Affirmative Action May be Headed Back to the Supreme Court

[PaleoPaul]

The 5th Circuit has ruled in favor of the University of Texas' affirmative action policies. However, this is the same case that SCOTUS remanded back to the lower courts two years ago to resolve particular issues. Now that the 5th Circuit has ruled, it's quite likely this will be appealed to the Supreme Court, and it's even more likely that the Court may rule on this issue once and for all.

http//www.talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/affirmative-action-may-return-to-supreme-court/

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

uh so is this a good thing or a bad thing for "white" cisgendered males

[PaleoPaul]

The consensus among law professors, Supreme Court pundits, higher-up lawyers, etc. is that the SCOTUS will rule 5-4 against affirmative action, quite possibly on a broad scale (meaning AA would be toast).

[jmdrake]

The particular program is race neutral. From the article.

UT's affirmative action program admits the top 10 percent of students in each high school graduating class. Given the racial makeup of schools across Texas, the policy is known to enhance admission of African-Americans and Latinos.

A white student could easily qualify by simply going to a public HS in Texas and ranking in the top 10 percent. If this program gets scrapped then UT should be forced to scrap programs, like legacy admissions, why are also not raced based but tend to favor one race over another, in that case whites.

[Acala]

The particular program is race neutral. From the article.

UT's affirmative action program admits the top 10 percent of students in each high school graduating class. Given the racial makeup of schools across Texas, the policy is known to enhance admission of African-Americans and Latinos.

A white student could easily qualify by simply going to a public HS in Texas and ranking in the top 10 percent. If this program gets scrapped then UT should be forced to scrap programs, like legacy admissions, why are also not raced based but tend to favor one race over another, in that case whites.

The link in the OP did not work for me, but according to wikipedia, the UT policy is NOT race neutral:

"Plaintiffs Abigail Noel Fisher and Rachel Multer Michalewicz applied to the University of Texas at Austin in 2008 and were denied admission. The two women, both white, filed suit, alleging that the University had discriminated against them on the basis of their race in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.[3] The University of Texas at Austin accepts students in the top 10% of each Texas high school's graduating class, regardless of their race; under Texas House Bill 588, 81% of 2008's freshman class were admitted under the plan.[4]

Applicants who, like Fisher, fail to graduate in the top 10% of their high schools, have a further opportunity to gain admission to the University by scoring highly in a process which evaluates their talents, leadership qualities, family circumstances and race.

[LibertyEagle]

If the government stopped funding student loans, I'm betting the problem would largely disappear.

[jmdrake]

The link in the OP did not work for me, but according to wikipedia, the UT policy is NOT race neutral:

"Plaintiffs Abigail Noel Fisher and Rachel Multer Michalewicz applied to the University of Texas at Austin in 2008 and were denied admission. The two women, both white, filed suit, alleging that the University had discriminated against them on the basis of their race in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.[3] The University of Texas at Austin accepts students in the top 10% of each Texas high school's graduating class, regardless of their race; under Texas House Bill 588, 81% of 2008's freshman class were admitted under the plan.[4]

Applicants who, like Fisher, fail to graduate in the top 10% of their high schools, have a further opportunity to gain admission to the University by scoring highly in a process which evaluates their talents, leadership qualities, family circumstances and race.

Let's see. So Fisher failed to graduate in the top 10% of her high school class and somehow it's racist that people who did graduate in the top 10% of their class got in and they didn't?

https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4061/4669812732_5407c2534c_z.jpg

What's next? A white person who was not school valedictorian sues because a black valedictorian at another school got a valedictorian scholarship and she didn't?

[Acala]

Let's see. So Fisher failed to graduate in the top 10% of her high school class and somehow it's racist that people who did graduate in the top 10% of their class got in and they didn't?

https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4061/4669812732_5407c2534c_z.jpg

What's next? A white person who was not school valedictorian sues because a black valedictorian at another school got a valedictorian scholarship and she didn't?

You are missing it. The lawsuit isn't about the top 10% program. It is about the program for people who did not make the top 10%. Amongst those who did not make the top 10%, racial minorities are given an advantage because of their race. A white person who did not make the top 10% would be placed at a disadvantage against a black person who also did NOT make the top 10%.

[RandallFan]

The top 10% also has a disparate impact on white kids from suburbs.

The top 20 or 30% of white/asian kids in a suburban district often have better scores than the top 10% of an urban district.

If you have a white kid in the top 15% of his suburban district chances are he has a better scores than many of the black kids in the top 5-10% of an urban district.

Apparently there is also kids who register themselves in weak academic districts to beat the system.

The same thing happens with white firefighter lawsuits. They argue that city residency requirement hurts suburban white men who don't live in the boundaries.

On the other hand blacks sue that they don't have access to the rural and suburban volunteer fire fighter groups to train.

In 2003 Sandra Day O'Connor said Affirmative Action should be legal until 2028. The liberal judges agreed because they got 90% of what they wanted. A total BS ruling. Like Roberts on Obamacare. Then in retirement, Sandra said it is needed for longer than that. Another reason not to appoint pro-abortion candidates to SCOTUS. They become squishy on other issues.

Take the top 10% of Detroit and the top 10% of any other district in Michigan and clearly the groups wont be equal.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar_Land,_Texas#Demographics


The ethnic and racial makeup of the population was 44.4% non-Hispanic white, 7.3% non-Hispanic black, 0.2% non-Hispanic Native American, 35.1% non-Hispanic Asian, 0.2% non-Hispanic from some other race, 2.2% non-Hispanic from two or more races and 10.6% Hispanic or Latino.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisher_v._University_of_Texas


Fisher had a grade point average of 3.59 (adjusted to 4.0 scale)[7] and was in the top 12% of her class at Stephen F. Austin High School.

[jmdrake]

You are missing it. The lawsuit isn't about the top 10% program. It is about the program for people who did not make the top 10%. Amongst those who did not make the top 10%, racial minorities are given an advantage because of their race. A white person who did not make the top 10% would be placed at a disadvantage against a black person who also did NOT make the top 10%.

Ummmm...please provide a quote from someone other than yourself that says that. Sorry for not taking your word for it....but I'm not taking your word for it. I quote my sources.

Edit. Never mind. I found a source myself. It actually works against your argument.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/17/opinion/Affirmative-Action-Survives-in-Texas.html?_r=0
That is what the three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit did after considering a new round of arguments about the university’s various efforts at increasing diversity, as well as data showing the effects of those approaches over the years. By a vote of 2 to 1, the panel accepted the university’s argument that while the 10 percent plan creates one type of diversity, by itself it “leaves a gap in an admissions process.” The holistic review, the court said, complements that plan by identifying both minority and nonminority students who “could bring a perspective not captured by admissions along the sole dimension of class rank."

Under the holistic process, the court noted, white students are awarded a vast majority of spots: in the class of 2008, less than 1 percent of students were African-Americans admitted using individualized review. The appeals court’s opinion follows the Supreme Court’s command that it ensure that every applicant be “evaluated as an individual,” and that universities must narrowly tailor any consideration of race. Judge Emilio Garza, the dissenter on the appeals panel, however, argued that the university has not clearly defined its ultimate goal for diversity so it is impossible to determine whether it is meeting that goal in the narrowest way possible.

WHAT THE HELL? Let me see if I understand this. So blacks do pretty good in the "top 10% of your class" formula, but because less than one percent of people who don't make the top 10% but still get admitted are black that is somehow discriminatory against white people? Ummmmm......HUH?

[jmdrake]

The top 10% also has a disparate impact on white kids from suburbs.

The top 20 or 30% of white/asian kids in a suburban district often have better scores than the top 10% of an urban district.

If you have a white kid in the top 15% of his suburban district chances are he has a better scores than many of the black kids in the top 5-10% of an urban district.

Apparently there is also kids who register themselves in weak academic districts to beat the system.


Absolutely nothing is stopping that white kid from moving to an urban district where the scores are lower. It's race neutral.

Edit: And in the city where I live one of the mostly black schools has the highest test scores.

http://nashvilleprep.org/results

http://static.squarespace.com/static/50a2778fe4b0fb50383df166/t/5231d56ee4b0d1c20a15b55c/1378997618417/Nashville-Prep-2013-math-6.png?format=500w

http://static.squarespace.com/static/50a2778fe4b0fb50383df166/t/5231d57fe4b00cea29875e1b/1378997634290/Nashville-Prep-2013-ela-6.png?format=500w

http://static.squarespace.com/static/50a2778fe4b0fb50383df166/t/5231d599e4b0c34b2a12ce03/1378997667997/Nashville-Prep-2013-science-6.png?format=500w

http://static.squarespace.com/static/50a2778fe4b0fb50383df166/t/5231d5b0e4b0c34b2a12ce4a/1378997683063/Nashville-Prep-2013-social-6.png?format=500w

Note that Williamson county is a wealthy, rural/suburban, mostly white school district.

So a white kid could go to that school thinking he would have some sort of "advantage" and still be out of the top 10%.


The same thing happens with white firefighter lawsuits. They argue that city residency requirement hurts suburban white men who don't live in the boundaries.

And you actually think such a BS lawsuit should have merit? I haven't heard of that lawsuit and can't find it. Link please.



On the other hand blacks sue that they don't have access to the rural and suburban volunteer fire fighter groups to train.


If blacks are suing on that basis, that's a BS lawsuit as well. I doubt it would go anywhere. Link please.



In 2003 Sandra Day O'Connor said Affirmative Action should be legal until 2028. The liberal judges agreed because they got 90% of what they wanted. A total BS ruling. Like Roberts on Obamacare. Then in retirement, Sandra said it is needed for longer than that. Another reason not to appoint pro-abortion candidates to SCOTUS. They become squishy on other issues.

Totally irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not this particular policy is race neutral or not.

[jmdrake]

Really, this thread shows why libertarians do poorly among blacks and what could be done to rectify the situation. The white person who filed this lawsuit is a whiner. The policy she is arguing against actually works in favor of her race and against black people! Less than one percent of the applicants who are not in the top 10% of their class, but who are allowed in under a system where "race is considered a factor" are black. Blacks would probably do better if the admissions criteria for students who are not in the top 10% wasn't so subjective. A lottery system, for example, would likely come out better. And a lottery system would be completely race neutral. Rather than always parroting the "whites are victims of affirmative action" line, libertarians could point out cases like this one where it's not really working that well for blacks to get blacks to join them in opposing such gimmicks.

[cindy25]

why does Texas even have an affirmative action policy. Republican govs since 1995?

[jmdrake]

why does Texas even have an affirmative action policy. Republican govs since 1995?

It was Republican president Richard M. Nixon that instituted the first federal affirmative action policy.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/01/09/richard-nixon-last-great-liberal/

[PaleoPaul]

I think what should be instituted is economic affirmative action, as opposed to racial.

[jmdrake]

I think what should be instituted is economic affirmative action, as opposed to racial.

Ummmm....a system of affirmative action that's based on taking the top 10% from each school is economic affirmative action! Right now, post my divorce, I'm living in the working class neighborhood I grew up in. Most of the people in this neighborhood are black, but I do see white people living here. Most of the white people living here are not economically advantaged. So an affirmative action plan that took the top 10% from each high school could theoretically benefit them, provided they got in the top 10%. Immediately prior to that I lived in a house in a rural mostly white area. (FTR, there were some extremely poor whites living in that area, although not immediately where we were living.) Blacks live in upscale mostly white areas. Whites live in lower class mostly black areas. And there are mostly black areas that are upscale and mostly white areas that are poor. If you just take the top from each HS you don't have to worry about race to get diversity. Really, so far I have not seen any compelling reason to be against the "affirmative action" plan you cited in the OP except that the formula used to select the candidates not in the top 10% seems to be quite subjective. And in its subjectivity, on its face it's hurting blacks.

[Acala]

Ummmm...please provide a quote from someone other than yourself that says that. Sorry for not taking your word for it....but I'm not taking your word for it. I quote my sources.


I quoted wikipedia in my post. If you read it carefully you will see that race is a stated criteria for the sub-10% program. But now I will quote from the Supreme Court case itself. (You might want to avoid relying on news media - they always get it wrong):

"Following this Court’s decisions in Grutter v. Bollinger, supra, and Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U. S. 244 (2003), the University adopted a third admissions program, the 2004 program in which the University reverted to explicit consideration of race. This is the program here at issue."

"To implement the Proposal the University included a student’s race as a component of the PAI score, beginning with applicants in the fall of 2004. The University asks students to classify themselves from among five predefined racial categories on the application. Race is not assigned an explicit numerical value, but it is undisputed that race is a meaningful factor."

And so I repeat: The UT program under scrutiny is NOT the facially neutral 10% program. What is being challenged is NOT the possible disparit impact of the 10% program. It is the sub-10% program that is intentionally and expressly biased in favor of racial minorities.

Everyone clear on this now?

[Carson]

I'm thinking affirmative action has pretty much run its course. The lines are shifting just whom the minorities are now.

http://projects.nytimes.com/census/2010/explorer?ref=us

[jmdrake]

Sure. And I already pointed out why you are wrong. The sub-10% program is biased in favor of white people! Less than 1% of the people admitted under the sub 10% program are black. Here is my source.


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/17/op...exas.html?_r=0
That is what the three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit did after considering a new round of arguments about the university’s various efforts at increasing diversity, as well as data showing the effects of those approaches over the years. By a vote of 2 to 1, the panel accepted the university’s argument that while the 10 percent plan creates one type of diversity, by itself it “leaves a gap in an admissions process.” The holistic review, the court said, complements that plan by identifying both minority and nonminority students who “could bring a perspective not captured by admissions along the sole dimension of class rank."

Under the holistic process, the court noted, white students are awarded a vast majority of spots: in the class of 2008, less than 1 percent of students were African-Americans admitted using individualized review. The appeals court’s opinion follows the Supreme Court’s command that it ensure that every applicant be “evaluated as an individual,” and that universities must narrowly tailor any consideration of race. Judge Emilio Garza, the dissenter on the appeals panel, however, argued that the university has not clearly defined its ultimate goal for diversity so it is impossible to determine whether it is meeting that goal in the narrowest way possible.


So again I say.....

WHAT THE HELL? Let me see if I understand this. So blacks do pretty good in the "top 10% of your class" formula, but because less than one percent of people who don't make the top 10% but still get admitted are black that is somehow discriminatory against white people? Ummmmm......HUH?


I quoted wikipedia in my post. If you read it carefully you will see that race is a stated criteria for the sub-10% program. But now I will quote from the Supreme Court case itself. (You might want to avoid relying on news media - they always get it wrong):

"Following this Court’s decisions in Grutter v. Bollinger, supra, and Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U. S. 244 (2003), the University adopted a third admissions program, the 2004 program in which the University reverted to explicit consideration of race. This is the program here at issue."

"To implement the Proposal the University included a student’s race as a component of the PAI score, beginning with applicants in the fall of 2004. The University asks students to classify themselves from among five predefined racial categories on the application. Race is not assigned an explicit numerical value, but it is undisputed that race is a meaningful factor."

And so I repeat: The UT program under scrutiny is NOT the facially neutral 10% program. What is being challenged is NOT the possible disparit impact of the 10% program. It is the sub-10% program that is intentionally and expressly biased in favor of racial minorities.

Everyone clear on this now?

[jmdrake]

I've already responded to/refuted this post earlier, but it was edited. As I said before, nothing is stopping kids from the suburbs from moving to the inner city if that's what they think they'll get a better shot at admission.


The top 10% also has a disparate impact on white kids from suburbs.

The top 20 or 30% of white/asian kids in a suburban district often have better scores than the top 10% of an urban district.

Many school already look at GPA for admission criteria as opposed to just test scores. So it's only "biased" if you think that test scores should be the sole criteria for college admission. That has never been the standard and some colleges are getting away from test scores altogether.



If you have a white kid in the top 15% of his suburban district chances are he has a better scores than many of the black kids in the top 5-10% of an urban district.


The best indication of college performance is not test scores but grades. Some people are naturally good at taking tests. I was. I had the top ACT score in my overwhelmingly white private academy. My grades sucked in HS. I barely got a 3.2 GPA. The sucked as well in college. You are wanting to pick a criteria that seems to be better for whites but doesn't necessarily pick who will be the best student.

But as I pointed out in another post, where I live a mostly black charter school has the best test scores.



Apparently there is also kids who register themselves in weak academic districts to beat the system.


I hate to be a grammar maven, but since we are talking academics, you should have said "Apparently there are kids who register themselves in weak academic districts to beat the system."

That said, you are proving my point. There is nothing stopping a white student from going to an inner city school if he thinks he has a better shot at being in the top 10%. By contrast it is impossible for a black student who doesn't have a parent who graduated from a particular institution to get in on "legacy".



Take the top 10% of Detroit and the top 10% of any other district in Michigan and clearly the groups wont be equal.


So? Nobody is claiming that they should be. Yes schools are racially segregated because neighborhoods are racially segregated by choice. The only way to fix that is through forced busing. Or if Michigan adopted the UT formula, perhaps more whites would move back to the inner city in order to "beat the system" as you put it. You can't claim "racial bias" simply because white people might not want to live in a particular neighborhood, but have the right to move their if they wish.



Fisher had a grade point average of 3.59 (adjusted to 4.0 scale)[7] and was in the top 12% of her class at Stephen F. Austin High School.

And what's your point? That the cutoff should be the top 12% instead of the top 10%? Being out of the top 10% put Fisher in a pool where race is a factor and where white students are more likely than blacks to be admitted. And somehow you honestly believe she was discriminated against? That's a crock of bull.

[alucard13mm]

You guys making it too complicated.. should be based on grades, extracurricullar, and community service. I dont care where you come from or what you are.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Sure. And I already pointed out why you are wrong. The sub-10% program is biased in favor of white people! Less than 1% of the people admitted under the sub 10% program are black. Here is my source.


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/17/op...exas.html?_r=0
That is what the three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit did after considering a new round of arguments about the university’s various efforts at increasing diversity, as well as data showing the effects of those approaches over the years. By a vote of 2 to 1, the panel accepted the university’s argument that while the 10 percent plan creates one type of diversity, by itself it “leaves a gap in an admissions process.” The holistic review, the court said, complements that plan by identifying both minority and nonminority students who “could bring a perspective not captured by admissions along the sole dimension of class rank."

Under the holistic process, the court noted, white students are awarded a vast majority of spots: in the class of 2008, less than 1 percent of students were African-Americans admitted using individualized review. The appeals court’s opinion follows the Supreme Court’s command that it ensure that every applicant be “evaluated as an individual,” and that universities must narrowly tailor any consideration of race. Judge Emilio Garza, the dissenter on the appeals panel, however, argued that the university has not clearly defined its ultimate goal for diversity so it is impossible to determine whether it is meeting that goal in the narrowest way possible.


So again I say.....

WHAT THE HELL? Let me see if I understand this. So blacks do pretty good in the "top 10% of your class" formula, but because less than one percent of people who don't make the top 10% but still get admitted are black that is somehow discriminatory against white people? Ummmmm......HUH?

It's not so much the effect or the outcome, but the principle or process. Libertarians by and large are anemic to utilitarianism, which is where your argument and judgment lies. Regardless of the specific outcome, the criteria itself is racist by nature (as is AA). I'd prefer to see State-policies like AA and other racist measures done away with. I'd think people like Booker T. would also be in favor of raising the black community up by their own merits and not tossing them a bone like a plantation would (AA). In my opinion the latter is insulting and disrespectful, but hey, I'm just a white guy from Central Florida. It shouldn't matter what color or pigmentation you are. Content, character, and merit should be advised for positions preferably by private institutions as well as State-ran.

[Acala]

Sure. And I already pointed out why you are wrong. The sub-10% program is biased in favor of white people! Less than 1% of the people admitted under the sub 10% program are black. Here is my source.


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/17/op...exas.html?_r=0
That is what the three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit did after considering a new round of arguments about the university’s various efforts at increasing diversity, as well as data showing the effects of those approaches over the years. By a vote of 2 to 1, the panel accepted the university’s argument that while the 10 percent plan creates one type of diversity, by itself it “leaves a gap in an admissions process.” The holistic review, the court said, complements that plan by identifying both minority and nonminority students who “could bring a perspective not captured by admissions along the sole dimension of class rank."

Under the holistic process, the court noted, white students are awarded a vast majority of spots: in the class of 2008, less than 1 percent of students were African-Americans admitted using individualized review. The appeals court’s opinion follows the Supreme Court’s command that it ensure that every applicant be “evaluated as an individual,” and that universities must narrowly tailor any consideration of race. Judge Emilio Garza, the dissenter on the appeals panel, however, argued that the university has not clearly defined its ultimate goal for diversity so it is impossible to determine whether it is meeting that goal in the narrowest way possible.


So again I say.....

WHAT THE HELL? Let me see if I understand this. So blacks do pretty good in the "top 10% of your class" formula, but because less than one percent of people who don't make the top 10% but still get admitted are black that is somehow discriminatory against white people? Ummmmm......HUH?

Let me simplify. The white plaintiff was denied admission while a black student with inferior grades was admitted under a program that is expressly biased in favor of black students over white students. It has nothing to do with total percentages. It has to do with one individual with better credentials being passed over in favor of another person because of their race. That violates equal protection UNLESS it falls within the Supreme Court's prior exceptions for AA. Affirmative Action doesn't even come into play unless the issue is EXPRESS racial bias. You are talking about disparit impact and that is not an Affirmative Action issue. The NYT article is confusing the issue. Read the Supreme Court opinion.

[jmdrake]

Let me simplify. The white plaintiff was denied admission while a black student with inferior grades was admitted under a program that is expressly biased in favor of black students over white students. It has nothing to do with total percentages. It has to do with one individual with better credentials being passed over in favor of another person because of their race. That violates equal protection UNLESS it falls within the Supreme Court's prior exceptions for AA. Affirmative Action doesn't even come into play unless the issue is EXPRESS racial bias. You are talking about disparit impact and that is not an Affirmative Action issue. The NYT article is confusing the issue. Read the Supreme Court opinion.

You're "simplification" is dishonest. That white student also lost to other white students who were less qualified. And black students also lost to white students who were less qualified. Look at the freaking numbers! Less than 1 percent of blacks made in when grades were no longer the deciding factor and "racial diversity" was. Only looking at this from the point of view of the white student that didn't get in it the kind of crap Jesse Jackson pulls in reverse.

[jmdrake]

It's not so much the effect or the outcome, but the principle or process. Libertarians by and large are anemic to utilitarianism, which is where your argument and judgment lies.

Don't be daft. The "principle" that was initially argued against, taking the top 10% from each school, is not racist. The OP complained that it somehow was because there are school with a majority black population. So I'm not the one that was making the utilitarian argument. Then someone came back with "Well race is allowed to be a factor for those not in the top 10%". But it's not a deciding factor! Now personally I would support getting rid of race altogether, taking the top 10% of each high school for the 80% selection and doing the rest by lottery. Blacks would likely do better in that situation. The point, that you are either missing or purposefully ignoring, is that the plaintiff has no justification for claiming he was "hurt because of her race" if the policy that "hurt" her on balance favors white people. Rather than looking for some stupid reason to somehow claim "white people are discriminated against", point out the truth. This particular form of affirmative action actually hurts blacks.



Regardless of the specific outcome, the criteria itself is racist by nature (as is AA). I'd prefer to see State-policies like AA and other racist measures done away with. I'd think people like Booker T. would also be in favor of raising the black community up by their own merits and not tossing them a bone like a plantation would (AA). In my opinion the latter is insulting and disrespectful, but hey, I'm just a white guy from Central Florida. It shouldn't matter what color or pigmentation you are. Content, character, and merit should be advised for positions preferably by private institutions as well as State-ran.

Sure. Taking the top 10% in each HS is not raced based. I'm fine with that. That said, I think you don't know as much about Booker T a you think you do. For one thing he took significant amounts of his wealth and used it to secretly fund federal lawsuits advocating voting rights. And while that's not "anti libertarian", my point is, he wasn't passively sitting around accepting everything being dished out by the white power structure as most people think. Also his view was not "pick yourself up by your own individual bootstraps" but rather blacks working together to pick themselves up by their collective bootstraps.

[RandallFan]

Sure. And I already pointed out why you are wrong. The sub-10% program is biased in favor of white people! Less than 1% of the people admitted under the sub 10% program are black. Here is my source.



How many are Hispanic? Id say there is a lot of underqualified hispanics being admitted; and lost of overqualified Asians being blocked. So they cherry pick and compare only white and black.

Ive seen another story about the number of underqualified whites being higher than the raw number of underqualified blacks. So if a college is 60% white, 5% black and you got 50 unqualified blacks and 200 unqualified whites the rate at which unqualified blacks are being admitted is higher.

[RandallFan]

Absolutely nothing is stopping that white kid from moving to an urban district where the scores are lower. It's race neutral.



Nothing was stopping Fisher going to Louisiana like she did. Doesn't mean she should have to. Doesn't mean she should have to go to a dangerous urban school.

http://m.nationalreview.com/article/376448/content-their-character-henry-payne

Jennifer Gratz is a model of diversity. The daughter of a policeman and a secretary in Southfield, Mich., she was the first person in her family to apply to college, sporting a résumé that included a 3.8 grade point average, 25 ACT score, and membership in the National Honor Society and student council. She was class vice president. Yet she was denied admission to the University of Michigan because racial preferences stacked the deck against her and her white, Asian, Indian, and Jewish peers by granting 20 points to black or Latino students, on an 80-point scale; a perfect standardized test score, by comparison, was worth 12 points.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZysP1lAt18

Gratz got threatened with a knife by one of the By Any Means quota thugs.
These people who keep their name on the lawsuit are brave.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisher_v._University_of_Texas


She scored 1180 on her SAT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAT) (measured on the old 1600 point scale, because UT Austin did not consider the writing section in its undergraduate admissions decision for the 2008 incoming freshman class).[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisher_v._University_of_Texas#cite_note-JointAppendix65-7) The 25th and 75th percentiles of the incoming class at UT-Austin were 1120 and 1370.[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisher_v._University_of_Texas#cite_note-JointAppendix65-7) She was involved in the orchestra and math competitions and volunteered at Habitat for Humanity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habitat_for_Humanity).[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisher_v._University_of_Texas#cite_note-JointAppendix65-7)


Absolutely nothing is stopping that white kid from moving to an urban district where the scores are lower. It's race neutral.

Edit: And in the city where I live one of the mostly black schools has the highest test scores.


Are Michigan or Texas in the same court circuit as TN?

Is that a new trend. Black students are scoring better than white students statewide and nationwide?


. The policy she is arguing against actually works in favor of her race and against black people! Less than one percent of the applicants who are not in the top 10% of their class, but who are allowed in under a system where "race is considered a factor" are black.

Graduating outside the top 10% of an urban school is pretty weak. It makes sense that few people get in that way from an urban environment because such a disproportionate rate qualify in the top 10% range.

If someone is going to the worst schools in Texas and one cant get inside the 10% it makes sense that in the other system few would qualify.

[willwash]

Absolutely nothing is stopping that white kid from moving to an urban district where the scores are lower. It's race neutral.
.

Disproportionate rates of murder, rape, armed robbery, drug use, teen pregnancy, and anti white racism in these schools and neighborhoods, to name a few.