http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/impasse-affirmative-actionThough the court’s most conservative justices are all on the record being deeply skeptical of affirmative action, it was Justice Antonin Scalia who raised eyebrows Wednesday, as the court heard yet another case challenging a race-conscious policy.
“There are those who contend that it does not benefit African-Americans to — to get them into the University of Texas where they do not do well, as opposed to having them go to a less-advanced school, a less — a slower-track school where they do well,” Scalia said. “One of the briefs pointed out that most of the black scientists in this country don’t come from schools like the University of Texas. They come from lesser schools where they do not feel that they’re being pushed ahead in classes that are too fast for them.” He added, “I don’t think it stands to reason that it is a good thing for the University of Texas to admit as many blacks as possible.”
He's not even using the dog whistle anymore. He's going full blown Trump.
it was an argument of one of the attorneys he was going off of, iirc
and i know its super trendy to take shots at scalia (he can be ridiculous at time) but even roberts said something along the lines of "i dont see what new perspective you'd get in a physics class by having a minority student"
Even a physics major doesn't only take physics classes. Besides, there is also a value to society in promoting diversity in higher education among underrepresented minorities.
1. not really.
2. Scalia is the definition of an elitist lawyer who thinks because he went to a top ranked school he's better than everyone else.
I think this post belongs in this thread rather than the redistricting one.
Let me tell you how it feels on the other side. My dd - 17 AP classes (all 5s), 2370 (out of 2400) SAT, salutatorian, all As with 1 semester B (AP English Language). She and the members (all Asians) of the #1 math team in the US were put on the waiting list at WashU while lesser (black and hispanic) students were accepted. This was so racially oriented and it pissed off the guidance counselors no end. So much for being a top-notch science school - rejecting all the members of the #1 math team in the nation to diversify your class. What do you tell your child when she asks what was the point of all that hard work?
That's how it feels to be rejected BECAUSE of the color of your skin and not judged by the merits of your work.
ya, Murica.
Feelsgoodman
Talent>diversity
If all the smartest people were allowed entry into Americas top colleges then all the whites should be kicked out and all the Asians and Chinese would be allowed entry...no other race on its face can compete intellectually with the Asians and Chinese.....
See how that works Scalia?
Agree with that on its face..however something needs to be done to atone for the systemic and ins utionalized marginilation of blacks over the years....black kids by and large have to worry about growing up as kids that traditional white kids don't...white kids by and large come to school from day 1 with all the resources they will ever need whereas most blacks don't. The issue is deep and systemic....
Even though he tried to stab a nikka Dr. Carson is a good example of the abilities if the playing field or opportunities increased....if we applied this same logic across all sports then only 0.05% of whites should be allowed to play in any given sport..in fact port over the whole continent of Africa in replace of the whites in sports....
See how that works Scalia?
And then my half black daughter got into Caltech with a 1200.
there's nothing "even" about Catholic, white, wealthy, privileged Roberts, he's a tool of the privileged, racist (white Christian male) VRWC. His "logic" is a silly, irrelevant as Scalia's. Who said anything about "perspective"? And who's perspective? The class' or that of minority students in the class? Affirmative action is an attempt to give better prospects to minority students.
Roberts wants perspective? how about:
Diversity Makes You Brighter
Upholding affirmative action in 2003, in Grutter v. Bollinger, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor argued that it served the intellectual purpose of a university. Writing for the majority, she described how the University of Michigan aspired to enhance diversity not only to improve the prospects of certain groups of students, but also to enrich everyone’s education.
Our research provides such evidence. Diversity improves the way people think. By disrupting conformity, racial and ethnic diversity prompts people to scrutinize facts, think more deeply and develop their own opinions. Our findings show that such diversity actually benefits everyone, minorities and majority alike.
The findings were striking. When participants were in diverse company, their answers were 58 percent more accurate. The prices they chose were much closer to the true values of the stocks. As they spent time interacting in diverse groups, their performance improved.
For our study, we intentionally chose a situation that required analytical thinking, seemingly unaffected by ethnicity or race. We wanted to understand whether the benefits of diversity stem, as the common thinking has it, from some special perspectives or skills of minorities.
What we actually found is that these benefits can arise merely from the very presence of minorities. In the initial responses, which were made before participants interacted, there were no statistically significant differences between participants in the geneous or diverse groups. Minority members did not bring some special knowledge.
The differences emerged only when participants began interacting with one another. When surrounded by people “like ourselves,” we are easily influenced, more likely to fall for wrong ideas. Diversity prompts better, critical thinking. It contributes to error detection. It keeps us from drifting toward miscalculation.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/12/09...-brighter.html
Simple, go back to to the assemblly line to the boardroom. Memorising data should not be the end all be all to becomeing part of the elite.
yes, really.
Read the briefs in support of UT.
http://www.utexas.edu/vp/irla/Fisher-V-Texas.html
Just about everyone believes there is.
And talent isn't necessarily reflected in high school grades or achievements.
Just a little personal experience anecdote: When my oldest son was applying to schools I participated in an online Q&A sponsored by the New York Times with admissions representatives from 20 top tier schools in the country. I don't remember every school that participated but the panel included UCBerkeley, UMichigan, Clemson, Georgia Tech, UMaryland, Penn State, maybe Arizona State and I don't remember the rest. They were talking about the stiff compe ion for spots among so many highly ranked students. And they basically said everyone wants to blame racial diversity when they aren't accepted, but amongst the highest achieving students there are many many other micro-factors they consider.
This is what I took away from that session. First off they sort packets with "thicker packet=thinner student" in mind; packets heavily padded with achievements and recommendations are pushed to the bottom of the pile. SAT scores are important but when you have 1000 packets all with >2300 scores it just doesn't mean much and is then basically ignored. They prefer to look at "trends" in the student's learning. A student who hits struggles along the way academically and recovers is preferable to one that never falters. And then the dreaded essay. An essay with mild grammatical errors is preferable to a computer precise one. An essay that focuses on what the student hopes to achieve for himself is tossed in favor of the student who focuses on how he will use his education to better the world around him. It was an eye opener to me to say the least but I got it when one of the panelists stated that was how they avoid accepting "parent driven automatons" in favor of real talent.
Last edited by mrsmaalox; 12-10-2015 at 01:46 PM. Reason: anecdote not antedote lol
I disagree with Chinese/asians being the smartest. Babies are all clean slates - I take that back a bit - the Chinese take exceptional care of themselves when they are pregnant - it's because they don't know whether it's a boy or girl, that you should choose a Chinese girl when adopting over other nationalities who are more likely products of rape, drugs, etc. For the asians, it comes down to parental involvement and expectations. The parents have them play chess and piano, join math clubs - things that enhance their education. All races are equal - it is the upbringing.
There's little evidence for the claim that African-American students "do not do well" at the University of Texas Austin. Black students there have a graduation rate of nearly 70 percent. That's the highest for black students anywhere in the University of Texas system. The other colleges in the system are less selective — what Scalia might call "slower-track schools" — and graduation rates for black students at those universities are much lower.
It's true that graduation rates for black students at UT Austin lag behind those of white students, but that's true nationally; within the context of that national graduation rate gap, black students at the University of Texas aren't faring badly. The university is in the 93rd percentile of graduation rates at public universities for both black and white students.
The argument that black students, or less prepared students of any race, don't end up benefiting from affirmative action because they can't keep up with the work is known as mismatch theory. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is its most prominent advocate. In his dissent in Grutter v. Bollinger, the court's last high-profile affirmative action case, in 2003, he described elite colleges as "tantalizing" underprepared students with admissions offers.
"These overmatched students take the bait, only to find that they cannot succeed in the cauldron of compe ion," Thomas writes.
The only way to prove the mismatch theory true or false would be to randomly assign minority students with similar academic backgrounds to different colleges and see what happens. That's obviously impractical. But the bulk of research suggests that in fact, students who are admitted to compe ive colleges despite being less academically qualified than their peers end up doing fine.
- Students from underrepresented communities who attend selective colleges are more likely to graduate than students with similar academic qualifications who do not.
- A 2013 study from two sociologists, Michal Kurlaender of the University of California Davis and Eric Grodsky from the University of Wisconsin, looked at an unusual situation at the University of California. Budget struggles led the university to admit fewer students than it had expected to, and it cut out students who were on the academic margins, weaker than other applicants. Then the budget situation improved, and so students were admitted after all. Those students who barely made the cut performed no worse than students from a similar educational background who were admitted through the normal admissions process.
- A 2007 study of students whose SAT scores were lower than the average SAT score of other students at their college found those students were not less likely to drop out, although in some cases they earned lower grades.
- Students from minority groups benefit more, in terms of lifetime earnings, from attending a selective college than their white peers, according to research from economists Stacy Dale and Alan Krueger.
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politi...ction-mismatch
iow, Scalia is just another Repug extremist SCOTUS tool totally full of , and 100% ty jurist.
Thanks, Repugs (St Ronnie's "bad" lives on well after his death)
For us basketball fans, imagine a world in which we didn't get to see the very, very best but instead the players were apportioned by race - there'd be the requisite asian, x whites, x hispanics and ONLY 16% blacks. In this world, we would only see Lebron, Durant, Davis, ... the very top players - we would not see the black players who even though they were better than the asian/white/hispanic players couldn't play because of AA. Fortunately for us, in a free market system we get to see the best based on merit not race.
If you had to have brain surgery done (Ben Carson notwithstanding), would you prefer the very best surgeon based on merit or one who got in because of AA (med school admission accepts blacks with lower MCAT scores and GPA than white/asians).
study's show AA helps white women as much or even more than people of color.
I have a question. Just how long does AA have to go on? Is people having to stand on their on two feet and brain power ever going to be the norm? Or is unequal the norm? What the is so great about diversity?
How long have Euro-Americans on Afro-Americans? The ting-on continues daily.
Interesting. I will keep that in mind when my kids get there. I hope.... heh.
Answer my question or can you.
as long as there is still evidence of those in power discriminating people of different, race, religion, sex and disabilities.
I answered it. go take your meds
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
