U-Michigan and Affirmative Action

[achtungbaby]

From the National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium (NAPALC).

The U.S. Supreme Court is poised to hear two cases within the next few months that represent one of the most important civil rights issue of the 21st Century: whether American universities will continue to prepare all students for life in an increasingly diverse society and global marketplace. For students of color, these cases are as significant as Brown v. Board of Education, because they will determine whether colleges and universities have an affirmative duty to provide equal access to higher education.

The two lawsuits challenge the use of race and ethnicity conscious affirmative action at the University of Michigan’s Law School (Grutter v. Bollinger) and the undergraduate college (Gratz v. Bollinger). In both suits, the plaintiffs are white women who claim that their rejections for admission are the result of discrimination against them for being white. The University of Michigan has vigorously defended its affirmative action programs as a lawful and crucial component of its mission to provide educational opportunity to a diverse student population. The lower court rulings sided with the university, finding the current programs to be constitutional.

full story (http://yellowworld.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=174&mode=nocomments&order=1&thold=-1)

[moschikat]

go Dubya!

shame all us Texans alike!

:rolleyes:

[AliBabaIncorporated]

In addition, Asian Americans, as well as all students, at the University benefit from the diversity achieved by the affirmative action programs. Diversity in the higher education settings helps to prepare students for living and working in the ¡§real world.¡¨ Not only are students exposed to different cultures and viewpoints, they are also exposed to interacting with others from different cultures and viewpoints.

different cultures? Look if you're looking for different cultures, set up a scholarship fund for international students. Thay way you're actually guaranteed to get people who come from different cultures, rather than a bunch of American suburban kids who think they're entitled to the moniker "diverse" just because of the fact that some ignorant white people they met don't like them.

and shit seriously what is the "diversity" benefit when affirmative action based on race just builds up the pre-existing racial tension and means that people barely interact based on race, you just got black and Latino frats getting drunk and racially harassing people on the weekends just like the white frats.

[achtungbaby]

Originally posted by AliBabaIncorporated@Jan 27 2003, 12:18 PM
and shit seriously what is the "diversity" benefit when affirmative action based on race just builds up the pre-existing racial tension and means that people barely interact based on race, you just got black and Latino frats getting drunk and racially harassing people on the weekends just like the white frats.
Diversity can be misleading. It's not so that we can have a rainbow coalition of students who sit around and sing kum-ba-yah, diversity is the nice way of saying we don't want white people to be the only ones who have a shot.

[AliBabaIncorporated]

Originally posted by achtungbaby@Jan 28 2003, 03:00 AM
diversity is the nice way of saying we don't want white people to be the only ones who have a shot.

Everyone does have a shot. It's called high school. College is not a remedial school to do what 12 years of mandatory education couldn't.

if your high school sucked cuz of poverty, then maybe you deserve a leg up. race? where's the connection? explain to me why a black kid from the suburbs deserves any preference over a white kid from the suburbs? cuz he's more "diverse?" or just cuz he makes the school administration feel so altruistic "look at us, black people like our school too!" when they plaster his face all over their admissions booklets?

[kasia]

Hi there, everyone.

For those of you who don't know me, my name is Steven Flower, and I am currently a 2L here at USC and the
President of the American Constitution/Equal justice Society. I am writing to you because each of you is a
student leader -- either of the class or a particular organization, and I need your help.

As I’m sure you know, this term the Supreme Court will consider, for the first time since 1978, whether race
may be used in higher-education admissions decisions. Grutter v. Bollinger will be a landmark case, affecting the future of American law schools and law students in particular. In the flow of overlapping arguments for and against affirmative action, one simple point stands out as particularly relevant to us as law students:

Education as part of a diverse student body adds to our growth as attorneys, as scholars, and as professionals ready to take part in the vital process of leading our country and our profession into the future. The importance of diversity in our student bodies goes beyond merely exposing us to other backgrounds and experiences; it reaches into the heart of our legal education, and gives us a solid framework from which to react to situations we might face later in our careers.

A group of students is organizing the filing of an amicus brief to the Supreme Court in support of diversity as a compelling governmental interest and in favor of the University of Michigan’s use of race as a plus factor in their admissions policy. While there are many amicus briefs being filed on both sides of the issue, there is no brief being filed on behalf of the party with the most-vested interest -- law students. Our goal is make our voices heard by gathering as many signatures from law students in support of diversity as possible, and we need your help. A copy of the brief is attached to this message.

First, let me tell you in detail what it is we’re doing. The amicus brief will be filed on behalf of law
students across the country (all those who sign it) stating:

(1) that diversity is a compelling governmental interest,and

(2) that a diverse student body imparts invaluable educational and social benefits to law students.
The persuasive force of the brief will lie not only in its arguments, but in the number of students that sign
on as amicus curiae in support of diversity (the name of every student who signs the brief will appear in an
appendix listed alphabetically by law school). We are hopeful that thousands of students will sign and this
will send a powerful and unprecedented message to the Court.

I want to be clear that this brief and the signature process is not in any way affiliated with the American
Constitution Society. As our national website states, "ACS is a non-partisan, non-profit educational
organization. We do not, as an organization, lobby, litigate, or take positions on specific issues, cases,
legislation, or nominations. We do encourage our members to express their views and make their voices
heard." As individuals, some of our members do endorse affirmative action and want to be heard on
this issue. We hope that we can count on your support for our efforts.

So what am I asking you to do? It’s simple. Read the brief. Read through the FAQ form (also attached).
Then decide for yourself whether the diversity of students here at USC has added to your education. I
hope that you decide that diversity is important, and choose to help.

We are asking you either as individuals or as groups to join our efforts and help promote the petition and
gather signatures for the amicus brief. If you respond to this email that you want to help, I will send you
the info you need. The way that you can best help us is by contacting your friends and members via email
and let them know about the petition. We will also appreciate any volunteers to collect signatures. In
the coming days we will host a brown-bag lunch meeting to explain the process to the student body and begin
gathering signatures. Afterwards we will set up a table in the lunch room to gather more signatures.

Lastly, the filing deadline for the brief is rapidly approaching, and it is important that we move quickly.
If you are interested, email me at xxxx@usc.edu (private message kasia if you're an interested law student.) Thank you for taking the time and I hope you’ll join our effort. Feel free to email me with any questions.

Sincerely,

Steven Flower

[achtungbaby]

Originally posted by AliBabaIncorporated@Jan 28 2003, 09:26 AM
Everyone does have a shot. It's called high school.

I agree, K-12, in my opinion, is a lot more crucial than the crap we learn in college. But not all high schools are created equal, or for that matter, elemenary or junior high. In fact, the quality of education received by kids in shitty areas is, shitty. And correcting some of those problems is a lot tougher than giving 20 points (out of 150).

Originally posted by AliBabaIncorporated@Jan 28 2003, 09:26 AM
race? where's the connection?

You don't think there's a connection between race and class?

Besides, if you're white and poor, you still get 20 points, while being a minority and socio-economically disadvantaged will still only net ya 20 points.

I don't like the fact that excludes Asians from the mix -- that's my main beef with it, and that should be changed.

[AliBabaIncorporated]

Originally posted by achtungbaby@Jan 28 2003, 06:08 PM
You don't think there's a connection between race and class?

Besides, if you're white and poor, you still get 20 points, while being a minority and socio-economically disadvantaged will still only net ya 20 points.
Poor whites and poor blacks over rich whites who score a bit higher on tests, sure. But UMich is giving an up to every black and Hispanic, not just the poor ones. Half of all blacks in this country are middle class or higher, if they have poor test scores why do they deserve a university education over some lower-middle class Asian kid with higher test scores and better academic performance but not a low enough household income to qualify as "Socio-Economically disadvantaged."

And correcting some of those problems is a lot tougher than giving 20 points (out of 150).

Kinda like the drunk who drops his keys and looks under a lightpost. When the policeman stops him to ask, "Excuse me, you lost your keys under the lightpost?" he replies "No, but it's easier to look here."

Just cuz a solution is easy, doesn't mean it's going to have any effect at all.

And of course the tough solution of school reform would require taking on the teachers' unions and civil service unions at large. I'll probably be cold in the ground before any president has the courage to do that.

[Arex]

Can you post the brief?

Alex

[kasia]

hasn't been filed yet...i don't think so. i'll send you steve flower's email address.

[moschikat]

I think I love you Kasia. .

I think I love YW . . . .

coming here makes my homework so much easier :lol:

[kasia]

Originally posted by moschikat@Jan 28 2003, 09:51 PM
I think I love you Kasia. .

I think I love YW . . . .

coming here makes my homework so much easier :lol:
:)

[achtungbaby]

Originally posted by AliBabaIncorporated@Jan 28 2003, 03:30 PM
Poor whites and poor blacks over rich whites who score a bit higher on tests, sure. But UMich is giving an up to every black and Hispanic, not just the poor ones. Half of all blacks in this country are middle class or higher, if they have poor test scores why do they deserve a university education over some lower-middle class Asian kid with higher test scores and better academic performance but not a low enough household income to qualify as "Socio-Economically disadvantaged."

Again, I agree with you that the policy of excluding Asians from the minority classification sucks, but re: blacks, you mentioned that nearly half were middle class -- and a quarter of them are still below the poverty level!

Originally posted by AliBabaIncorporated@Jan 28 2003, 03:30 PM
Just cuz a solution is easy, doesn't mean it's going to have any effect at all.

I agree, I'm not saying the most simplistic solution should be implemented, but how can you argue that affirmative action hasn't helped minorities at all?

Originally posted by AliBabaIncorporated@Jan 28 2003, 03:30 PM
I'll probably be cold in the ground before any president has the courage to do that.

I thought our President might have the nuts to take this issue on, but that was pre-9/11.

[rakovlam]

-- and a quarter of them are still below the poverty level!

That's down from 87% during the forties. I doubt that the majority of the 22% of poor blacks are caused by racism.

but how can you argue that affirmative action hasn't helped minorities at all?

He didn't say affirmative action helped no one. But the current system is an insult to minorities because people think they need a lower standard to get into certain colleges. Many minorities who get accepted through affirmative action never graduate from that school. There are more colleges in Michigan then UMich, if minorities cannot make it to UMich, they should try another.

And of course the tough solution of school reform would require taking on the teachers' unions and civil service unions at large. I'll probably be cold in the ground before any president has the courage to do that.

Yeah, but most of it is on the local and state level. Take Washington for instance, it has some of the highest funded schools in the nation and yet it still sucks. When teachers unions demand more funding for schools, it usually means they want a raise. Last year, school vouchers are made constitutional so now poor families can afford to take their children out of failing schools (brought by the No Child Left Behind Act) and into participating private schools. We're getting there.

[Andrew]

Originally posted by moschikat@Jan 29 2003, 12:51 AM
I think I love you Kasia. .

I think I love YW . . . .

coming here makes my homework so much easier :lol:
Why, is your assignment to write a report about the USC amicus brief? :)

[eyespooge]

i've heard that the current justices are pretty conservative, so there's a strong likelihood that affirmatiave action will be ruled as illegal.

[achtungbaby]

Originally posted by rakovlam@Jan 29 2003, 05:34 AM
That's down from 87% during the forties.

Yes, progress has been made, no thanks to the guys at FrontPageMag.com

Originally posted by rakovlam@Jan 29 2003, 05:34 AM
Many minorities who get accepted through affirmative action never graduate from that school.

Really? "Many"...? I'd like to see proof of this (somewhere other than FrontPageMag).

Originally posted by rakovlam@Jan 29 2003, 05:34 AM
There are more colleges in Michigan then UMich, if minorities cannot make it to UMich, they should try another.

What for? They're getting into Michigan just fine. It's downtrodden white folks who have been bitching:)

[rakovlam]

Really? "Many"...? I'd like to see proof of this (somewhere other than FrontPageMag).

40% of blacks in 7 Michigan colleges graduate after 6 six years compared to 61% of whites and 74% of Asians according to the Detroit News. And you know what Michigan does. Burn this in your retina.

[eyespooge]

Originally posted by rakovlam@Jan 30 2003, 07:11 PM

40% of blacks in 7 Michigan colleges graduate after 6 six years compared to 61% of whites and 74% of Asians according to the Detroit News. And you know what Michigan does. Burn this in your retina.
out of curiosity, do they give more specific breakdowns?

i.e., what percent of people receiving the points from ethnic group and lifelong hardship graduate?

you're not comparing apples with apples, since there could merely be more blacks who get in because of affirmative action, and perhaps everyone who gets in as a result of aff action has a lower chance of graduating.

i still agree with you though :)

[speshllkay]

I wonder what George Bush calls getting into a school because your daddy went there. That sounds like a type of AA. He was a C student and he didn't do all that well on the SATS but still got in because his father went there. What kinda shit is that?

[eyespooge]

it's called legacy, or nepotism, depending on your slant.

pretty much all private schools do it.

you don't even have to have had someone who went there, large donations works as well.

money makes the world go 'round, much to my po-ass dismay.

[rakovlam]

I wonder what George Bush calls getting into a school because your daddy went there. That sounds like a type of AA. He was a C student and he didn't do all that well on the SATS but still got in because his father went there. What kinda shit is that?

So what are you going to do about that.. it happens everywhere. Universities like to accept people with connecitons so their families would donate large amounts of money and prop up the school. Are you going to have affirmative action for legacies? That won't work. Also, while getting accepted into college is one matter, passing college is another matter. Bush actually passed Yale... C student but impressive for an Ivy Leaguer.

[achtungbaby]

Originally posted by rakovlam@Jan 30 2003, 07:11 PM
40% of blacks in 7 Michigan colleges graduate after 6 six years compared to 61% of whites and 74% of Asians according to the Detroit News.  And you know what Michigan does.  Burn this in your retina.
And how do you know those students were accepted through affirmative action?

"Burn this in your retina"...? You're not talkin' smack now are you?

[Geegeh7]

I disagree with Kasia.

I think affirmative action will hurt Asian-American applicants since a lot of us apply to Law school,...med school...graduate school programs...etc. We are the majority of the minority groups in colleges.

Affirmative action is mainly for the black community who can't seem to pursue a college education.
That's why Colin Powell is FOR affirmative action......just to satisfy the Black community. <_<

[kasia]

Originally posted by Geegeh7@Feb 2 2003, 02:18 AM
I disagree with Kasia.

I think affirmative action will hurt Asian-American applicants since a lot of us apply to Law school,...med school...graduate school programs...etc. We are the majority of the minority groups in colleges.

Affirmative action is mainly for the black community who can't seem to pursue a college education.
That's why Colin Powell is FOR affirmative action......just to satisfy the Black community. <_<
First, you can't disagree with me because I have yet to form a solid opinion on this issue. i was merely posting an email i received. but i am interested in what you have to say.

some questions:

1) how do you know that we are the majority of the minority groups in graduate schools?

2) supposing that we are, how does that lead to the conclusion that affirmative action is not beneficial to us?

3) why does affirmative action serve only the black community?

4) how did you discover the reason why colin powell is for affirmative action?

[AliBabaIncorporated]

Originally posted by kasia@Feb 2 2003, 05:57 AM
2) supposing that we are, how does that lead to the conclusion that affirmative action is not beneficial to us?

3) why does affirmative action serve only the black community?
affirmative action is beneficial to and serves the people who get into university under its auspices. it can't really be said to be beneficial to or serve anyone else.

[MellowDrama]

Speaking of which, our law school's Asian Am. Law Students Assoc. will be holding a debate on Affirm. Action in which some guest speakers will offer their views and what the future of the policy will look like and how it might change after the forthcoming US Sup. Ct. case. I'll post some info & details on it when we things become more finalized this month. What will be "unique" I guess about our event, is we'll have Latino and Asian speakers (we're co-sponsoring it w/ the Latino Stud. Assoc.) in order to show that this is not just a Black/White issue.

As for my view, I think affirmative action is good. In the state where I'm currently residing, the population is 95% White, and the law school has something like 16% non-White students. (Yeah, that means they have to import non-White students, including yours truly), and I think our school is better for it. If not, we'd have a school made up of people who have no idea how to act with or deal with people of color. (I am honestly convinced that I am the first Asian person some of these people have interacted w/ on a daily basis). Bottom line is we live in a multi-racial society and we must learn to live w/ each other and the only way to do that is to force us to interact w/ each other, given our natural tendencies to self-segregate. Thus I believe diversity in our schools is a compelling state interest.

Oh yea, but I forgot, Aff. Action lets in "underqualified" minorities at the expense of Asians and Whites right? Well, I don't know any of my classmates' test scores, but all of my so-called "underqualified" Black and Latino classmates at my law school and at my undergrad. college deserved to be there. They did just as well (if not better) than everyone else.

[iris]

In terms of law schools, Asians are actually the 2nd largest minority, behind African Americans. In graduate school for journalism, Asians also fall behind Blacks. Asian males rank third after hispanic and black men. I do not know the rankings for other graduate programs.

edit: This is not in defense or advocacy of affirmative action. I am merely stating some statistics.

[achtungbaby]

Originally posted by tazadar@Feb 2 2003, 08:45 AM
The discussion should be centered on principle, not an utilitarian objective.
Why?

[achtungbaby]

By Jacques Steinberg
The New York Times

At public universities in California and Texas, the end of affirmative action in admissions has benefited one minority: Asian-Americans.

And if the Supreme Court decides later this year to limit or eliminate race-conscious admissions at the University of Michigan, Asian-Americans stand to gain far more than any other group, at least in proportion to their numbers in the general population.

Their experience in the admissions process provides yet another prism through which to view the affirmative action debate. As things stand now, a relatively low percentage of Asian-American students are admitted to many top private and public institutions, nearly all of which practice affirmative action, compared with the high numbers of the arguably qualified among them.

full story (http://yellowworld.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=177&mode=nocomments&order=1&thold=-1)

[kangal]

Black and Latino classmates at my law school and at my undergrad. college deserved to be there. They did just as well (if not better) than everyone else.


In the south, the issue of AA is pretty heated...within many Asian circles, the notion is that while AA hurts Asians more so than helps them, it also hurts all races. THe case in point is the med and law schools in Alabama. Since our state's heritage has more than its share of embarassments, AA is seen as the ultimate penance for all those firehoses and dogs. The problem arises in that many times spots are reserved solely for African Americans. The problem is that those who receive the help do not need it at all. Black and Latino classmates at my law school and at my undergrad. college deserved to be there. They did just as well (if not better) than everyone else. As the quote states, they are more than qualified. Thus, what is the need for AA then? When my friends were in the race to get in to med school, they were appalled by a large majority of the black applicants who realized that they did not need to score has high as the norm was. To me, the problem was that they COULD have easily achieved high MCATs but chose not to do so. My distaste for AA is that its problems in my opinion outweigh the gains. In my law school class, the blacks who are in there are not from the problem areas that need the help. They range from middle class to affluent. While this is just pipe dreams, I think that AA SHOULD be used, but more so on a financial status vs. race. As someone said, money is the root of all problems. In my mind, a rich person, be it black, white, asian or latino, will have much greater opportunites. Conversely, those who are poor, regardless of race, should get that extra boost.

[AliBabaIncorporated]

While the United States continues with affirmative action, Malaysia is taking positive steps to end it:

http://www.dailyexpress.com.my/news.cfm?NewsID=16221
Merit system for university intake stays, says Musa
11 January, 2003

Kuala Lumpur: The Govern-ment has decided that the merit system, used for the first time last year for admission into public universities, will continue for all subsequent intakes, including the new academic session this year.

“A decision has been made that it would be a continuing policy,” Education Minister Tan Sri Musa Mohamad said. We will use the same system. The Higher Education Depart-ment will be issuing a circular soon informing all universities of the decision. The merit system will be used to determine entry into all public university faculties. We will not combine the quota and merit systems as was proposed by certain quarters last year,” Musa said after presenting his New Year message to Ministry staff at the Technology Education Division in Bukit Kiara.

The decision to introduce meritocracy was made following a public outcry last year. Under the merit system, students were put in a single list instead of separate lists for each race. A student’s place in the list will depend solely on his academic achievement. A computer system was used to select eligible students based on how high they were in the list. Merit is based solely on the academic achievements of students and co-curricular activities are no longer taken into consideration unlike in previous years when they took up 10 points. Co-curricular activities would only be taken into account if more than one student had the same academic points and a decision had to be made as to who was eligible.

Although many parties had initially supported meritocracy over a race-based quota system, they later questioned whether it was fair. Everything about the intake exercise was put under scrutiny - from whether it is just to put matriculation and Sijil Tinggi Persekolahan Malaysia holders in one list for comparison, to the inability of diploma holders to secure places. Following the complaints, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamad had said in May last year that the Government would study whether meritocracy or a new system combined with the quota system would be used this year.

Musa had said that the Ministry would study the possibility of merging the merit and race-based quota systems as both had their benefits. Many educationists have come out in support of the merit system and lauded its many benefits. Musa, in his speech, said from this year, 10 per cent of places in fully residential schools and matriculation colleges would be allocated to non-Bumiputera students. Meanwhile, the Ministry’s public relations officer, Julina Johan, said from this year, all Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia and STPM holders could use the Internet to apply for places at public universities.

Candidates who want to make online applications need not buy application forms issued by the Higher Education Department. Students can get more information on the programmes available via the website at http://emoe.gov.my. Applicants need only pay a processing fee at any Bank Simpanan Nasional branch after which they would be given an identification number. The processing fee is RM15.60 for post-STPM courses and RM10.60 for post-SPM courses. SPM holders who want to buy application forms can do so from Feb 10, while forms for STPM holders were already available from Jan 6. Forms for STPM holders were also distributed to schools from Nov 20 to Dec 2, while those for SPM holders will be distributed from Jan 3 to 22. Julina said the forms were sufficient as 80,000 sets had been printed for post-STPM courses, and 250,000 for post-SPM courses.

[AliBabaIncorporated]

of course, they're still going on with the bullshit "matriculation" system whereby matriculation center 1-year examination course is given the same weight as STPM (A-levels) which usually takes 2 years to prepare for, they're just letting matriculation classes be up to 10% Chinese and Indians. but at least it's a step in the right direction.

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by kasia@Feb 2 2003, 05:57 AM
1) how do you know that we are the majority of the minority groups in graduate schools?
i think it's not so much what the raw number of asian americans in law schools is. it's the fact that asian americans are disproportionately overrepresented in law schools, just like in undergraduate studies, and that's a statistical fact.

[iris]

Statistics for Asians in law school is around 5%. Total minorities in Law School is 14%. We are less than half. The population you should be calculating from is those that graduated from undergraduate school and not the general population. It has to be a sample taken from a "viable" base. Though we make up around 4% of the US population, more Asians graduate from undergrad than any other minority (proportionally), we are under-represented. Especially Asian females who are less than 3% of women minorities is law school.

[deez nuts]

Affirmative action hasn't helped any of my Asian friends when we were applying to college. In fact, I believe it actually hindered us when we were appplying to grad school. Sure it probably helped Asians back in the day. But from what I have seen, nowadays, amongst my Asian friends is that it raises the bar because we're Asian or it allows some other "under priviledged" minority to take our spot. So in order to get into the college or grad school of our choice, we have to go above and beyond the average requirements needed to get in.

I have not heard one Asian friend of mine say "Yes! I got into <so and so> medical school cuz I'm Asian." Every one of them said "Crap, I have to go to <so and so> medical school. But, I was way above the average MCAT scores and GPA for say Harvard or Hopkins. The admission board really loved my interview. Why did I get denied?"

Given our (our being me and my friends) socio-economic background when we first immgrated to the US, I'm pretty sure we qualify for "special treatment." But, we didn't feel like we got any preferential treatment when we were applying to colleges, in fact a lot of us had to settle in our choices of college and grad school. Meanwhile we saw black kids and latino kids getting into the schools we wanted with lower scores, with the same socio-economic background, coming from the same high school and with less on their transcript.

I mean why should we be penalized for being Asian? If we can rise above, why can't the others? If you wanna call us out on adding to the model minority stereotype, go right ahead. But the bottomline is we were just trying to build a future for ourselves and we all gotta make a living in the future.

In my opinion get rid of Affirmative Action or revamp it (don't ask me how, cuz I have no clue) when it comes to college and grad school admissions. I believe that Affirmative Action is only gonna form more of a bottle-neck effect when it comes to future Asian generations applying to higher education.

[VV o n g B a]

the problem of affirmative action is that its not used as intended. the problem csb is talking about seems to stem from quotas. thats not really what affirmative action intended to make lawful. it was put into effect so that between people of EQUAL qualifications, the minority would be chosen over a court defined majority (white men). therefore ideally AA should benefit everybody except them. unforunately, its far from ideal how things are implemented.

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by iris@Feb 3 2003, 09:18 AM
Statistics for Asians in law school is around 5%. Total minorities in Law School is 14%. We are less than half. The population you should be calculating from is those that graduated from undergraduate school and not the general population. It has to be a sample taken from a "viable" base. Though we make up around 4% of the US population, more Asians graduate from undergrad than any other minority (proportionally), we are under-represented. Especially Asian females who are less than 3% of women minorities is law school.
well ok. how many asians have undergrad degrees? greater than 5% i assume.
do admission boards use the viable base to consider whether or not asians are underrepresented, or do they use the total population? (not a rhetorical question, but honestly wondering)
my general opinion is that if you're applying to a school (graduate or undergrad) where asians are not underrepresented and blacks and latinos are underrepresented, you'll probably risk having your seat given to a black or latino who is equally qualified. if you're applying to a school where asians are underrepresented, then affirmative action will probably help you.

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by Chasiubao_Boy@Feb 3 2003, 09:55 AM
I mean why should we be penalized for being Asian? If we can rise above, why can't the others? If you wanna call us out on adding to the model minority stereotype, go right ahead. But the bottomline is we were just trying to build a future for ourselves and we all gotta make a living in the future.
well it's good to recognise that we've risen, but there's no need to say "why can't the others" because blacks and latinos do face different types of discrimination from asians. the model minority myth was conceived not to praise asian americans, it was conceived so the reagan administration can justify the cutting of welfare.

[deez nuts]

Originally posted by SunWuKung@Feb 3 2003, 11:01 AM
well it's good to recognise that we've risen, but there's no need to say "why can't the others" because blacks and latinos do face different types of discrimination from asians. the model minority myth was conceived not to praise asian americans, it was conceived so the reagan administration can justify the cutting of welfare.
I wasn't praising the model minority stereotype.

As for blacks and latins facing different type of discriminations than Asians, to put it bluntly it's not my problem or issue. I can sympathize with some issues they face. But on the other hand, I also realize that some of the issues and/or discriminations and because of these issues and/or the process of resolving indigenous racial discrimination issues sometimes has a negative impact on me as an Asian, either directly or indirectly.

[kangal]

The whole problem with AA is that the issue it tries to solve is the crux of our economic society. Capitalism is based on competition. Leveling the playing field with actions such as AA goes against the fundamentals of capitalism. Without failures, there would be no sucess. That's why AA will always be flawed. Like they say, don't hate the playa, hate the game.

[VV o n g B a]

Originally posted by kangal@Feb 3 2003, 11:20 AM
The whole problem with AA is that the issue it tries to solve is the crux of our economic society. Capitalism is based on competition. Leveling the playing field with actions such as AA goes against the fundamentals of capitalism. Without failures, there would be no sucess. That's why AA will always be flawed. Like they say, don't hate the playa, hate the game.
then change the game. make it so that there is a very low (say $50K) cap to inheretance and the rest goes to gov't. playing field becomes more level, national debt would be eliminated pretty quick.

[kangal]

I don't think many people would be fairly happy with the government taking MORE of our money. Again, I personally like capitalism. By limiting the cap to $50 K, hell NOBODY would get an inheritance. I'm sure most of our families on this board have at least $50K in savings. Without inheritance, it would ruin the basis for stocks and savings and the whole banking system. If the money just goes out the door after you die, then noone would ever invest or even pay for life insurance.

[VV o n g B a]

i'm not against capitalism. and it wasn't me who came up w/ the idea. it was alan. and i also pointed out some other glaring holes to him. but the idea is to make sure every person rises according to his/her own ability level and not be given a massive head start w/ money they didn't earn. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2705643.stm) sure, this is a far from ideal way of approaching the problem, but with more thought, maybe it could work.

it would have to be adopted by every country so there would need to be a world gov't first. so really, it'll never happen. but i thought it was an interesting idea. and so what if life insurance becomes passe? ppl will find some other way to invest. they'll be looking for ever quicker returns so that they can spend their wealth b/f they die. we might end up with a political system that has fewer dynasties that have achieved what they achieved by having highly placed family members (kennedy, gore, bush).

but just as a note, even though i think capitalism is a better system than others (best system anyone has been able to build and maintain), it doesn't mean it's perfect. read this (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/EA29Dj02.html) and tell me if u still think capitalism is still such an all wonderful thing to everybody.

*edit: a couple more pros and cons. taxes could be lowered so that ppl actually get to keep what they earn while they are alive. money taken from inheritance/death could be used to upgrade schools and hire teachers so that a family's economic situation has less of a bearing on their child's schooling. family farms and other family owned businesses would prolly cease to exist (wal-mart). ppl would likely not work as hard b/c they don't have to worry about their children's future as much.

[MellowDrama]

I think the problem can be remedied by giving extra "points" for things like coming from a poor family, being the first in your family to go to college, and other things like that, and I know a lot of private colleges do take those things into consideration.

About AA, in the places with little or no Asian population at all, it is either neutral or beneficial to us, or at least that's what my school tells me, because they want to get ANY people of color.

[VV o n g B a]

Originally posted by MellowDrama@Feb 3 2003, 12:06 PM
I think the problem can be remedied by giving extra "points" for things like coming from a poor family, being the first in your family to go to college, and other things like that, and I know a lot of private colleges do take those things into consideration.

About AA, in the places with little or no Asian population at all, it is either neutral or beneficial to us, or at least that's what my school tells me, because they want to get ANY people of color.
the problem is that while economics is a factor, race also is a factor. colleges want a student population that is not just rich or poor, but also different colors, religions, etc. this contributes to creating a campus where ppl can really grow up and experience new experiences. as has been noted before, if legacy admissions can be a factor, why can't race?

i can see an argument for dropping race and economics for admissions to graduate school, but for undergrad, part of the experience is to meet people who u would not normally see.

[kangal]

Capatilism is not "such an all wonderful thing to everybody". You erroneously infer this from my post. I read the article on "Comparative Theory". While this theory is well-established in economics, it is not the only analysis ever performed on global trade. There is a similar theory popularly referred to as "The Race to the Bottom". While this theory is less quantitative (i.e. - no "wage price differential"), the basic premise is that the most developing countries who trade with developed nations do not experience the overall uptick in their GDP that would be expected because their relative quality of life is found to be inversely related to the industrialization required to trade effectively with the fully industrialized nation. While both The Race to the Bottom and Comparative Theory seem to make sense upon a cursory glance, the major argument against them focuses on a country's position without any trade. The sad fact of a global economy is that the established will always prevail. The only way to avoid this overriding truth in trade, and the primary argument of those opposed to "oppressive" capitalism, is to begin to endeavor to bring such lower status nations up. "Rome was not built in a day", nor will an Eastern European country's economy be brought to a level status within a few decades. Capitalism ensures that someone has the means to afford and consume what is produced by underprivileged nations while they make the arduous ascent to a level playing field.

Abolishing capitalism, ergo, leveling the playing field and abolishing the need for AA, presumes that people will still work as hard. Communism is a great case study for when the playing field is leveled. People do not work as hard or endeavor to achieve as much when they know the overall payoff is not awaiting them. A nation adhering to your proposed economic system will eventually find themselves in a state of perpetual mediocrity governed by none other than the "dynastys" you seem to disdain. This is exactly what happens when AA is used to level the playing field. Minorities who are underprivileged, for whatever reason, cease to work as hard and begin to rely on their crutch.

[VV o n g B a]

i'm not saying that third world nations won't eventually benefit from capitalism. they will. eventually. i was just saying that its affects aren't wholly good which u seem to agree with. i'm also not arguing for communism. ppl would still get paid more for doing more and excelling. there is nothing here that says ppl must earn equal wages. its just their kids don't get to benefit from work they didn't do.

i don't see how mediocre dynsaties could survive in a democratic system without inheritance. if the kids don't make money and excel, then they won't be in a position to use the connections that their parents forged.

but whatever. this particular argument is pointless since nothing like it is ever going to occur. i just wanted to make a point that large inheritances provide kids an advantage they don't deserve. they should have to fend for themselves and not rely on daddy to give them their money. if u want the last word, have at it.

[kangal]

Agreed. But the only problem is the usage of the extra money. I don't think that we should make altruism, which is a humanistic quality, the job of the government. Again, who's to say what one should do with their money? Is the government the best at deciding where the money goes? Sure Bill Gates may suck. But its still his money. Giving his money to the government is not the solution. Fortunately, people like him and Turner have some semblance of human kindess in their huge grants to global problems. In a perfect world, they would donate way more. Sadly, this ain't a perfect world.

[iris]

I'm gonna gently nudge this conversation back to Affirmative Action and Asians. You are free to begin a new thread on capitalism v. the third world.

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by Chasiubao_Boy@Feb 3 2003, 11:58 AM
I wasn't praising the model minority stereotype.

As for blacks and latins facing different type of discriminations than Asians, to put it bluntly it's not my problem or issue. I can sympathize with some issues they face. But on the other hand, I also realize that some of the issues and/or discriminations and because of these issues and/or the process of resolving indigenous racial discrimination issues sometimes has a negative impact on me as an Asian, either directly or indirectly.
agreed

[kangal]

Sorry. I still feel that AA in its current form needs to be completely renovated. In the South, the question presents itself as to who it should help. If the area is predominately black, then do whites become the ones that need help then? My other question is: when is AA not needed anymore? When is it enough? How do we know when things are equal?

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by iris@Feb 3 2003, 02:00 PM
I'm gonna gently nudge this conversation back to Affirmative Action and Asians. You are free to begin a new thread on capitalism v. the third world.
yes let's stay on the issue everybody.

[VV o n g B a]

Originally posted by kangal@Feb 3 2003, 01:08 PM
Sorry. I still feel that AA in its current form needs to be completely renovated. In the South, the question presents itself as to who it should help. If the area is predominately black, then do whites become the ones that need help then? My other question is: when is AA not needed anymore? When is it enough? How do we know when things are equal?
an easy answer is when the percentage of minorities in the workforce match the percentage of population they constitute in the nation. this doesn't take into account cultural cues that encourage particular minorities to go into certain professions however.

[AliBabaIncorporated]

Originally posted by VV o n g B a@Feb 3 2003, 01:23 PM
colleges want a student population that is not just rich or poor, but also different colors, religions, etc. this contributes to creating a campus where ppl can really grow up and experience new experiences.
then admit more international students and teenage immigrant students. poverty or living overseas contributes a lot more to a different life experience and a different perspective to offer your fellow students. what's so diverse about a bunch of different-race people who grew up at roughly the same socioeconomic status, speaking the same language with their friends, watching the same movies and listening to the same pop music as the entire country, wearing the same brands of clothes, taking the same school examinations, living through the same major national events, sharing all the same major cultural referents, eating at the same fast food chains, etc?

[VV o n g B a]

yeah, they should admit more international students. i personally met people from all over asia, western and eastern europe, the middle east, africa, the carribean etc while i was at auburn, so i know at least some internationals come in. i don't really know what the acceptance rate is for internationals so i can't really say much past that. i also don't really know what all is involved in getting the necessary papers together for acceptance into the country.

but as for poverty students, colleges are businesses too. they might be able to admit some, but to keep teaching ppl, they have to admit ppl who can afford to pay for their education.

also, colleges are lazy. if they can get away with accepting minorities from the same socioeconomic background and call it diversity they will. no system is perfect.

[kim2]

fascinating.

[kim2]

It's so sad that so many black people believe that all people of color because they are people of color supposedly or all immigrants because they are immigrants are down with the cause and like them are willing to fight for justice and equality for everyone, that's what civil rights mean--they're rights for every single person. It's such a sad thing to witness. Our (blacks) lack of ethnocentrism and ethnic chauvinism and absolute sense of rightness and superiority, as witnessed all over this site is a sad thing. We fight for everyone else and then watch them kick crap in our faces. I have a dissertation to write and am like really wasting time on meaningless jive here but I think it's important for a few of my black friends to read what goes on here and on other model minority sites. Hopefully I can get a few to explore the yellow world.

[VV o n g B a]

Originally posted by kim2@Feb 11 2003, 01:16 AM
We fight for everyone else and then watch them kick crap in our faces.
thats just wrong. blacks fought for rights, yes. and many minorities benefited from their struggle. but asian americans and others fought, marched, protested with them. they were a minority within the minority in the civil rights struggle, but they were there. we, as a group, are like many other groups... we have diversity within our ranks. what brings us together is that we share asian ancestry (and even that may be saying a bit much). everything else is up for grabs. just as within the black community there are people who disagree with affirmative action and black conservatives. we are not a monolith.

there are those that would fight with u and those that would fight against u as in just about anything else u can possibly think of. some who have complained here have legitimate grievances. affirmative action is an inherently unfair process. but without it, the results would be (to some) even more unfair and so we tolerate it. we are not here to "kick crap" back in blacks' faces.

[deez nuts]

Originally posted by kim2@Feb 11 2003, 02:16 AM
It's so sad that so many black people believe that all people of color because they are people of color supposedly or all immigrants because they are immigrants are down with the cause and like them are willing to fight for justice and equality for everyone, that's what civil rights mean--they're rights for every single person. It's such a sad thing to witness. Our (blacks) lack of ethnocentrism and ethnic chauvinism and absolute sense of rightness and superiority, as witnessed all over this site is a sad thing. We fight for everyone else and then watch them kick crap in our faces. I have a dissertation to write and am like really wasting time on meaningless jive here but I think it's important for a few of my black friends to read what goes on here and on other model minority sites. Hopefully I can get a few to explore the yellow world.
Yup, I agree.

Whatever past history we've had with Blacks is basically marred by any Asian vs Black conflicts like the LA riots or from my experience in NYC: Sharpton's protests of Korean runned grocery stores, Chinese food delivery men being robbed and murdered, Black resentment of Asian runned businesses in black neighborhoods i.e. Harlem, Brownsville, Jamaica etc etc

I feel that Blacks use Asians as allies when it's convenient to do so. It seems like Blacks are on the same side with us one day on a cause and then the next day against us in another cause. I don't think we're as united as we think or would like to think.

But like Wongba said we're not here to kick crap back in black's faces. But, it's something we have to address and we have be real about it in order to move pass the problem. My black friends also share somewhat of the same view when it comes to Asians and Blacks.

[kim2]

My black friends also share somewhat of the same view as you and me when it comes to Asians and Blacks. >>

are you referring to me here? i dont think we share anything. but glad to know you have black friends presumably not busy boycotting racist Korean grocers or ambushing Chinese delivery men.

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by kim2@Feb 12 2003, 12:35 AM
My black friends also share somewhat of the same view as you and me when it comes to Asians and Blacks. >>

are you referring to me here? i dont think we share anything. but glad to know you have black friends presumably not busy boycotting racist Korean grocers or ambushing Chinese delivery men.
that's kind of a presumptious attitude, no offense.
let's realise that it's only a minority of black people that act like asswipes. just the same with asian people - only that asian people are not as "outward" about it.

[deez nuts]

Originally posted by kim2@Feb 12 2003, 12:35 AM
My black friends also share somewhat of the same view as you and me when it comes to Asians and Blacks. >>

are you referring to me here? i dont think we share anything. but glad to know you have black friends presumably not busy boycotting racist Korean grocers or ambushing Chinese delivery men.
Heh I was talking on the phone when I typed that.

No I wasn't referring to you.

[kim2]

dont know what you're referring to SunWu but in any case it's called irony.

good to know the world is divided neatly albeit racially into outward asswipes and inward asswipes.

[ChinaLama]

i'm not against affirmative action in concept, but i find it kinda sad race gets 20 pts -- oops being black or hispanic gets 20 pts, and being poor gets like 5 pts?

I think if anything, class or income should count MORE than race. Otherwise, we're gonna have ridiculous things like a rich black guy having an edge over a poor white guy. I don't believe racism is so strong that being black is a bigger hurdle than being poor.

[kangal]

I think if anything, class or income should count MORE than race. Otherwise, we're gonna have ridiculous things like a rich black guy having an edge over a poor white guy. I don't believe racism is so strong that being black is a bigger hurdle than being poor.

I agree totally. The only problem is that class warfare has always lead to problems within our society. I just fear that basing it on income would lead to a neo-Lenin or Marx who would want the lower class to rise in unision and steal our SUVs.

[ChinaLama]

Originally posted by kangal@Feb 17 2003, 07:00 AM

I agree totally. The only problem is that class warfare has always lead to problems within our society. I just fear that basing it on income would lead to a neo-Lenin or Marx who would want the lower class to rise in unision and steal our SUVs.
Communism's had the LEAST success in America, even back when it was the hottest idea on the block. that would never be a problem. :)

i don't think it's about class warfare. it's about realizing that if a poor person scored a 1300 on his SAT and has a 90 grade average, that should mean more than a rich person w/ private tutors, etc scoring a 1400 and having a 95 average.

[ellsworth81]

go michigan :wacko:

[wwz]

Originally posted by ChinaLama@Feb 17 2003, 01:44 AM
i'm not against affirmative action in concept, but i find it kinda sad race gets 20 pts -- oops being black or hispanic gets 20 pts, and being poor gets like 5 pts?

I think if anything, class or income should count MORE than race. Otherwise, we're gonna have ridiculous things like a rich black guy having an edge over a poor white guy. I don't believe racism is so strong that being black is a bigger hurdle than being poor.
at umich you can get 20 for being poor or 20 for being an underrepresented minority. you cant get points for both though.

[ism]

Excerpt:

In an attempt to make the University's race-conscious admissions policies more tangible to students, staff members of The Michigan Review held an "Affirmative Action Bake Sale" yesterday.

The bake sale offered bagels and muffins at different prices for different students according to their race. Non-minority students - including whites, Asians and Middle Easterners - were charged $1 for each baked good, while minority students - blacks, Native Americans and Hispanics - were charged 80 cents. Engineering senior Matt Franczak said the bake sale's purpose was to raise awareness about the University's race-conscious admissions policies, which he said are "ridiculous."

full story here (http://www.michigandaily.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2003/02/18/3e51d27e2b3e2)

Notwithstanding the fact that the two situations are vastly different, I would like to see bake sales based on other parts of the UMich's points system. For example, discounts to those whose parents are alumni of UMich.

[rakovlam]

Is that like free cookies assuming that they'll supply them next year?

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by ism@Feb 18 2003, 07:31 PM
Notwithstanding the fact that the two situations are vastly different, I would like to see bake sales based on other parts of the UMich's points system. For example, discounts to those whose parents are alumni of UMich.
exactly. either you do away with preferences like that altogether, or you keep them all in.

[Rogmok]

that bake sale is a gross simplification of the purpose of affirmative action

[Elizabeth A.]

Originally posted by Rogmok@Feb 18 2003, 07:04 PM
that bake sale is a gross simplification of the purpose of affirmative action
Amen!

The same event happened at NYU also, courtesy of the College Republicans.

[VV o n g B a]

well, the bake sale could have been fair and equal if the sellers had just given similar discounts to the children of alums... :rolleyes:

[AliBabaIncorporated]

Originally posted by VV o n g B a@Feb 18 2003, 10:25 PM
well, the bake sale could have been fair and equal if the sellers had just given similar discounts to the children of alums... &nbsp;:rolleyes:
admitting children of alums means that the price of cookies ... ah ... tuition, will be cheaper, because this promotes donations. this means far more benefit to fellow students, especially poor students, than admitting individuals who don't meet standards of academic preparedness.

and show me something that demonstrates that children of alums have lower average test scores than the general student body. in cases where i've seen it's the opposite way around, a few examples of children of politicians notwithstanding.

[ellsworth81]

those asinine bastards at michigan review are at it again

go blue :lol:

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by AliBabaIncorporated@Feb 19 2003, 12:11 AM
admitting children of alums means that the price of cookies ... ah ... tuition, will be cheaper, because this promotes donations. this means far more benefit to fellow students, especially poor students, than admitting individuals who don't meet standards of academic preparedness.

and show me something that demonstrates that children of alums have lower average test scores than the general student body. in cases where i've seen it's the opposite way around, a few examples of children of politicians notwithstanding.
that's not really the point of the bake sale was it? it was just to show preferential treatment. you're arguing preferential treatment for children alums for the greater good of the university, but the argument for affirmative action is basically for the greater good of american society.

[MellowDrama]

I don't get it. I'm not the kid of an alum, I paid full tuition. I know I was smarter than some alumni's kids. Shit, some of them bragged they got in just because who they were, to my damn face. Some, but not all "just because his daddy got in" just like the "underqualified" minority got in "just because he was x race." Also who's to say the "underqualified minority" won't be a success and donate big bucks in the future?

BTW, we all know alumni donations just go to that huge ass endowment that just sits there and collects interest.

[achtungbaby]

Originally posted by AliBabaIncorporated@Feb 18 2003, 09:11 PM
admitting children of alums means that the price of cookies ... ah ... tuition, will be cheaper, because this promotes donations. this means far more benefit to fellow students, especially poor students, than admitting individuals who don't meet standards of academic preparedness.

and show me something that demonstrates that children of alums have lower average test scores than the general student body. in cases where i've seen it's the opposite way around, a few examples of children of politicians notwithstanding.
So you do believe in preferential treatment -- just one that benefits mostly white people :D

Moving to Rant...

[AliBabaIncorporated]

Originally posted by achtungbaby@Feb 19 2003, 07:31 PM
So you do believe in preferential treatment -- just one that benefits mostly white people
as I point out in my post which you quoted, admitting children of alums and of rich people provides benefits to everyone, not just white people, in the form of donations to the school. increasing the school's endowment provides more scholarship money for poor students, better facilities. that's a definitive benefit. yes in some cases it means you admit an underqualified person to the school (statistics? or are we just gonna hear people bringing up the case of Bush ad nauseum), but that cost is balanced out by the monetary benefit to other students.

also note that contrary to your accusation, admitting children of alums and children of rich parents is hardly limited to benefiting white people. several years ago my school admitted some underqualified Korean students whose parents were gov't officials, heads of corporations, etc. A prof from the East Asian Studies department whose Chinese class some of them took admits they never studied and just partied and cruised around in expensive cars all the time, but on the other hand her colleague's salary and many of her own research materials were paid for by the donations from their parents.

where's the equivalent benefit, either to the university itself or to american society at large, from the "diversity" of middle class blacks and hispanics whose families must be decently well off to afford the tuition, but they still can't score at the normal standards required for admission?

[MellowDrama]

I still don't get it. The kid on the alumni got in through no merit on his or her own other than being the spawn of some guy or gal who went to that school, if he or she was indeed was underqualified, just like the minority who did get in just because he or she was a minority, if indeed he or she was underqualified.

[AliBabaIncorporated]

Originally posted by MellowDrama@Feb 19 2003, 08:47 PM
I still don't get it. The kid on the alumni got in through no merit on his or her own other than being the spawn of some guy or gal who went to that school, if he or she was indeed was underqualified, just like the minority who did get in just because he or she was a minority, if indeed he or she was underqualified.
no one's disputing that some alumni kids are underqualified.

the point is, they still provide benefit to the rest of the student body in terms of $$$. what benefit do underqualified minority students provide to the rest of the student body? if they're rich they can be admitted under preference for rich people. if they're poor and have different life experience than the largely middle-class student body then they can be admitted under preference for poor people. why a separate preference for people of a certain ancestry?

[achtungbaby]

Originally posted by AliBabaIncorporated@Feb 19 2003, 05:40 PM
where's the equivalent benefit, either to the university itself or to american society at large, from the "diversity" of middle class blacks and hispanics whose families must be decently well off to afford the tuition, but they still can't score at the normal standards required for admission?
So affirmative action at the university level mostly benefits students of color who are stupid? I've never met any of these types of kids, have you?

The idea behind rewarding the children of alums is a great idea, and yes, patronage to the university benefits the university itself -- to continue to reward those same types of students.

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by AliBabaIncorporated@Feb 19 2003, 08:40 PM
as I point out in my post which you quoted, admitting children of alums and of rich people provides benefits to everyone, not just white people, in the form of donations to the school. increasing the school's endowment provides more scholarship money for poor students, better facilities. that's a definitive benefit. yes in some cases it means you admit an underqualified person to the school (statistics? or are we just gonna hear people bringing up the case of Bush ad nauseum), but that cost is balanced out by the monetary benefit to other students.

also note that contrary to your accusation, admitting children of alums and children of rich parents is hardly limited to benefiting white people. several years ago my school admitted some underqualified Korean students whose parents were gov't officials, heads of corporations, etc. &nbsp;A prof from the East Asian Studies department whose Chinese class some of them took admits they never studied and just partied and cruised around in expensive cars all the time, but on the other hand her colleague's salary and many of her own research materials were paid for by the donations from their parents.

where's the equivalent benefit, either to the university itself or to american society at large, from the "diversity" of middle class blacks and hispanics whose families must be decently well off to afford the tuition, but they still can't score at the normal standards required for admission?
oh come now, you're trying to take a utilitarian stance and say that admitting children of rich alums is good for poor students.

how about this then: admitting more blacks and hispanics means that more blacks and hispanics would receive college educations, thus empowering them to leave poverty behind. since much inner city crime is committed by poor blacks and hispanics, we can see that affirmative action would reduce crime in american society.

[igcognito]

U-Mich attempting be diverse is funny, because you all get mad that they give bonuses to poor and minority. Funny things is the poor education system is NOT the students fault. Being black and visiting inner-city schools. I am suprised not more students can't read. It is terrible. Teachers really just don't give a shit. The fact that their parents are poor is not their fault. And diversity is BS, my school is "diverse" to bad when I sit at lunch I see "little africa" on one side and the "euros" on the other. My table is smack in the center and we are the most diverse of all the table. 2 blacks (one who is female), 2 Wfemale, 3 Wmale (one who is jewish). Diversity can lick nuts.

And I hate it when I get those damn letters from the Coordinator of Diverse Admission aka the guy who brings in the negros. As long as people make shit black, white or whatever. There will be that issue.

[AliBabaIncorporated]

Originally posted by SunWuKung@Feb 19 2003, 10:33 PM
how about this then: admitting more blacks and hispanics means that more blacks and hispanics would receive college educations, thus empowering them to leave poverty behind. since much inner city crime is committed by poor blacks and hispanics, we can see that affirmative action would reduce crime in american society.
Umm, you do understand that the blacks and hispanics who get into selective colleges by means of affirmative action usually aren't exactly the same blacks and hispanics who are running around the ghetto shooting people, right? Not all blacks are from the ghetto. The criminals usually don't even bother applying themselves to their studies or paying the fees for sitting exams and applying to university.

Affirmative action overwhelmingly accrues benefits to the kids of the middle class, who came from stable homes with professional parents. And for middle class kids there is a wide range of education options above the "school of hard knocks" if his test scores and grades are not good enough to get into a selective school. Not getting into UMich does not condemn someone to a life of crime. Preventing crime in the inner city might be a justification for affirmative action at JCs or adult education centers, but not for affirmative action at UMichigan or Berkeley. Again, if you want to empower people to leave poverty behind, increase scholarship monies and give a break on test scores and grades to kids who excelled in failing schools. Reducing crime in the ghetto has nothing to do with admitting black kids from the suburbs.

also improving primary and secondary education and childcare services/afterschool programs in the inner city for all kids is a far more relevent way to address the problem of inner city kids going into crime, than sending one or two of those kids to tertiary education and leaving the rest behind in the ghetto.

[AliBabaIncorporated]

Originally posted by wwz@Feb 18 2003, 03:21 PM
at umich you can get 20 for being poor or 20 for being an underrepresented minority. you cant get points for both though.
or in otherwords, the kid of a black doctor is presumed to be somehow just as disadvantaged as the kid of an Egyptian cabdriver.

[SunWuKong]

hey i was illustrating my point with my argument about how you can't exactly go the utilitarian route here. i'm trying to say that i think you're missing the point if you think that while it is fair and even a good thing to give preferential treatment to children of rich alums, it is bad to give preferential treatment to blacks and hispanics. at the end of the day, in both instances you're still giving preferential treatment to those that did not earn it on their own merit, right?

and to play devil's advocate:
i wasn't referring to UMich specifically, but affirmative action in general. and how do you know that having more black and hispanic college graduates in this country would not encourage poor black and hispanic kids to stay off the streets? and what about the mere fact that blacks and hispanics have disproportionately lower percentages of college graduates than whites? one can argue that it is for the greater good of american society that there are more black and hispanic college graduates. so schools get more money for admitting children of rich alums... ok are we sure this money is used to better the education of the students and to fund need-based scholarships and loans, and simply not for profs to fund their own research, or for the administration to give itself a raise, etc etc etc?

[moschikat]

Originally posted by ism@Feb 18 2003, 04:31 PM
Non-minority students - including whites, Asians and Middle Easterners - were charged $1 for each baked good, while minority students - blacks, Native Americans and Hispanics - were charged 80 cents.
i don't get it . . . . :confused:
asians aren't minorities at UMich?
:huh: ?

[AliBabaIncorporated]

Originally posted by SunWuKung@Feb 19 2003, 11:17 PM
and how do you know that having more black and hispanic college graduates in this country would not encourage poor black and hispanic kids to stay off the streets?
Then in this case, blacks and hispanics should attend colleges which are on par with their level of academic preparation, not colleges where they are at a lower standard of preparation than their peers. Letting students into universities where they can't pull their own weight in group work in any major they feel like doesn't produce college graduates, it produces college dropouts. Having an excess of black and hispanic college dropouts around probably isn't gonna have that positive an effect of kids in the ghetto looking for role models.

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by AliBabaIncorporated@Feb 19 2003, 11:25 PM
Then in this case, blacks and hispanics should attend colleges which are on par with their level of academic preparation, not colleges where they are at a lower standard of preparation than their peers. Letting students into universities where they can't pull their own weight in group work in any major they feel like doesn't produce college graduates, it produces college dropouts. Having an excess of black and hispanic college dropouts around probably isn't gonna have that positive an effect of kids in the ghetto looking for role models.
do you have any statistics regarding this? i mean i don't know about other schools, but is 20 points toward admission going to decide for a kid that he's not going to make it through four years of college education?

[FACKU]

Coming from a less than average mind, I think Affirmate Action is one of the most interesting topic that I can think of... at least for mahself. First of all, I used to think that AA is probably one of the most unfair + reverse racism program that ever exists. A lot of it because in the case of AA for education, Asian Americans (the other AA) are not considered minority due to existing representation in most colleges. Got to say them asian kids tend to do well in school, right? So after I got sober through those Alcholic Anonymous (AA) gathering, I started to meet friends... This friend of mine, a great dude and a smart Asian-Latino dude, enlightened me with the argument that made sense to me. It is a case of head start...

For the minority, they never started at the same time, the same level. For Pete's sake when Harvard was founded, bet ya that there was no black dude on board cause most of them were still slaves down south. They never got that head start... It's like running a marathon and you give some dudes a 30 minute head start and ask others to catch up and expect them to be competitive. That's why they got handicap with bowling or golf, so that the ones who lack behind can be competitive...

The other thing is that racism still exist. Anybody who can say prejudice and racism does not exist today in the US can kiss my nicely shaped behind cause you know and I know that without institutional policy and enforcement, the next time you are told that you don;t qualify for a job because you don't look like the member of the old boys network, then you realize that maybe because it is the way you look. It is in disregard of what you have known all of your life time that you are da man! you are the sh*t and you can do things better than anybody. It just happen that you are not white and you don't belong to the network...

The only time I will be against affirmative action is when I have finally been able to say to myself that I am not a prejudice prick and I don't look at people because of their color anymore. Until then, I believe in an institutional effort to give every man and woman an equal chance to excel in life.

[ism]

Originally posted by moschikat@Feb 19 2003, 11:22 PM
i don't get it . . . . :confused:
asians aren't minorities at UMich?
:huh: ?
Asians are a minority. Under the UMich point system however, they are not considered part of a "disadvantaged minority" and thus are not eligible for AA. Asians as a whole are generally not considered eligible for AA in many school admissions processes. Give thanks to the model minority myth.

[achtungbaby]

Merging with the other U. Mich thread...

[VV o n g B a]

some interesting tidbits about the U of Mich AA case.

---------------------------------------
February 24, 2003
Looking Back at an Ugly Time
By BOB HERBERT


Sometimes it helps to take a look back and see just how far we've come.

In a response to the Brown v. Board of Education decision ordering the nation's public schools desegregated, William F. Buckley Jr.'s guidebook to conservative thought, National Review, declared the following in the summer of 1957:

"The central question that emerges — and it is not a parliamentary question or a question that is answered by merely consulting a catalogue of rights of American citizens, born Equal — is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas where it does not predominate numerically? The sobering answer is Yes — the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race. . . .

"National Review believes that the South's premises are correct. If the majority wills what is socially atavistic, then to thwart the majority may be, though undemocratic, enlightened. . . . Universal suffrage is not the beginning of wisdom or the beginning of freedom."

In those days blacks were frozen out of the mainstream of American life, routinely turned (or shoved) away not just from public schools, but from hotels, restaurants and movie theaters, from department stores and soda fountains, from most trades and professions, from polling booths and hospitals, from even the semblance of a shot at equal opportunity.

To be black was to be condemned to an environment of perpetual humiliation. My father swallowed his journalistic aspirations and lived out his life as an upholsterer. The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., cruelly harassed to the very end, was widely derided as "Martin Luther Coon."

That was not so long ago. So in some sense it's remarkable that by the end of the 20th century so many battles against racism had been won and a broad national consensus in favor of a more tolerant, more inclusive society had been reached.

The task now, in the 21st century, is to build on those victories and that consensus. Which brings us to affirmative action.

A glance at the current challenges to affirmative action in higher education would show little more than the fact that a number of white applicants have asserted in court that they were illegally denied admission to college or law school because of preferences given to racial or ethnic minorities.

That is their right and they have the support of many principled people.

A closer look at these challenges, however, would show that they are largely being driven by a huge, complex and extraordinarily well-financed web of conservative and right-wing organizations that in many cases are hostile not just to affirmative action but to the very idea of a multiracial, pluralistic America.

A new book published by the Institute for Democracy Studies in New York — "The Assault on Diversity: An Organized Challenge to Racial and Gender Justice," by Lee Cokorinos — documents in exceptional detail this nationwide effort to roll back a proud half-century of progress toward social justice and a more inclusive society.

The driving force behind the Michigan University cases, for example, is the Center for Individual Rights, a right-wing outfit that in its early years, as Mr. Cokorinos noted, received financial support from the Pioneer Fund, an organization that spent decades pushing the notion that whites are genetically superior to blacks.

We need to see this picture more clearly. There's a reason why so many mainstream individuals and groups, and some of the nation's largest corporations, have filed briefs with the Supreme Court in support of Michigan's effort to save its affirmative-action programs. The United States is a better place after a half-century of racial progress and improved educational opportunities for racial and ethnic minorities, and women.

We have all benefited, and voluntary efforts to continue that progress, including the policies at Michigan, are in the interest of us all.

Justice Lewis Powell, who wrote the controlling opinion in the Bakke case in 1978, eloquently addressed the matter of campus diversity when he said that "a robust exchange of ideas" is of "transcendent value to us all."

An unchallenged right-wing war against the very idea of diversity will turn us back in the direction of the noxious beliefs spewed out by National Review in 1957.


http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/24/opinion/24HERB.html

[kasia]

If you're interested in reading any of the amicus briefs (or other documents) filed in the University of Michigan Law School case, they are available on UMich's website at www.umich.edu/~urel/admissions/legal/.

[kasia]

The University of Michigan cases are set for oral arguments before the
Supreme Court today. NPR will be broadcasting the tape-delayed
arguments at 9:00 p.m. This would be on KPCC at 89.3 and I believe KCRW
at 89.9. There will also be commentary on the arguments by proponents
on either side at 8:00 p.m.

[AngryABCGirl]

I suppose I'll give my 2c on the whole affirmative action issue. I really don't know how Asians aren't considered a minority on affirmative action:
Because it is all emcompassing-meaning me a well-off Second Gen Taiwenese-American is measured on the same level as a Laotian refugee. These two groups simply can't be measured on the same level because the latter if obviously going to be a more disadvantaged minority. Supposedly income level is supposed to be a considered fairly for all groups as well, but see that famous or now famous article comparing Blanca Martinez and Stanley Park, I believe those were the names, who were both poor kids who held down jobs. Only Stanley got a 1500+ SAT score and Blanca got 1000-. Blanca was admitted, Stanley wasn't.

It's no secret on campuses like Berkeley and Los Angeles a lot of Affirmative Action kids are just not prepared enough for the curriculum. They're people out there who quit or or drop-out or end up staying six years because they have so much to catch up too. We can't have a quick fix by sending students who have spent their lives in sub-par schools to colleges that students who went to the most prestigious high schools have problems in succeeding in. It's better to reform the system from the begining if we want to give peope a fairer shot in life.

Everyone year in the ye old happy San Gabriel Valley, you can walk through the halls of every high school in any of that area and pull an Asian student out and have them talk about how students of any other race with lower scores, grades, etc was admitted rather than an Asian student with a better background. It's simply a reality, I mean hell it happened to me, if course I'm bitter. Everyone who goes to my high school is quite well-off, none of the Black and Hispanic students have had to grow up with extraneous disadvantages that affirmative action is supposed to cover. Unless discrimination as a minority counts for them or something, Asians fall under that category too. Heck even white students have been getting in before Asian students.

Well I guess you can see why I might be jaded about the whole issue, and I agree that there is an issue with unfair schooling systems today in America. But I don't see how it can be solved using affirmative action because I think it's creating more race resentment among high school and college students today, especially among Asian-Americans. We understand we're a small segment of the population, but then you have to take in account most of us are well off and work our sad butts off. That should count for something.

I'd prefer the government paid more attention to fixing failing public schools and reforming education to give everyone a fairer chance at going to pretigious universities and everyone getting a fair shot at doing well there. America can't give most public school kids that today, even some of the best.

There's my 2c, Rant on.

[VV o n g B a]

affirmative action an equal opportunity weren't supposed to let less qualified ppl take the position of those that were more qualified. its purpose was to break the old system of hiring only your friends. and of course, most bosses and college interviewers were white and hired/selected white friends or ppl that looked like them. believe me, the old buddy network still exists in business. it has its place too for smaller businesses. but now gov't regulation forces businesses w/ more that 50 ppl look outside of a buddy network and i think that's right also. employers must maintain a racial mix similar to the available talent pool. so using engineering as an example, my company still doesn't have to hire very many minorities because minorities are a small percentage of engineers (i'm not sure asians count). when two candidates of relatively equal qualifications are up for a position, if our company's racial balance doesn't reflect the labor pool, then the minority candidate must be hired.

the same was supposed to apply to affirmative action. unfortunately, colleges took the original ruling to mean race could trump achievement. it was supposed to act as a deciding factor if equals were being considered. not an factor unto itself.

[lethal]

My gut feeling. The UMich law school will win their case, but the undergrad will lose.

Their admissions standards regarding race are different and I think the law school's is more justifyable under the law.

O'Connor will be the swing vote, as usual.

[Craig]

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/story/0,...-409553,00.html (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/story/0,9171,1101030127-409553,00.html)

How Affirmative Action Helped George W.
The President might ask himself, "Wait a minute. How did I get into Yale?"
By MICHAEL KINSLEY

http://i.timeinc.net/time/daily/2003/0301/action0121.jpg
ILLUSTRATION FOR TIME BY STEVE BRODNER

Tuesday, Jan. 21, 2003
George W. Bush is all for diversity, he explained last week, but he doesn't care for the way they do it at the University of Michigan. The Administration has asked the Supreme Court to rule the Michigan system unconstitutional because of the scoring method it uses for rating applicants. "At the undergraduate level," said Bush, "African-American students and some Hispanic students and Native American students receive 20 points out of a maximum of 150, not because of any academic achievement or life experience, but solely because they are African American, Hispanic or Native American."

If our President had the slightest sense of irony, he might have paused to ask himself, "Wait a minute. How did I get into Yale?" It wasn't because of any academic achievement: his high school record was ordinary. It wasn't because of his life experience — prosperous family, fancy prep school — which was all too familiar at Yale. It wasn't his SAT scores: 566 verbal and 640 math.

They may not have had an explicit point system at Yale in 1964, but Bush clearly got in because of affirmative action. Affirmative action for the son and grandson of alumni. Affirmative action for a member of a politically influential family. Affirmative action for a boy from a fancy prep school. These forms of affirmative action still go on. The Wall Street Journal reported last week that Harvard accepts 40% of applicants who are children of alumni but only 11% of applicants generally. And this kind of affirmative action makes the student body less diverse, not more so.

George W. Bush, in fact, may be the most spectacular affirmative-action success story of all time. Until 1994, when he was 48 years old and got elected Governor of Texas, his life was almost empty of accomplishments. Yet bloodlines and connections had put him into Andover, Yale and Harvard Business School, and even finally provided him with a fortune after years of business disappointments. Intelligence, hard work and the other qualities associated with the concept of merit had almost nothing to do with Bush's life and success up to that point. And yet seven years later he was President of the U.S.

So what is the difference between the kind of affirmative action that got Bush where he is today and the kind he wants the Supreme Court to outlaw? One difference is that the second kind is about race, and race is an especially toxic subject. Of course, George W.'s affirmative action is about race too, at least indirectly. The class of wealthy, influential children of alumni of top universities is disproportionately white. And it will remain that way for a long time — especially if racial affirmative action is outlawed.

A second difference is that the Michigan system is crudely numerical, whereas the favoritism enjoyed by George W. Bush is baked into the way we live. Between these two extreme examples are all the familiar varieties of preference: explicit racial favoritism without numbers, favoritism based on something as amorphous as social class or as specific as your high school, favoritism limited to recruitment and preparation, and so on.

Opponents and supporters of affirmative action actually tend to agree that there is something bad, generally called quotas, and something good, generally called something like diversity. Their argument is about where you draw the line. Bush calls the Michigan 20-point bonus a quota, and his critics insist that it is not. But both sides are wrong. If your sole measure of the success of any arrangement is whether it increases the representation of certain minorities, then it doesn't really matter what procedure you use to achieve that result: some people are getting something desirable because of their race, and an equal number of people are not getting it for the same reason.

Of course a series of somebodies didn't get into Andover, Yale and Harvard Business School because their blood wasn't as blue as Bush's, and other somebodies didn't get a chance to own the Texas Rangers or to use the capital Bush borrowed to buy his share of the team because these somebodies were nobodies. Life is unfair. A legitimate criticism of affirmative action is that it politicizes life chances and focuses blame on race. If you get turned down by Yale to make room for a George W., you're not even aware of it. But if you get turned down by the University of Michigan, you're likely to blame affirmative action (if you're white), even though the numbers say you probably would have been turned down anyway.

So ask yourself: Would you rather have a gift of 20 points out of 150 to use at the college of your choice? Or would you rather have the more amorphous advantages President Bush has enjoyed at every stage of his life? If the answer to that isn't obvious to you, even 20 extra points are probably not enough to get you into the University of Michigan.

From the Jan. 27, 2003 issue of TIME magazine

[AliBabaIncorporated]

Originally posted by Craig@Apr 2 2003, 04:40 AM
How Affirmative Action Helped George W.
The President might ask himself, "Wait a minute. How did I get into Yale?"
By MICHAEL KINSLEY
Hey look, a bunch of vitriol which rehashes arguments we've already heard, except it was published in Time so it's obviously Respectable Journalism and not just an inflated rant with numerous gross factual errors, blatant generalizations, and scare tactics.

It wasn't his SAT scores: 566 verbal and 640 math.
Simple point of statistics: I keep seeing this figure quoted, without any source whatsoever. It should be an average figure, since the SAT is graded in increments of 10. Furthermore, seeing as the verbal score ends in a 6, it has to be an average across 5 (or some multiple of 5) tests (2 tests would produce averages ending in 0 or 5, 3 tests would produce averages rounding off to ending in 0, 3, or 7, 4 tests would produce averages rounding off to ending in 0, 3, 5, or 8). If your legacy is that guaranteed, why go to all the trouble of taking the damn test five times?

[ism]

Originally posted by AliBabaIncorporated@Apr 2 2003, 01:08 PM
Simple point of statistics: I keep seeing this figure quoted, without any source whatsoever.
Just for reference, when Bush was the leading Republican contender for President in the 2000 election, Yale students acquired and threatened to reveal his SAT score. For whatever reasons, they employed discretion and backed down. However, the New Yorker printed them in their "Talk of the Town" column. Subsequently, various other people have published Bill Bradley's and Al Gore's scores.

[AngryABCGirl]

Originally posted by AliBabaIncorporated@Apr 2 2003, 10:08 AM

Simple point of statistics: I keep seeing this figure quoted, without any source whatsoever. It should be an average figure, since the SAT is graded in increments of 10. Furthermore, seeing as the verbal score ends in a 6, it has to be an average across 5 (or some multiple of 5) tests (2 tests would produce averages ending in 0 or 5, 3 tests would produce averages rounding off to ending in 0, 3, or 7, 4 tests would produce averages rounding off to ending in 0, 3, 5, or 8). If your legacy is that guaranteed, why go to all the trouble of taking the damn test five times?
I think the SAT used to be scored differently, that's why. Everything is on increments of 10 now, but I don't think it use to be back then.

[kasia]

taz' thoughts: I'm unfamiliar with how University of Michigan inacts Affirmative Action policies, but if they use point systems then it's unconstitutional and it goes beyond what affirmative action originally intended. Affirmative Action is about principle of equality and it's not about self-interest of benefitting minority groups.


my response: let's say that equality is no longer the goal of affirmative action and diversity is the new goal. is this a problem? why or why not?

[VV o n g B a]

Originally posted by kasia@Apr 3 2003, 05:25 PM
my response: let's say that equality is no longer the goal of affirmative action and diversity is the new goal. is this a problem? why or why not?
problem. traditionally black schools don't have this goal. blacks go to those schools to feel "comfortable." and that's one of the arguments that scalia and thomas mentioned yesterday right?

[kasia]

Originally posted by VV o n g B a@Apr 3 2003, 03:45 PM
problem. traditionally black schools don't have this goal. blacks go to those schools to feel "comfortable." and that's one of the arguments that scalia and thomas mentioned yesterday right?
i'm not sure i follow your argument. why is it a problem if 'racial diversity' is a goal? because it wasn't traditionally recognized as one? why would a goal have to be traditionally recognized in order to be valid?

[VV o n g B a]

Originally posted by kasia@Apr 3 2003, 05:50 PM
i'm not sure i follow your argument. why is it a problem if 'racial diversity' is a goal? because it wasn't traditionally recognized as one? why would a goal have to be traditionally recognized in order to be valid?
well, its not even really my argument. its something i read about the proceedings yesterday (or today.. i forget which). the problem is that if racial diversity is wanted by everybody (including blacks), why do many blacks decide to go to social INdiverse campuses like Howard.

[kasia]

because traditionally they weren't accepted elsewhere?

i don't think that really disputes the racial diversity argument. the argument is that the universities - not just people in general - want diversity on their campuses.

[VV o n g B a]

Originally posted by kasia@Apr 3 2003, 06:01 PM
because traditionally they weren't accepted elsewhere?

i don't think that really disputes the racial diversity argument. &nbsp;the argument is that the universities - not just people in general - want diversity on their campuses.
it then becomes an argument of whether universities violate the constitution if they do this right? which goes back to the whole reason this is at the supreme court.

[kasia]

the way the law works is that...every time there is a racial classification, we have to use the strict scrutiny test.

strict scrutiny test = compelling government interest + narrow tailoring.

in other words, the classification would have to serve a compelling government interest and the method used would have to be narrowly tailored to meet that interest. "narrowly tailored" has been traditionally construed as "least restrictive means".

in bakke, Justice Powell reasonsed that racial diversity is a compelling government interest. remedying societal discrimination, however, is not.

yesterday, the Court basically argued that there is a compelling government interest at stake, namely, racial diversity. however, like taz said, the problem is whether u of michigan's point system is narrowly tailored to meet this goal.

[kasia]

just some background info, if any of you are interested...vbkao and lethal weapon can probably help me with this...

the way that the strict scrutiny test compares with other government classifications...

1. strict scrutiny is the highest level of scrutiny. only racial classifications trigger this test. by racial classification, i mean when a government creates a statute that distinguishes between races. the statute need not be facially discriminatory - racially discriminatory effects are sufficient.

test: = compelling government interest + narrowly tailored to meet the interest

2. intermediate level of scrutiny - triggered when there are classifications based on gender or sexual orientation, etc. similar to racial classifications, they need not be facially discriminatory. even if they are facially neutral, discriminatory effects are sufficient. e.g., a statute stating that all people who can get pregnant should receive lower pay --> facially neutral b/c it doesn't mention women but the effects are that only women are discriminated against b/c only they can get pregnant.

test: important state interest + substantially related to meet the interest

3. rational basis test - lowest level of scrutiny - triggered when the classification is not based on a suspect group. e.g., ordinances dealing with bus drivers or teachers.

test: legitimate state interest + rationally related to meet the interest

[TyroneK(prettypretty)]

Yeah. Kasie. That's it.

I think the Michigan program has it's faults, but the idea of Affirmative Action is the only effective method that fits within our capitalist system to address the lingering legacies of the institutional racism of the past. Anything more basic will never get passed due to the great power that the rich and powerful exercise in this country because they'd be class based and no one in America really wants to approach racism and poverty from that standpoint.

Whether it will pass under this Supreme Court's watch is something else. Narrow tailoring is a hardass ideal to fulfill. Like they say, strict scrutiny is "strict in name but fatal in fact." At least 3 of the justices are definitely going to find that it's not narrowly tailored to pass Constitutional muster due to the presence of other untried (and, in my view, rather shoddy) alternatives. God knows where O'Connor and Kennedy will fall.

The dean of our law school feels that we'll probably get a 5-4 opinion where Affirmative Action barely passes in the educational context but it's going to be severely restricted in how much you can take race into account. Fucking morons at UMich shouldn't have put such a high number value for race on their scoring system. The bastards might have just fucked the rest of the nation over.

[lethal]

I have this weird idea where they completely outlaw it as a factor in undergrad admissions, but allow it to some small extent for professional schools. Some justification of the purpose of undergrad schools vs. the purpose of a law school or a med school.

[kasia]

By David G. Savage, Times Staff Writer

March 30, 2003

WASHINGTON -- Asian American lawyers have taken a strong stand on university affirmative action in the case to be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court this week -- and on opposite sides of the issue.

The San Francisco-based Asian American Legal Foundation agrees with the white plaintiffs and urges the court to end race-based admission policies.

"The Constitution protects individuals, and individuals should not be judged on their race," says Alan Tse, a San Francisco lawyer.

But the National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium, a coalition of 25 Asian civil rights groups, sides with the University of Michigan and urges the court to preserve affirmative action.

"This is about fairness and equal opportunity. Asian Americans benefit from diversity. They are not hurt by it," says Julie Su, a lawyer for the Asian Pacific American Legal Center in Los Angeles.

The division of opinion reflects, in part, the history and status of Asian Americans.

They are a racial minority group that has suffered from racism and blatant discrimination.

However, some critics of affirmative action say Asian American students may be put at a disadvantage if universities give preference to applicants who are black or Latino.

"My sense is that most Asians are supportive of affirmative action generally, especially in employment and business. But the situation is a bit muddier for higher education," said Bill Lann Lee, a San Francisco
attorney who led the Justice Department's civil rights division in the Clinton administration.

While most civil rights law focused on discrimination against blacks, the Supreme Court's earliest civil rights rulings dealt just as often with exclusionary laws against Chinese people in California.

The Constitution was amended after the Civil War to stop Southern states from mistreating the newly freed slaves and to require the "equal protection of the laws." This amendment, the 14th, passed with high hopes
but was steadily weakened by the Supreme Court and did little to help blacks.

However, federal judges in California -- and the Supreme Court itself -- invoked the new equality standard in the 1880s to strike down laws that excluded Chinese people from government jobs, from fishing in state
waters and from operating laundries in San Francisco.

But the high court's record regarding Asians is spotty too.

When legal scholars cite the high court's worst equal-protection rulings of the 20th century, they often point to Korematsu vs. U.S., the 1944 decision that upheld the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II.

In the 1970s, when the Supreme Court first took up the issue of college affirmative action, Asian American lawyers strongly supported admission policies that gave an advantage to minority students. At that time,
Asian students qualified for this preference.

Allan Bakke, a rejected white applicant, had sued UC Davis Medical School, claiming discrimination.

In response, the university conceded that it set aside 16 of its 100 slots for members of a "minority group," which it defined as "blacks," "Chicanos," "Asians" and "American Indians."

In 1978, the court struck down this "quota" as unconstitutional, but also said a university may consider a student's race in order to create diversity.

By the early 1980s, the soaring admission rates for Asian Americans prompted university officials to drop them from the minority category.

"These programs ended when they were no longer needed. And there was no longer a need for Asians to be included," said Lee, the former civil rights chief.

But Asian critics of affirmative action say they fear that a Supreme Court ruling would allow colleges and universities to put ceilings on the number of Asian American students.

Their brief to the Supreme Court describes diversity rules in the San Francisco public schools that limited the proportion of Chinese Americans to 45% of a school's enrollment.

The rules also limited the number of Chinese students who could gain admission to the city's elite Lowell High School.

When some Chinese American students were turned away from their neighborhood elementary schools, parents sued in federal court, and the school district agreed to abandon the policy.

"We fought the San Francisco schools for five years over this, and the only protection we had was the constitutional principle against race-based laws," Tse said.

If the Supreme Court says the University of Michigan is entitled to raise or lower the number of minority students, the ruling could allow public schools to do the same, he said.

But proponents of affirmative action stress that they are not in favor of quotas or ceilings.

"They are trying to bring up examples of strict numerical limits, but that's not what we are talking about. Affirmation action is about opportunities," said Su, the Los Angeles lawyer. "I think it's unfortunate they have tried to pit Asian Americans against other communities of color."

She said opinion surveys show that most Asian Americans support affi