T1B

In 1992 Cheryl Hopwood was denied admission to the Univ of Texas Law School despite having higher combined LSAT and grade scores than 40 of the 43 Hispanic students admitted and 16 of the 18 black students admitted. UT publicly stated they accepted only the highest qualified students. Hopwood challenged this claim as she tutored some of the admitted students on their LSAT test and therefore knew their scores.

In May 1994 the District Court ruled that the quotas and reverse discrimination while sad were legal. Hopwood appealed to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals which in March 1996 ruled that race could not be used as a factor in admission decisions.

UT then appealed to the Supreme Court and later in 1996 the Supreme Court declined to hear the case, meaning that race could not be use as a factor in admission decisions in Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi. In Spring 1997 the Texas Legislature passed HB 588 which stated that anyone graduating in the Top 10% of their Texas Public HS class would automatically be admitted to any of the Texas Public Universities. The hope was that minority students would still attend Texas and ATM since race was no longer a factor. The flip side was that many students just outside the top 10 percent but with very high SAT scores were left out. This then led to many "white" (white including Asian) to leave their suburban HS and transfer to inner city schools in the last months of their senior school year just to ensure they graduated in the Top 10% of a public HS. This further lowered the number of minority Top 10% graduates.

Then in 2003 the Supreme Court heard another case which reversed Hopwood in that Universities could use race as a factor but not quotas. The Court also said that Universities needed to move quickly towards a race blind system.

Fast forward to this week when the Supreme Court will hear another case against the Univ of Texas. Abigail Fisher has sued the Univ saying it discriminated against her when she was denied admission. (Fisher went on to LSU and graduated this past spring.) UT admission policy openly states the use of racial and ethnic backgrounds in making admission decisions. Many legal pundits are saying she has a great chance to win her case which would force all colleges and universities to remove any reference to race, ethnicity, etc from applications, essays or letters. Some have said that this would require each application to go thru a clearinghouse to remove any race info and could also prevent many students from writing essays on anything to do with their upbringing for fear of revealing their race.

I think the SC will rule with ms Fisher and race will no longer be able to be considered by schools in their admission policies.

Lawyers what do y'all think?

Left Seater wrote:In Spring 1997 the Texas Legislature passed HB 588 which stated that anyone graduating in the Top 10% of their Texas Public HS class would automatically be admitted to any of the Texas Public Universities. The hope was that minority students would still attend Texas and ATM since race was no longer a factor. The flip side was that many students just outside the top 10 percent but with very high SAT scores were left out. This then led to many "white" (white including Asian) to leave their suburban HS and transfer to inner city schools in the last months of their senior school year just to ensure they graduated in the Top 10% of a public HS. This further lowered the number of minority Top 10% graduates.

Seems like an easy nut to crack in a state so addicted to BTPCF, just adopt some transfer rules and make the kids who transfer for non hardship reasons ineligible until they have spend at least 2 semesters at their new school. Problem solved, unless some cracker wants to spend a year in the ghetto. And if so, let him have his ride, he earned it.

A district committee already reviews every athlete who transfers.

But the transfers mentioned above are often a month or weeks before graduation. Little Sarah moves from South Lake outside of Dallas to South San Antonio and lives with her grandmother for the final 3 weeks of the school year. In the process she goes from outside of the top 10% to well inside the top 5%.

Jsc810 wrote:I do think there is a public benefit to having a diverse student population in universities...

Such as?

Just heard on the radio a few people kicking this around. Apparently the case was initially about race based admission policies but is now larger and includes scholarships, grants, housing, etc.

Left Seater wrote:A district committee already reviews every athlete who transfers.

But the transfers mentioned above are often a month or weeks before graduation. Little Sarah moves from South Lake outside of Dallas to South San Antonio and lives with her grandmother for the final 3 weeks of the school year. In the process she goes from outside of the top 10% to well inside the top 5%.

Like I said, let them transfer but deny them special preference unless they've spent a year at their transfer schools. How hard is that?

I am not in HS administration, but how do you not rank someone at the school they are currently attending? Do they go back to their previous school for graduation? What school would they be ranked at then?

Actually sounds more complicated that way. State wide regulations would need to be put in place so everyone did the same thing.

mvscal wrote:

Jsc810 wrote:I do think there is a public benefit to having a diverse student population in universities...

Such as?

Racist says what?

Idiot says...nothing.

Government policies that very strongly encourage racism are the norm.

In fact, racism is alive and quite well in this country -- as long as the target of your hate is a white man.

If that white man is childless, he's the scum of the earth, in our political climate.

Because apparently, "racism" only applies to certain races. We shake our head at African tribal cultures that enslave grandchildren of criminals for the Sins of the Father, yet pass laws to do the same thing here.


Put in the lowest qualifying bid on a public contract? Hooray for you... unless you're white, then you have to pass further "tests" (skin color). Qualify for a scholarship? Not so fast, buddy -- we need to make sure you're not too white.

Yet the do-gooders think their pet form of racism is a good thing. We didn't just pass laws to make us all equal in the eyes of the law... they made some people a little more "equal" than others.

Left Seater wrote:I am not in HS administration, but how do you not rank someone at the school they are currently attending? Do they go back to their previous school for graduation? What school would they be ranked at then?

Actually sounds more complicated that way. State wide regulations would need to be put in place so everyone did the same thing.

DON'T RANK THEM. End of problem. Or they can use whatever rank they were at their last school before they transferred. Either way, problem solved.

BSmack wrote:Either way, problem solved.

Even better solution -- ban ALL government-sponsored racism.

Dinsdale wrote:

BSmack wrote:Either way, problem solved.

Even better solution -- ban ALL government-sponsored racism.

What Texas is doing isn't racist. It is admirable to encourage kids to do better by giving them a guaranteed spot in the state's best schools for high academic achievement. It is the parents of these kids who are being dicks.

88 wrote:If the true goal of the program is to guarantee a spot in the state's best schools to kids with the highest academic achievement (and not engineering a racially diverse student population despite laws that prohibit the consideration of race in student admissions), how does it make the parents of transfer students with high academic achievement who end up in one of those guaranteed spots dicks?

Forgive him -- he toes the liberal line to a fault. And the liberal agenda is flagrantly racist by nature -- (we must help those po' black folk, because they're incapable of helping themselves."

Disgusting ideology, to be sure.

88 wrote:If the true goal of the program is to guarantee a spot in the state's best schools to kids with the highest academic achievement (and not engineering a racially diverse student population despite laws that prohibit the consideration of race in student admissions), how does it make the parents of transfer students with high academic achievement who end up in one of those guaranteed spots dicks?

You really can't figure it out? The state wants the best kids from each district. These parents actions run counter to that.

88 wrote:If it is a geographic motivation, when a kid transfers into a district, why isn't he/she capable of being the representative of that district? You know, it being geographic and all.

Dinsdale wrote:[Forgive him -- he toes the liberal line to a fault. And the liberal agenda is flagrantly racist by nature -- (we must help those po' black folk, because they're incapable of helping themselves."

88 wrote:If it is a geographic motivation, when a kid transfers into a district, why isn't he/she capable of being the representative of that district? You know, it being geographic and all.

If you don't live in a district, you are not representative of said district. Moving there for 3 months doesn't change that.

88 wrote:Moving into a district means that you live there, you know. Why didn't you raise this issue when Hillary Clinton ran as a candidate for U.S. Senate in New York?

Nobody "represents" upstate NY in the Senate. Period. They represent their donors in NY or, if they are Republican, Long Island. You are an idiot for even bringing that up as a counter argument. But since you asked, no I wasn't impressed with Hilary's carpetbagging in 2000. Although at least she and her husband bought a home in NY and resided their for the duration of her term in the Senate. Eight years as opposed to 3 months. Slight difference don't you think?

So what in your mind is an adequate length of time to be in a school to be considered as part of that school?

Left Seater wrote:So what in your mind is an adequate length of time to be in a school to be considered as part of that school?

At least one full school year.

The funny thing is that in all probability, had there been a US senate seat open in Illinois that year, Hillary would have run there, maintained her Cubs allegiance, and there would be no President Obama. Somewhere in an alternative universe.

Wolfman wrote:The funny thing is that in all probability, had there been a US senate seat open in Illinois that year, Hillary would have run there, maintained her Cubs allegiance, and there would be no President Obama. Somewhere in an alternative universe.

That only puts Hillary closer to her third term as POTUS. :grin:

BSmack wrote:

Left Seater wrote:So what in your mind is an adequate length of time to be in a school to be considered as part of that school?

At least one full school year.

So if said kid spends their senior year there then that is cool? Got it.

What about the military brat who is only in a school for a semester? Too bad kid, you don't get ranked and you aren't part of the school. Tell the colleges you are applying to that you don't have a class rank cause we refuse to rank you.

Jsc810 wrote:

mvscal wrote:

Jsc810 wrote:I do think there is a public benefit to having a diverse student population in universities...

Such as?

Let's note what the SCOTUS says, from Grutter v Bollinger, which is the 2003 case that the Court now must decide to follow or overrule:

Justice Powell emphasized that nothing less than the “ ‘nation’s future depends upon leaders trained through wide exposure’ to the ideas and mores of students as diverse as this Nation of many peoples.”

***

And he still fails to explain why or provide any actual evidence whatsoever to support his case. He (and you) simply make use of the argumentum ad populum logical fallacy.

Neither one of you has any demonstrated ability to reason logically. I guess that shouldn't be surprising. Journalists no longer bother to study English and are barely even literate these days (s'up Screwy?) so why should lawyers master rhetoric, right?

Diversity quotas are intellectually lazy copouts and you're either too stupid or too ignorant to puzzle out why that is.

Dinsdale wrote:Government policies that very strongly encourage racism are the norm.




Put in the lowest qualifying bid on a public contract? Hooray for you... unless you're white, then you have to pass further "tests" (skin color).

You can even be the lowest qualifying bidder, and if you cannot meet the minority / women hiring levels specified in the contract, your lowest bid will get tossed out , and the next qualifying bidder with those numbers gets it. Regardless of how hard he stood on the margin.

There is a local business man who started a landscape contracting business back in the early 90's. He caught on quite quick that being a 100% minority certified contractor opened the door to him to bid public jobs, and blow every one away, and make up to 40% net profits on these jobs. He kept churning away like that, expanded out to soils mitigation work, remediation work, all government jobs. He even had one or 2 token white fucks working for him now and then.

Today, he is about 48 or so, is running for State Senate, shows up to work a couple of days per week, has at least 3 homes, all the requisite bling and is doing quite well. Still bids the work at huge margins, and gets it. Works over about 3 states now. Got a job I bid on years ago, and was 40K higher on a 290k job and got it.

Seems a bit of an unfair advantage to me anyway.

Jsc810 wrote: Most of the prior SCOTUS cases have been fractured; I like the opinions better when they are a clear 9-0 decision.

Of course you would. No sense in having a dissenting opinion in there. They all need to vote in lock step with which ever POTUS appointed them there. Keeps the socialist agenda going the right way.

Jsc810 wrote:If you would read, then you would know that there was not a quota in that case, but rather race was one factor out of many that was considered in admissions.

Quota or not it is still discrimination and should not be allowed.

I still do not "get" why a person who has one parent of European ancestry and the other of central African ancestry is automatically a "black" person. Isn't that racist or at least a segregationist/Jim Crow attitude?? Wouldn't it be nice if people really believed in what MLK said, content of character,etc..

Jsc810 wrote:I don't pretend to have the answer here.

That would be because you are a liberal idiot who thinks government is the answer to all of society's problems.

In law and in practice, it certainly is an area where people with good intentions differ.

And the road to hell is paved with...? There is no government solution to this problem. Everything the government has done has increased dependency and made the problem worse. That is the end result of your so-called good intentions.

Nothing is going to change in the black community until they begin to take responsibility for themselves, their families and their communities. They have to stop turning their neighborhoods into ghettoized free-fire zones. They have to instill useful values into their children.

There are too many successful blacks in all professions and all walks of life to say that they are incapable of doing it. It would be useful to refer to the family and community situations that these people experienced for your answer. 9 times out of 10 that answer is going to be a mother and a father who gave a fuck and taught their children a proper work ethic and valued education. The reasons for failure are equally evident and have nothing whatsoever to do with "racism" which is nothing more than a weak excuse.

mvscal wrote:

Jsc810 wrote:I do think there is a public benefit to having a diverse student population in universities...

Such as?

Varying shades of hot pussy in each and every classroom.

Now crawl back in your hole you Vaipd Racist Fuckstain.

88 wrote:I think the concept of "racism" has changed over the years. It used to mean that a person was inclined to believe that a person of another race was inferior. Not quite human. Racists in this country were synonymous with "white supremacists."

That does not appear to be the case anymore.

You don't get out much or even read this board much do you?

I would argue that in view of the crime statistics and the disproportionate number of blacks who have been convicted of committing crimes, the primary reason black people get pulled over for "driving while black" is because the police are conditioned to expect that black people or more likely than white people to be committing a crime.

Garbage in garbage out. Actual crime has little or nothing to do with crime statistics.

Thanks for the new sig...Of course murderers have nothing to do with murder rates.

Moving Sale wrote: Actual crime has little or nothing to do with crime statistics.

Expound on this a bit please, I am curious how these stats are developed.

Jsc810 wrote:But when was the last time you were pulled over by a cop for driving while white?

When was the last time whites made up 12% of the population and commited over 50% of all violent crime in the United States?

Dinsdale wrote:When was the last time whites made up 12% of the population and commited over 50% of all violent crime in the United States?

Colonial times.

sin

Native Americans who were exterminated during colonial times

BSmack wrote:

Dinsdale wrote:When was the last time whites made up 12% of the population and commited over 50% of all violent crime in the United States?

Colonial times.

sin

Native Americans who were exterminated during colonial times

Wrong.

The SC heard arguments today on the case and Court watchers claim Kennedy is the swing vote. Through his questions they think he will side with the conservatives of the court and they will strike down race as a factor in any admission policy.

Jsc810 wrote:

mvscal wrote:

Jsc810 wrote:I do think there is a public benefit to having a diverse student population in universities...

Such as?

Let's note what the SCOTUS says, from Grutter v Bollinger, which is the 2003 case that the Court now must decide to follow or overrule:

Justice Powell emphasized that nothing less than the “ ‘nation’s future depends upon leaders trained through wide exposure’ to the ideas and mores of students as diverse as this Nation of many peoples.”


These benefits are substantial. As the District Court emphasized, the Law School’s admissions policy promotes “cross-racial understanding,” helps to break down racial stereotypes, and “enables [students] to better understand persons of different races.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 246a. These benefits are “important and laudable,” because “classroom discussion is livelier, more spirited, and simply more enlightening and interesting” when the students have “the greatest possible variety of backgrounds.” Id., at 246a, 244a.

Oh, I get it...if you're black, you have x set of beliefs, experiences, etc.; if you're Asian, you have y set; white, z set, etc., etc. And that, folks, is what is meant by "the greatest possible variety of backgrounds". Background equals race, period.

I thought we were supposed to have dispensed with this stereotype business, right? I thought it was racist?

Yesterday's oral arguments also had it's share of buffonery - Sotomayor asserting the 10% plan without racial preferences amounts to segregation, for example.

Yes in this case due to his line of questions.

Moving Sale wrote:Actual crime has little or nothing to do with crime statistics.

Anyone else notice that no explanation was ever provided for this statement? Was this actually his closing argument? What am I missing here? I was hoping to see a great legal mind at work. :doh: