A Dream Denied Leads Woman to Center of Suit

Washington Post ^ | Sunday, February 23, 2003; Page A01 | Anne Hull

[69ConvertibleFirebird]

A Dream Denied Leads Woman to Center of Suit

Gratz's Rejection by U-Mich. Led Her to Fight Against Race-Conscious Admissions

By Anne Hull
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, February 23, 2003; Page A01

OCEANSIDE, Calif. -- Jennifer Gratz has heard it all. That she's a pawn of the right. That she's hijacked the language of the civil rights era. That her lawsuit against the University of Michigan's affirmative action policy cloaks a deeper agenda about race.

"Totally crazy," says the 25-year-old, shaking her head.

The facts. In 1995, Gratz was a high school student with a 3.8 GPA, the golden face of her yearbook when she applied to the University of Michigan and was rejected. Two years later, she helped lead a class action lawsuit against the university, alleging that the school's admissions policies gave an unfair edge to minority applicants.

[69ConvertibleFirebird]

As usual, the WP scatters overtones of racist Republicans doing their evil against minorities in the article. No sob story about the poor woman who was denied admissions because she was white. Just a story about the evil Republican machine using the woman against minorities. Pretty sickening of the WP.

Yes, discrimination must stop. Admissions based on race is wrong. I lost a job once because I'm white and I'm sick of it!

[I_Love_My_Husband]

I'm sick to death of Affirmative Action, etc. This story (and I read the whole thing) is disgusting. This girl should have been admitted there.

BTW, in San Francisco (and I imagine most cities) although it's illegal to do, they make racial profiling preferences for blacks and latinos into the good schools. They're legally not supposed to but they do it. They've been sued and they continue to do this.

[tob2]

That has happened to me too. Reverse discrimination is more widespread than people realize.

[69ConvertibleFirebird]

In addition, if diversity is as important as the NAACP, Dems, etc, claim it is, then what are they doing to make Howard, Grambling, Alcorn St, Morehouse more diverse?

No doubt you know the answer to your question. They could care less about diversity. They want money and power to go to their race (called racism). Another example... Why aren't people screaming about the NBA and it's lack of diversity? White players should automatically get 5 points on the socreboard towards their name, per game, if we were to use the Michigan standard. Hispanic players get 20 points. Are there any Hispanics in the NBA?!?

[69ConvertibleFirebird]

I have always considered the NBA arguments loser arguments that make undecide people think that anti-affirmative action people are racist.

What an odd way of thinking. Undecided people by definition are non-thinking people therefore they will likely run with emotional liberal spin that anything against race preferences is racist. If we were to force diversity on all aspects of American life the NBA is a prime target. Like you seem to understand, it would force poor performing white, hispanic, etc. people onto teams that are primarily black.

Who in reality hasn't decided whether it is correct and/or moral to admit a white over a black to anything? Or a black over a hispanic?

[Lorianne]

If she had applied with the same credentials 30 years ago she very likely would have been passed over by a male applicant with lesser qualifications.

[69ConvertibleFirebird]

If she had applied with the same credentials 30 years ago she very likely would have been passed over by a male applicant with lesser qualifications.

1) Please provide proof.

2) Today is not 30 years ago.

[Lorianne]

Well for one thing veteran's got preference in college admissions. . Veterans still get points added to their Civil Service exams.

Furthermore, I know actual women who were passed over who had higher GPA's than men who got in. One woman I know was turned down for architectural school based on the fact that she didn't have high school drafting which she was not allowed to take because she was female. There are many ways to discriminate and keep people out.

Other examples of preferences are family name, money, alumni status of parents, low GPA, SAT w/ sports ability (which has nothing to do with academics) ... on and on. Preferences are not a new thing nor are the old history. They continue on.

Note: I'm not begrudging a veteran anything. But a preference is a preference. Let's call it straight.

[69ConvertibleFirebird]

Note: I'm not begrudging a veteran anything. But a preference is a preference. Let's call it straight.

There is nothing unconstitutional about preferences NOT based on race. Giving someone something based on their race is unconstitutional. If you don't like it change the constitution rather than endorsing breaking the law.

So, tell me, why should I not be allowed to work somewhere, go to school somewhere, or sit in a particular seat on a bus because I am a white male? I have never discriminated against anyone. Why should I be punished, and unconstitutionally at that, for someone else's actions?

[farmfriend]

ping

[farmfriend]

I don't get it. Prior to '64, if you considered race, it was racism. Now, if you consider race it's "affirmative action" and it's racism to not consider race? How can we reach "all men are created equal" if we continue to treat people different?

[Lorianne]

First of all I'm not endorsing breaking the law. I''m just challenging the notion that all of a sudden preferences are a no-no like they don't exist all across a broad spectrum of our society, including racially. It disengenous to even hint that this is the case.

Plus, my point is that preferences are not always a bad idea, but they DO discriminate against better qualified persons. A veteran with a lower score will be admitted over a more qualified candidate. We've decided as a society that this kind of preference is okay even if some qualified people get passed over.

As for your bus example, most cities have LAWS on the books that you must give up certain seats on a bus or train to handicapped and elderly people. Again preferences but they make sense don't they?

Furthermore elderly people and married people and people with mortgages get different tax rules, different government benefits etc. Again, preferences which we've instilled to try to make a better more orderly society and give some people a hand. There are numerous examples of laws and bennies we've decided to give to people based on the premise of the greater good of society that DO in the strict interpretaion, discriminate against others. We do it anyway.

[69ConvertibleFirebird]

In all of the instances you cite the person getting "preferences" has done something to get them or is currently in a situation where he or she would not be able to function without them. Being black, aisian, Hispanic, or white is not something that one does and is not a handicap. Again, the Michigan case is about a white woman who didn't get in because she was white. Should we really go back to not letting certain races participate based on their race? To me the correct and moral thinking is that we are all human beings. No deciding anything based on our skin color.

There is nothing immoral about saying that someone who risked their life to protect our freedoms is allowed to the front of a particular line. It is a reward for an action.

[69ConvertibleFirebird]

I don't get it. Prior to '64, if you considered race, it was racism. Now, if you consider race it's "affirmative action" and it's racism to not consider race? How can we reach "all men are created equal" if we continue to treat people different?

Well said. Basing things on the color of one's skin is racism. Whether we discriminate against white, black, Asian, or Hispanic it is still racism. Just post the sign at the water fountian "No Fill-in-your-non-prefered-race-here Allowed." It promotes division based on race. It promotes hatred based on race. This is exactly what the "Reverend" Jesse The Adulterer Jackson does for a living (and very good living at that!).

[AppyPappy]

She doesn't understand how college admissions works. She wasn't denied admission in order to let someone else in. She just didn't make the cut.

[69ConvertibleFirebird]

She doesn't understand how college admissions works. She wasn't denied admission in order to let someone else in. She just didn't make the cut.

Assuming you are refering to the white woman who didn't "make the cut," you are correct she didn't make the cut. If she were black she would have made the cut.

I just wonder how many people would be for adding 20 points, out of a total of 80 admissions points) to all white's applications? It is simply setting the standard for the cut. Of course it is illegal, unconstitutional, and immoral, but, hey, it would allow for more whites to get in. This is her argument in a nutshell. She would have gotten in if the color of her skin was different.

[AppyPappy]

It's the same thing universities do for alumni's kids.