Total Posts:11|Showing Posts:1-11
Jump to topic:

Abigail Fisher; Affirmative Action

popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2015 4:31:32 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
http://www.npr.org...

Can someone please explain to me why this case keeps on coming up? The girl was obviously just not good enough to get into UT Austin and her case is transparently weak. I mean, she neglected to mention that of the 47 of the people who got in with "lower grades" than here 42 were white. And also that 168 students who weren't white with higher grades than her were also rejected.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2015 4:34:41 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/10/2015 4:31:32 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
http://www.npr.org...

Can someone please explain to me why this case keeps on coming up? The girl was obviously just not good enough to get into UT Austin and her case is transparently weak. I mean, she neglected to mention that of the 47 of the people who got in with "lower grades" than here 42 were white. And also that 168 students who weren't white with higher grades than her were also rejected.

Like all supreme court cases the individual who started the case is less important than the precedent and message being sent by the court regarding the issue in controversy
thett3
Posts: 14,345
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2015 4:35:04 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
Yeah, she's like the worst person to be the standard bearer against AA because she probably wouldn't have gotten in.

Moreover, UT admissions are notoriously random. The top 10% rule utterly destroyed their opportunity to decide for themselves what they want their freshman class to be like, so their hands are basically tied. It's like the worst school to bring an admissions suit against
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
thett3
Posts: 14,345
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2015 4:35:39 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/10/2015 4:34:41 PM, Objectivity wrote:
At 12/10/2015 4:31:32 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
http://www.npr.org...

Can someone please explain to me why this case keeps on coming up? The girl was obviously just not good enough to get into UT Austin and her case is transparently weak. I mean, she neglected to mention that of the 47 of the people who got in with "lower grades" than here 42 were white. And also that 168 students who weren't white with higher grades than her were also rejected.

Like all supreme court cases the individual who started the case is less important than the precedent and message being sent by the court regarding the issue in controversy

He has a point, though. It's difficult for her to claim discrimination when it's likely she wouldn't have gotten in no matter what her race was
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2015 4:38:34 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/10/2015 4:35:39 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 12/10/2015 4:34:41 PM, Objectivity wrote:
At 12/10/2015 4:31:32 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
http://www.npr.org...

Can someone please explain to me why this case keeps on coming up? The girl was obviously just not good enough to get into UT Austin and her case is transparently weak. I mean, she neglected to mention that of the 47 of the people who got in with "lower grades" than here 42 were white. And also that 168 students who weren't white with higher grades than her were also rejected.

Like all supreme court cases the individual who started the case is less important than the precedent and message being sent by the court regarding the issue in controversy

He has a point, though. It's difficult for her to claim discrimination when it's likely she wouldn't have gotten in no matter what her race was

I agree her story might be flawed but still extend my argument about supreme court cases being less about the individuals originally involved and more about the issue in controversy. Once an issue makes it to the SC its because the precedent the case will set will likely have a far reaching impact on a lot of people, not just one.
YYW
Posts: 36,287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2015 4:40:12 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/10/2015 4:31:32 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
http://www.npr.org...

Can someone please explain to me why this case keeps on coming up? The girl was obviously just not good enough to get into UT Austin and her case is transparently weak. I mean, she neglected to mention that of the 47 of the people who got in with "lower grades" than here 42 were white. And also that 168 students who weren't white with higher grades than her were also rejected.

The cases keep coming up because they are the kinds of cases that can make lawyer's careers, and the Supreme Court (likely with an opinion from Kennedy) will, probably at least, end race-based affirmative action (even if they don't eliminate race-conscious affirmative action) in the United States.

Kennedy will write some poorly written, unstructured, rambling opinion with a lot of pulp and fluff, and then bring the hammer down. Lawyers who bring these cases are very conscious, therefore about where the court is right now.

What is especially pathetic is the fact that Scalia is literally singing the praises of an amicus brief that is making quasi-Malcolm Gladwellesque arguments (i.e. minority students who attend less competitive schools tend to do better in the long run because of the psychological experiences of low performance relative to others).

The argument is "interesting" but the brief doesn't even do as good of a job as Gladwell did, and Gladwell's argument (contained in Outliers, his infamous book which was fairly controversial despite wide popularity when it was published, most prominently for the 10,000 hour rule) didn't even speak with regard to affirmative action. It was about college students, generally, and why they should not go to schools where they can't stand out.
Tsar of DDO
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2015 5:14:09 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
It's hilarious that the court is trying to set a precedent on the basis of an ambiguous case of race discrimination when there are countless clear-cut examples that could be used instead. It just muddles the issue with details that are irrelevant to the fundamental issue everybody is actually interested in. Why this case? It's a terrible one to choose.

It's indisputable that some people get rejected where they would have gotten accepted had they been a different race. It's not even controversial. I mean, if 99 percent of blacks with SAT scores higher than 2200 get accepted into X school, but only 50 percent of Asians do, and you're looking at an Asian applicant with a 2200 SAT score who was rejected, how can you tell them that their rejection isn't partly due to their race?
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2015 1:54:43 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/10/2015 4:40:12 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/10/2015 4:31:32 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
http://www.npr.org...

Can someone please explain to me why this case keeps on coming up? The girl was obviously just not good enough to get into UT Austin and her case is transparently weak. I mean, she neglected to mention that of the 47 of the people who got in with "lower grades" than here 42 were white. And also that 168 students who weren't white with higher grades than her were also rejected.

The cases keep coming up because they are the kinds of cases that can make lawyer's careers, and the Supreme Court (likely with an opinion from Kennedy) will, probably at least, end race-based affirmative action (even if they don't eliminate race-conscious affirmative action) in the United States.


At some level I understand that (making a lawyers' career and what not), but it's just mind-boggling to me that *this* particular case could have these much legs left. They could have at least picked a more difficult instance to hang their hat on (even if I would still disagree with them).

Kennedy will write some poorly written, unstructured, rambling opinion with a lot of pulp and fluff, and then bring the hammer down. Lawyers who bring these cases are very conscious, therefore about where the court is right now.

What is especially pathetic is the fact that Scalia is literally singing the praises of an amicus brief that is making quasi-Malcolm Gladwellesque arguments (i.e. minority students who attend less competitive schools tend to do better in the long run because of the psychological experiences of low performance relative to others).

The argument is "interesting" but the brief doesn't even do as good of a job as Gladwell did, and Gladwell's argument (contained in Outliers, his infamous book which was fairly controversial despite wide popularity when it was published, most prominently for the 10,000 hour rule) didn't even speak with regard to affirmative action. It was about college students, generally, and why they should not go to schools where they can't stand out.

Yeah I saw how quickly Scalia hopped on the "mismatch theory". Ugh...

https://www.washingtonpost.com...
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2015 1:56:31 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/10/2015 4:35:04 PM, thett3 wrote:
Yeah, she's like the worst person to be the standard bearer against AA because she probably wouldn't have gotten in.

Moreover, UT admissions are notoriously random. The top 10% rule utterly destroyed their opportunity to decide for themselves what they want their freshman class to be like, so their hands are basically tied. It's like the worst school to bring an admissions suit against

Exactly this.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
YYW
Posts: 36,287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2015 2:11:19 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/11/2015 1:54:43 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 12/10/2015 4:40:12 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/10/2015 4:31:32 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
http://www.npr.org...

Can someone please explain to me why this case keeps on coming up? The girl was obviously just not good enough to get into UT Austin and her case is transparently weak. I mean, she neglected to mention that of the 47 of the people who got in with "lower grades" than here 42 were white. And also that 168 students who weren't white with higher grades than her were also rejected.

The cases keep coming up because they are the kinds of cases that can make lawyer's careers, and the Supreme Court (likely with an opinion from Kennedy) will, probably at least, end race-based affirmative action (even if they don't eliminate race-conscious affirmative action) in the United States.


At some level I understand that (making a lawyers' career and what not), but it's just mind-boggling to me that *this* particular case could have these much legs left. They could have at least picked a more difficult instance to hang their hat on (even if I would still disagree with them).

When it's a case like this, you take the case that comes through your door. I'm not saying it's a good case, that their cause is justifiable, or anything... it's just that when you've got a political axe to grind (as these lawyers clearly do), you strike when the iron's hot.

As an aside, I think virtually every single constitutional criticism of race based affirmative action programs in higher education has just been complete nonsense.

Like, the arguments against race conscious affirmative action programs, or even race based affirmative action programs, (compare Gratz and Grutter with dissents in the same) just do not hold up against the ones in support of it, on a legal level. On a practical level, I have very mixed feelings about it. Also, I have a different view of affirmative action in other contexts, either dealing with girls in higher education, e.g. United States v. Virginia; or dealing with race based contract awarding, e.g. Adarand v. Pena. (Note: I cite these cases only because they're the 'big' ones that every student that ever took any respectable course in constitutional law should be aware of. They're the "big" cases for a reason. There are other cases, but these are the major ones.)

Kennedy will write some poorly written, unstructured, rambling opinion with a lot of pulp and fluff, and then bring the hammer down. Lawyers who bring these cases are very conscious, therefore about where the court is right now.

What is especially pathetic is the fact that Scalia is literally singing the praises of an amicus brief that is making quasi-Malcolm Gladwellesque arguments (i.e. minority students who attend less competitive schools tend to do better in the long run because of the psychological experiences of low performance relative to others).

The argument is "interesting" but the brief doesn't even do as good of a job as Gladwell did, and Gladwell's argument (contained in Outliers, his infamous book which was fairly controversial despite wide popularity when it was published, most prominently for the 10,000 hour rule) didn't even speak with regard to affirmative action. It was about college students, generally, and why they should not go to schools where they can't stand out.

Yeah I saw how quickly Scalia hopped on the "mismatch theory". Ugh...

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Indeed, this raises many problems, for the reasons I cited above, but mainly because I--as well as anyone else on this earth who has ever read anything Scalia has ever written about anything--know that he is *vastly* too bright not to see that mismatch theory is just complete trash... there are just so many problems with it that it's not even worth acknowledging... basically the kind of thing I would expect some ideologically charged undergraduate to string together for a senior thesis after he got done reading Outliers (which very well may have been the start of it... idk). But the point is that what Scalia is doing with this "theory" is really just reflecting how far he is willing to go to hammer his ideology into the law of this land. It's a disgrace to the court.
Tsar of DDO
BlackFlags
Posts: 904
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2015 2:29:07 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
Others have said it, but this priveleged white girl is not the person to be the people's vanguard in a supreme court case against affirmative action.