Game over for AA?

seabird:

I didn't think it was possible, but holy crap - Kennedy may actually vote correctly on this one. Of course, he doesn't have a good track record. The precedent seems to exist mainly in two cases heard in 2006 - Meredith v. Jefferson Board of Education,

Justice Kennedy concurred in part with Chief Justice Roberts' opinion and concurred in the judgment. He wrote a concurring opinion addressing his dissent from part of Roberts' opinion. Part I - Kennedy's dissent from the plurality opinion, stating that diversity can be a compelling educational goal depending on the definition. Part II - Chief Justice's implication of an "all-too-unyielding insistence that race cannot be a factor." Part III - Response to dissent's assumptions III-A - "reliance on the Court's precedents to justify the explicit, sweeping, classwide racial classifications at issue" as a misreading that undermines "principles needed to guard our freedom." III-B - Dissent's minimizing or neglecting difference between de facto segregation and de jure segregation. III-C - Dissent ignoring dangers of "individual classifications"

and Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District 1

In his concurrence, Kennedy differed with the plurality because, he found, the goal of obtaining a diverse student body is a compelling state interest. "Diversity, depending on its meaning and definition, is a compelling educational goal a school district may pursue. " Furthermore, Kennedy found that that race-conscious mechanisms can be used by school districts to further the goal of diversity, a position rejected by the plurality. Kennedy argued that the government had an interest in ensuring racial equality: "The plurality opinion is too dismissive of the legitimate interest government has in ensuring all people have equal opportunity regardless of their race." Finally, Kennedy wrote: "A compelling interest exists in avoiding racial isolation, an interest that a school district, in its discretion and expertise, may choose to pursue. Likewise, a district may consider it a compelling interest to achieve a diverse student population. Race may be one component of that diversity, but other demographic factors, plus special talents and needs, should also be considered." Nevertheless, Kennedy found the school districts did not narrowly tailor the use of race to achieve the compelling interests in the case. Specifically, Kennedy finds that the districts could have achieved the same goal through less racially charged means. Justice Kennedy asserts that the dissent must "brush aside two concepts of central importance" to uphold the racial classification in the case. First, Kennedy harshly faults the dissent for consciously ignoring the difference between de jure and de facto segregation. And second, Kennedy faults the dissent for ignoring the "presumptive invalidity of a State's use of racial classifications to differentiate its treatment of individuals."

He feels that AA can be legitimate, and he has only narrowly favored removing it in the past in fairly narrow opinions. I think he supports the idea that AA can be constitutional, where as it has to meet some fairly strict guidelines for seeking to promote diversity as opposed to race based merits.

Ehh.. these cases don't show his views as much as the 2003 relevant ones in which he sided with the dissenters and decided that systems that use race as a factor in admissions tend to be unconstitutional. Not always, but they tend to be unless they're very narrow in scope, which most aren't.

seedy underbelly:

Social mobility, moving from one economic class to a higher one, one must remember, is the cornerstone of America's greatness.

haha I love how americans are still pushing this.

(It's bullshit.)

A Posse Ad Esse:

I'll say this as a URM who has conscientiously and purposefully omitted race from any form I've ever filled out for school or employment:

Race should not be a determining factor in admissions or advancement in any endeavor, be it undergrad, grad school, or finance/law/medicine/consulting/engineering/etc. Flat out, simple as that.

I get the motivation. You had a number of industries where the good ol' boys club prevented outsiders from ever getting in, and unfortunately the criterion for the most part was always race. Fat old white guys had no problem with a self-made white guy who joined the country club, but God Almighty forbid a darkie make his way in.

The problem is when you give someone who in no way, shape, or form merits it an easy 'DO pass go, DO collect $200' card in a blind, misguided effort to somehow mitigate or repay centuries of disadvantage or oppression. Taking a black kid with an 1100 on his SAT over the white kid or Asian kid with a 1500 just so you can have a "broader sampling of students" at the University of Michigan is laughable, pathetic, and embarrassing. Go out and find the black kids with commensurate SAT scores of their own if you want to.

I personally kept race off of every form I possibly could. I broke the 99th percentile on the SAT, left the demographic disclosure form entirely blank, and wrote in "Lil Wayne" as my favorite artist on the box just so I could buck the trend where respondents who wrote that were proven to have the lowest average score nationally. Yes, I lost untold thousands of dollars of financial aid, both from the university I chose to attend and from external sources because of that, but I go to sleep every night knowing I fucking busted by back to get where I am by my own merits and nothing more. No connection I didn't fight for, no resource I didn't sweat to earn, no grade or score or degree that wasn't wholly mine and mine alone. Same thing at work. You think I got in through diversity recruiting? Fuck you, every offer I got came because I hustled my ass into studyabroad superdays and made sure I locked up a job offer before I went and gallivanted around another continent for half a year.

If any effort along these lines today were appropriate, it would be based on socioeconomic background, not ethnicity. I grew up in the hood. North Philly, it sucks. And it wasn't just black kids. There were white kids ducking strays too, trying to stay out of a life of abject misery and crime, Hispanics too.

As a society, we need to collectively get past the trauma and attitude of guilt and touchy-feeliness about black/white relations in this nation's history. I will be first in line to point out that we live in a era far from being post-racial, but good God, I can't believe in 2012 we're still arguing about whether it's appropriate to accept underqualified kids from one ethnic group over qualified ones from another.

You sir, are a great American. If more URM's were like you, this country would be a much better place.

Major props for your hard work, intelligence, and integrity.

TraderDaily:

I agree completely with A Posse...However, we have to remember that the same ppl arguing against AA, are the same who have no problem with people being admitted to schools based on legacy. In fact, legacies are given a leg up at America's Ivies. Just look at George W. Bush. You think with an SAT score like his and grades like his, he would have gotten into Yale? Absolutely not. No one should be admitted based on race. But no one should be admitted based on their parents going to school there either. I remember reading somewhere that about 30 percent of Princeton's admits are legacies. Read the book "The Price of Admission." AA makes up a very small amount of admits. Legacies and playing sports that indicate that one comes from an upper class home is more likely to garner an admit than someone from the "hood" who indicates they're a URM. Students in high school who play lacrosse or engage in horseback riding have a much better chance of admission than someone who doesn't because these sports indicate that you come from a family that could be a wealthy and donate large sums in future years.

But schools that take legacy seriously don't have leaders that are publicly elected/restricted from making decisions on admissions based on whats said in the constitution.

TraderDaily:

I agree completely with A Posse...However, we have to remember that the same ppl arguing against AA, are the same who have no problem with people being admitted to schools based on legacy. In fact, legacies are given a leg up at America's Ivies. Just look at George W. Bush. You think with an SAT score like his and grades like his, he would have gotten into Yale? Absolutely not. No one should be admitted based on race. But no one should be admitted based on their parents going to school there either. I remember reading somewhere that about 30 percent of Princeton's admits are legacies. Read the book "The Price of Admission." AA makes up a very small amount of admits. Legacies and playing sports that indicate that one comes from an upper class home is more likely to garner an admit than someone from the "hood" who indicates they're a URM. Students in high school who play lacrosse or engage in horseback riding have a much better chance of admission than someone who doesn't because these sports indicate that you come from a family that could be a wealthy and donate large sums in future years.

Fair point. I'm against legacies getting preference as well. I think any type of preferential treatment should be based purely on socioeconomics.

trazer985:

It would be interesting to see what you guys make of the exam system in the UK, given your points made in the above.

Our O level, (16 year old exams - 10 subjects) and A level,(older version of, 18 yr old exams 4 subjects) were 3 hour exams at the end of the schooling period, (so 2 years for the A levels, and the end of that year for the O level).

This cram it in at the end examination approach seemed to favour males, so as in an effort to realign the balance, coursework and modular style exams were introduced, and we have we have today, where girls have the academic edge over guys.

Now who's the better candidate?

The A level system is ridiculous. All of your course's grade based on one or two two hour examinations at the end of the year. The American/Canadian system is more fair and builds a better work ethic.

But, I guess I get your point. There will almost always be a 'more fair' system that is less fair to another candidate.

burnt tangerine:

Don't think it will change much honestly. The elite liberal universities still want to be "culturally enriched."

Asians make more money than any other race on average. They are not oppressed.

If the court rules against AA, it won't change instantly, but over time, if there are more and more similar rulings, and more people become against AA, it will have a profound impact in our society. Also, we're not helping out the people with 1100 SAT scores who get into elite colleges because of AA. They're going to get destroyed by all of the people who get in through normal admissions.

burnt tangerine:

Don't think it will change much honestly. The elite liberal universities still want to be "culturally enriched."

Asians make more money than any other race on average. They are not oppressed.

Yeah that is true, but I don't see how that is relevant. Asians, like any other race, deserve a fair playing field. And for the record, I'm white.

seabird:

Thats a stupid comparison and you're stupid for saying that the US is less valid than China because theres less rapid economic change amongst large portions of the society over short periods of time. If you start from zero, as in many Chinese peoples cases, its not hard to say youve improved your lot significantly.

okay, you need to relax. I'll be happy to have a reasonable discussion, but there's no need to throw around random insults, especially if you make no sense yourself.

1) I clearly stated I'm talking about developed countries. Please re-read my post. 2) The study I quoted compares Europe and Northern America. China isn't even mentioned once in that whole article.

In the future, please refrain from using straw man arguments, it bores me to death and doesn't add any value to this discussion whatsoever.

ANT:

All that matters is the US continues to provide the opportunity. Whether it is used is up to the person.

Fair point.

All I'm saying is: It's highly debatable to call the US "THE" country of social mobility, when other Western countries offer a stronger track record in this regard.

BigBucks:

Lol I wonder if the white guys who get "hook-ups" for employment due to various fraternities having national connections turn down job offers because they don't feel right about obtaining unfair advantage over non-frat kids. I respect A Posse Ad Esse and his sentiment but to advocate handicapping one's self by not taking advantage of every advantage afforded is ridiculous. Life is unfair, and life is a competition, don't think your competition is going to handicap themselves or be as honorable as you are. Now, reading A Posse's post, I believe he is arrogant enough to believe he can beat the competition while simultaneously handicapping himself, and I say, go for it. I am a URM and in much the same light as A Posse, score well enough on standardized tests to be competitive based on any metric, but that doesn't mean I won't circle African-American come time for Master's applications, to not do so and potentially cost myself admission to a top school would be stupid.

I'm saying the box shouldn't even be there to begin with, and until it isn't, my answer will be 'Prefer not to disclose.'

BigBucks:

Lol I wonder if the white guys who get "hook-ups" for employment due to various fraternities having national connections turn down job offers because they don't feel right about obtaining unfair advantage over non-frat kids. I respect A Posse Ad Esse and his sentiment but to advocate handicapping one's self by not taking advantage of every advantage afforded is ridiculous. Life is unfair, and life is a competition, don't think your competition is going to handicap themselves or be as honorable as you are. Now, reading A Posse's post, I believe he is arrogant enough to believe he can beat the competition while simultaneously handicapping himself, and I say, go for it. I am a URM and in much the same light as A Posse, score well enough on standardized tests to be competitive based on any metric, but that doesn't mean I won't circle African-American come time for Master's applications, to not do so and potentially cost myself admission to a top school would be stupid.

Agree with this.

heister:

I also agree that AA should be based on economic status. There are far too few 1%ers in top universities.

Lol

ANT:

Western countries have higher taxes on the well off and more social programs which is basically the government juicing mobility. Maybe makes it easier. I personally think it is unfair to do so since mobility is possible without government help, but each place can do what it likes.

True, whether university should be 100% subsidized is discussion for itself.

Either way you look at it though, it's pretty be obvious that a publicly funded university system that's free for everyone has its benefits, specifically for immigrant families - they don't pay a lot of taxes, yet all the kids can go to med/law/engineering school, given they have the necessary IQ and drive.

Theoretically, you could go all the way to a PhD in engineering in Germany without ever paying a €, then jump on the ridiculous wages paid in Switzerland. You'd be debt-free, with excellent education, making stupid amounts of money while living in a part of the world with AAA standard of living. How's that for social mobility?

Again, not saying this success story is impossible in the US, rather that I'm always amazed that Americans seem to believe "rags to riches" is a specifically american phenomenon. that's not true, and the bubble in US education makes it evermore unlikely to happen.