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.
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
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
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:
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.
David Granger
February 22nd, 2012
12:56 am
Can it be that SCOTUS is finally going to rule that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 actually means EXACTLY what it says?
yes i am worried
February 22nd, 2012
5:40 am
Guess what, at most high schools, the majority of top students are white femailes. For the most part, it is clear that white femailes, middle class and better, have a tougher time getting into college these days that white males.
UNC at Chapel Hill has struggled for years to try and balance the class fairly — because admission on stats alone favors women.
This is from an article on the subject:
Another aspect in the reversal of the college gender gap, rather than just its elimination, is the persistence of behavioral and developmental differences between males and females. Boys often mature more slowly than girls. In grades K-12, boys tend to have a higher incidence of behavioral problems (or lower level of non-cognitive skills) than girls. Girls spend more time doing homework than boys. These behavioral factors, after adjusting for family background, test scores, and high school achievement, can explain virtually the entire female advantage in getting into college for the high school graduating class of 1992, the authors figure. It allowed “girls to leapfrog over boys in the race to college.” Similarly, teenage boys, both in the early 1980s and late 1990s, had a higher (self-reported) incidence of arrests and school suspensions than teenage girls.
http://www.nber.org/digest/jan07/w12139.html
yes i am worried
February 22nd, 2012
5:41 am
females not femailes
yes i am worried
February 22nd, 2012
5:45 am
Last year one of the local throwaway papers showed the Valedictorians and salutatorians for multiple schools in their readership area. They listed 32 — only 13 were boys.
http://www.reporternewspapers.net/2011/05/19/valedictorians-salutatorians/
58% women is OK GM
February 22nd, 2012
6:17 am
THere is something we haven’t mentioned in regards to allowing more women into college — therer are simply MORE women in our country than men.
So if Chapel Hill is 58% women, that’s likely an accurate balance b ecause there are simply MORE WOMEN in this country than there are men.
Besides the fact that these women earned thei right to go to college,
GIve men a preference for being a man?
We already do that in our society.
WHy is it that 100% of all US Presidents are men?
US Presidents come from lawyers.
If most lawyes are women, why don’t we have more women Presidents?
If most lawyers are women, why don’t we have more women senators, governors and congressman? All those elected officials are lawyers, Judges too.
So if women are overrepresented in law school why is it that the most coveted roles for lawyers are handed out like candy at Halloween to men?
Discrimination?
Of course.
GM
Mountain Man
February 22nd, 2012
7:38 am
So we solve the issues of past racism by applying reverse racism today.
And about the male/female statistics – how are you women going to feel when colleges start admitting lower qualified men to achieve a “diverse” student body (i.e. balanced along gender lines).
see
February 22nd, 2012
7:44 am
I’ve been advocating for boys in our schools for long time now. In 1992, when the Association of University Women (How Schools Shortchange Girls) was fretting over girls “falling behind” in science and math and DEMANDING that the schools do something to rectify the so-called problem, boys were actually falling behind girls in reading and writing…and girls had just evened the gap between boys in math and science (National Education Longitudinal Study). So, while money was poured into programs to help girls “succeed” in areas where there was no longer any gap, boys educational shortfalls were largely ignored. Now, girls are surpassing boys in middle and high school…and STILL nothing is being done to help boys. It is the educational establishment that is causing boys to fail…there are definite differences between the way boys and girls learn…and one size does NOT fit all. Where is the money to fund the programs to help boys close the gap? Boys are becoming increasingly frustrated in school and are “checking out” in the classroom because of it. I have written my senators, my representatives, etc…no one seems to care.
“Are Boys Falling Behind in Academics” by Jeanne Bleurer and Garry Walz
Inman Park Boy
February 22nd, 2012
8:09 am
“I have a dream, that a man will be judged not by the color of his skin but by the content of his character.” Gee, what a nice sentiment.
V for Vendetta
February 22nd, 2012
8:18 am
see,
That’s actually a really interesting and valid point, something that has been discussed in a number of my graduate school classes. There are a LOT of negative assumptions and circumstances surrounding boys in education (such as the VAST difference in ADHD diagnoses). It is a subject worth considering. Perhaps we’re seeing the long term effects of this beginning to pop up.
gabriel
February 22nd, 2012
8:45 am
a few years ago i was applying for a college, not a very prominent one, but a state college. I had the basic White-Middle Class economic value of my family making from $75k to $100k a year. My friend and I who attended the same highschool together. (he was black or so i dont freak out the extremists here African-American) I had a rough GPA of 2.9, it wasnt my greatest, i slacked off my final year (SENIOR YEAR FTW!! lol). He told me he had a GPA of 2.0 to a 2.2 (I forget, its one of those, its been a while). We both applied to the same state college and we were both accepted. The only difference was that he got a very large scholarship (atleast 85%) when I didnt get a scholarship at all. You may ask, oh well maybe his family didnt make as much. Wrong, his father was a lawyer and his mother a doctor. You may think now, Oh now it seems a bit fishy. They were capable of paying the tuition, but he got the scholarships, when i had to pay out of my a**. Its a weird world we live in, is it not?
Maureen Downey
February 22nd, 2012
8:50 am
@Mountain, According to some admissions counselors, that is already happening. To assure gender balance, schools have to deny spots to female high school seniors with better academic standing and qualifications than their male counterparts.
The conundrum is that if these schools simply admitted the best students, they would have so many girls that after a while neither girls nor boys would want to attend the college. So, this gender balance pressure is more than simply diversity; it’s also economics.
Maureen
Maureen Downey
February 22nd, 2012
8:54 am
@Gabriel, Another factor could have been SAT scores. There are schools that pursue higher SAT scorers, as that is a factor in national rankings. There are so many things that go into college decisions besides GPA that it is hard to know the full story here.
Maureen
Anonmom
February 22nd, 2012
9:17 am
I’ve posted this before — I’ve been tracking articles for over 10 years on how “we are losing our boys” — Newsweek did a big review on it years ago…. One thing, I think, is how school expects kids to just sit still — even in first and second grade — all day and do away with recess — boys need to move. When they act out, because of excess energy, they get into trouble. They then need exercise — to run around — do jumping jacks — a/k/a recess — but they don’t get it — I think, the studies show that many are then diagnosed as ADD/ADHD and medicated to “be docile” and “girl like” so they can sit still and process… some actually do need the meds but we are medicating at about 70% of the kids…. something is really wrong and no one is really piecing the whole picture together. It’s also not just a black/non-black issue. White girls do the best… until you hit college admissions and then, oops, we’ve just got too many of those…. now what. I come back to: gee, what do we, as a society do with all these kids, when they are adults and need to be productive members of society? Much of what we’ve done is “premised” if you will on employers (including the government) being able to care for “citizens” from cradle to grave…. this is not tenable long-term. Corporations (think IBM) are not doing this anymore. What the government has started to do can’t last… population wise it isn’t going to work… baby boomers are the biggest “population” group and they are starting to all hit retirement and the jobs aren’t going to be there and the incentives to do start-ups aren’t there. Also, America is not supposed to be the Soviet Union…. It’s not supposed to be Greece. We are different. So what do we do with the kids when they become adults? See, it all ties together but no one is stepping out of these paradigms. (PS — more women are lawyers but fewer than 15% are partners in big law firms nationally, so the “male” paradigm in various industries is the same).
AlreadySheared
February 22nd, 2012
9:44 am
Yeah, I get it – legacy preferences, gender balance, first in family to attend college, kids who grew up on a farm, etc…
However, extensive and painful experience has led us as a nation to conclude (correctly) that racism is wrong. Race-based admissions are racist (apparently this is less tautological to some than to others).
Good for the Supreme Court, and good riddance to bad rubbish.
Digger
February 22nd, 2012
9:52 am
The best way to be a good little boy in school is to be a good little girl.
AlreadySheared
February 22nd, 2012
9:53 am
@Anonmom
Right on re boys and add/adhd. “They” tried to get us to drug our son years ago, and my answer was no way, no how.
Miraculously, he has grown up to be a high-achieving and well-behaved high school student despite our failure to drug his brain so that he would sit still and act interested.
Gifted and adhd often present themselves identically. I.e., there is little discernable difference between “Hey! Look! A Squirrel!” and “Yeah, I understood that the first time you explained it. The next 4 times you repeated it bored me out of my skull.”
catlady
February 22nd, 2012
10:16 am
My experiences in “affirmative action:” In 1989 I worked in the admissions office of a public university south of here. White applicants with 1200 SAT and high 3. GPAs were routinely turned down, but for a racial minority student, a 900 SAT was routinely accepted and any minority student about to be turned down was examined individually by a special committee to see if there was a way to justify their admission.
At that same college, in 1990, male applicants to teacher ed programs were routinely accepted with a 3.0, but a female applicant with a 3.4 was unlikely to be accepted unless they could demonstrate much experience (such as substitute teaching).
Accepting the most qualified applicant, regardless of race or gender, makes sense IF resources are limited and IF the goal is to produce more graduates. A person with a 900 SAT is less likely, on the whole, to graduate (think ROI) than a person with a 1200. If resources are unlimited, obviously we could take a chance on anyone who shows up with a heartbeat.
Really amazed
February 22nd, 2012
11:25 am
@Gabriel, this sounds like they way they are trying to re-align the new HOPE scholarship. Let the lower gpa and lower sat score appl. minority in for FREE, the higher gpa/sat student that doesn’t fit the minority stat out. HE is on his own. @Catlady, as you said, IF resources are unlimited let ALL in. If resources are limited, as I thought the HOPE scholarship program is now, why would they even consider lowering the income level to parents making less than a certain amount. The best and brightest no matter what the color of skin or income level. The way it should be! This s— has to stop!!! This is reverse discrimination for sure and could start a war, starting with GA.
Prof
February 22nd, 2012
11:57 am
I really don’t want to enter any discussion about the value, or not, of affirmative action laws. But I’d like to note that the original Supreme Court decision in 2003 was based on the benefits that would accrue to the SCHOOL (”the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body,” as stated above) and not to the members of the races who may have experienced past discrimination.
The Court emphasized the educational value of diversity: it facilitates higher order thinking by making students aware of other perspectives than their own, so they can “think outside the box”; it promotes effective interpersonal and community engagement; and it prepares students to respond effectively to today’s reality of a society that is global in outlook, and a work environment very likely to be multiracial.
Admissions officials have very good reasons for trying to assure good representation of both genders, and all races in their student body; and it has little to do with redressing past injustices. It enables a better education for the students.
bu2
February 22nd, 2012
12:37 pm
@Prof
Do you believe adding a 25th percentile African American son of a doctor from North Gwinnet HS adds more value than adding a 10th percentile Asian or Anglo son of a doctor from the same HS? Or than a 5th percentile Anglo son of a factory worker from La Grange? Should a Hispanic student get an advantage simply because he or she has an Hispanic surname when you might not be able to tell any difference from the Anglo student by looking at them or talking to them?
I agree diversity has value to a school. But ethnicity is only a very small part of diversity. The top 10% law in Texas (automatic admission for the top 10% of any HS class) does far more to promote diversity than any racial preferences.
bu2
February 22nd, 2012
12:46 pm
To put it in terms of current events,
Herman Cain’s and Barack Obama’s kids would get racial preferences over better students simply because of the color of their skin. That makes no sense.
Really amazed
February 22nd, 2012
1:01 pm
@bu welcome to the new America! I am all for diversity only if the diversity has a better gpa and or sat than my new minority child (white male) Not because of the color of ones skin. I will be checking of other on all document too. You bet that this pertains to the illegals too. They will get in before the new minority (white male) with the higher sat/gpa based on needing a certain number of illegals. They just won’t admit it!!!!! Isn’t everyone wondering why the stock market is showing signs of recovery??? It is called milking the books for one to believe the economy is on the road to recovery so people will want to re-elected the very same person that is adding to this mess. The gov’t has powers that no one believes. They don’t want ANYONE coming in and calling them out!! I also believe the congress in power now, had everything to do with getting rid of CAIN. Obama knew he was the biggest threat to him. I know this is another topic, but not really!
AlreadySheared
February 22nd, 2012
1:21 pm
@Really amazed
Don’t go home after work – they’re coming to your house TONIGHT to unperson you.
Maureen Downey
February 22nd, 2012
1:31 pm
@lee, Kenyon is very well respected and has more applicants than spots. Here are some facts about kids who go there: (Nope, I didn’t go there and no one in my family did, but I know it is a highly regarded college.)
Secondary-School Class Rank
Top 1% 14%
Top 5% 38%
Top 10% 60%
Top 20% 84%
Top 30% 95%
Top 40% 98%
Top 50% 98%
Secondary-School GPA
(4.00 scale) Percentage of class
4.0 or higher 39%
3.70-3.99 28%
3.40-3.69 19%
3.00-3.39 14%
2.70-2.99 <1%
2.69 or lower 0%
Back to Top
Secondary-School Course Selection
Percentage of class taking calculus 56%
Average number of science units 4.1
Average number of AP courses 4.8
Soccermom
February 22nd, 2012
3:20 pm
Several years ago when we were having discussions about colleges and majors, my older son came to me and said “Well Mom, I’m screwed!” (pardon the typical teen-speak). When I asked him why, he said “Because I’m a white male. Everyone else gets preference over us in admissions, even people with much lower SAT scores and GPAs.”
Sad but true
bootney farnsworth
February 22nd, 2012
3:26 pm
I detest “diversity”. its a buzzword with no meaning but
used as a club for varying political agendas.
I prefer pursuit of excellence. that has no skin color. it
is determined by personality
bootney farnsworth
February 22nd, 2012
3:29 pm
@ soccermom
the war on the white male continues. its a sad thing, but your son may as well learn it now and deal with it.
and it gets worse with age. trying being a white male 55+ looking for a job these days…
Prof
February 22nd, 2012
4:43 pm
Race/ethnicity is not the only “diversity” considered by college admissions. There’s also socioeconomic class (lower as well as middle and upper class), geographic area (rural as well as urban, out-of-state as well as in-state), age (some older than the usual freshman of 18 years)… Of course, now we’re far afield from affirmative action programs.
But generally, I would say that students learn the most when they’re taken out of their familiar comfort range.
Really Amazed
February 22nd, 2012
5:16 pm
@soccermom, sad but true. My son was told the exact same thing by his high school college counslor! We better be quite because someone on this blog already told me they were coming to unperson me.
Lee
February 22nd, 2012
9:01 pm
@Prof, re “Admissions officials have very good reasons for trying to assure good representation of both genders, and all races in their student body; and it has little to do with redressing past injustices. It enables a better education for the students.”
The suit is not about ensuring colleges get a blended mix of students, or redressing past injustices. It is about public funded colleges discriminating against it’s citizens.
You either agree that discrimination is wrong irregardless of the race of the victim, or you believe that discrimination is acceptable.
It’s really that simple.
Prof
February 22nd, 2012
9:34 pm
@ Lee. My point was that affirmative action policies haven’t been the reason that colleges have considered race and gender when they decide which students to admit. They believe that a diversity of genders, races, socioeconomic classes, and geographic/national origins among their students will make for a better education.
You are assuming that grades are the only factor that should be the basis for college admission, and that considering any other factor (such as race) is discrimination. Either/or fallacy.
Lee
February 22nd, 2012
10:46 pm
But wait Prof, every time I bring up race and IQ, several of you respond by saying “there is no differences between the races”. So, following that train of logic, there should be no reason to consider race in college admissions.
No, the reality is that in every single measure of academic achievement, blacks are always at the bottom of the scale. This is after 60+ years of school integration and 50 years since the Civil Rights Act (which, actually should have been called the Civil Riots Act, but I digress). So, why would any selective college want to dilute the achievement level of it’s student population by accepting the less qualified is still a mystery to me.
Of course, I have yet to understand the politically correct pathology, so it stands to reason I don’t understand why white parents willingly sacrifice their own children on the altar of affirmative action.
bu2
February 22nd, 2012
10:48 pm
@prof
You are assuming that race itself creates diversity. That is a prejudiced attitude. It all depends on the person’s experiences.
Also, is it right to discriminate against Jewish people or Asians because they might produce a disproportionate share of top applicants. There was a long history of discrimination against Jewish people. But now its alright to favor others over them since they are “white.” Does it make sense that one cousin can be considered a preferred Hispanic because his father has a Spanish surname even if there is an Anglo mom, but another cousin can’t because his mom (the sister of the 1st couns’s father) is Hispanic but the father is Anglo?
Prof
February 23rd, 2012
12:14 pm
@Lee. Let’s be precise. When you “bring up race and IQ,” it is always to argue that genetically blacks have lower IQs than whites. You’re doing it again in your Feb. 22, 10:46 pm post. Those of us protesting this conclusion hold that individuals of all races have individual IQs–you can’t generalize as you do, and certainly not from genetics. No-one’s saying, “There’s no difference between the races.” So you’re setting up a “straw man” here to knock down.
@ bu2. The most I would argue is that race/ethnicity very often involves differences in culture that can benefit students’ education generally.
And please remember that Hispanics are an ethnic group, not a race (federal Census definition); so if an individual identifies with Hispanics, they are considered Hispanic. And on college admission forms the person self-identifies.
And it seems anti-Semitic to me to term Jews “white.” For one thing, this is a religion, not a race (in spite of Hitler’s claim). For another, there are Jews who are Hispanic (in South American countries such as Argentina) and black (as in Ethiopia, where there is an ancient group of Ethiopian Jews).
bu2
February 23rd, 2012
12:45 pm
@prof
If you want to get preferences and have a Hispanic surname, you check Hispanic. You have people who are 1/64 Indian getting benefits from being part Native American.
As for Jewish people, the overwhelmingly majority don’t qualify as a “minority,” yet they have been historically discriminated against. That overwhelming majority, now is considered part of the favored group and so they continue to get discriminated against. You are calling it anti-Semetic to justify continued discrimination?
Prof
February 23rd, 2012
1:02 pm
@ bu2. So far as that goes, a person could self-identify as black quite easily if wished. A great many have surnames given to them by their ancestors’ slave-masters who simply used their own European surname. So unless the person has an African surname, there’s no way of telling his/her race from the name. And according to the old “one-drop” rule (but not sure if that’s still legal), a person who is 1/64 black is still black. It all depends on how the person self-identifies.
I’m saying it’s anti-Semitic to claim that Jews belong to a race rather a religion. In your Fab. 22, 10:48 pm post, you referred to them as “white” and also compared them to Asians, who belong to a race.
Pink Elephant
February 23rd, 2012
3:30 pm
What about different admission requirements for athletes? Isn’t that discrimination against otherwise qualified applicants? How many of you would want that prized, Blue Chip, five star recruit to meet the admission standards imposed on the rest of the student body? Why is a lower GPA good enough for a future QB or left tackle to be admitted but a lower GPA isn’t good enough for John/Jane student? Are biases towards students for any reason ever acceptable?
As an instructor at the college level, let me offer this: don’t buy into sterotypes. I’ve met my fair share of students that possess little motivation to excel academically. They come in both genders and all races. I’ve also met students that are very ambitious academically. Guess what? They come in all genders and races.
The Thinker
February 23rd, 2012
9:12 pm
Isn’t a plus for somebody a minus for somebody else in the sense of college admissions?
bu2
February 23rd, 2012
9:59 pm
@prof
As you refuse to acknowledge, the overwhelming # of Jewish people fall into the “white” category and so can be discriminated against in affirmative action cases. And many Jewish people do trace their heritage back (even the Ethiopian Jews claim to) to the Israeli tribes, so many are part of an ethnic group. I didn’t use the term race because it is a meaningless term. You are just using straw man arguments because you are intelligent enough (unlike many posters) to realize when you have a weak case.
Always Skeptical
February 24th, 2012
1:23 am
News flash to everyone….After working years in college admission offices, I’m afraid to tell you that the kids admitted with the worst credentials were always white male legacies. With the gender imbalance, their ranks ( legacies and otherwise) will only increase, yet their delusional story about how one of their friends was denied admission because of affirmative action will still be the story of the day.
Prof
February 24th, 2012
10:19 am
@ bu2. Judaism is a religion, not a race! It is very offensive to state that Jews belong to a race, not a religion. That is what Hitler claimed as justification for killing them. And “race” is certainly not a meaningless term. “Race: a local geographic or global population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics.”–American Heritage Dictionary, 2nd edition.
Certainly some Jews belong to the white race. (And according to the Federal Census, people whose origins are in the Middle East are considered “white.”) But others who believe in Judaism are Hispanic or black as well. And then there are those who have converted to Judaism. You can’t “convert” to being white, black, or Asian!
Trust me–if you try to tell a Jew that he or she belongs to “the Jewish race,” you’ll have a fight on your hands.