Supreme Court Rules Affirmative Action Unconstitutional

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

No link yet...

― Yanc3y (ystrickler), Tuesday, 10 June 2003 16:42 (twenty-two years ago)

I feel sick.

― Nicole (Nicole), Tuesday, 10 June 2003 16:47 (twenty-two years ago)

Wow, where did you get this? It hasn't even come across my AP wire yet.

― teeny (teeny), Tuesday, 10 June 2003 16:50 (twenty-two years ago)

He was hiding under Clarence Thomas's robes.

― NA. (Nick A.), Tuesday, 10 June 2003 16:53 (twenty-two years ago)

None of the wires have picked it up yet. A journo friend just emailed me the ruling. No other info.

― Yanc3y (ystrickler), Tuesday, 10 June 2003 16:53 (twenty-two years ago)

Now I'm wondering if he was just predicting the ruling (which was expected to be announced today)... Hmm...

― Yanc3y (ystrickler), Tuesday, 10 June 2003 16:54 (twenty-two years ago)

Haha I just told my news department about it.

― teeny (teeny), Tuesday, 10 June 2003 16:59 (twenty-two years ago)

MOTHERFUCK.

― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Tuesday, 10 June 2003 17:02 (twenty-two years ago)

DC needs to burn tonight.

― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Tuesday, 10 June 2003 17:02 (twenty-two years ago)

haven't you heard, Sterling, public action is "ineffectual" and "childish"

― J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Tuesday, 10 June 2003 17:06 (twenty-two years ago)

Um, if this is true, I fear this would make the reactions to the Rodney King ruling look like a park picnic...

― donut bitch (donut), Tuesday, 10 June 2003 17:11 (twenty-two years ago)

seriously, the AP hasn't picked it up yet. I'm thinking your friend jumped the gun, Yanc3y. It is interesting to think about, though, and thanks for reminding me that the decision comes down today.

― teeny (teeny), Tuesday, 10 June 2003 17:13 (twenty-two years ago)

Hooray! Everyone for a line and oppress me!

(In the Daniverse, "oppress" means "sexually pleasure".)

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 10 June 2003 17:13 (twenty-two years ago)

Pretty stupid world, this. Anyone for a new one?

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 10 June 2003 17:14 (twenty-two years ago)

yeah, i know. it's not on the ap or reuters. maybe i'll walk across the street and ask what's up...

i'm thinking he jumped the gun too. he hasn't returned my emails yet.

― Yanc3y (ystrickler), Tuesday, 10 June 2003 17:14 (twenty-two years ago)

he's Yanc'in yer chain! *runs*

― J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Tuesday, 10 June 2003 17:16 (twenty-two years ago)

I've always wondered where us asian-americans fit into this affirmative action thing. i think we count as "pretty much white".

― phil-two (phil-two), Tuesday, 10 June 2003 17:20 (twenty-two years ago)

Reuters does however confirm that the end of the world is at hand.

― J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Tuesday, 10 June 2003 17:23 (twenty-two years ago)

Hey, if a schlub like Billy Joel can have a musical then I say good for Rod!

― Nicole (Nicole), Tuesday, 10 June 2003 17:25 (twenty-two years ago)

Phil, I know at UT students who qualified for "affirmitive action" scholarships had to belong to an ethnic group that 1. was historically repressed and 2. was not proportionately represented at the Univerisity. For example the number of blacks and Hispanics at UT was nowhere close to the proportion of these groups in Texas' population at large so they were targeted for recruitment, scholarships etc. Asians did not fall into this second category.

― That Girl (thatgirl), Tuesday, 10 June 2003 17:26 (twenty-two years ago)

phil, I don't think we count in the affirmative action thing. I thought asians did when i was applying to colleges but then I found out that it actually hurt me to put down asian american because I am not as smart as the rest of them (even though I had like a 4.375 average in HS).

― Carey (Carey), Tuesday, 10 June 2003 17:27 (twenty-two years ago)

OK, Im a little confused here. Affirmative action means what in the states?

― Mr Noodles (Mr Noodles), Tuesday, 10 June 2003 17:27 (twenty-two years ago)

Hooray! Everyone for a line and oppress me!
(In the Daniverse, "oppress" means "sexually pleasure".)

That reminds me, SCOTUS also has yet to decide on the Texas sodomy case.

― teeny (teeny), Tuesday, 10 June 2003 17:27 (twenty-two years ago)

Yeah, applying to colleges as an Asian really sucks. And filling in your ethnicity is "optional" - like the admissions dude isn't going to be able to tell if your name is like FUKUSHIMA NAGAWAKI or some shit. I got like a 1580 on my SAT, and a really high GPA with a bunch of AP classes, but ended up getting rejected to all 9 schools I applied to, and had to lie my way into NYU. And my friend who was from, uh, somewhere else got into Brown with like an 1100 SAT and not-so-hot GPA. But then again, I'm a pretty bad student, but how were they supposed to tell from my stellar high school record??

― phil-two (phil-two), Tuesday, 10 June 2003 17:37 (twenty-two years ago)

Phil we are one. I got rejected from 2 schools I thought would be a breeze to get into and my guidance counselor took it upon herself to call and find out why and they basically told her it was because of the Asian thing. I was a horrible student too, i just read really fast and had an awesome memory. Bitches!

― Carey (Carey), Tuesday, 10 June 2003 17:44 (twenty-two years ago)

Mr. Noodles: Affirmative action as far as college admmissions goes is understood by most to mean preferential treatment for non-whites, but is actually more complicated. Nearly every college and university wants a 'diverse student body.' They also want to take care of their alumni donors. So they put together a system where they award points for various qualities: a point for a good essay, 5 points for good SATs, 5 points for being the child of an alum, 5 points for being part of an underrepresented population--this could be anything from being a first-generation college attendee to being from a rural area to being black or male or female, depending on the college. I think this system is legal, but what's illegal is hard quotas on certain populations or (as the University of MI Law School did in this case) explicitly lowering the minimum SAT for a certain group.

― teeny (teeny), Tuesday, 10 June 2003 17:54 (twenty-two years ago)

Also, my newsroom says that the ruling is now NOT expected to come down today.

― teeny (teeny), Tuesday, 10 June 2003 17:55 (twenty-two years ago)

Yeah, we need to be scared back into worrying about being blown up by WMDs so that we can take the news of the AA unconstitionality gracefully.

― donut bitch (donut), Tuesday, 10 June 2003 18:06 (twenty-two years ago)

My newsman now sez he was just predicting what the ruling would be.

― Chicken Little (ystrickler), Tuesday, 10 June 2003 18:07 (twenty-two years ago)

LA can burn another day.

― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Tuesday, 10 June 2003 18:13 (twenty-two years ago)

Or DC I mean.

whatever.

― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Tuesday, 10 June 2003 18:13 (twenty-two years ago)

We're still on for the Dan "oppression", though.

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 10 June 2003 18:15 (twenty-two years ago)

"YOU! Dan Perry! You want oppression?"

http://www.obv.org.uk/images/reports/1149a.jpg

― Yanc3y (ystrickler), Tuesday, 10 June 2003 18:20 (twenty-two years ago)

could there be a more horrible mental image?

― teeny (teeny), Tuesday, 10 June 2003 18:27 (twenty-two years ago)

"Did somebody say... OPPRESSION?"

http://www.carrottop.com/ct_pix/ct_splash5.jpg

― donut bitch (donut), Tuesday, 10 June 2003 18:35 (twenty-two years ago)

But that's just a picture of Ned.

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 10 June 2003 18:39 (twenty-two years ago)

But that's just a picture of Ned.

Affirmative Asshole ;-)

― donut bitch (donut), Tuesday, 10 June 2003 18:44 (twenty-two years ago)

(that comment was not meant to specifically target Dan nor Ned in any way at all... I just wanted to type the painfully corny phrase "Affirmative Asshole")

― donut bitch (donut), Tuesday, 10 June 2003 18:45 (twenty-two years ago)

I have to hurt all of you now.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 10 June 2003 18:56 (twenty-two years ago)

dial down the center ned

― James Blount (James Blount), Tuesday, 10 June 2003 19:01 (twenty-two years ago)

Rather.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 10 June 2003 19:18 (twenty-two years ago)

Ruling just came down... Law school is constitutional, undergrad (which was where admissions added on the 20 points if an applicant was of color) isn't. Talking to friends in the U of M law school, that was pretty much what they expected. But the first part only slipped by 5-4.

― Aaron W (Aaron W), Monday, 23 June 2003 13:36 (twenty-two years ago)

Wait, why would it be constitutional for one and not the other? That seems arbitrary.

― Ally (mlescaut), Monday, 23 June 2003 13:37 (twenty-two years ago)

From how my law school friends explained it, it's because of the way that the admissions were set up. The law school is smaller and the judgements were made on a case by case basis, but the undergrad simply tacked on extra weight if you were of color.

― Aaron W (Aaron W), Monday, 23 June 2003 13:42 (twenty-two years ago)

The law is arbitrary Ally (no sense in even beginning to address that one.) But suffice to say it has to do with how narrow things are drawn when it comes to affirmative action.

― don weiner, Monday, 23 June 2003 13:57 (twenty-two years ago)

Well, obviously the law is arbitrary but it seemed silly to go about it the way it was stated, that's kind of beyond the "no sex in your car" type of arbitrary law.

― Ally (mlescaut), Monday, 23 June 2003 13:59 (twenty-two years ago)

This is a quote from MSNBC...

The justices endorsed a program at the University of Michigan law school meant to ensure a “critical mass” of minorities on campus. The program is not an illegal quota, the high court said.
“The Equal Protection Clause 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,” Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote.

Basically, the U of M lawyers argued that by giving extra weight to minorities in the law school, they were serving the greater good of the school by insuring a diverse student body. It was pretty much an impossible argument to make in the undergrad admissions, though, because really what they were doing was flat-out increasing the chances of minorities to get accepted.

― Aaron W (Aaron W), Monday, 23 June 2003 14:07 (twenty-two years ago)

to get -> getting (English me no speak good)

― Aaron W (Aaron W), Monday, 23 June 2003 14:08 (twenty-two years ago)

America is so lame.

― adam (adam), Monday, 23 June 2003 14:15 (twenty-two years ago)

But Aaron, what is the difference between the two? It's the same concept, except that because the percentages are off a smaller number, the law schools have to look at each individual person--but if they're still increasing the amount of minorities to ensure diversity or whatever, they're doing the same thing undergrads are doing by just blanket upping the ante.

(I'm not noting whether I'm for or against either, nor am I saying that law schools are just accepting anyone willy nilly...I will point out that I hope this holds up because it quite benefits me whenever I'm in a mood to go to school for a while)

― Ally (mlescaut), Monday, 23 June 2003 14:22 (twenty-two years ago)

how did the UoM avoid having to put a % on it's definition of 'critical mass' ?
(i read something over the weekend that indicated this concept was something one of the judges would hang them with...that it would be interpretable as a 'quota')

― Snowy Mann (rdmanston), Monday, 23 June 2003 14:32 (twenty-two years ago)

Snowy-- Fraid I don't know the answer to that.

Ally-- Yeah, I mean, I'm for aff action... just trying to get a handle on the actual ruling and whatnot. And as for getting into law school, I COMPLETELY agree with the U of M law school's argument... I'd gladly trade off a slightly lowered chance of getting into a school which actually has a diverse student body vs. one filled with other upper-middle class white males.

So, as I understand it, the judges interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause is that you can't use quotas, and the undergraduate school's system -- a point system where you got X points for your ACT/SAT scores, GPA, etc. AND an extra 20 points automatically if you were of color -- was a "disguised quota." Basically, schools can use race as a determinant for admissions (such as the law school) to promote diversity if it isn't some sort of arbirtary system. So, really, it's a good (but narrowly passed) ruling.

― Aaron W (Aaron W), Monday, 23 June 2003 14:42 (twenty-two years ago)

Dammit, does this mean I can't fill in "Native American/Aboriginal" on my SAT anymore? :(

― Curt1s St3ph3ns, Monday, 23 June 2003 15:11 (twenty-two years ago)

I'd gladly trade off a slightly lowered chance of getting into a school which actually has a diverse student body vs. one filled with other upper-middle class white males.

ha - in the UK within the last few months there was a bit of a storm (which seems to have disappeared unfortunately) over some Uni's - Edinburgh & (i think) Bristol among them - operating a selections policy which was related to this.
iirc they were trying to increase the proportion of students from working-class backgrounds/state comprehensive schools, so were awarding them extra qualification points as compared to middle-class and privately educated applicants - i don't know if any legal actions happened/pending because of it. vaguely recall education ministers having to keep re-forming the question to be much the same as the UoM's bigger-picture criteria

if the US Uni's did only this UK kind of thing, looking at socio-economic backgrounds, would that accomplish much the same thing in terms of 'diversity' because of the correlations involved? and would it seem 'fairer' and less incendiary?

(er actually i'm only assuming that UK Uni's don't operate some forms of selection/AffAct more like the US ones - maybe they do & it's just not as obvious)

(ha - my companion 'failed' her selection interview at Oxford because, she was told, she 'wouldn't have fitted in' - which was probably true....but who's fault was that?)

― Snowy Mann (rdmanston), Monday, 23 June 2003 15:42 (twenty-two years ago)

Weighing points for race has been stricken in the U of M undergrad system = I really hope to see someone, during the next few years, take up the precedent as a legal challenge to all the other point assignments. (The number of points assigned for being an ethnic minority is equal to the number of points assigned for being from the Upper Peninsula, for being from a low-income family, and possibly equal to that assigned for being a legacy, the evidently-constitutional grandfather clause of college admissions.)

― nabisco (nabisco), Monday, 23 June 2003 16:42 (twenty-two years ago)

I mean, hell, in terms of "disguised quotas" that Upper Peninsula boost is as racially targeted as handing twenty points to anyone from Benton Harbor, inner-city Detroit, or "just that one strip of houses off State Street in Big Rapids, you know, the ones where the black families live."

― nabisco (nabisco), Monday, 23 June 2003 16:44 (twenty-two years ago)

Well, the British kerfuffle was all about private versus municipal school.

People who go to fee-paying/boarding school make up say 10 per cent of students who go to uni, but they occupy half of the places at the best universities. That isn't fair.

― suzy (suzy), Monday, 23 June 2003 17:00 (twenty-two years ago)

what is the british equivalent to affirmative action? what's the brit equiv to title ix also?

― James Blount (James Blount), Monday, 23 June 2003 17:05 (twenty-two years ago)

Also do they have Egg McMuffins there?

― Ally (mlescaut), Monday, 23 June 2003 17:08 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm pretty sure they don't have breakfast burritos

― James Blount (James Blount), Monday, 23 June 2003 17:09 (twenty-two years ago)

That's really kind of a disappointment.

― Ally (mlescaut), Monday, 23 June 2003 17:09 (twenty-two years ago)

We have Egg McMuffins, but the universities are still stuffed with public school kids. Its slow attrition.

― Pete (Pete), Monday, 23 June 2003 17:13 (twenty-two years ago)

sodomy ruling was supposed to come down today as well.
has it ?

― anthony easton (anthony), Monday, 23 June 2003 19:34 (twenty-two years ago)

The only other one was porn on library computers (it can be blocked).

― Aaron W (Aaron W), Monday, 23 June 2003 19:36 (twenty-two years ago)

Anthony-- Good news. It was struck down 6-3, which basically makes laws against homosexuality an unconstitutional invasion of privacy. Although, that fucker Scalia decided to read his dissent from the bench:

"The court has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda," Scalia wrote for the three. He took the unusual step of reading his dissent from the bench.

"The court has taken sides in the culture war," Scalia said, adding that he has "nothing against homosexuals."

― Aaron W (Aaron W), Thursday, 26 June 2003 14:15 (twenty-two years ago)

four years pass...

Is there a thread on last week's admissions ruling?

― Dr Morbius, Monday, 2 July 2007 14:50 (eighteen years ago)

five years pass...

can't believe there's been no talk of the abigail fisher v university of texas case. this shit is making more irate than the first prez debate.

― you don't have to be a tsar, baby, to be in Moscow (m bison), Saturday, 13 October 2012 16:54 (thirteen years ago)

making me*

― you don't have to be a tsar, baby, to be in Moscow (m bison), Saturday, 13 October 2012 16:54 (thirteen years ago)

Not in the Supreme Court thread?

This case is infuriating, because the broader context is so key to it but also liable to be totally ignored by this court's myopic focus on the specific complaint.

― Josh in Chicago, Saturday, 13 October 2012 17:53 (thirteen years ago)

Don't worry: Slobbo and Nino will make sure the case is crystal clear.

― the ones that I'm near most: fellow outcasts and ilxors (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Saturday, 13 October 2012 17:54 (thirteen years ago)

ten years pass...

I hope they take up gender not only race: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/03/us/affirmative-action-military-academies.html

― youn, Saturday, 12 August 2023 14:02 (two years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.