For Five Supreme Court Justices, Affirmative Action Isn't Academic

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL ^ | Wednesday, May 14, 2003 | DANIEL GOLDEN

[WaveThatFlag]

In one of the most controversial cases of the year, the nine U.S. Supreme Court justices are expected soon to decide the fate of racial preferences in college admissions. As it happens, a majority of the justices are already familiar with another type of admissions preference.

[jimkress]

Legacy is independant of race. "Affirmitive Action" is not.

[WaveThatFlag]

Nice knowing you...

[WaveThatFlag]

Oh, and by the way, you couldn't be any more incorrect in your assumptiond. Why don't you actually read the article in question next time?

"On the 150-point scale the university uses to rank candidates, alumni children receive four points, compared with 20 points for black, Hispanic and Native American students. "

[discostu]

You do realize that black people have graduated from college and their kids are just as elligible for legacy admissions as white folks kids? No of course not, that would require application of critical thought, and your screenname shows you've got none of that.

[Poincare]

Family affilations with the old Alma Mater are good for the school, are they not? If offsetting legacy admissions was the justification for affirmative action at UM then they wouldn't give 20 points for being a select minority to offset 3 points for being the child of an alumnus. It's absurd.

Most, but not all, of the black students at UM are considerably behind the average. They can't compete for grades without special classes for them so in the name of teaching students equality and to live with diversity we get segregation and special treatment on the basis of race. I believe that Scalia suggested that UM accept students of equal ability, black and white, and reject the admission of the very smart white and orientals so all the students in a given course would be competitive. UM could not understand his point.

[Cicero]

I suspect that more weight is given to political position than alumni legacy. Al Gore got into Harvard because his father was a highly influential politician. Most likely Jane Ginsburg got into Harvard Law School because her mother has some very desirable Supreme Court clerkships at her disposal. The children of ordinary graduates of Harvard or Yale these days are given short shrift. If anything, they are discriminated against, from my experience and anecdotes of my friends.

[LiteKeeper]

bump

[CyberAnt]

I think having an in to a university because one of your parents graduated from there is okay.

I think economic status to get in a good college should be an opportunity for alumni to support a fund to help those high achieving students who have financial difficulty entering college.

[Fee]

My brother graduated from Georgetown School of Foreign Service. Took the foreign service exam and passed. Only ten percent of the people will pass the exam, but only ten percent of those who pass will enter the US Foreign Service. Discriminator is who is your parent, because at this point exam grades are so close, it makes no difference. So if you are the son of a Chinese immigrant laundry mat owner, duh?? On the other hand if you are the son of the former Governor of Hawaii, hey nice to know you, welcome to the Foreign Service. When you start to interface with the Real Power Class in this country, middle class kids face hurdles in entering such inner circles, no matter how good their grades are. That is reality.

[Princeliberty]

They may say whatever they want to on
the point system, but all legacys
are not equal, the richer and the more
powerfull the alumni is the more
than legacy will count.

However, legacy is still wrong,
but having another wrong in favoring
one race or sex over another is still
wrong and really makes things
hard on a nonlegacy white male.

[WaveThatFlag]

One more thing I forgot to add (assuming you have not been permanently removed ). The majority of the SCOTUS justices who have benefitted from legacy AA are liberals.

[Teacher317]

Legacy is independent of race. "Affirmative Action" is not.

One is protected by the Constitution, the other is forbidden by the Constitution.
Liberals just cannot seem to wrap their puny minds around this simple fact.

[Teacher317]

LOL, you just have to love that screen-name, too... "freedom could be free"... as if there will ever be a day where patriots won't have to sacrifice themselves for it, where collectivists will never threaten it, where it won't take work and analytical thought on voting choices, and where the military will somehow pay for itself.

Freedom is not free, nor will it ever be.