Racial admissions criteria: Suing in Texas

Race should never be part of the criteria for admission to college. Neither should gender, sexual orientation, religion etc. It's discrimination, plain and simple. That it's done with the intent to include and not exclude does not mean it's not discrimination. It casts doubt on the achievments of people of color who are in ONLY because they worked their ass off and excelled to the top of the class.

I'm certainly not blind to the fact that minorities are behind in college admissions. The only kind of affirmative action I would consider would be that based on economic, and not racial, criteria. If a kid is poor his or her chances of getting into college are lesser, be they from a project in LA or a dusty town in Appaliacha. This sort of Affirmative Action would end up benefiting disproportionately blacks anyway because they unfortunately tend to be poorer. But it would eliminate the automatic white resentment and also prevent things like affirmative action benefitting the daughters of Barack Obama, to name a prominent example.

Poliman worked hard not to mention the Gratz decision that dealt with undergraduate admission where the University of Michigan had different admissions criteria for blacks and Hispanics than for whites. If the student can demonostrate that outside of the top 10% admission that the University of Texas has separate and unequal admissions such as lower SAT cut off scores or points just for being black, the University of Texas will lose under the Gratz V. Bollinger decision.

Hi sd -- no, actually I didn't try to avoid mentioning Gratz. The complaint itself is based on Grutter, so that's where I focused.

Y'all are just jealous cuz you're not black in America and getting all those free goodies from Uncle Sam. C'mon, admit it. We'd be better off black.

Funny, I never hear a peep about discrimination on the other end. "Legacy" admissions (Like GW Bush) for kids of alumni or donor admissions for kids of big donors to the school. Never mind your grades, son, your pappy wrote us a big check.

Geographical considerations have also been traditionally important as well so that many universities admit people due in part to where they were born. I went to a boarding school in NJ and, while I had As and Bs before attending, I'm pretty sure that being from the deep south helped me in getting in.

Greendreams,

The Washington Post had an editorial a few years ago about how the children of rich parents who were attending private prep schools would claim to be Hispanic or American Indian to try to get into the Naval Academy. How disadvantage to you think a young hispanic male is if they are attending an elite private prep school versus a blue collar white family. http://aad.english.ucsb.edu/docs/notaa11.html

If you look at the case of Jennifer Gratz in the Gratz V. Bollinger decision, she would have been better off black because she would have gotten admitted into the University of Michigan with a scholarship instead of having to attend UM-Dearborn instead. Her blue collar neighbhorhood school did not have the AP programs or the leadership positions that the rich whites get at the private schools. And remember, the Supreme court ruled that the State of Michigan did violate Ms. Gratz's civil rights.

State Universities have fewer discretionary admissions versus private schools. Thus, they have few legacy admissions if at all (such as Virginia Tech or Texas A&M that eliminate the process).

Polimom,

In an ideal world Lynx would be right. But then, in an ideal world, we would be willing to accept whatever the outcome would be. In this world, too many people want no discrimination (or no reverse discrimination) in the process--but also want an outcome that matches what they believe to be "fair" or "just". One can not have it both ways. If a college population that is disproportionately upper middle class (or rich), white or Asian, and predominantly female is acceptable, then let there be no consideration of non-academic factors. If some economic / racial / gender diversity is a goal, then non-academic factors must be considered, and one can argue how much relative weight should be assigned to each, though the argument does not belong in a court.

This case sounds as if the student did not get in to her first choice college, and is trying to intimidate the admissions office into changing its decision. The case sounds weak. Not only is she asking the court to force her into the TX state college system, she wants in to a specific campus. And she wants it right now!

Sigh. Whatever happened to accepting a disappointment and going to one's second choice college?

The_Master ,

The real question is why can't young Demarkus or Alejandro attended US-Directional with their 1000 SAT's and no AP classes and create more spaces for the suburban white and Asian kids with the 1300 SAT's and transcript full of AP classes at UT-Austin or Texas A&M. Also, why should minorities get two programs (top 10% and affirmative action) to get into UT-Austin on a separate and unequal admission standard?

The argument for having uneven admission standards is that the smart white and Asian kids need blacks and Hispanics around in a "critical mass" so that the white and Asian kids can learn how to function around minorities. Yet, no matter the state, the critical mass of minorities needed to affect the smart white and Asian kids always seems to be the percentage that they are represented in the general population.

The argument for having uneven admission standards is that the smart white and Asian kids need blacks and Hispanics around in a "critical mass" so that the white and Asian kids can learn how to function around minorities.

Actually I think that argument is pulled out in the middle of the list. At the top of the list is "making up" for historical racial discrimination. The fact that Asians faced through history at least as much discrimination as Latinos and yet manage to get better grades than the white kids is an "inconvenient truth" people would rather not mention. The idea is that by educating minorities you lift them out of their poverty ridden communities and then they will go back and help those communities rise themselves. What proof they have that college educated blacks do this instead of getting good jobs and moving into middle class suburbs with the whites (or even predominantly black middle class suburbs, and they do exist) is unknown to me.

I could have gotten into the best High School in my city, the only one with selective grade criteria for entry. My grades weren't too hot, but I could have convincingly said I was "hispanic" and made the cut. I was after all a Spanish American and spoke fluent Spanish. I, using the idealism and principle of youth, refused to and put that I was white, because that's what I am. I ended up in a terrible school, like most in the district. I can't say I'd do it all over again if I had the chance. People tend to snort at the idea that a white kid could feel the burn of discrimination when faced with racial quotas, but that doesn't mean they don't feel it.

An irony to this post. In having worked for ETS and the Law School Admissions Council, no individual has ever been denied access to education or Higher Education at the Undergraduate level. However, if one is denied access to a Law School, you have been denied access to the various employment opportunities by which admissions into law school is required. The very heart of AA..... What is interesting about this suit, is that three years ago (April 5th 2005), the US Attorney General (The Honorable John Ashcroft), the Texas State Attorney General (the Honorable Gregg Abbott) coordinated their research on a proposal written by myself in resolving the impasse for Law School Admissions. Of the hundreds of porposals presented by various groups, individuals and organizations opposed/ for AA, only one proposal illustrated a consequence to the state(s) should their proposal not be implemented. The proposal was assigned Litigation Related Activity Case# DJ 169-73-0. The OLD DIVERSITY STANDARD was re-introduced last August at the ABA annual meeting as reported by Inside Higher ED with a new CEO to head the Law Council named Daniel O. Bernstine.

In understanding as to what we had discussed at the office of Jim Pitts (Attorney) and Texas member of the House of Reps for the state of Texas, Hopwood went to trial based on one criteria, she was denied access to the legal profession, however if she and the others applied to other law schools and were awarded a seat, none of this would have come to trial. Although this High School Senior has a valid point, who is to say that one college is superior to another (respectively), so I do not see the issue to be drawn out, however with the state(s) now having a working solution for the Law School Admissions impasse which can be adopted by all states, the trap is now set. The battle is now set between AA and the top ten rule for the undergraduate programs vs. the Law School Admissions AA for selection, with one having a clearly defined process.

Approximately Thirty years ago (30) years ago after the Bakke decision was announced, 15 regents from the various law schools conceived an idea that would resolve the issue for law school admissions, however we had neither the tools nor technology to implement the process. In 1980 when we became the Law School Admissions Services (LSAS) Organization after divorcing ourselvies from ETS, we examined what could be done. In short - we failed to acknowledge the law school candidate for the two employment scenarios by which admissions into law school is required. With this suit now announced, how will the other candidates respond when all of the information is released and discussed involving the two spilt processes ???

Polimom,

In an ideal world Lynx would be right. But then, in an ideal world, we would be willing to accept whatever the outcome would be. In this world, too many people want no discrimination (or no reverse discrimination) in the process--but also want an outcome that matches what they believe to be "fair" or "just". One can not have it both ways. If a college population that is disproportionately upper middle class (or rich), white or Asian, and predominantly female is acceptable, then let there be no consideration of non-academic factors. If some economic / racial / gender diversity is a goal, then non-academic factors must be considered, and one can argue how much relative weight should be assigned to each, though the argument does not belong in a court.

This case sounds as if the student did not get in to her first choice college, and is trying to intimidate the admissions office into changing its decision. The case sounds weak. Not only is she asking the court to force her into the TX state college system, she wants in to a specific campus. And she wants it right now!

Sigh. Whatever happened to accepting a disappointment and going to one's second choice college?

Polimom,

In an ideal world Lynx would be right. But then, in an ideal world, we would be willing to accept whatever the outcome would be. In this world, too many people want no discrimination (or no reverse discrimination) in the process--but also want an outcome that matches what they believe to be "fair" or "just". One can not have it both ways. If a college population that is disproportionately upper middle class (or rich), white or Asian, and predominantly female is acceptable, then let there be no consideration of non-academic factors. If some economic / racial / gender diversity is a goal, then non-academic factors must be considered, and one can argue how much relative weight should be assigned to each, though the argument does not belong in a court.

This case sounds as if the student did not get in to her first choice college, and is trying to intimidate the admissions office into changing its decision. The case sounds weak. Not only is she asking the court to force her into the TX state college system, she wants in to a specific campus. And she wants it right now!

Sigh. Whatever happened to accepting a disappointment and going to one's second choice college?