging the school's use of race for students who aren't accepted through the Top-10 plan. Fisher claims UT-Austin's policy violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, and that the school admitted minority students who were less qualified than she was.

The main issue here is whether UT-Austin needed to consider race since its Top-10 plan already ensured the class was racially diverse. Since many universities and colleges specifically consider applicants' race, this case could have far-reaching implications.

As SCOTUSBlog's Lyle Denniston noted, "[T]he stakes might turn out to be huge: it could be that the result would go so far as to make it unconstitutional for public universities and colleges to take race into account in any way in choosing their entering classes."
For its part, UT-Austin argues it needs affirmative action in addition to the Top-10 plan so it can achieve "diversity within diversity."

The Top-10 plan achieves racial diversity because schools in the US (including Texas) tend to be segregated by race. However, the black and Hispanic students admitted under that plan often come from majority black or Hispanic schools with students from lower-income families. The white students who are accepted under that plan tend to come from more affluent schools.

UT "doesn't want all of the African-American and Latino students on campus to be students from under-served, often under-funded inner-city or rural-school districts," University of Michigan Law School professor Richard Primus told Business Insider. "UT also wants to admit African-Americans and Latinos who finished in the 13th or 14th percentiles of fancy high schools in suburban Dallas."

One thing UT is trying to avoid, Primus added, is allowing the Top-10 plan to be a "device that enforces racial stereotype."

(snip)

There was a time when affirmative action may have been needed.....that time is past. Hopefully the SC sees this the same way....
 
The very notion that race defines "diversity" is racist. As the OP link makes clear, it is the correlation of race and economic disadvantage that makes race appear to be a "valid" factor - yet how does that do anything but harm to non-black economically disadvantaged students? A rich black student can be (and often is) given admission preference over a poor non-black student even if that non-black student has a higher GPA or SAT/ACT score.

Why don't we require that same "diversity" (racial proportional representation?) for college basketball or football scholarships? In other words, merit alone is OK so long as only non-black students end up with the short end of the stick - otherwise it is called a "sure sign of racism".
 
Affirmative Action favors one race over another, and that is essentially a racist act. It violates constitutional principles.
 
back in the 60's maybe it was a good thing....

maybe we needed quota's for government jobs, and admissions into colleges

55 years later, i dont think so

everyone, and everything should be on their own merit

if that means a class is made up of 60% asian students getting into Harvard, so be it

dont we want the BEST getting the best opportunities....not based on sex, or skin color, or religion

the military just announced that all combat roles will be OPEN to all sexes....okay

but lets have one standard for the JOB...not the person

every combat medic needs to be able to do x, y , andz

every pilot needs to pass x, y, and z

every ranger needs to be able to do the exact same physical things

stop basing things on gender or race....

shouldnt be one set of standards for men, and another for women

one set of standards for the JOB

one set of standards for entry to college
 
Scalia had some biting comments on this subject today.

“There are those who contend that it does not benefit African Americans to get them into the University of Texas where they do not do well, as opposed to having them go to a less-advanced school, a slower-track school, where they do well,” he said.

“One of the [legal] briefs pointed out that most of the black scientists in this country don’t come from schools like the University of Texas. They come from lesser schools where they do not feel that they’re being pushed ahead in classes that are too fast for them.”

Justice Scalia: minority students may be better off where 'they don't feel pushed too hard' | Law | The Guardian

Well, at least people aren't holding back anymore.
 
Regardless of what they do, I think we should completely toss race-based affirmative action.

I think it should be replaced with economic status-based affirmative action.




Hey...you want to incentivize the poor climbing out of poverty? There's one way to try.
 
Regardless of what they do, I think we should completely toss race-based affirmative action.

I think it should be replaced with economic status-based affirmative action.




Hey...you want to incentivize the poor climbing out of poverty? There's one way to try.

I used to support AA, but I've learned that all it does is perpetuate racism. Race based admissions are, after all, a racist program.
 
i would love to see and end to it myself as it is a form of discrimination.

however, I personally believe that if it is gotten rid of, a lot of ethnic minorities will still not be hired, despite the laws we currently have against racial discrimination.

The official explanations will not be about race, but will go along the lines of "you're just not the person we're lookign for" and there will be other excuses given to not hire them.
 
Not sure why UT couldn't have just kept going down from the top-10%. If they had more slots, then start looking at the next 5% in classes.
 
I have long said that if we get rid of AA based on race - we should get rid of ALL AA programs based on anything other than agreed upon test results measuring intelligence and academic ability.

That list would include admission for anything else - and that covers legacy admissions, athletic admissions, or anything other than who are the kids who did the best on the agreed upon rubric for admission.

Of course, few would support that.

So lets get off the high horse claiming that AA based on race is somehow wrong when the other stuff would go untouched.
 
I have long said that if we get rid of AA based on race - we should get rid of ALL AA programs based on anything other than agreed upon test results measuring intelligence and academic ability.

That list would include admission for anything else - and that covers legacy admissions, athletic admissions, or anything other than who are the kids who did the best on the agreed upon rubric for admission.

Of course, few would support that.

So lets get off the high horse claiming that AA based on race is somehow wrong when the other stuff would go untouched.

athletic scholarships are a whole different ballgame...pun intended

and the BEST athletes get those....no matter what your skin color, or how much money your daddy has

it gives a LOT of underprivileged kids a chance to get an education that otherwise they wouldnt have a chance at

i dont see how you can put those in the same category as AA at all
 
athletic scholarships are a whole different ballgame...pun intended

and the BEST athletes get those....no matter what your skin color, or how much money your daddy has

it gives a LOT of underprivileged kids a chance to get an education that otherwise they wouldnt have a chance at

i dont see how you can put those in the same category as AA at all

Because it admits on a standard other than the best and the brightest which has been part of this discussion for many.
 
Because it admits on a standard other than the best and the brightest which has been part of this discussion for many.

it does take the BEST

and only the best

no questions asked

that is the difference

tell me a college athletic scholarship that went to the 3rd place player instead of the first place because of money, sex, or skin color

then we can talk
 
it does take the BEST

and only the best

no questions asked

that is the difference

tell me a college athletic scholarship that went to the 3rd place player instead of the first place because of money, sex, or skin color

then we can talk

The main business of college is to acquire an academic education and hopefully a degree. If this is about the best to do that, academics should be the only consideration.

The NCAA should reform the rules which prevent ANY COLLEGE from recruiting or offering anything to any possible student to come there. Anyone who gets admitted has the opportunity to try out for the teams and if you make it - you get the free ride and expense money as that will also be your part time job.

Legacy admissions for family ties and admissions bought with donations would also be forbidden.
 
i would love to see and end to it myself as it is a form of discrimination.

however, I personally believe that if it is gotten rid of, a lot of ethnic minorities will still not be hired, despite the laws we currently have against racial discrimination.

The official explanations will not be about race, but will go along the lines of "you're just not the person we're lookign for" and there will be other excuses given to not hire them.

The most important single factor in a job is a good relationship with your immediate supervisor.

A boss who dislikes blacks, but who is required to hire one will be unfair to that black person. The black person will be better off working for a black person or a white person who likes blacks.
 
Affirmative Action favors one race over another, and that is essentially a racist act. It violates constitutional principles.

thats excellent! on the principles

i don't get to say this much, but i am giving you a personal thumps up!

p.s. my "like" button does not work
 
Last edited:
President Johnson introduced the concept of affirmative action during a 1965 speech at Howard University when he used the metaphor of the shackled runner. He argued that because blacks had been unfairly held back in the past, they should be allowed to begin the race a little ahead of the starting line.

He was advocating affirmative action as a temporary expedient designed to help a race which was considered to be intrinsically equal to whites.

From such humble origins affirmative action has become a permanent entitlement that is granted to any race with a history of lower than white achievement levels. This is considered necessary to achieve diversity. We are told that diversity is our strength, although we are never told just what the advantages of diversity are.

I think diversity is only useful if there is no diversity of talent.

If whites attend school with or work with blacks who are obviously less intelligent than nearly all of the whites the experience is not likely to dispel racial prejudice; it is likely to increase it.
 
thats excellent! on the principles

i don't get to say this much, but i am giving you a personal thumps up!

p.s. my "like" button does not work

Mine like button does work. I posted a like on your comment.
 
There are many bosses who dislike Jews, Orientals, and/or homosexuals. Jews, Orientals, and homosexuals still tend to earn more money than white heterosexual Gentiles.
 
there are cases where diversity does serve a valid purpose. For example, you are the Police Commissioner of a large city and your city is plagued with say ethnic based crime gangs. Maybe the Mafia, Maybe Russian gangs, Chinese "Tongs" or Nigerian heroin rings. Hiring some officers of Russian, Chinese or Nigerian backgrounds makes sense since a detective named "Sean O'Malley" is gonna have a hard time pretending he is Sicilian or Nigerian
 
there are cases where diversity does serve a valid purpose. For example, you are the Police Commissioner of a large city and your city is plagued with say ethnic based crime gangs. Maybe the Mafia, Maybe Russian gangs, Chinese "Tongs" or Nigerian heroin rings. Hiring some officers of Russian, Chinese or Nigerian backgrounds makes sense since a detective named "Sean O'Malley" is gonna have a hard time pretending he is Sicilian or Nigerian



 
it does take the BEST

and only the best

no questions asked

that is the difference

tell me a college athletic scholarship that went to the 3rd place player instead of the first place because of money, sex, or skin color

then we can talk
I think he is talking about the best in terms of academic and intellectual achievement, not athletic. I believe he is also making a good point.
 
The Supreme Court will hear arguments Wednesday in a case that revolves around whether it's legal for colleges to consider applicants' race to ensure a diverse student body — a decades-old policy known as affirmative action.

The case focuses on the University of Texas at Austin, which automatically admits the top 10% of students from every class in the state.
Students who don't get in through the so-called Top-10 plan can still gain admission, and the university considers a number of factors including extracurricular activities and race.

Texas native Abigail Fisher — who was rejected by UT in 2008 — is challenging the school's use of race for students who aren't accepted through the Top-10 plan. Fisher claims UT-Austin's policy violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, and that the school admitted minority students who were less qualified than she was.

The main issue here is whether UT-Austin needed to consider race since its Top-10 plan already ensured the class was racially diverse. Since many universities and colleges specifically consider applicants' race, this case could have far-reaching implications.

As SCOTUSBlog's Lyle Denniston noted, "[T]he stakes might turn out to be huge: it could be that the result would go so far as to make it unconstitutional for public universities and colleges to take race into account in any way in choosing their entering classes."
For its part, UT-Austin argues it needs affirmative action in addition to the Top-10 plan so it can achieve "diversity within diversity."

The Top-10 plan achieves racial diversity because schools in the US (including Texas) tend to be segregated by race. However, the black and Hispanic students admitted under that plan often come from majority black or Hispanic schools with students from lower-income families. The white students who are accepted under that plan tend to come from more affluent schools.

UT "doesn't want all of the African-American and Latino students on campus to be students from under-served, often under-funded inner-city or rural-school districts," University of Michigan Law School professor Richard Primus told Business Insider. "UT also wants to admit African-Americans and Latinos who finished in the 13th or 14th percentiles of fancy high schools in suburban Dallas."

One thing UT is trying to avoid, Primus added, is allowing the Top-10 plan to be a "device that enforces racial stereotype."

(snip)

There was a time when affirmative action may have been needed.....that time is past. Hopefully the SC sees this the same way....

Well SCOTUS won't see it your way because that won't be what the case is about. Cases like this have already gone to court, they are not based on legal affirmative action. University of Texas should lose if they are giving special treatment to race because that has nothing to do with affirmative action.
 
Any criteria set up by any organization that gives special treatment based on race is not affirmative action. By design affirmative action does not violate the constitution nor does it give special treatment to any one race, anything that does, again, is not affirmative action.
 
Back
Top Bottom