Posted on 06/23/2003 3:29:45 PM PDT by mhking
Yeah, if you have been in this country a long time just research your genealogical family tree, research some of those long vanished east coast Indian tribes, and convert one of your great great grandmothers into a tribeswoman.
If you haven't been here long, then claim a Spanish "hidalgo" great great grandmother via Mexico.
In any case, just claim minority status. Make them prove you wrong. Guess we will all jump on the gravy train now!
My point exactly, despite his Irish ancestory, he'd be considered hispanic. So would Alberto Fujimoro(sic) former President of Peru. There are lots of people of Japanese and Chinese ancestory in Mexico and other "Latin American countries. Are they considered Hispanic and thus eligible for special consideration at U. Mich law school? If not, why not?
I have no problem with the admissions committees looking at a persons background to evaluate her degree of achievment based on where she started, but that has nothing to do with race or ethnicity per se. A kid, say someone like Jessica Lynch or her relatives, from some hollow in Apalachia could be just as "disadvantaged" as a kid from the Ghetto or the Bario, so why should he/she be discriminated against? In fact taking such socio economic factors into account is exactly what many schools in Texas and elsewhere do, including the University of Michigan. I don't see that race should be a factor. The argument of "compelling state interest" in "diversity" doesn't wash, someday the state might (once again) decide that keeping people of some ethnic group OUT is a "compelling state interest". "Compelling state interest" should not be allowed to overide the the Constitutional manadate of "equal protection". The fouthteenth amendment does not say "except when there is a compelling state interest" to apply the laws unequally, nor does the second amendment say "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...except when there is a compelling state interest to do so".
I am, too. I would have been fine with it being struck down, but I am basically OK with the overall ruling (because I think we're still inching toward racial justice and it probably needs some sort of external knob still to keep us moving in the direction) but he was brave and of course correct in his comments. We are lucky to have him on the bench.
O'Connor (remember she was supposed to be the ultra conservative, right-winger that would destroy the country because Reagan appointed her?) said we should be done with affirmative action in 25 years. I hope she is right.
Quote from Sandra Day O'Connor: "The power I exert on the court depends on the power of my arguments, not on my gender."
He said the college never did anything about it, because they were afraid it would lead to more such applications.
Gee, why would they be afraid of more such applications had they rejected the original applications?
I mean, if they could reject the original applicants, then that should discourage--not encourage--future applicants.
Like I said the way to defeat this racist nonsense is for all to regard themselves as Afro-American, and let the racists prove we aren't because we don't fit their STEREOTYPING.
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.