Posted on 07/15/2014 3:35:59 PM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
A federal appeals court panel ruled Tuesday that the University of Texas can continue using race as a factor in undergraduate admissions as a way of promoting diversity on campus, the latest in an ongoing case that made it to the U.S. Supreme Court last year only to be sent back to lower courts for further review.
In a 2-1 ruling, judges from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that barring the university from using race would ultimately lead to a less diverse student body in defiance of previous legal precedent that promoting diversity was an important part of education.
"We are persuaded that to deny UT Austin its limited use of race in its search for holistic diversity would hobble the richness of the educational experience," the opinion stated.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
Didn’t SCOTUS already rule on something like this?
“hole istic diversity”?
The US supreme court will kill it if it gets there.
When the 14th amendment was adopted with the provision “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” no one noticed the phrase “except when necessary to promote diversity” since it was written in invisible ink.
Fine by me. Freedom of association.
And if I’m hiring, the worth of a UT degree will reflect their emphasis on social engineering over proper education.
I hope the SCOTUS kills it but at least this suit has forced UT-Austin (Class of 97 for my Master’s BTW) to be honest about what they are doing.
If they are going to use skin color as a factor for admissions then they need to say so up front rather than lie about it. Delineate how much weight it is given, and publicly set out the parameters.
Sotomayor dissenting.
This is an edict build upon the foundation of the ideological ends justify the inherently inequitable(racist) means.
Yes, SCOTUS said it can be ‘a factor’ but not the only determining factor.
They did, however, agree diversity was a worthwhile goal.
Much data suggests the contrary. Diverse student populations learn less, especially when it comes to gender.
When did “diversity” trump the Constitution??
Supreme Court upholds Michigan’s ban on affirmative action in college admissions
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3147268/posts
I would hope so, but I have doubts these days
>> for holistic diversity
Holistic meaning skin color, not the content of one’s character. Idiots.
They need to run ads about how they discriminate against white people
wonder what all the anti-racial profiling libs will have to say about this. /sarc
Drag Race?
Nascar Race?
Pinewood Derby Race?
What would happen if they used his ruling to become one of the only predominantly white universities?
Qualifications no longer matter.
Likely but she’s still a loser.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.