Split Decision, Clear Result (the Michigan SC cases)

United Press International ^ | 23 June 2003 | John Armor

[Teacher317]

Taking this to perhaps the reasonable next step, what is to prevent a law school candidate who "appears" white to notate on their application that they are "African-American"?

An exceptional idea. If "African-American" means one whose ancestry is from Africa, then we all qualify. "Lucy", our oldest known ancestor, was undoubtedly African. If they say that one of your grandparents must be AA, then use the same formula for them as well. THEY were AA, because THEIR grandparents were AA... go back far enough and you'll eventually get to "Lucy" (or whoever the oldest is nowadays)... unless the schools would like to argue that Adam and Ever were our starting point, and prove that the Garden of Eden was not in Africa (and I'd pay big money to watch them argue that!).

If they want to argue that it is about melanin in the skin, than get a good tan and beat the mulatto and bi-racial students (and ask the Hispanics if they agree with that decision).

MAN, I hate these f*****g racists. Look at what we have to do to counter their Evil stupidity.

[drhogan]

Thomas seems to be the clearest thinker on the court--he always sees through the nonesense.

[htjyang]

It's amusing the way you avoided the points I made. Why don't you try writing something substantive next time?

The liberal American Prospect already came out with an article celebrating how the ruling simply solidifies racial preferences.

And they're right. The undergraduate admissions case does nothing other than hold ground.

[inquest]

You can't get rid of equity altogether, and in any case, the courts go way beyond what could be considered equity rulings. For example, substantive due process (the notion that the due-process clause prohibits certain laws instead of regulating the manner in which they're enforced) isn't a product of "equity", but of judges creating entirely new law from whole cloth.

[Steve Eisenberg]

The problem with that is that even the makers of standardized tests don't recommend overemphasizing the test scores and as you allude to, GPAs from different schools are directly compatible.

I know that the undergraduate admissions offices come up with a predictive index based on each applicants test scores, grades, and high school. Law schools, if they don't do the same, could. There is no necessity to base admissions on soft criteria like interviews and how enthusiastic are the recommendations.

If I was in my state legislature's education committee, I simply would not trust the people in charge of our state university to treat conservatives fairly in either admissions or hiring. With hiring, it is tough to do something about. But in admissions, why not a push to mandate objectivity?

[garbanzo]

Admission was based on test results and school grades.

In what universe? Most places consider interviews, recommendations, school activities, essays, community service, etc and as far as I know always have.

[LibertarianInExile]

It's worse. It's Sandy Baby deciding that she doesn't want it around forever but doesn't want to have to deal with the repercussions. The '25 year' line is merely to make her feel like a conservative.

"Oh, I don't want this to last, but I don't need the demonstrations on my lawn, either."

I hope she gets bit by a Gila Monster tending her ranch. No time to repent her sins, just straight to hell. Witch.

[LWalk18]

Hispanic is not a race. A Cuban such as Desi Arnez is 100% white of Spanish decent. Fidel is white. Many of the elite Mexican's are white, Fox is white. Many of the South American countries have a signicant number of people that are of French decent but speak Spanish. I think that a good case can be made if someone complains about a white Hispanic getting preferance at one of these schools.

A white descendant of a Cuban slaveowner (where there were far more slaves than the U.S.) is an oppressed minority and a Laotian boat person is not. Just part of the bizarre racial classifications that have always existed in the U.S.

BTW, Homer Plessy of Plessy v. Ferguson was only 1/8 black yet that was enough to hold to the laws of Jim Crow. Bizarre definitions of race are not new.

[bybybill]

As I read your post,it seemed to me that you blame Bush and his people for the Michigan decision. That is a pretty big stretch. If you were the President, how would you have changed the USSC vote on this issue?

[bayourod]

"That stereotypes are for the ignorant. "

Did you learn that by observing black law school students?

[Irene Adler]

"For example, a child of Cliff and Clair Huxtable (the Cosby family on TV), would get no advantage."

"This is laughable, to think that an advantaged black would get no preference. Laughable"

I have taught on the university level for 20+ years and have worked with scholarships for about 15 of those years (scholarship decisions are fairly similar to admission decisions). From my experience, you are correct. I know of plenty of minority students who come from affluent backgrounds who receive substantial scholarship awards due solely to their minority staus. My college within the university maintains a large, separate line of scholarship awards for minority students, only. I have always wondered if this practice is entirely legal, strictly speaking, but it's done, alright.

[Irene Adler]

"Admission was based on test results and school grades.There were rules for calculating total score ranking etc. There was an audit-able trial of evidence and if rules were broken one could sue. That puts a check on favoritism. As it stands now, there are no rules. Actually there is one. From the mouth of a Michigan University bureaucrat it sounds like this "The rule is ME". Some super fuzzy "life experience assessment" can be understood and performed only and only by the bureaucrat."

You are right; this is a BI, BIG danger. At least the point-added system for blacks left fingerprints. I think this pair of decisions say its's perfectly okay to discriminate against white people any way you choose, just don't leave any messy print behind.

[htjyang]

The Wall Street Journal Editorial Page completely agrees with me on Mr. Gonzalez's role ( http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110003666 ).

My post clearly outlined the extent to which the Administration is culpable. It did not include a single sentence attributing ALL responsibility to the Administration. But it does bear some responsibility. See my post about the importance of the Solicitor General. I saw a study somewhere noting that in 75% of the cases where the Administration rendered its opinion in a brief, the SC ruled in the Administration's way. Considering the narrow margin in the law school case, I don't think it's a stretch.