• 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!

Supreme Court punts on affirmative action case

LowDown said:
With her SAT score she beat over ~30% of the students who matriculated at UT. So, WHY didn't she get in? EH? WHY?

You and I both know why.
Click to expand...

I do. She had a bad application. My GPA and SAT were only slightly higher than hers. However, I also played soccer three years, one year in every season, I ran cross country a year. I worked three summers while in high school. I was involved in numerous clubs at school like National Honors Society. I received the highest honor in my class on the National Latin Exam. I did a summer abroad program. I volunteered in multiple places like soccer games for a local church group and for school events. I did theater my freshman and senior year and I did an internship my senior year. Plus I had a major negative point against me in going to three different high schools.

Compare mine to hers, and that has more reason to do with why she didn't get into a competitive school than her race.
 
LowDown said:
With her SAT score she beat over ~30% of the students who matriculated at UT. So, WHY didn't she get in? EH? WHY?

You and I both know why.
Click to expand...

There are other variables in college admission like I already mentioned but you conveniently left out of the quote.
 
That's why I liked Nathan Glazer's evolved stance. Some concerns aside, he always thought that a student's race should be taken into consideration in order to admit more minorities.
 
No one should be refused admission to a university because of the melanin content of their skin.

And no one should be admitted to a university because of the melanin content of their skin.
 
Last edited:
DA60 said:
No one should be refused admission to a university because of the melanin content of their skin.

And no one should be admitted to a university because of the melanin content of their skin.
Click to expand...

Good thing that doesnt happen in TX.
 
captainawesome said:
Whites get affirmative action too. Its the 10 percent law.
Click to expand...

That's a stupid law as well...just as affirmative action is.

Government's should not be in the business of dictating how universities fill their enrolments...whether it's by how the applicants finished in high school, their sex or the melanin content of their skin.

Let the universities decide free from dumb ass politicians.
 
Deuce said:
But if you remove the "compensatory mandates" while the glass ceiling is still in place, you're just back to unopposed discrimination.
Click to expand...

That's right. The Libbos have to have their boogy men. "Be afraid! Be very afraid".
 
Deuce said:
There are other variables in college admission like I already mentioned but you conveniently left out of the quote.
Click to expand...

And you conveniently ignore the fact that UT said that her grades and SAT scores rendered her inadmissible "regardless of race". That is false on its face.

Regardless, it goes back to trial now where UT will get the opportunity to explain why scores and grades that were good enough for other students were not good enough for her and to prove why it was necessary to consider race at all.
 
captainawesome said:
It is TX law. Top 10% in class rank get preference in admissions.

That benefits rural whites in small schools.
Click to expand...


Actually, the 10% rule promotes diveristy in Texas schools. This is one of the reasons they listed as not needing race-based admissions because the 10% rule is just another form of affirmative action and no, not for whites.
 
captainawesome said:
It is TX law. Top 10% in class rank get preference in admissions.

That benefits rural whites in small schools.
Click to expand...

Seems to benefit anyone that ranks in the top 10 percent.
 
hidingrpolitics said:
Actually, the 10% rule promotes diveristy in Texas schools. This is one of the reasons they listed as not needing race-based admissions because the 10% rule is just another form of affirmative action and no, not for whites.
Click to expand...

It mostly benefits rural whites. As most small towns in TX are White.
 
apdst said:
Seems to benefit anyone that ranks in the top 10 percent.
Click to expand...

A whole lot easier to be top 10 out of 50 than 2000.

Rural TX is white. The point of the law was to benefit rural whites because they felt inner city blacks got special treatment. Now everyone does.
 
captainawesome said:
A whole lot easier to be top 10 out of 50 than 2000.

Rural TX is white. The point of the law was to benefit rural whites because they felt inner city blacks got special treatment. Now everyone does.
Click to expand...


Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the point of the law was to promote diversity by guaranteeing spots to high schoolers in the top 10% in both rural Texas and inner city schools. Yes, most of Texas is white, but the 10% law's goal is to promote PROPORTIONAL representation, which it has done well empirically. In other words, just because most of the beneficiaries may have been white does not mean whites received a disproportionate amount of the benefits because they make up the majority of TX.
 
hidingrpolitics said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the point of the law was to promote diversity by guaranteeing spots to high schoolers in the top 10% in both rural Texas and inner city schools. Yes, most of Texas is white, but the 10% law's goal is to promote PROPORTIONAL representation, which it has done well empirically. In other words, just because most of the beneficiaries may have been white does not mean whites received a disproportionate amount of the benefits because they make up the majority of TX.
Click to expand...

No it was to give rural whites admission benefits on par with inner city blacks. It worked really well.
 
apdst said:
That's right. The Libbos have to have their boogy men. "Be afraid! Be very afraid".
Click to expand...

You heard it here, folks! Apdst assures us that racial discrimination is over and done. Phew, that's a load off.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
I can buy that, but even so, they don't ask for documentation at any stage. And even if they did, at what point is it not enough? Does the one drop rule apply? I'm 1/16 Persian, can I claim minority status? That's not a rhetorical question, btw.
Click to expand...




You can claim whatever you want to claim.

But there's no guarantee that will help you.
 
captainawesome said:
No it was to give rural whites admission benefits on par with inner city blacks. It worked really well.
Click to expand...

I haven't read the entire thread, but it seems to me that you're arguing that the intent of the 10% rule in Texas is to help rural whites. I'm going to rebut that claim. If that wasn't your point, ignore the rest of this post and I'd appreciate it if you could clarify your position.

I looked up the history of Texas House Bill 588, which instituted the 10% rule. The original writer of the bill was Irma Rangel, a Democrat. The Senate sponsor was Gonzalo Barrientos, a Democrat. The bill was written and passed in response to the Hopwood v. Texas decision, which was a successful challenge of the affirmative action policies at the UT Law School.

Judging from this information, it seems the intent was to address diversity concerns in the Texas higher education system.
 
Deuce said:
You heard it here, folks! Apdst assures us that racial discrimination is over and done. Phew, that's a load off.
Click to expand...

Yeah! Look out for that ol boogey man; need the Libbos to come save us fore day put yall in chains. Deuce say we's too weak and stupid to take care of ire'sef so dem do gooders gots tuh hep us.
 
repeter said:
I haven't read the entire thread, but it seems to me that you're arguing that the intent of the 10% rule in Texas is to help rural whites. I'm going to rebut that claim. If that wasn't your point, ignore the rest of this post and I'd appreciate it if you could clarify your position.

I looked up the history of Texas House Bill 588, which instituted the 10% rule. The original writer of the bill was Irma Rangel, a Democrat. The Senate sponsor was Gonzalo Barrientos, a Democrat. The bill was written and passed in response to the Hopwood v. Texas decision, which was a successful challenge of the affirmative action policies at the UT Law School.

Judging from this information, it seems the intent was to address diversity concerns in the Texas higher education system.
Click to expand...

The 10% rule was not what was questioned as that applied to all schools. The issue arose from giving preference based on race in those areas of study where the university felt it hadn't achieved the amount of desired diversity and was using it as a means to do so...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom