• 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!

High Court Upholds Michigan Affirmative Action Ban

Affirmative action was never about athletics, it was about race.

yes - and as I have said we should get rid of ALL preferences in admission which violate the basic principle of admitting the best and brightest according to the yardstick we agree upon - and that seems to be HS GPA and SAT scores.
 
I would. University should be exclusive and elitist, the highest benchmark of education and academia with the most diverse and rigorous of requirements.
You realize that Universities are usually made up of Colleges right?

Like the The College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at Cornell University, a state school that Olbeman tried to pass of as an Ivy League education.
 
So one standard for the common plebeians and a different standard for the rich aristocracy. Sorry - that is no principle I can subscribe to.
Sorry, but as I stated, a University has to say afloat, and that has to be considered.
As it really isn't that many, there should be nothing to oppose.
 
You realize that Universities are usually made up of Colleges right?

Like the The College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at Cornell University, a state school that Olbeman tried to pass of as an Ivy League education.

You don't say! Wow, well color be shocked. Why all this time in University from B.S. to PhD, I had no idea!
 
You realize that Universities are usually made up of Colleges right?

Like the The College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at Cornell University, a state school that Olbeman tried to pass of as an Ivy League education.

Let's not forget that non-exclusive, non-elite Ivy League school here in NH - Dartmouth College.

Methinks that poster has no idea what the difference between a "college" and a "university" is. I've been waiting for him to answer my questions.
 
If the school picks a qualified white candidate over an equally qualified black candidate for racist reasons, there will be no way to prove it.
If GPA's and Test scores were the primary considerations, you are referencing to a scenario that would only occur at the so-called bottom of the barrel applicants. Which really is an unlikely occurrence.
But, if GPA's and Test scores is were they equaled then there would be something else that would set them apart and noted.
Which then could be reviewed.
 
Haymarket is noticably anti-meritocratic. Athletic talent is merit. Black is not.
 
You don't say! Wow, well color be shocked. Why all this time in University from B.S. to PhD, I had no idea!
:lamo

Well Dr. Ikari, that kind of puts your idea of what "should be" into proper perspective.
Frankly, all Colleges should be of such rigor.
Maybe yours wasn't and you realize it. :shrug:

By the way, spare me the reference to your Public High School Diploma BS. ;)
Especially as it doesn't change anything that was said.
 
Last edited:
Everyone who buys 1 scratch off ticket has the same chance as everyone else who buys 1 ticket. Your 1 ticket equals 1 chance, same as everyone else's.

Are you sure you went to college? The point I was making is that your chance of winning a fortune from a scratch off ticket is basically 0, so the claim that my friend's story prove anybody can get rich is absurd. And your claim is too. You know a poor, disadvantaged person who wound up succeeding and becoming rich. That proves nothing. 43% of people born into poverty wind up in poverty and I believe that about 70% of people born into poverty wind up in the bottom half of all income earners later in life. See, this is why I'm saying that you're confusing equal opportunity and theoretical opportunity. These statistics show me that there is not equal opportunity, because there is a definite correlation between being born into poverty and being poor as an adult. Is this clear to you?

10% of white children are classified as impoverished, while almost 30% of black people are classified as impoverished. These children do not have access to the same quality education as more wealthy people. All of this is factual information, not opinion or anecdote. And, ironically, many other countries (such as England) have higher rates of social mobility than the US. So as much as we strive to be the land of equal opportunity, in some ways we're not.

So, you see, life is like a poker game and we don't all start with the same number of chips. So maybe now you'll understand the difference between equal opportunity and theoretical opportunity. But if you've made it this far in life without comprehending the distinction, why start now, right?
 
Are you sure you went to college? The point I was making is that your chance of winning a fortune from a scratch off ticket is basically 0, so the claim that my friend's story prove anybody can get rich is absurd. And your claim is too. You know a poor, disadvantaged person who wound up succeeding and becoming rich. That proves nothing. 43% of people born into poverty wind up in poverty and I believe that about 70% of people born into poverty wind up in the bottom half of all income earners later in life. See, this is why I'm saying that you're confusing equal opportunity and theoretical opportunity. These statistics show me that there is not equal opportunity, because there is a definite correlation between being born into poverty and being poor as an adult. Is this clear to you?

10% of white children are classified as impoverished, while almost 30% of black people are classified as impoverished. These children do not have access to the same quality education as more wealthy people. All of this is factual information, not opinion or anecdote. And, ironically, many other countries (such as England) have higher rates of social mobility than the US. So as much as we strive to be the land of equal opportunity, in some ways we're not.

So, you see, life is like a poker game and we don't all start with the same number of chips. So maybe now you'll understand the difference between equal opportunity and theoretical opportunity. But if you've made it this far in life without comprehending the distinction, why start now, right?

If you buy a ticket, you have the same chance of winning the lottery as any other person who buys a ticket. I'm surprised you don't get that but hey, you brought in the analogy, not me.

We're all born as Americans, and I've seen Americans from all walks of life fail, and I've seen Americans from all walks of life succeed. I can't help you if you've only seen failure, sorry. I'm not a pessimist. I'm an optimist. I think anyone can do great things - if he sets his mind to it.
 
High court upholds Mich. affirmative action ban | The Detroit News

"The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld Michigan’s ban on using race as a factor in college admissions.

The justices said in a 6-2 ruling that Michigan voters had the right to change their state constitution in 2006 to prohibit public colleges and universities from taking account of race in admissions decisions. The justices said a lower federal court was wrong to set aside the change as discriminatory."


Students of all races can now know that they got in to Michigan schools on their merit.

This is good news.

For too long, Affirmative Action has been used to paper over the dismal state of public education as forced upon the country by the Department of Education and teachers unions.

Rather than address the problems many children are being forced to live with, the "powers that be" in education have been trying to lower the bar to move kids along, rather than face the realities of helping children reach a bar that is set where it belongs.
 
:lamo

Well Dr. Ikari, that kind of puts your idea of what "should be" into proper perspective.
Frankly, all Colleges should be of such rigor.
Maybe yours wasn't and you realize it. :shrug:

By the way, spare me the reference to your Public High School Diploma BS. ;)
Especially as it doesn't change anything that was said.

Did I contend anything, other than pointing out your Captain Obvious moment there? I said there should be a difference between College and University and that University should be the highest and most rigorous of academic persuit. The fact that a single University is comprised of many Colleges speaks to this idealism. Colleges should be more focused and slightly less diverse in education than University.

Any other known information or nonfactors you wish to add here. Perhaps you can inform us all that gravity is an attractive force between massive bodies (bodies possessing mass). That'll really add to the conversation.
 
If GPA's and Test scores were the primary considerations, you are referencing to a scenario that would only occur at the so-called bottom of the barrel applicants. Which really is an unlikely occurrence.
But, if GPA's and Test scores is were they equaled then there would be something else that would set them apart and noted.
Which then could be reviewed.

I can't imagine why you addressed that to me since your response had nothing to do with what I asked jmotivator.
 
Did I contend anything, other than pointing out your Captain Obvious moment there? I said there should be a difference between College and University and that University should be the highest and most rigorous of academic persuit. The fact that a single University is comprised of many Colleges speaks to this idealism. Colleges should be more focused and slightly less diverse in education than University.

Any other known information or nonfactors you wish to add here. Perhaps you can inform us all that gravity is an attractive force between massive bodies (bodies possessing mass). That'll really add to the conversation.

So when a student gets a degree from Dartmouth College or Harvard College (yes that's what Harvard calls their institution that hands out undergraduate degrees), those aren't of the highest and most rigorous pursuits (not persuit) of academia? Those are of a lesser rigor than, say, Golden Gate University, which accepts 100 percent of the students who apply for admission?
 
Yes - your point about government is a true one. However, if we are going to have a society based on meritocracy, should we not at least try to foster merit in all aspects of college admissions regardless if those preferences come from government or alumni or those who run the place?

Your point about the purpose of athletes is undeniable. But those same school would still field football teams and basketball teams if they simply had to recruit among the admitted student body. Those of greater athletic ability but lesser academic ability would inevitably find their way to lesser schools where academically they would be a far better fit and they could play there. Is the purpose of elite schools to field a great football team or is it to educate the student body?

I like what the Ivies do even though they cannot give "athletic scholarships" ;)

they use what is called the IVY index

here is how it works (or it did at the time I met with the AD during my 30th reunion in 2011)

a student is rated on his

SAT
Class Rank
GPA (with weighting for the HS)

80 points each

so a "perfect" applicant would be 240 points

Yale's average was 221.8 IIRC-Harvard was two but almost the same

overall the Ivies allowed each school a certain number of "slots" based on the # of undergraduates. Yale, under former President Levin, wouldn't allow the admissions office to honor all those slots (a oft recited reason for Harvard kicking yale ass in football over the last decade)

acceptance rates for athletes on the list was around 80%--206 out of 256 one of the years I was told the numbers.

however, no team could average more than ONE DEVIATION (I do not recall what that meant in scores) than the average student and no one on that list to the admissions office could be lower than 2 DEVIATIONS below the average student

this meant that some Ivy coaches would put a kid on the list that might not be stars but would allow him to recruit a kid that was at the bottom of the acceptable numbers.

I know this when I tried to sell a pair of twins (one a girl, one a boy) to the coach at another school. The girl had great numbers (a 235 on the scale) and her brother was decent-about average at the school in question. He told me if I could get the girl to commit, he'd take her brother too since the men's team and and the women's team were grouped as one unit by the admissions office.. He said the girl would allow him a top recruit whose numbers weren't as good. Didn't work out-the girl was recruited by another school where she ended up starting as a freshman.

but that is how it works at the ivies. that a school like Yale could win the NCAA Hockey Title was amazing given the restrictions
 
I can't imagine why you addressed that to me since your response had nothing to do with what I asked jmotivator.

Because I addressed one specific point that you made.

It isn't something that is likely to happen at such a level, and if suspected, the records could be reviewed to see why the choice was made.

So suggesting such an unlikely racist scenario is bs to start with.
 
Because I addressed one specific point that you made.

It isn't something that is likely to happen at such a level, and if suspected, the records could be reviewed to see why the choice was made.

So suggesting such an unlikely racist scenario is bs to start with.

Um, thanks, I'll think I'll wait on jmotivator's response, though.
 
So when a student gets a degree from Dartmouth College or Harvard College (yes that's what Harvard calls their institution that hands out undergraduate degrees), those aren't of the highest and most rigorous pursuits (not persuit) of academia? Those are of a lesser rigor than, say, Golden Gate University, which accepts 100 percent of the students who apply for admission?

You do realize I said "should", yes? Not " is", yes? You know the difference, or are you from Golden Gate University?
 
Why is it that when some people find something they think is a good thing their very next act is to demand that thing be mandatory for everyone else?

Because in this case it has far reaching generational consequences. And if we are going to stop mitigating those consequences through things like affirmative action, then we should do as much as we can about the root of the problem.

And for the record... I agree with the ruling. The Court cannot decide this matter.
 
Let us hope that this is simply one step in getting rid OF ALL PREFERENCES in college admissions. And I do mean ALL. If we want to admit the most qualified based on HS GPA and some test scores like the SAT's - then lets use those and let in the best and deny admission to anybody else not making that standard of admission.

How many here would support that?

Admission should be based solely on performance. Period.
 
that a school like Yale could win the NCAA Hockey Title was amazing given the restrictions

Mr. Borrachos played hockey for an ECAC hockey school (Division 1). I won't say which one but suffice to say it is a very good school. He got a hockey scholarship but they also had a requirement on HS grades, SAT scores and rank, and while in school he had to maintain a 2.0 or better average to keep both his place on the team and his scholarship. I wish they applied the same requirements to the big football & basketball schools that they did to the Division 1 hockey schools.
 
Mr. Borrachos played hockey for an ECAC hockey school (Division 1). I won't say which one but suffice to say it is a very good school. He got a hockey scholarship but they also had a requirement on HS grades, SAT scores and rank, and while in school he had to maintain a 2.0 or better average to keep both his place on the team and his scholarship. I wish they applied the same requirements to the big football & basketball schools that they did to the Division 1 hockey schools.


some of the good hockey schools take studies seriously

Miami of Ohio, St Lawrence, RPI, all have had strong teams and good students.
 
You do realize I said "should", yes? Not " is", yes? You know the difference, or are you from Golden Gate University?

Your application of "should" was proven to be irrelevant and false to boot. Nobody who knows anything about academia would think a "college" has lower standards than a "university" because of the name.
 
Your application of "should" was proven to be irrelevant and false to boot. Nobody who knows anything about academia would think a "college" has lower standards than a "university" because of the name.

I didn't say they did. Jesus, it's as if no one reads anymore.
 
Any other known information or nonfactors you wish to add here.
As you are the one engaged in such, you are free to stop any time you wish,. Especially as there was no requirement for you to start or even continue in the first place.
 
Back
Top Bottom