Total Posts:55|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The High Court Rules on Affirmative Action

000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 10:03:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
They essentially issued a surprising 7-1 decision that the lower court didn't review UT's admissions policy with "strict scrutiny," meaning that UT must prove that there is no other method to achieve campus diversity other than the consideration of race, and so they sent the case back. This leaves Grutter v. Bollinger still standing and sets no precedents. In short, Affirmative Action is still legal.

Curious to see you guys' take on this decision. Is it fair?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 10:15:50 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Seems like a cop out doesn't it? Courts so concerned about appearing to be activist they aren't willing to do their jobs.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 10:32:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
If the SCOTUS is going to make the final decision, it seems unnecessary that they should need to have the ruling of another court, as they are going to ultimately judge that ruling anyway (why can't they just making a ruling themselves without weighing it against whether or not another ruling on the matter is valid or not).
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 10:37:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/24/2013 10:32:08 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
If the SCOTUS is going to make the final decision, it seems unnecessary that they should need to have the ruling of another court, as they are going to ultimately judge that ruling anyway (why can't they just making a ruling themselves without weighing it against whether or not another ruling on the matter is valid).

fixed
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 10:45:18 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Isn't the case just going to end up in the SCOTUS again (with the same verdict from the lower court)? Either they want the other court to do their work for them or they just don't want to make a decision and are trying to buy more time.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 10:48:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/24/2013 10:45:18 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
Isn't the case just going to end up in the SCOTUS again (with the same verdict from the lower court)? Either they want the other court to do their work for them or they just don't want to make a decision and are trying to buy more time.

Can you think of a reason they'd want to buy time?
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 10:53:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/24/2013 10:45:18 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
Isn't the case just going to end up in the SCOTUS again (with the same verdict from the lower court)? Either they want the other court to do their work for them or they just don't want to make a decision and are trying to buy more time.

SCOTUS will, if the lower courts do their job right, deny certiorari when it's brought to them again.

So this doesn't just buy them time, it gives them the option of denying it later if the decision is one they like, while never setting a SCOTUS precedent about it.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 10:56:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/24/2013 10:15:50 AM, lewis20 wrote:
Seems like a cop out doesn't it? Courts so concerned about appearing to be activist they aren't willing to do their jobs.

It's not like SCOTUS right now is a friend of AA. Justices Scalia, Roberts, Kennedy, Alito and Thomas have written the dissents for pro-AA cases before and they're all very skeptical of the policy. My guess is that they're posturing for their Gay Marriage decision this week and don't want to be perceived as an activist court over-extending its influence on American law in short a time.

So I frankly think the decision is fair. And also, is a University not a sovereign institution with the right to pursue certain legal and noble interests which enrich students' educational experience (ie diversity)? No justice disputes that intention, the only point of contention is the execution.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 11:16:19 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/24/2013 10:56:25 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/24/2013 10:15:50 AM, lewis20 wrote:
Seems like a cop out doesn't it? Courts so concerned about appearing to be activist they aren't willing to do their jobs.

It's not like SCOTUS right now is a friend of AA. Justices Scalia, Roberts, Kennedy, Alito and Thomas have written the dissents for pro-AA cases before and they're all very skeptical of the policy. My guess is that they're posturing for their Gay Marriage decision this week and don't want to be perceived as an activist court over-extending its influence on American law in short a time.

So I frankly think the decision is fair. And also, is a University not a sovereign institution with the right to pursue certain legal and noble interests which enrich students' educational experience (ie diversity)? No justice disputes that intention, the only point of contention is the execution.

The fairness of decisions made by the SCOTUS should be judged solely on the extent to which they agree with the constitution. So I don't think public image should play a factor at all.

A University should only be eligible for status as a sovereign institution if it does not receive aid of any kind from the government, as it is unfair to make people pay for something for which they do not receive the same benefits as others solely on the basis of their race.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 11:23:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/24/2013 11:16:19 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/24/2013 10:56:25 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/24/2013 10:15:50 AM, lewis20 wrote:
Seems like a cop out doesn't it? Courts so concerned about appearing to be activist they aren't willing to do their jobs.

It's not like SCOTUS right now is a friend of AA. Justices Scalia, Roberts, Kennedy, Alito and Thomas have written the dissents for pro-AA cases before and they're all very skeptical of the policy. My guess is that they're posturing for their Gay Marriage decision this week and don't want to be perceived as an activist court over-extending its influence on American law in short a time.

So I frankly think the decision is fair. And also, is a University not a sovereign institution with the right to pursue certain legal and noble interests which enrich students' educational experience (ie diversity)? No justice disputes that intention, the only point of contention is the execution.

The fairness of decisions made by the SCOTUS should be judged solely on the extent to which they agree with the constitution. So I don't think public image should play a factor at all.

A University should only be eligible for status as a sovereign institution if it does not receive aid of any kind from the government, as it is unfair to make people pay for something for which they do not receive the same benefits as others solely on the basis of their race.

I'm clearly not a constitutional analyst, but I will give you my opinion on the issue. I think that the 14th Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause were created with regard to the natural disparity between a minority group and the majority in America - given its complex multicultural history. As such, it can't be interpreted to mean that the law becomes raceless, but rather that it pays special attention to and accommodates for the plight of certain political minorities in the country, and the equality comes about through the reversal of the dispositional inequality.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 11:30:30 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/24/2013 10:53:40 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/24/2013 10:45:18 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
Isn't the case just going to end up in the SCOTUS again (with the same verdict from the lower court)? Either they want the other court to do their work for them or they just don't want to make a decision and are trying to buy more time.

SCOTUS will, if the lower courts do their job right, deny certiorari when it's brought to them again.

So this doesn't just buy them time, it gives them the option of denying it later if the decision is one they like, while never setting a SCOTUS precedent about it.

That doesn't explain why there were 7 votes, though.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 11:37:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/24/2013 10:03:52 AM, 000ike wrote:
They essentially issued a surprising 7-1 decision that the lower court didn't review UT's admissions policy with "strict scrutiny," meaning that UT must prove that there is no other method to achieve campus diversity other than the consideration of race, and so they sent the case back. This leaves Grutter v. Bollinger still standing and sets no precedents. In short, Affirmative Action is still legal.

Curious to see you guys' take on this decision. Is it fair?

Contrary to popular belief, affirmative action is not the same as equal opportunity. Equal opportunity means they don't take into consideration race, sex, etc. Affirmative action means they do, in order to achieve greater diversity. Affirmative action is not only unconstitutional, but it is also immoral and discriminatory.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 11:39:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/24/2013 11:30:30 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/24/2013 10:53:40 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/24/2013 10:45:18 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
Isn't the case just going to end up in the SCOTUS again (with the same verdict from the lower court)? Either they want the other court to do their work for them or they just don't want to make a decision and are trying to buy more time.

SCOTUS will, if the lower courts do their job right, deny certiorari when it's brought to them again.

So this doesn't just buy them time, it gives them the option of denying it later if the decision is one they like, while never setting a SCOTUS precedent about it.

That doesn't explain why there were 7 votes, though.

It really does. SCOTUS will almost ALWAYS shuffle something off to another court if it can precisely because of the weight their precedents have. So it surprises me not in the least that it was a clear majority that pointed out the lower courts failing.

Ginsberg's dissent isn't surprising either...one almost suspects she did it precisely because she knew the other 7 were kicking it.

(Sotomayor recused herself. )
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 11:51:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/24/2013 11:39:48 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/24/2013 11:30:30 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/24/2013 10:53:40 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/24/2013 10:45:18 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
Isn't the case just going to end up in the SCOTUS again (with the same verdict from the lower court)? Either they want the other court to do their work for them or they just don't want to make a decision and are trying to buy more time.

SCOTUS will, if the lower courts do their job right, deny certiorari when it's brought to them again.

So this doesn't just buy them time, it gives them the option of denying it later if the decision is one they like, while never setting a SCOTUS precedent about it.

That doesn't explain why there were 7 votes, though.

It really does. SCOTUS will almost ALWAYS shuffle something off to another court if it can precisely because of the weight their precedents have. So it surprises me not in the least that it was a clear majority that pointed out the lower courts failing.

Ginsberg's dissent isn't surprising either...one almost suspects she did it precisely because she knew the other 7 were kicking it.

(Sotomayor recused herself. )

Kagan recused herself. And I think they're saving the press time for the SSM ruling in a few days - otherwise they probably would have struck down AA.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 11:58:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/24/2013 11:51:43 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/24/2013 11:39:48 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/24/2013 11:30:30 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/24/2013 10:53:40 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/24/2013 10:45:18 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
Isn't the case just going to end up in the SCOTUS again (with the same verdict from the lower court)? Either they want the other court to do their work for them or they just don't want to make a decision and are trying to buy more time.

SCOTUS will, if the lower courts do their job right, deny certiorari when it's brought to them again.

So this doesn't just buy them time, it gives them the option of denying it later if the decision is one they like, while never setting a SCOTUS precedent about it.

That doesn't explain why there were 7 votes, though.

It really does. SCOTUS will almost ALWAYS shuffle something off to another court if it can precisely because of the weight their precedents have. So it surprises me not in the least that it was a clear majority that pointed out the lower courts failing.

Ginsberg's dissent isn't surprising either...one almost suspects she did it precisely because she knew the other 7 were kicking it.

(Sotomayor recused herself. )

Kagan recused herself. And I think they're saving the press time for the SSM ruling in a few days - otherwise they probably would have struck down AA.

It's peculiar they should be so concerned with image considering they have tenure for life.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 12:01:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/24/2013 11:51:43 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/24/2013 11:39:48 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/24/2013 11:30:30 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/24/2013 10:53:40 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/24/2013 10:45:18 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
Isn't the case just going to end up in the SCOTUS again (with the same verdict from the lower court)? Either they want the other court to do their work for them or they just don't want to make a decision and are trying to buy more time.

SCOTUS will, if the lower courts do their job right, deny certiorari when it's brought to them again.

So this doesn't just buy them time, it gives them the option of denying it later if the decision is one they like, while never setting a SCOTUS precedent about it.

That doesn't explain why there were 7 votes, though.

It really does. SCOTUS will almost ALWAYS shuffle something off to another court if it can precisely because of the weight their precedents have. So it surprises me not in the least that it was a clear majority that pointed out the lower courts failing.

Ginsberg's dissent isn't surprising either...one almost suspects she did it precisely because she knew the other 7 were kicking it.

(Sotomayor recused herself. )

Kagan recused herself. And I think they're saving the press time for the SSM ruling in a few days - otherwise they probably would have struck down AA.

You are wholly correct, and I have literally no idea why I typed one when I meant another. I'm looking at the stupid ruling on another window, even!

They might have, but I don't think it's ever "surprising" when they kick a can down the road. It's only surprising when they unexpectedly overturn precedent (or, I suppose, in some cases unexpectedly uphold precedent).
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 12:02:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/24/2013 11:58:25 AM, dylancatlow wrote:

It's peculiar they should be so concerned with image considering they have tenure for life.

They're people, y'know.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 12:02:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/24/2013 11:23:17 AM, 000ike wrote:
I'm clearly not a constitutional analyst, but I will give you my opinion on the issue. I think that the 14th Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause were created with regard to the natural disparity between a minority group and the majority in America - given its complex multicultural history. As such, it can't be interpreted to mean that the law becomes raceless, but rather that it pays special attention to and accommodates for the plight of certain political minorities in the country, and the equality comes about through the reversal of the dispositional inequality.

Affirmative action came about due to the Civil Rights Act, not the 14th Amendment. Furthermore, the disparate impact ("discrimination" due to fair practices) was decided in 1971 with Griggs v. Duke Power.
http://en.wikipedia.org....

Basically, anything that can hurt a protected class of citizens is discriminatory, even if the method is fair. In Duke Power, the issue was a competency exam which blacks rarely passed, presumably due to their "separate but equal" education.

Obviously, to promote diversity by using race as a requirement, the method is unfair.
My work here is, finally, done.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 12:03:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/24/2013 12:02:36 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/24/2013 11:58:25 AM, dylancatlow wrote:

It's peculiar they should be so concerned with image considering they have tenure for life.

They're people, y'know.

lol
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 1:32:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/24/2013 12:02:56 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 6/24/2013 11:23:17 AM, 000ike wrote:
I'm clearly not a constitutional analyst, but I will give you my opinion on the issue. I think that the 14th Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause were created with regard to the natural disparity between a minority group and the majority in America - given its complex multicultural history. As such, it can't be interpreted to mean that the law becomes raceless, but rather that it pays special attention to and accommodates for the plight of certain political minorities in the country, and the equality comes about through the reversal of the dispositional inequality.

Affirmative action came about due to the Civil Rights Act, not the 14th Amendment. Furthermore, the disparate impact ("discrimination" due to fair practices) was decided in 1971 with Griggs v. Duke Power.
http://en.wikipedia.org....

Basically, anything that can hurt a protected class of citizens is discriminatory, even if the method is fair. In Duke Power, the issue was a competency exam which blacks rarely passed, presumably due to their "separate but equal" education.

Obviously, to promote diversity by using race as a requirement, the method is unfair.

You seem to forget that it was shown that people who did not take their competency exam in that case performed just fine. It was shown that the exam was not needed and had disproportionate impact, therefore the method was just as fair as a poll tax is to poor people.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 1:36:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/24/2013 10:56:25 AM, 000ike wrote:
So I frankly think the decision is fair. And also, is a University not a sovereign institution with the right to pursue certain legal and noble interests which enrich students' educational experience (ie diversity)? No justice disputes that intention, the only point of contention is the execution.

It's a state school, a public institution. not a sovereign institution.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 2:17:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/24/2013 1:36:38 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 6/24/2013 10:56:25 AM, 000ike wrote:
So I frankly think the decision is fair. And also, is a University not a sovereign institution with the right to pursue certain legal and noble interests which enrich students' educational experience (ie diversity)? No justice disputes that intention, the only point of contention is the execution.

It's a state school, a public institution. not a sovereign institution.

By sovereign, I didn't mean financially independent (as that would preclude the private universities as well), I meant holding authority over the goals and administration of the school and its entrance policies.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 2:31:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/24/2013 2:17:57 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/24/2013 1:36:38 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 6/24/2013 10:56:25 AM, 000ike wrote:
So I frankly think the decision is fair. And also, is a University not a sovereign institution with the right to pursue certain legal and noble interests which enrich students' educational experience (ie diversity)? No justice disputes that intention, the only point of contention is the execution.

It's a state school, a public institution. not a sovereign institution.

By sovereign, I didn't mean financially independent (as that would preclude the private universities as well), I meant holding authority over the goals and administration of the school and its entrance policies.

It can't just do what it wants if it's supported by people who have no choice (in some cases) but to fund policies which discriminate against them.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 2:42:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
For folks who aren't up on all the legalese, SCOTUSblog did a "plain English" review:

http://www.scotusblog.com...
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 2:46:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
If someone is forcibly required to fund you, then you have the obligation to not use that money to discriminate against them on the basis of their race. That's just doubly insulting.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 2:55:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
How did she find out why she wasn't chosen?
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 2:56:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/24/2013 1:32:39 PM, drhead wrote:
At 6/24/2013 12:02:56 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 6/24/2013 11:23:17 AM, 000ike wrote:
I'm clearly not a constitutional analyst, but I will give you my opinion on the issue. I think that the 14th Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause were created with regard to the natural disparity between a minority group and the majority in America - given its complex multicultural history. As such, it can't be interpreted to mean that the law becomes raceless, but rather that it pays special attention to and accommodates for the plight of certain political minorities in the country, and the equality comes about through the reversal of the dispositional inequality.

Affirmative action came about due to the Civil Rights Act, not the 14th Amendment. Furthermore, the disparate impact ("discrimination" due to fair practices) was decided in 1971 with Griggs v. Duke Power.
http://en.wikipedia.org....

Basically, anything that can hurt a protected class of citizens is discriminatory, even if the method is fair. In Duke Power, the issue was a competency exam which blacks rarely passed, presumably due to their "separate but equal" education.

Obviously, to promote diversity by using race as a requirement, the method is unfair.

You seem to forget that it was shown that people who did not take their competency exam in that case performed just fine. It was shown that the exam was not needed and had disproportionate impact, therefore the method was just as fair as a poll tax is to poor people.

Yeah, I actually realized this after posting. The wiki also said it was an IQ test, not a competency test like I was told it was.

My point still stands, though. Race as a qualifier is equally as fair/unfair as a qualifier that happes to affect one race over another (e.g. a strength test for firefighters that most women fail).

The overall issue to me is the merit of these qualifiers. If diversity is lauded, then discriminate using race. If strength is necessary, then demand a test which women fail more often then men. Frankly, I don't care, and the government should allow these discriminations and only involve themselves when it is a serious matter, and even then, they should not restrict, but promote. For example, if banks refuse to lend money to blacks, then the government ought to find people who will, and if they can't, do it themselves.
My work here is, finally, done.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 2:57:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/24/2013 2:55:22 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
How did she find out why she wasn't chosen?

she assumed,...even though only 5 out of the 47 additional students admitted under UT's affirmative action policy were minorities.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 2:57:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/24/2013 2:55:22 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
How did she find out why she wasn't chosen?

That's part of what she's trying to prove I presume.