U.S. Supreme Court will revisit race in college admissions

The New York Times is reporting that the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to revisit race in higher education admissions.

In the 2003  Grutter v. Bollinger decision, the court, in a 5-4 vote, upheld the affirmative action admissions policy of the University of Michigan Law School, saying that the Constitution “does not prohibit the law school’s narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body.”

But the court decision made clear that race had to be treated as a “plus” factor rather than as the sole factor and that quotas were illegal: 

The Law School’s admissions program bears the hallmarks of a narrowly tailored plan. To be narrowly tailored, a race-conscious admissions program cannot “insulat[e] each category of applicants with certain desired qualifications from competition with all other applicants.” Instead, it may consider race or ethnicity only as a “ ‘plus’ in a particular applicant’s file”; i.e., it must be “flexible enough to consider all pertinent elements of diversity in light of the particular qualifications of each applicant, and to place them on the same footing for consideration, although not necessarily according them the same weight,” It follows that universities cannot establish quotas for members of certain racial or ethnic groups or put them on separate admissions tracks.

The Supreme Court has changed since Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote the majority opinion in Grutter, and it’s likely that current members of court will look askance at affirmative action in admissions.

According to the Times:

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. has been particularly skeptical of government programs that take account of race. “Racial balancing is not transformed from ‘patently unconstitutional’ to a compelling state interest simply by relabeling it ‘racial diversity,’ ” he wrote, for instance, in a 2007 decision limiting the use of race to achieve integration in public schools. Justices Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas agreed. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, the court’s swing justice, was less categorical. But he has never voted to uphold an affirmative action program.

The new case, Fisher v. Texas, No. 11-345, was brought by Abigail Fisher, a white student who said she was denied admission to the University of Texas because of her race. The case has idiosyncrasies that may limit its reach, but it also has the potential to eliminate diversity as a rationale sufficient to justify any use of race in admissions decisions.

Students in the top 10 percent of Texas high schools are automatically admitted to the public university system. Ms. Fisher just missed that cutoff at her high school in Sugar Land, Tex. She sued in 2008, challenging the way the state allocated the remaining spots using a complicated system in which race plays an unquantified but significant role.

Ms. Fisher is soon to graduate from Louisiana State University. Lawyers for the University of Texas said that meant she had no standing to sue, an issue that the justices must now consider.

–From Maureen Downey, for the AJC Get Schooled blog

91 comments Add your comment

NONPC

February 21st, 2012
1:50 pm

“Ms. Fisher is soon to graduate from Louisiana State University. Lawyers for the University of Texas said that meant she had no standing to sue, an issue that the justices must now consider.”

An irrelevant cop-out on the part of UofT lawyers, but I have no idea how standing is decided in a case like this.

jsmtih

February 21st, 2012
2:07 pm

i think the only criteria for everything in life should be RACE , and everything should be equal…. for example the school of law at the university of michigan should omit the same number of blacks , whites,asians, italians, hispanics,and the exact amount of every other race no matter how they score on their college boards, we all know that testing is racially biased anyway!! lets make everything equal!!!

carlosgvv

February 21st, 2012
2:31 pm

Comprehensive civil rights legislation has been on the books for over 50 YEARS now. And yet, blacks still complain about not having a “level playing field”. It should be clear by now that blacks have no intention of EVER giving up affirmative action.

Shar

February 21st, 2012
2:31 pm

This has been such a contentious issue since Allan Bakke was denied admission to the UC Davis medical school. The Court has twisted and turned ever since, trying to allow some form of racial preference without tripping into racial discrimination. The justices have consistently upheld the right of an institution to seek a diverse pool in pursuit of a better overall outcome for all students/employees, but they have agonized over the justification to exclude higher-performing individuals in order to achieve this diversity.

I quit doing alumni admissions interviews for my alma mater a couple of years ago because I was meeting and talking to so many talented, interesting, smart, mature kids and they were not being accepted. The university would send out periodic updates and information to interviewers and ask us to note when an applicant was ‘in a special interest’ category, which was defined as either specific minorities or a first generation college student. Those applicants were given preference, and while I never saw grades or scores of any of the kids I interviewed I can’t recall feeling that the “special interest” prospects were markedly better or worse than the “regular” applicants — but I knew they had a much better chance of being accepted and getting financial help.

I just couldn’t justify being part of this system, so I stopped doing the interviews. There just isn’t any “good” kind of racism, or any preference based on factors that the individual cannot control. Allowing “preference” also allows “discrimination”, and while diversity is an important goal the Machiavellian route of discrimination to achieve it is very difficult to justify.

3schoolkids

February 21st, 2012
2:37 pm

Here is an analysis of the case and an explanation as to the validity of having a standing to sue:

http://verdict.justia.com/2011/10/28/an-update-on-the-fisher-v-university-of-texas-affirmative-action-case

The article outlines that there is an established precedent for (both plaintiffs) standing to sue. The article references a supreme court decision from the 1990s that says “they can allege a valid injury based merely on the prospect of not being treated fairly by a process in which race is illegally considered.”

WAR

February 21st, 2012
2:38 pm

carlosgv

the field isnt level.

WAR

February 21st, 2012
2:43 pm

its quite amazing when young, talented blacks were not treated fairly, they had very few advocates. people said they should persevere and endure slavery, reconstruction, jim crow, black codes, state codes, separate but equal, if they wanted to have any chance at the American dream. institutions were designed to continue oppression although man was created with unalienable rights endowed by the creator. so a few laws change, an few acts pass, and suddenly history should self-correct since 1954? pull yourself up by the boot staps only means something when the road before you is not laced with land mines.

carlosgvv

February 21st, 2012
2:45 pm

WAR – 2:43

Then affirmative action is not the answer because if it hasn’t worked by now, it never will.

Jennifer

February 21st, 2012
2:48 pm

NONPC: You may think that arguing standing is “[a]n irrelevant cop-out on the part of UofT lawyers,” but the fact is that if they can bring it up as a means for the case to be dismissed, they must. That is part of their role and responsibility as attorneys for UT. That’s all there is to it; they must be zealous advocates for their client. Whether you agree with that or just think that it’s a way to avoid arguing the issue is a different issue entirely. (And yes, of course it’s a way to avoid arguing the issue! But that’s part of the game, for better or worse ….)

WAR

February 21st, 2012
2:52 pm

racism has been justified for centuries. our founding fathers and documents prove such. why is it now a problem?

WAR

February 21st, 2012
2:54 pm

carlosgv@2:45

almost true: we are talking about it. thats a start. im not saying that its right, but it is necessary. its design is to give qualified students a fighting chance to compete in places that have not always been available. but we know that already.

Prof

February 21st, 2012
2:55 pm

I just want to point out that the significant majority of successful affirmative action cases–and such cases may involve discrimination on the basis of gender as well as race/ethnicity–have been brought by white women, not African Americans.

WAR

February 21st, 2012
2:58 pm

this conversation eventually will become null and void as china wants to do in the entire country what it does in shanghai. that should be our real concern: the global competition and not the few whites and blacks who cant get into an overpriced school. im not belittling the seriousness of aff.act., but lets put things in perspective.

WAR

February 21st, 2012
3:01 pm

prof

that is a valid point.

Shar

February 21st, 2012
3:02 pm

So, WAR, you believe that racism is justified?

The problem there is that if it is alright to practice racial discrimination against the group you don’t like, there is no justifiable rationale for disallowing it against the groups you support.

The other problem with preference is knowing when to stop. If an underprepared student is admitted to law school on the basis of his or her “special interest”, are they graded according to a more permissive scale to allow for the assumed paucity of skills? Once they graduate, must they be hired before more accomplished candidates based on their “specialness”, even though they may not be qualified to handle the work? You’ll recall that Jesse Jackson followed this model with Operation PUSH, insisting that a certain percentage of black candidates be hired by a targeted corporation and that resistance on the basis of lack of skills was unacceptable as it must be disguised racism. Most corporations agreed to hire candidates to avoid bad publicity, but then they circumvented giving the unqualified hires any meaningful responsibilities and both sides lost out.

I think it’s suicidal for our society to cut certain “special interest” groups out of the most promising career tracks, or to sideline them in what the (black) chair of the California Board of Regents calls an “affirmative action ghetto”, but discriminatory practices to achieve equality are deeply flawed. What do you suggest as a remedy?

WAR

February 21st, 2012
3:05 pm

jennifer

so what is the argument? im curious at what you think. is it about leveling a playing field that is restrictive in housing, education, and/or work? is it about owning up to providing opportunities for women and minorities to have a chance in places that once opposed their entry? whats the argument?

Ron Burgundy

February 21st, 2012
3:16 pm

When will we as a society realize that the Klan controls our educations systems!

williebkind

February 21st, 2012
3:25 pm

WAR and Ron Burgundy:

Yep let’s discriminate against the white man because he deserves it–WITH AFFIRMATIVE ACTION!

williebkind

February 21st, 2012
3:30 pm

I am curious WAR what is a level playing field? You want more benefits than someone else. Do you believe memorizing information and dumping it on a test to get a liberal arts degree puts you on a level playing field. When I hear and read comments about affirmative action I feel I have been discriminated against. Why are my feelings ignored?

Ron Burgundy

February 21st, 2012
3:56 pm

UNtil we wake up and get out of this denial phase about racism in school then we are doomed!

RAMZAD

February 21st, 2012
4:08 pm

It has become clear that the more government and the judiciary meddle in the private decisions about whom to admit, hire, fire, rent, include and exclude is the worse these decisions and the perceptions of them become. These decisions also lead to the perception that the people who are helped by these decision are less competent, less worthy and less deserving of the benefits they got.

Maybe it is time that race no longer be considered in any of these decisions. One result would be that our universities would load up with Asians and Eastern Indians, and few people would deny that these groups optimize the benefits of a college education.

The artificial attempts to pad universities with people who either do not want to be there, who can’t cut it, or who do not make much of what they learned there just costs us a lot of money and a lot of grief. The meddling also accelerates spontaneous racism, since people believe some winners and losers are judicial constructions, and personal race based selections are just as moral, more efficient, and far more effective.

Attentive Parent

February 21st, 2012
4:44 pm

Maureen,

You might want to add that Kagan has recused herself from participating. It will be 8 justices deciding this one.

Fred in DeKalb

February 21st, 2012
4:45 pm

Shar, I can recall in the scoring process for college admissions, children of alumni got an extra point and maybe more their parents contributed to the college. How do you think this impacted equally qualified students, especially if they were the first one in their family to go to college? There are always situations where you have more equally qualified applicants for a few slots. Why should it be a problem to use diversity as a tie breaker? What kind of tie breaker would you suggest? Diversity could be hiring a white male in a predominately Asian male firm.

Let me be clear, I don’t think an unqualified person should be admitted/hired over a qualified person, just for the sake of diversity. When this happens, the college/employer should be faulted for not doing due diligence with the process.

paulo977

February 21st, 2012
4:49 pm

YEAH YEAH SCOTUS is important BUT let’s hear it for teachers..http://www.ajc.com/opinion/snubbing-teach-for-america-1356022.html

Richard

February 21st, 2012
5:13 pm

First off, she absolutely has standing to sue. Not being admitted into the Texas system cost her the incremental cost of going out of state (travel/higher tuition).

Second, this is one of those instances of asking the question differently to make it sound legal. Normally, Congress slaps a better sounding name on it like “PATRIOT Act” or “Affordable Health Care Act.” In this case, we’re not hindering the majority race, we’re lifting up the minority race.

Shar

February 21st, 2012
5:32 pm

Fred, the favoritism shown to chldren of big donors (and that is really the only group of alums so favored – an average graduate who only donates moderately does not qualify) is another iffy area. Their parents have taken on a larger role in helping the school to grow and succeed, which would argue that letting their children in (as long as they are competitive for admission) is appropriate. Besides which, rejecting their children is not in their longterm interest, as it will inevitably diminish their desire to give. However, the child has done nothing out of the ordinary to earn acceptance, which argues for WAR’s level playing field and no special break from the admissions office.

UC Berkeley, as the jewel in the UC crown, has run into a lot of criticism for the percentage of Asian Americans they admit in the absence of affirmative action guidelines in favor of while, black and Hispanic applicants. Should Berkeley be required to admit students who are not as qualified as the Asian American students? The campus is significantly less culturally diverse than, say, ten years ago, and the traditional Asian cultural mores of accepting authority and emphasizing the success of the group has had a dampening effect on the vigor of class discussion and on the availability of diverse study groups, at least according to my sister and her daughter, a Berkeley grad and a current student. Is this change sufficient to drive a wider acceptance rate for non-Asian students?

I think that the tepid and tortured decisions by the Supremes on this issue reflect the value of both sides of this argument as well as the need for clear direction on what, if any, preferential treatment is Constitutional. It is inevitable that the question is revisited, and unfortunate that the outcome tends to reflect the politics of the justices rather than the merits of the question.

Fred in DeKalb

February 21st, 2012
6:06 pm

Shar, all good points you raise. Please re-read my last paragraph above for my beliefs I contend that when you use a scoring method, ties can occur for qualified candidates. I’m OK with diversity being used as a tie breaker, especially if you look at the historical acceptance rates/hiring practices.

Ironically we are seeing discussions now with respect to HOPE awards. The primary recipients are middle class whites, mostly in the metro Atlanta area. The criteria to determine the award is the same for every student in the state. Should the standards be modified so the awards could be more inclusive of students outside of the metro Atlanta area? This would be a type of diversity. This would be an interesting discussion.

Atlanta Mom

February 21st, 2012
6:20 pm

I can hardly wait for the screams for preference when the college population tips to 70% female. At most large state universities it’s now 60%.

WAR

February 21st, 2012
7:05 pm

shar@ 3:02

racism is not justified and be ye not mistaken: jesse jackson is not the voice of black people…or many people for that matter. in America, it can be agreed that minorities and women do not have the same chances as others; many reasons exist for the previous statement. but affirmative action in its beauty was designed

WAR

February 21st, 2012
7:11 pm

williebekind

affirmative action is not discrimination against the white man per se. it is to solve problems created by people who based admittance into colleges and work places based on color.

V for Vendetta

February 21st, 2012
7:15 pm

Yes, we should avoid looking at people’s merits and instead look at more easily quantifiable things, like race.

Stupid.

News flash to everyone: there is no such thing as a level playing field for ANYONE. There will always be haves and have nots–some more obvious than others. But the idea that people–especially an entire group–needs some sort of helping hand is ludicrous. Sure, there are narrow-minded bigots out there who would deny someone something based on his or her race. (They’re probably the same ones who want to deny people things based on their sexuality, but I digress.) But over time, society always becomes more liberal and accepting. People will be viewed for their merits and accomplishments–i.e., the value they potentially have to others. The more we deny this to be true and claim that they need some sort of helping hand, the more we delay this eventually happening. The claim that blacks (or women, or whatever) need some sort of assistance is silly and antiquated. Women are fast passing men in terms of college admissions and graduation rates. Soon, women will outnumber men in the professional workforce. This isn’t due to any sort of magical helping hand; it’s due to the liberalizing of society’s formerly asinine views and assumptions about women. That’s it. The same is true in regards to many races. The Irish overcame it. The Jews overcame it. The Asians overcame it. All without government assistance, social assistance, cultural assistance, whatever.

Don't Tread

February 21st, 2012
7:23 pm

Let me see…a Texas high school student wanted to go to a Texas university but was denied admission…and has no standing to sue because she went to LSU? (obviously as a second choice)

Seriously?

carlosgvv

February 21st, 2012
7:24 pm

WAR

My point is that once you start something like affirmative action, it is next to impossible to put a stop to it. You know African-American leaders will NEVER say “we don’t need it anymore” even if that is the case. Affirmative action has been around for well over 40 years now. If things are still bad in the civil rights area, something new must be tried.
A

hardworkingteacher

February 21st, 2012
8:01 pm

This same suit could be filed against UGA- which has been doing this to white male students for years. So often i find that some of the brightest and most promising white male students have been rejected while female and/or minority applicants with lower SAT scores , lower GPA’s and inferior course loads are accepted!

WAR

February 21st, 2012
8:41 pm

carlosgv

youre missing the point. affact has been around for 40 years while racism, discrimination, and sexism has been around in the country much longer. and affact extends beyond civil rights, its only to provide opportunities for those who otherwise could not receive them. whats happening now is that regular, average, hard working whites are encountering what many minorities and women have endured. so no its not fair, but what alternative exists?

Unfunded pension

February 21st, 2012
8:50 pm

The purpose of admissions is NOT to level the playing field and it should not be! This conversation is based on a flawed assumption. The school should be focused on producing the best graduates possible, not on social engineering. We do not solve the problems of discrimination by discriminating.

Parah Salin (the governor)

February 21st, 2012
9:03 pm

It is interesting that no one is commenting about how and why colleges go about selecting the criteria used in admissions. The fact of the matter is there are probably five to ten times the number of qualified applicants as there are slots for admission. The student that is being denied admission probably has an equal chance of excelling at the University of Texs as the lst student accepted. If you know about the bell curve in statistics, you will know that there is little difference between the population near the mean in any sample. My guess is that the yong lady that attended LSU and the minority students that are enrolled at Texas both could have done things to make their application stronger. I normally dismiss cases like this as being more about sour grapes. If the yound lady really believed that Texas would discriminate against people like her, she would not have wanted to go to a school like that under ANY circumstance. I think that most people will agree that she never would have supported this case if seh had been admitted. Protest BEFORE you have a personal stake in the outcome.

Jennifer

February 21st, 2012
9:04 pm

WAR

Thank you for giving me the credit of asking my opinion on the merits of the case. The truth is that I don’t know enough about the case to want to argue one position over the other, and I certainly don’t have any casebooks or Westlaw/LexisNexis in front of me to back up anything I’d say with case law and precedent.

I was merely jumping in to offer the explanation that the attorneys for UT are obligated to argue standing and any other plausible argument to get the case decided in their favor in one way or another.

That being said, I don’t believe such a thing as a “level playing field” exists; anything can look quite level depending on where you stand. But that’s how the world has worked since the beginning of time and we can never change that. I don’t profess to have the answers.

Maxine

February 21st, 2012
9:12 pm

The percentage of minorities getting into college where race is the deciding factor is very low. Probably less than 5% (if anyone has any viable statistics on this, please share). However, I often hear about a white person not getting into college because of the minorities who were given an extra point because of their race. What about the other 95%? Some have got accepted based on factors that minorties would not qualify for. Many of them were given an extra point because their parent(s) went to the college that they are applying.

Also, the largest group to benefit from affirmative action is white women.

Parah Salin (the governor)

February 21st, 2012
9:14 pm

I say let the free market take care of this. if a school wants to consider race as part of their admissions standards, then let them. If they want to be race neutral, allow that too. If either case is as bad as people are saying on this blog, then those schools will be weeded out. By the way, what should happen if a man wanted to attend Spelman College, which is a success women only school here in Atlanta? My guess is that that guy will not be accepted. Why doesn’t someone sue about that? I bet they get more people applying BECAUSE they don’t have men attending. That is a compelling interest for that school. Everyone knows that the more applicants a school has, the better its reputation

Parah Salin (the governor)

February 21st, 2012
9:21 pm

I wonder if Texas considers whether an applicant is a legacy or not. Since Texas did not allow blacks to attend for most of its history, then there is a good chance that a student today is going to receive preference in admissions because their grandma didn’t have to compete with black people back in the 1960’s and was able to get into an all white Texas.

Voice of Reason

February 21st, 2012
10:17 pm

The law will not change the heart of persons who determine admissions. Race should be a consideration just like economic status, gender, Scores on college admittance tests, etc. We need colleges that are diverse. Until inequities are eliminated in our educational system that results in the elimination of the achievement gap and equal post-secondary opportunities for all, then we must acknowledge the need to consider other factors although they may not be preferred in a more just or perfect union. We are just not that perfect yet to eliminate the consideration of race in such admission decisions and criteria.

Acer706

February 21st, 2012
10:29 pm

Discrimination has no place in admission to public institutions!

Maureen Downey

February 21st, 2012
10:36 pm

@hardworking, Your comment is surprising because apparently colleges are accepting less qualified male candidates over female because they don’t want the school to essentially turn into an all-women campus. There have been articles in the Chronicle of Higher Ed that qualified female applicants could file a class action suit because they are losing slots to less qualified males in an effort to have balanced gender enrollment. You will find even elite schools are now 55 percent women and 45 percent. Schools tell me that they can’t get much more lopsided or neither gender will want to attend.The problem is that they qualified female applicants outpace male applicants today in many places.
Maureen

Really amazed

February 21st, 2012
10:38 pm

Come on now! What is going on now is true, reverse discrimination. Hardworkingteacher has this 100% correct! No one wants to admit this but soooo true. If you are a white male with the high gpa and sat score you will be second in line to any other race even if they have the lower gpa and/or sat score. If you have applied to college or are in the process of applying you see this happening right in front of your own eyes. Colleges can say all they want that they don’t do this but THEY DO!!

Acer706

February 21st, 2012
10:43 pm

@ Maureen Downery…

@hardworking mentioned “white males,” not males in general.

bu2

February 21st, 2012
10:49 pm

@Parah
Hermann Sweatt. It was a seminal case and anticipated Brown vs. the Board of Education a few years later. He sued in 1946 when UT law school didn’t admit him. Texas lost in the Supreme Court. I don’t believe Texas considers legacies, but there have been African-Americans at the UT law school for a long time.

The problem is that Texas is only looking at skin color. They could care less whether it was someone from a single parent family in the inner city or the child of a doctor from a well-to-do suburb. Those people both get a preference and that, to me, is nothing but racial discrimination.

Maureen Downey

February 21st, 2012
10:50 pm

Here is a great story from Insider Higher Ed. This is from five years ago, and there is some evidence now that the gender gap is leveling off a bit:

When admissions officers gather to create a freshman class, there is a large elephant in the room, wrote Jennifer Delahunty Britz, in The New York Times last week: the desire to minimize gender imbalance in their classes. Britz, the admissions dean at Kenyon College, wrote that her institution gets far more applications from women than from men and that, as a result, men are “more valued applicants.” Britz discussed a female candidate who was considered borderline by the Kenyon team but who — had she been a he — would have been admitted without hesitation.

Why is it important to favor male applicants? “Beyond the availability of dance partners for the winter formal, gender balance matters in ways both large and small on a residential college campus. Once you become decidedly female in enrollment, fewer males and, as it turns out, fewer females find your campus attractive,” Britz wrote.

The gender gap in undergraduate enrollments is, of course, no secret in academe. Women are solidly in the majority (about 57 percent nationally) and their percentages are only expected to increase in the years ahead. The gender gap first started to show up — more than a decade ago — at liberal arts colleges, with educators guessing that men preferred larger institutions or the engineering and business programs more prevalent at universities. But recently, the gap has started to show up at flagship public universities, too: Some board members at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill were so stunned in May to learn that this year’s freshman class would be 58 percent female that they asked if it was time to institute affirmative action for men.

Chapel Hill isn’t going that route, but Kenyon is. And while Britz’s column stunned many applicants and parents and frustrated many advocates for women, its substance didn’t surprise admissions officers. While few admissions officers wanted to talk publicly about the column, the private reaction was a mix of “of course male applicants get some help” along with “did she have to share that information with the world?”

Is It Legal?

Lawyers who work on higher education law were also intrigued by issues raised by the column, but most wanted to talk on background and more than one asked a variation of the question “did her president know she was going to write that?”

The reality is, however, that Kenyon is unlikely to face any legal problems for its policies — although if Chapel Hill took the advice of those trustees who wanted to adopt a pro-testosterone admissions policy, it would be in trouble. Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 bars gender discrimination in all education programs at institutions receiving federal funds (all but a handful of colleges). But Title IX has an important exemption: On admissions decisions, the statute covers all vocational, graduate and professional programs, but for undergraduate admissions, it applies only to public institutions. Kenyon, as a private institution, isn’t covered.

Private institutions are covered in terms of how they treat students once they are admitted, and that includes athletics. That could be relevant to the admissions issue because one reason cited by advocates for affirmative action for men in admissions (although not cited by the Kenyon dean) is that a lopsided gender ratio in enrollments can make it more difficult to comply with Title IX in athletics. That’s because the most straightforward way to comply with Title IX’s rules for athletics participation is to demonstrate “proportionality” — that the percentage of female athletes is roughly the same as the proportion of female undergraduates. Institutions that are majority female and that have a football team often find proportionality daunting.

Several lawyers familiar with Title IX said on background that they found intriguing and potentially illegal the scenario where a private institution favored male applicants (in theory legal) to build male enrollments so that sports programs for men could be protected over programs for women (potentially illegal).

Lee

February 21st, 2012
11:56 pm

Quick! Your child needs a doctor. Would you want a doctor who was admitted into college and medical school based on his/her academic merit or the doctor who got into school based on some arbitrary affirmative action quota?

Answer truthfully. Your child’s life is at stake.

One inescapable truism is that 50% of the doctors graduate in the bottom half of their class. Anybody want to wager where the affirmative action tokens rank?

Still dont believe me? Google Dr. Patrick Chavies, the guy who got into med school ahead of a more qualified white. At one time, he was the poster child of affirmative action. That is, until he botched a few surgeries, got his medical license yanked, killed one patient and almost killed several more.

Good info here ( http://alfin2100.blogspot.com/2012/02/thisll-kill-ya-affirmative-action.html ) that shows how blacks on the lowest end of the GPA/MCAT scale are accepted to med school five times the rates of whites. Also talks about how black med school graduates have a tough time passing the licensing exams.

Hey, but don’t worry, that black doctor will fix your child right up…..

Might want to get a second opinion…..

Lee

February 22nd, 2012
12:02 am

Kenyan College. Really Maureen? 1600 students.

And at $52,000 per year, they’re probably lucky that many want to attend.