|
|
| High court upholds Mich affirmative action ban (1176702) | |
 |
|
| Home > OTChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
|
Page 1 of 3 |
|
|
| (1176702) | |
High court upholds Mich affirmative action ban |
|
|
Posted by DAnD124 on Tue Apr 22 12:48:01 2014 two members of the Court thin that Affirmative action is required?http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/high-court-upholds-mich-affirmative-action-ban/2014/04/22/c903948a-ca28-11e3-b81a-6fff56bc591e_story.html |
|
|
| (1176706) | |
Re: High court upholds Mich affirmative action ban |
|
|
Posted by mtk52983 on Tue Apr 22 13:01:10 2014, in response to High court upholds Mich affirmative action ban, posted by DAnD124 on Tue Apr 22 12:48:01 2014. Looks like Roberts and Kennedy found a way to once again dodge the difficult issue by focusing on some fault in the procedure. Although from other decisions they are not fond of affirmative action, they are not going to let the Supreme Court be as proactive in acting as a superlegislature on this issue as Thomas and Scalia want |
|
|
| (1176713) | |
Re: High court upholds Mich affirmative action ban |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Tue Apr 22 14:00:02 2014, in response to Re: High court upholds Mich affirmative action ban, posted by mtk52983 on Tue Apr 22 13:01:10 2014. they are not going to let the Supreme Court be as proactive in acting as a superlegislature on this issue as Thomas and Scalia wantSo Thomas and Scalia want affirmative action? |
|
|
| (1176719) | |
Re: High court upholds Mich affirmative action ban |
|
|
Posted by mtk52983 on Tue Apr 22 14:31:44 2014, in response to Re: High court upholds Mich affirmative action ban, posted by Olog-hai on Tue Apr 22 14:00:02 2014. No they don't. Thomas and Scalia would want a decision declaring all laws that use race as a factor to be declared unconstitutional even those that were validly passed by states even where the states have decided that there is the requisite reasons for affirmative action |
|
|
| (1176741) | |
Re: High court upholds Mich affirmative action ban |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Apr 22 17:20:43 2014, in response to Re: High court upholds Mich affirmative action ban, posted by mtk52983 on Tue Apr 22 14:31:44 2014. Both Sotamayor and Ginsburg argued for that very same thing, only in the opposite direction.This is about as middle of the road decision we've seen from the SCOTUS in years. The fact that Breyer sided with the majority will undermine this whole "right wing court" crying. |
|
|
| (1176742) | |
Re: High court upholds Mich affirmative action ban |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Apr 22 17:33:31 2014, in response to Re: High court upholds Mich affirmative action ban, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Apr 22 17:20:43 2014. Not really ... this is pretty cut and dry. The difference here is that this was a referendum and a vote, not a questionable legislative action. State's rights. |
|
|
| (1176753) | |
Re: High court upholds Mich affirmative action ban |
|
|
Posted by gp38/r42 chris on Tue Apr 22 19:43:19 2014, in response to High court upholds Mich affirmative action ban, posted by DAnD124 on Tue Apr 22 12:48:01 2014. Now we can see who the two extremists are in the court that think only of race instead of actual accomplishment. Sotomayor and Grinsberg only see things in terms of race. Bravo to the rest that were agaubs putting race in front of credentials. Its terrible people would be denied based on their skin color. |
|
|
| (1176756) | |
Re: High court upholds Mich affirmative action ban |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Apr 22 19:56:10 2014, in response to Re: High court upholds Mich affirmative action ban, posted by gp38/r42 chris on Tue Apr 22 19:43:19 2014. FALSE! Have you actually read the opinion?Also, careful. Some douchebag might call you a racist for being against racist admission policies. :-) |
|
|
| (1176758) | |
Re: High court upholds Mich affirmative action ban |
|
|
Posted by gp38/r42 chris on Tue Apr 22 20:04:40 2014, in response to Re: High court upholds Mich affirmative action ban, posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Apr 22 19:56:10 2014. Haha! No...seriously.... turning off subtalk silliness...I dintvthink anyone should be passed over because they aren't the a color "needed" but someone with less scores are admitted because they are. That's terrible....either way. |
|
|
| (1176760) | |
Re: High court upholds Mich affirmative action ban |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Apr 22 20:24:49 2014, in response to Re: High court upholds Mich affirmative action ban, posted by gp38/r42 chris on Tue Apr 22 20:04:40 2014. I agree but that was not Justice Sotomayor's argument. Rather that the referendum removed the power of the elected college governance boards regarding racial preferences, but nothing else (i.e. they can still have legacy admissions, which are equally discriminatory). |
|
|
| (1176761) | |
Re: High court upholds Mich affirmative action ban |
|
|
Posted by gp38/r42 chris on Tue Apr 22 20:37:00 2014, in response to Re: High court upholds Mich affirmative action ban, posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Apr 22 20:24:49 2014. Yeah....legacy admissions are bad too but I think racial ones are worse |
|
|
| (1176762) | |
Re: High court upholds Mich affirmative action ban |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Tue Apr 22 20:49:26 2014, in response to Re: High court upholds Mich affirmative action ban, posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Apr 22 19:56:10 2014. Are you speaking about the male douchebag or the female douchebag? |
|
|
| (1176765) | |
Re: High court upholds Mich affirmative action ban |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Tue Apr 22 20:53:38 2014, in response to Re: High court upholds Mich affirmative action ban, posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Apr 22 20:24:49 2014. Legacy admissions are unfair but a far less an pervasive than race-based admissions are. Also while legacy admissions have the entrance table tilted in their favor, it seems that some race based admissions have the academic standards lowered for their entire college career. |
|
|
| (1176766) | |
Re: High court upholds Mich affirmative action ban |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Apr 22 21:01:06 2014, in response to Re: High court upholds Mich affirmative action ban, posted by gp38/r42 chris on Tue Apr 22 20:37:00 2014. I disagree. |
|
|
| (1176767) | |
Re: High court upholds Mich affirmative action ban |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Apr 22 21:01:54 2014, in response to Re: High court upholds Mich affirmative action ban, posted by Train Dude on Tue Apr 22 20:49:26 2014. Male, but it could be both. |
|
|
| (1176769) | |
Re: High court upholds Mich affirmative action ban |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Tue Apr 22 21:07:01 2014, in response to Re: High court upholds Mich affirmative action ban, posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Apr 22 21:01:54 2014. :) |
|
|
| (1176770) | |
Re: High court upholds Mich affirmative action ban |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Tue Apr 22 21:13:21 2014, in response to Re: High court upholds Mich affirmative action ban, posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Apr 22 20:24:49 2014. Public universities have legacy admissions? |
|
|
| (1176772) | |
Re: High court upholds Mich affirmative action ban |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Apr 22 21:18:17 2014, in response to Re: High court upholds Mich affirmative action ban, posted by Easy on Tue Apr 22 21:13:21 2014. Yes. |
|
|
| (1176774) | |
Re: High court upholds Mich affirmative action ban |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Tue Apr 22 21:22:23 2014, in response to Re: High court upholds Mich affirmative action ban, posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Apr 22 21:18:17 2014. How much weight is that given in admissions? Does it only help someone that is borderline or does it help someone with very little chance otherwise to make it in? |
|
|
| (1176775) | |
Re: High court upholds Mich affirmative action ban |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Tue Apr 22 21:23:52 2014, in response to Re: High court upholds Mich affirmative action ban, posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Apr 22 21:01:06 2014. Which do you disagree with? Legacy admissions being bad or race based admissions being worse? |
|
|
| (1176777) | |
Re: High court upholds Mich affirmative action ban |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Apr 22 21:30:47 2014, in response to Re: High court upholds Mich affirmative action ban, posted by Easy on Tue Apr 22 21:22:23 2014. I would think it depends on the school. |
|
|
| (1176778) | |
Re: High court upholds Mich affirmative action ban |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Apr 22 21:31:16 2014, in response to Re: High court upholds Mich affirmative action ban, posted by Train Dude on Tue Apr 22 21:23:52 2014. Racial being worse. |
|
|
| (1176806) | |
Re: High court upholds Mich affirmative action ban |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Wed Apr 23 01:14:15 2014, in response to Re: High court upholds Mich affirmative action ban, posted by Train Dude on Tue Apr 22 20:49:26 2014. Someone's not Italian. George Carlin said with Italian vernacular, "'Scumbag' is a guy, and 'douchebag' is a girl" . . . |
|
|
| (1176808) | |
Re: High court upholds Mich affirmative action ban |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Wed Apr 23 01:20:27 2014, in response to Re: High court upholds Mich affirmative action ban, posted by Olog-hai on Wed Apr 23 01:14:15 2014. According to the Urban Dictionary:1. douchebag "Someone who has surpassed the levels of jerk and asshole, however not yet reached fucker or motherfucker. Not to be confuzed with douche." There seems to be no gender restriction on the term. It also seems to fit either person equally well. |
|
|
| (1176820) | |
Re: High court upholds Mich affirmative action ban |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Wed Apr 23 05:50:20 2014, in response to Re: High court upholds Mich affirmative action ban, posted by gp38/r42 chris on Tue Apr 22 19:43:19 2014. I think the "two extremists" are correct. However, this decision really isn't about any of that. The case before the court had to do with the constitutionality of overturning a principle after the PEOPLE voted to do so rather than a legislative action by representation. The court decided that the PEOPLE, having voted on the issue, are above the constitutionality of what they voted for. So it was a good decision. The dissenters only added their own opinions to the decision knowing that it had to go the way it did.Do Justices NOT have "free speech" and putting that in writing when it would have no difference in the actual ruling? :( Justices write OPINION in *EVERY* case they decide. |
|
|
| (1176824) | |
Re: High court upholds Mich affirmative action ban |
|
|
Posted by mtk52983 on Wed Apr 23 06:36:08 2014, in response to Re: High court upholds Mich affirmative action ban, posted by gp38/r42 chris on Tue Apr 22 20:37:00 2014. I think they are equally bad because both take lesser applicants instead of more qualified applicants. If anything certain legacy admissions may be worse because a Black student who got a 5 on the 2 AP exams his/her school offered because it was a poor district and that is all they could afford and did not have the benefit of SAT prep courses so while he/she did reasonably well it was not quite at the same level as what is normally seen of admitted students would probably have more potential than a legacy admission who took the same 2 AP exams but his/her school offered 15 or more AP classes and only got the same SAT score because of intensive, expensive prep courses. Granted my hypotehtical involved an extreme case, but overall I do not think any one admission preference is better or worse than another |
|
|
| (1176825) | |
Re: High court upholds Mich affirmative action ban |
|
|
Posted by mtk52983 on Wed Apr 23 06:36:08 2014, in response to Re: High court upholds Mich affirmative action ban, posted by gp38/r42 chris on Tue Apr 22 20:37:00 2014. I think they are equally bad because both take lesser applicants instead of more qualified applicants. If anything certain legacy admissions may be worse because a Black student who got a 5 on the 2 AP exams his/her school offered because it was a poor district and that is all they could afford and did not have the benefit of SAT prep courses so while he/she did reasonably well it was not quite at the same level as what is normally seen of admitted students would probably have more potential than a legacy admission who took the same 2 AP exams but his/her school offered 15 or more AP classes and only got the same SAT score because of intensive, expensive prep courses. Granted my hypotehtical involved an extreme case, but overall I do not think any one admission preference is better or worse than another |
|
|
| (1176829) | |
Re: High court upholds Mich affirmative action ban |
|
|
Posted by gp38/r42 chris on Wed Apr 23 07:01:28 2014, in response to Re: High court upholds Mich affirmative action ban, posted by mtk52983 on Wed Apr 23 06:36:08 2014. If anything certain legacy admissions may be worse because a Black student who got a 5 on the 2 AP exams his/her school offered because it was a poor districtSo can a white student. That doesnt change between black and white. There's plenty whites in bad districts too. At least with legacy there's some sort of connection. Racial admissions are solely on the skin color |
|
|
| (1176838) | |
Re: High court upholds Mich affirmative action ban |
|
|
Posted by mtk52983 on Wed Apr 23 07:51:27 2014, in response to Re: High court upholds Mich affirmative action ban, posted by gp38/r42 chris on Wed Apr 23 07:01:28 2014. And Legacy admissions are solely on the fact that some relative went to the school and likely donated money. If we are talking about unqualified applicants, how does admitting someone who had no business getting into a school help your argument? Personally I believe all preferences should be done away with |
|
|
| (1176839) | |
Re: High court upholds Mich affirmative action ban |
|
|
Posted by gp38/r42 chris on Wed Apr 23 08:24:40 2014, in response to Re: High court upholds Mich affirmative action ban, posted by mtk52983 on Wed Apr 23 07:51:27 2014. Again....at least "some"connection is there. and there still has to be some sort of academic achievement....as opposed to ssolely because of someone's race. |
|
|
| (1176840) | |
Re: High court upholds Mich affirmative action ban |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Apr 23 08:50:51 2014, in response to Re: High court upholds Mich affirmative action ban, posted by gp38/r42 chris on Wed Apr 23 08:24:40 2014. How is legacy an academic achievement? Like race, it is something the applicant has no control over. |
|
|
| (1176842) | |
Re: High court upholds Mich affirmative action ban |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Wed Apr 23 08:56:37 2014, in response to Re: High court upholds Mich affirmative action ban, posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Apr 22 21:31:16 2014. I would say legacy are worse because they reaffirm economic advantage. They go out of their way to reward you for your parents having had the means and opportunity to attend college. |
|
|
| (1176844) | |
Re: High court upholds Mich affirmative action ban |
|
|
Posted by mtk52983 on Wed Apr 23 08:59:26 2014, in response to Re: High court upholds Mich affirmative action ban, posted by gp38/r42 chris on Wed Apr 23 08:24:40 2014. Except I have seen legacies get in and fail out only to have $$$ change the school's decision and they had no academic achievement in High School. Stop assuming that every minority who is there did not have academic achievement |
|
|
| (1176854) | |
Re: High court upholds Mich affirmative action ban |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Apr 23 09:25:51 2014, in response to Re: High court upholds Mich affirmative action ban, posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Apr 23 08:50:51 2014. I didn't say legacy is an academic achievement. I said there has to be some along with it. They aren't going to take some shlep just because his mother graduated there. |
|
|
| (1176858) | |
Re: High court upholds Mich affirmative action ban |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Apr 23 09:29:00 2014, in response to Re: High court upholds Mich affirmative action ban, posted by mtk52983 on Wed Apr 23 08:59:26 2014. Stop assuming that every minority who is there did not have academic achievement???????????????????????????????????????????????? Who assumed that? I am saying that if applicant a has a higher score than applicant B, he should get in. The way affirmative action makes it is if Applicant B happens to be Black, then he should get in first. If applicant B has higher credentials and happens to be black, than applicant A than he should get in first. |
|
|
| (1176860) | |
Re: High court upholds Mich affirmative action ban |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Wed Apr 23 09:30:18 2014, in response to Re: High court upholds Mich affirmative action ban, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Apr 23 09:25:51 2014. They aren't going to take some shlep just because his mother graduated there.But that's exactly what legacy admission is. "Based on your record we would not have admitted you, but in consideration of the fact that your mother graduated from here (not to mention the very generous gift we received from her) we will be honored to admit you." |
|
|
| (1176862) | |
Re: High court upholds Mich affirmative action ban |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Wed Apr 23 09:32:35 2014, in response to Re: High court upholds Mich affirmative action ban, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Apr 23 09:29:00 2014. Ah, now what about if applicant B has significantly lower family income (ignore their races), and therefore had more obstacles on the way to getting a comparable score to A? |
|
|
| (1176866) | |
Re: High court upholds Mich affirmative action ban |
|
|
Posted by mtk52983 on Wed Apr 23 09:35:51 2014, in response to Re: High court upholds Mich affirmative action ban, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Apr 23 09:29:00 2014. you could replace Black with Legacy and it happens everyday at universities across the country. Child does not deserve to go there on academics but because mommy, daddy, grandma or grandpa went there and gave a lot of money then that applicant gets in. All preferences that reward situations beyond the control of the applicant suck |
|
|
| (1176868) | |
Re: High court upholds Mich affirmative action ban |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Apr 23 09:39:04 2014, in response to Re: High court upholds Mich affirmative action ban, posted by AlM on Wed Apr 23 08:56:37 2014. Perhaps, but again, at least it's not not soley because of the skin color or race someone is. People are born who they are, there has to be at least some accomplishment to be wealthy. And no race is exempt, as any race can become wealthy. |
|
|
| (1176869) | |
Re: High court upholds Mich affirmative action ban |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Apr 23 09:40:48 2014, in response to Re: High court upholds Mich affirmative action ban, posted by AlM on Wed Apr 23 09:30:18 2014. I never said I agreed with it, but it's surely better than "We are admitting you because you are Black, even though others have better academics" (Or white for that matter). |
|
|
| (1176870) | |
Re: High court upholds Mich affirmative action ban |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Apr 23 09:42:17 2014, in response to Re: High court upholds Mich affirmative action ban, posted by AlM on Wed Apr 23 09:32:35 2014. All races are subject to that. |
|
|
| (1176872) | |
Re: High court upholds Mich affirmative action ban |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Wed Apr 23 09:47:25 2014, in response to Re: High court upholds Mich affirmative action ban, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Apr 23 09:39:04 2014. Affirmative action programs don't admit students solely because of race either. |
|
|
| (1176873) | |
Re: High court upholds Mich affirmative action ban |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Wed Apr 23 09:48:02 2014, in response to Re: High court upholds Mich affirmative action ban, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Apr 23 09:40:48 2014. You don't agree with it, but for some reason you think it is less bad. |
|
|
| (1176875) | |
Re: High court upholds Mich affirmative action ban |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Apr 23 09:57:24 2014, in response to Re: High court upholds Mich affirmative action ban, posted by AlM on Wed Apr 23 09:47:25 2014. I didn't say soley. But because of WHO they are as a race, if they have decent academics, although not quite as good as another applicant, the better applicant may not get in BECAUSE of his race. |
|
|
| (1176876) | |
Re: High court upholds Mich affirmative action ban |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Apr 23 09:58:11 2014, in response to Re: High court upholds Mich affirmative action ban, posted by AlM on Wed Apr 23 09:48:02 2014. Yes, that's what I said. |
|
|
| (1176878) | |
Re: High court upholds Mich affirmative action ban |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Wed Apr 23 10:01:25 2014, in response to High court upholds Mich affirmative action ban, posted by DAnD124 on Tue Apr 22 12:48:01 2014. The split was along gender lines...and more puzzling is that Justice Sotomayor (who was in the majority in the Fisher v. University of Texas Austin case last year, dissented. (Ginsburg dissented both times.) |
|
|
| (1176883) | |
Re: High court upholds Mich affirmative action ban |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Wed Apr 23 10:07:35 2014, in response to Re: High court upholds Mich affirmative action ban, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Apr 23 09:57:24 2014. I didn't say soley.Yes, you did. Perhaps, but again, at least it's not not soley because of the skin color or race someone is. |
|
|
| (1176884) | |
Re: High court upholds Mich affirmative action ban |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Wed Apr 23 10:09:25 2014, in response to Re: High court upholds Mich affirmative action ban, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Apr 23 09:42:17 2014. So are you opposed to giving preference on account of diminished family income? |
|
|
| (1176896) | |
Re: High court upholds Mich affirmative action ban |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Apr 23 11:03:48 2014, in response to Re: High court upholds Mich affirmative action ban, posted by AlM on Wed Apr 23 10:07:35 2014. I thought it was understood that "some sort" of academic standard to at least get to that point. Obviously, they are not taking someone with no academics at all. And yes, if it's at that point, and someone is chosen over someone else based on their race, then it is soley on race. |
|
|
| (1176898) | |
Re: High court upholds Mich affirmative action ban |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Apr 23 11:05:35 2014, in response to Re: High court upholds Mich affirmative action ban, posted by AlM on Wed Apr 23 10:09:25 2014. ??????If they can't pay tuition, and they aren't getting a scholarship, they aren't getting in either. What's your point? |
|
|
|
|
Page 1 of 3 |
|