snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > SLC Central > Soapbox Derby

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 22 April 2014, 04:17 PM
chillas's Avatar
chillas chillas is offline
 
Join Date: 09 September 2002
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 11,811
Default Supreme Court Upholds Michiganís Affirmative Action Ban

Quote:
“This case is not about how the debate about racial preferences should be resolved,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote in a controlling opinion joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. “It is about who may resolve it. There is no authority in the Constitution of the United States or in this court’s precedents for the judiciary to set aside Michigan laws that commit this policy determination to the voters.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/23/us...ction-ban.html
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 25 April 2014, 07:23 PM
Mickey Blue's Avatar
Mickey Blue Mickey Blue is offline
 
Join Date: 01 February 2004
Location: Oregon
Posts: 17,571
Default

Quote:
States that forbid affirmative action in higher education, like Florida and California, as well as Michigan, have seen a significant drop in the enrollment of black and Hispanic students in their most selective colleges and universities.
To me this is concerning; if this is happening then, as I understand it, you have one of two circumstances at work:

1) The schools are (intentionally or otherwise) discriminating against people of color

or..

2) The criticisms of Affirmative action of giving lower-performing people preference over higher performing people solely because of their race are correct, at least in these cases. It would be wrong to say "We'd love to admit you to this school Mickey but there is a dumber black guy out there and, hey, they've had a rough time of things..."
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 25 April 2014, 07:40 PM
Chloe's Avatar
Chloe Chloe is offline
 
Join Date: 13 September 2004
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 39,316
Default

or. 3) Merit is not always best measured by who did best on the tests. People running hurdles take longer than people running 100m flat. It doesn't make them lesser athletes. Or "dumber."

Last edited by Chloe; 25 April 2014 at 07:45 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 25 April 2014, 07:47 PM
Beachlife!'s Avatar
Beachlife! Beachlife! is online now
 
Join Date: 22 June 2001
Location: Lansing, MI
Posts: 28,533
Default

4) Admission rates aren't as important as graduation rates.

Are there statistics related to total number of African-American and Hispanic graduations from Michigan schools before and after the AA ruling?

FTR, I don't think 'people of color' is the right word here as many schools exclude Asians from AA admissions.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 25 April 2014, 08:54 PM
Mickey Blue's Avatar
Mickey Blue Mickey Blue is offline
 
Join Date: 01 February 2004
Location: Oregon
Posts: 17,571
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chloe View Post
or. 3) Merit is not always best measured by who did best on the tests. People running hurdles take longer than people running 100m flat. It doesn't make them lesser athletes. Or "dumber."
Was just one example, but either way you could amend it to somebody who is overall a worse candidate for any number of reasons (including not performing as well in school or, in fact, simply not being as smart).

To me the point stands; if there is a significant decline in admission rates of black and hispanic students after laws encouraging or even forcing their admission were removed then either there is still inherent bigotry in the system of those cited schools or the complaints that, as a result of AA, less qualified applicants are given a leg up purely because of their skin tone are true.

It's possible, the real world being what it is, that it's a combination. Since they didn't list the schools its hard to really look into anything but it's concerning one way or another.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 25 April 2014, 09:07 PM
Chloe's Avatar
Chloe Chloe is offline
 
Join Date: 13 September 2004
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 39,316
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mickey Blue View Post
Was just one example, but either way you could amend it to somebody who is overall a worse candidate for any number of reasons (including not performing as well in school or, in fact, simply not being as smart).
How do you measure that?

Quote:
To me the point stands; if there is a significant decline in admission rates of black and hispanic students after laws encouraging or even forcing their admission were removed then either there is still inherent bigotry in the system of those cited schools or the complaints that, as a result of AA, less qualified applicants are given a leg up purely because of their skin tone are true.
That depends on what you mean by qualified. Do you mean someone who has done well academically because they have access to wonderful schools and teachers and tutoring programs and home support, or do you mean someone who has managed to graduate their crappy underfunded overcrowded high school pretty much on their own because they want to learn? If you compare ACT/SAT scores, the second person is "less qualified." But who has already gotten a leg up?
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 25 April 2014, 09:17 PM
Mickey Blue's Avatar
Mickey Blue Mickey Blue is offline
 
Join Date: 01 February 2004
Location: Oregon
Posts: 17,571
Default

For the former however they normally measure such things when they choose which applicants to take and which not to. If they had 100 applicants and 50 spots they should take the top 50 people, based on their system of ranking, and not taking race into account.

For the latter.. Certainly there are trends but nothing you are saying is unique to race. If they want to give extra credit for being poor, or growing up in a bad area, that's a totally different argument.

Beyond that, isn't that what I already said (using 'less qualified' rather than stupider) above? They are giving a less qualified person a position at the school over a more qualified one (which, depending on the details, may happen quite a lot) because they've had a rough time of things. You appear to disagree with that assessment (more than just my use of stupider) and yet you restate it almost exactly.

There are countless reasons why somebody may be less qualified for a school that are beyond their control; if (g)you support a program that gives them an unfair advantage to the application process in order to try to balance out the unfair nature of society with an artificial unfair system in academic applications that's fine, but some people (for example, those who did nothing wrong themselves, and may well have also come from more disadvantaged backgrounds) may have issue with it.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 25 April 2014, 09:27 PM
Chloe's Avatar
Chloe Chloe is offline
 
Join Date: 13 September 2004
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 39,316
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mickey Blue View Post
For the former however they normally measure such things when they choose which applicants to take and which not to. If they had 100 applicants and 50 spots they should take the top 50 people, based on their system of ranking, and not taking race into account.
What other things should they take into account, but not race? What if race is part of their system of ranking?

Quote:
For the latter.. Certainly there are trends but nothing you are saying is unique to race. If they want to give extra credit for being poor, or growing up in a bad area, that's a totally different argument.
Why? Isn't it a very similar argument?

Quote:
Beyond that, isn't that what I already said (using 'less qualified' rather than stupider) above? They are giving a less qualified person a position at the school over a more qualified one (which, depending on the details, may happen quite a lot) because they've had a rough time of things. You appear to disagree with that assessment (more than just my use of stupider) and yet you restate it almost exactly.
I hoped that my example was clear enough to show a test-based way of measuring how "qualified" a person might be is wholly inadequate.

Quote:
There are countless reasons why somebody may be less qualified for a school that are beyond their control; if (g)you support a program that gives them an unfair advantage to the application process in order to try to balance out the unfair nature of society with an artificial unfair system in academic applications that's fine, but some people (for example, those who did nothing wrong themselves, and may well have also come from more disadvantaged backgrounds) may have issue with it.
Wait, what is the "who did nothing wrong themselves" referring to? Who did something wrong?
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 25 April 2014, 09:49 PM
Mickey Blue's Avatar
Mickey Blue Mickey Blue is offline
 
Join Date: 01 February 2004
Location: Oregon
Posts: 17,571
Default

Sorry the last part was a mis-edit, post went through a few revisions, was meant to suggest those who were qualified but also came from disadvantaged backgrounds.

As for the other points, I'm not saying I'm necessarily against affirmative action (I don't really have the information to make such a decision), but I've heard it stated by many that the popular notion of it allowing less qualified people to have a leg up over more qualified people is wrong. It seems there is some evidence here that that complaint may not be so wrong.

I'm not interested in debating the issue of privilege and disadvantaged situations, I already agree both of those things exist. Perhaps some form of AA is the best way to deal with those situations (though again I'm not sure basing it solely on skin color is a good way to do it, but I could be wrong).
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 25 April 2014, 09:54 PM
Chloe's Avatar
Chloe Chloe is offline
 
Join Date: 13 September 2004
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 39,316
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mickey Blue View Post
As for the other points, I'm not saying I'm necessarily against affirmative action (I don't really have the information to make such a decision), but I've heard it stated by many that the popular notion of it allowing less qualified people to have a leg up over more qualified people is wrong. It seems there is some evidence here that that complaint may not be so wrong.
Again, it depends on your definition of "qualified."

Quote:
I'm not interested in debating the issue of privilege and disadvantaged situations, I already agree both of those things exist. Perhaps some form of AA is the best way to deal with those situations (though again I'm not sure basing it solely on skin color is a good way to do it, but I could be wrong).
AA doesn't base purely on skin color, though. Depending on the system, admission "points" are available for a variety of things, including athletics, legacy status (aka, affirmative action for the rich) , geographic status, and class.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 25 April 2014, 09:56 PM
Mickey Blue's Avatar
Mickey Blue Mickey Blue is offline
 
Join Date: 01 February 2004
Location: Oregon
Posts: 17,571
Default

EDited, misread your post
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 25 April 2014, 09:56 PM
Chloe's Avatar
Chloe Chloe is offline
 
Join Date: 13 September 2004
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 39,316
Default

They're not legally required to give special advantages to anybody. In fact, as Tuesday's ruling showed, states can outlaw particular ways of selecting your college class.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 13 May 2014, 01:48 PM
Ramblin' Dave's Avatar
Ramblin' Dave Ramblin' Dave is offline
 
Join Date: 11 May 2005
Location: Singapore
Posts: 13,120
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chloe View Post
AA doesn't base purely on skin color, though. Depending on the system, admission "points" are available for a variety of things, including athletics, legacy status (aka, affirmative action for the rich) , geographic status, and class.
In Michigan, IIRC applicants from the Upper Peninsula get a leg up on admission because the UP is underrepresented in Ann Arbor. As many critics of the 2003 decision pointed out, the UP is overwhelmingly white.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Supreme Court strikes down overall limits on political contributions snopes Moot Court 13 08 April 2014 06:21 PM
Supreme Court will take up new health law dispute Psihala Soapbox Derby 23 27 November 2013 08:44 PM
Supreme Court to Consider Fate of Rail-Trails A Cat Named Easter Moot Court 1 25 October 2013 08:56 PM
Supreme Court strikes down Defense of Marriage Act rujasu Soapbox Derby 34 24 July 2013 02:54 PM
European Court upholds UK political advert ban GaryM Soapbox Derby 2 23 April 2013 12:51 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:08 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.