If they throw in family connections I'm on board. [grin]

hey, two points if your parents both went to the school, twenty points if you have the "right" skin color. It's morally the same thing exactly, isn't it!!!

I guess you can always tell who the winners and losers are by how they react to a ruling like this.

Dean, your reaction speaks volumes, as I knew it would. I'm not going to revisit any of those issues here. I think you and I beat this thing to death months and months ago.

As for the University of Michigan? I'm with you Mr. Esmay -- they're bragging about solving a problem that didn't exist.

Here's what the University President said:

“The doors are open,” [U-M President Coleman] told NBC News. “People can come to the university of all races and backgrounds.” [Emphasis added]

The lunch counters are now officially open to everyone at the Michigan Union cafeteria! Thank God almighty! Free at last.

Seriously, let me say again that I support a system that promotes diversity on campus. Come on! Look at the title of my blog, for starters.

That said, if you think that equals racial preference, or worse yet, racial discrimination, then this ruling makes you a loser. Sorry if you feel that way, but the issue is settled (for now). Move on.

But as for Coleman's oddball comment -- she makes it sound like the ruling ended a policy of segregation at the U-M.

Weird.

I think Rick has a good point.

I used to work with person who in all gesticulations and appearances was liberal-minded including strong beliefs in affirmative action, government mandates of social policies, etc. but used to contribute to her college's alumni fund so that when she had children, they could go to that school. I found it more than a little hypocritical to contribute to an alumni fund which to me seems socially regressive.

My view is the exact opposite. I believe that college admissions, at least institutions that benefit from public funds either directly or indirectly through research grants, shouldn't select students based on race or alumni status. The kid with the best academic achievement should get in first.

The current system based on birthright (either by race or family connections) sucks.

The University of Arizona here in Tucson has a mixed admissions model that makes no reference to race, and is unlikely to be effected by the ruling.

State residents get unconditionally admitted if they either:

1) Are in the top 25% of their HS class rank (this is similar to the norming practiced in Texas post-Hopwood in it's effect: kids from minority dominated schools will still get in)

2) Have a 3.0 or higher GPA (similar effect as above)

3) score high enough on the SAT (1300 I believe)

Lower standards apply for conditional resident admission, which is dependant upon the newly minted freshman taking remedial instruction and passing assessments in basic skills.

Smart minority kids will get in regardless (SAT), those from bad schools have a lower bar to compensate (25% class rank), and busting ass on your GPA works regardless.

The remaining slots are competitively open for out of state students. They tweak the adminssion requirements (and budget!) periodically so that every state resident who wants to go, will get in, and offer block credit transfers from community colleges within the state for those lacking in prerequisite classes.

So at least in Arizona there are multiple ways of getting into our best state school, without explicitly mentioning race anywhere in the process. Not perfect, as an analysis of the aftermath of the Hopwood case in Texas shows, but pretty balanced in it's outcome.

Affirmitive action is racist...period. No excuses or bullshit, its racist to descriminate based on the colour of a candidate's skin. The is a sad day for Supreme Court. Obviously (poor) white people do not have the same rights as everyone else.

I'm not at all surprised by how the SC rulings came back. I fully expected them to let the University keep the right to use discretion but to strike down the numbers.

David, am I understanding correctly that Arizona high school students need only meet one of those 3 criteria to gain acceptance to the University of Arizona? I just ask because it seemed a little strange that someone would meet the 3rd criterion but not the first two. Doesn't necessarily make a difference.

I also wonder how the volume of applicants to UA compares to the University of California system or the University of Texas system or to U of M. Because it seems the number of people who qualify under those standards would become unwieldy in a more populous state. Also, it's not fair to compare all schools to the California and Texas schools since not all states have the extensive public college system with a variety of schools to choose from.

I'm sitting in the "I like to think I would have gotten in anyway but I guess I can't be sure" camp. My conservative estimate of how I would have scored puts me just above the 100-point cutoff (not counting the 10 points for being a Woman In Engineering and the 20 points for being a Racial/Ethnic Minority). Surely my minority status is what allowed me to actually be able to afford it.

I do think it's beneficial to have a "critical mass" (whatever that is) of brown faces on campus. My impression is that people who are not white or black are more likely to have more recently immigrated and/or have a much stronger sense of a culture outside of the American mainstream. You really can learn a lot, even if it's by osmosis and not by direct interaction. I think creating a "better atmosphere for learning" is a valid goal. Of course the viewpoint that forgotten poor white kids bring is a part of that.

I've heard a lot of people kick around the idea of a socio-economic-based system of "consideration." It would theoretically address the broader problem of "disadvantaged" kids. All I've gotten out of that so far is that no one has figured out how to do it.

I think the original concept of Affirmative Action as a way to "right the wrongs" of the past is outdated. I think the concept of "helping the disadvantaged get a leg up" is more important, but because racism does still exist (though the specter of it is greater, I think, than the actuality) people have a hard time separating the two.

It seems a big part of the problem is that schools are not equipped/funded/staffed to handle the required increase in attention that admissions requires. Having enough people on hand to evaluate the intangible factors that are indicators of success in a candidate is an expense that most universities can't afford.

I believe the university of texas has gone to a top 10 percent guarantee for graduating high school students in state. I heard that somewhere today in relation to this ruling.

I'm really torn on affirmative action. On the one hand, it's had the demonstrable effect of bringing more minorities into the workplace and thereby transforming the cultural and economic landscape in a way I think is positive. On the other hand, you simply can't argue with the premise that discrimination is, in fact, discrimination, and giving preference to racial minorities does effect discrimination based on race.

I'd be far more interested to see resources put toward identifying and remedying those conditions that make it more difficult / rare for some minority students to get into college, get into higher-paying jobs, etc. For instance, poverty in minority ghettoes, violence, drugs, insufficient support for children -- and yes, racism. It still exists. I see it every day, working in a prison.

I do have to hand it to Dean and other opponents of Affirmative Action: while its heart is in the right place, the approach is wrong. Here's the real question: if not Affirmative Action, then what? There are unjust social disparities in the country that are influence by race and class. What can be done? Should anything be done?

Erica: you want to help people who are disadvantaged? Hey I'm all for that. But don't tell me my son Jake is less important than his friend DJ who's over here every day just because Jake's got different skin from DJ. Don't tell me why a black kid whose father was a lawyer and mother was a CPA, lived in a half million dollar house and went to the best private schools, deserves special points but some poor Arab kid from Dearborn doesn't.

Colin Powell's kids deserve breaks my son doesn't get. Why? Harold Ford Junior's kids get breaks my son doesn't get. How the hell can anyone defend that?

Will: If Rick has such a good point, then I take it that you and he would have stood up to oppose the Civil Rights Act of 1964, unless it banned discrimination based on familial association?

Ara: The "diversity" you champion is racial discrimination. You don't even deny it, you merely say I call it that--without denying that it's an accurate characterization.

You aren't championing diversity of religion, diversity of national origin, diversity of language, diversity of political affiliation, diversity of economic class. You're not even championing true racial diversity, or you'd be wanting to assign special points for being Chinese, or Irish, or Indian, or Pakistani, or Arabic.

Mind you, doing all of that would still be racial discrimination. But at least it would be a lot more diverse.

But let's get back to my point: Nothing has been "beaten to death" until these policies are ended. My fight on this issue will end when one of two things happen: government-sanctioned racial discrimination ends, or I die. You can take that to the bank. You don't have to like it but you will have to accept it.

Believe it or not, I have enough vestiges of liberal in me to still favor some affirmative action. (OK, it's actually pragmatism.)

But: Blacks only -- and only with an accompanying coherent national policy, complete with objectives, limitations, methods, measurements and reviews.

Diversity is not a good enough reason to discriminate. (It's also changing the subject.) However, slavery and segregation were good enough reasons to have some counter-discrimination. Set a limit at four generations of blacks after 1964? Or until 70 percent of blacks are above the poverty line? Or until there isn't a single black boxing champion? I dunno. I'd just like to see some policy besides "diversity" which is an open-ended catch-all line of pure BS.

I agree that diversity for its own sake isn't a compelling State interest that would justify Affirmative Action. There are ways a university could encourage a diverse student body without using grading points in admissions. They could provide financial and academic support to minority schools, offer comprehensive scholarships to low-income students, and make choices in hiring among otherwise equal candidates that would result in a diverse workplace.

That's the difficult part: diversity is a value -- either you value environments with lots of different people or you don't. Values have to be encoded in culture, and organizational culture has to be passed on from older to newer members.

At the same time, I believe that having nearly all-white or nearly all-black or nearly all-Latino schools isn't necessarily a bad thing, especially if it reflects the composition of the community. You can't legislate the racial makeup of a neighborhood -- why so with a business or university?

In all this, however, it must be remembered that racial injustice still exists. People do make decisions based on race. They do deny employment based on race. They do enforce laws differently based on race. There are still those who are against interracial dating or marriage. There are still segregated proms in this day and age.

I disagree with those values, and would like to see things change. I just don't think the law is the best way to do that -- in the same way I think that gay anti-discrimination laws and hate crimes laws are far less effective (even counter-productive) than the one law we need that we don't have: marriage.

I agree that diversity for its own sake isn't a compelling State interest that would justify Affirmative Action. There are ways a university could encourage a diverse student body without using grading points in admissions. They could provide financial and academic support to minority schools, offer comprehensive scholarships to low-income students, and make choices in hiring among otherwise equal candidates that would result in a diverse workplace.

That's the difficult part: diversity is a value -- either you value environments with lots of different people or you don't. Values have to be encoded in culture, and organizational culture has to be passed on from older to newer members.

At the same time, I believe that having nearly all-white or nearly all-black or nearly all-Latino schools isn't necessarily a bad thing, especially if it reflects the composition of the community. You can't legislate the racial makeup of a neighborhood -- why so with a business or university?

In all this, however, it must be remembered that racial injustice still exists. People do make decisions based on race. They do deny employment based on race. They do enforce laws differently based on race. There are still those who are against interracial dating or marriage. There are still segregated proms in this day and age.

I disagree with those values, and would like to see things change. I just don't think the law is the best way to do that -- in the same way I think that gay anti-discrimination laws and hate crimes laws are far less effective (even counter-productive) than the one law we need that we don't have: marriage.

Erica, yes, they must just meat one of the three to get into the UofA. There are however more competitive depts. within it (architecture, law, medicine, etc.), but race isn't explicitly a factor.

The "10% class rank" in Texas is the same as the 25% in AZ: if you come from a bad neighborhood or school that does poorly, top X% is less of a challenge than in good districts. So it's kind of backdoor affirmative action, but is objectively based on class, not race.

I took the U of M 'online point estimator' some time ago, and wouldn't have gotten in. Had I been a minority, I would have. Had I been a woman but in my same field, I would have. As a poor white male 32 year old college drop out, I'm toast in Michigan. Thank god I live in AZ if I go back to school. Not that the UofA has the population pressures of Texas, Michigan or CA, as pointed out, which makes the situation here less odious.

Dean,

I guess I misstated my position. I'm a big fan of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and I agree with your views on Affirmative Action.

My thesis is just that there are indeed "under-privileged" children in America, and the way to fix it isn't by making a new "privileged" class in public university admissions, but to remove all the special rights that other students have.

One can be fixed without the other, but until both are removed, it won't be an equitable system.

One thing I have been wondering is, if affirmative action were not present, would the black community rally, and change what appears to be, in a large segment of the community, a cultural disrespect for education, accountability and responsibility? Would they demand that their students are better educated? Would they hold the educational system more accountable?

While I agree with the principles of affirmative action as initially set forth, after so many decades, should it be written off as a failed program?

After how many decades post-slavery can the black community legitimately hold slavery responsible for the ills of their communities? Perhaps they are buying into a victimhood mentality that is very nearly as oppressive as slavery (I've tried to word this several different ways without success --- I find it hard to equate much with the soul-destroying effects of slavery; I'm trying to state that the black community seems to be buying into a paradigm that, in the current environment, is nearly as damaging as slavery was in its day, but that does not seem to adequately express the differences in external (slavery) and internal (present day) forces.)

I am more amenable to socio-economic means testing, and top percentage of graduating class. Those criteria, to me, would more equitably level the playing field re: disadvantages in educational opportunities, and would also place a positive emphasis on the benefits of a pro-education culture, regardless of race.

"I dunno, do you think the country's ready for such a thing?"

Don't forget the 14th Amendment. I'm in favor of state experimentation, but I thought all the states had already decided this issue. Even though Kentucky didn't ratify the 14th until 1976, I think everyone is pretty much on board by now.

For a democracy to survive, it's essential that every individual be treated equally under the law. Each citizen gets one vote, regardless of race, gender, religion, appearance, political affiliation, &c. I find it hard to believe that the Supreme Court would approve of a policy aimed at building a "critical mass" of Senators, Representatives, or Justices of certain races or religions -- but apparently the interest of the government in "promoting [racial] diversity" is compelling enough to affect universities.

Not exactly on topic, but this goes to the part of the original post "Rumor has it that Congress is considering passing legislation that would make it illegal for corporations, government agencies, or government-funded enterprises to discriminate on the basis of race, creed, color, or national origin."

I, for one, am totally for this. Any number of forms one is required to complete, from the doctor's office to...well everything, has a little box I have to complete regarding my ethnicity, with a notation that "this information is required by the federal government."

From here on out, I vow to write "human" when I am asked to indicate my race.

Dean said: But don't tell me my son Jake is less important than his friend DJ who's over here every day just because Jake's got different skin from DJ.

My point is that too many people equate "disadvantaged" with "under-represented minority" and the race aspect of admissions policies are weighted accordingly. Most college admissions offices don't currently have the resources to devote to ensuring that the student body that is both "diverse" and equally qualified. It could be done, but that takes a lot of time and money. Not to mention there's no consensus on what "diverse" means.

John said: At the same time, I believe that having nearly all-white or nearly all-black or nearly all-Latino schools isn't necessarily a bad thing, especially if it reflects the composition of the community.

I agree, but I think it holds more for K-12 schools and smaller businesses. There's a smaller degree of choice as to who gets there. I would argue that a (large, public) institution of higher learning is many people's first step outside of their homogenous schools and communities. College is about learning about what's out there, both inside the classroom and out. That sounds just like a brochure, but it's true to some extent (more for some, less for others). And the larger a business is and the broader a clientele it serves, the more it is to its advantage to have its employees represent a range of perspectives.

John also said: You can't legislate the racial makeup of a neighborhood -- why so with a business or university?

Public businesses and universities serve and receive funds from the public. That's why you can legislate them. You can't legislate the racial makeup of a neighborhood, but brokers are bound by anti-discrimination laws as to who they can sell a house to.

I see no reason whatsoever that a school cannot use means-testing as a criterion for admission. It's not hard. I don't see how that's any harder than the "if you're this color, you're worth this many points" crap, which is just racist to the core--and which, contrary to Ara's assertions, the courts have just declared is racial discrimination and is not allowed. The University's putting a good spin on the fact that they were declared to be violating students' civil rights and discriminating against them on the basis of race.

Besides which, it screws up efforts to fix the real problem. The hidden issue in all this is that giving points based on race is done because not enough black kids could be found with high enough GPAs and SAT scores. Which means you have a disproportionate number of black kids getting into a competitive school like U of M who are not ready--their SAT scores and GPAs in High School are on average significantly lower than their Asian and White counterparts. They struggle harder, and they drop out at the highest rates of any group on campus.

Don't think that doesn't get noticed, and doesn't do damage to these kids, some of whom might have done better at less competitive universities.

The real solution is to fix the education these kids are getting in K-12. Which will most likely never happen until parents are given more control over their kids' education than they have now. And to raise standards, and requirements for teachers.

Money in the public schools isn't the problem. The worst schools in Michigan are mostly in Detroit, yet they get more money per student than some of the very best. Detroit Public Schools get over $9,000 per year in tuition money per student. The average teacher makes $45K a year, which isn't fantastic but it's better than I make, and they only work 9 months a year. Throwing more money at the problem isn't going to fix it.

Most of these problems are going to have to be fixed by parents. Government could help, if it would give parents more choices. More charter schools help, giving parents the option to take that tuition money and apply it toward parochial schools would help, leaders in the black community talking up parenting skills would help.

What doesn't help is taking underqualified kids and throwing them into universities they aren't ready for, and telling them that if they're struggling, a racist system is keeping them down. That's what we've been doing--really, for the last 20 years, although the universities denied they were doing it for almost 10 years before they finally admitted it.

This hasn't worked very well. But it has raised racial tensions and resentments. Gee I wonder why?

Dean said: "The real solution is to fix the education these kids are getting in K-12. Which will most likely never happen until parents are given more control over their kids' education than they have now. And to raise standards, and requirements for teachers."

I agree 100%.

Unfortunately, we tried that here in Florida with the FCAT (Florida Comprehensive Achievment Test) and what has happened is that now the parents of the kids that didn't pass the test are saying the test is racially biased. They arent looking to themselves and thinking "Hey, maybe I should help my kid with his homework more." No. They are filing lawsuits against the state because IT caused their children to fail by raising the education bar.

It is an absurd situation.

Dean, I personally would be willing to concede that affirmative action causes raises “racial tensions and resentments” if I looked at this comments board and saw the other main beneficiary groups, Hispanics and Native Americans, mentioned even once. Since these groups aren’t mentioned here, and are rarely mentioned in any AA discussions anywhere, it’s difficult for me to conclude that AA is the main or even a partial driver of rising racial tensions and resentments. Which is to say that if AA increases white and Asian resentment of blacks then it should also, proportionately, increase white and Asian resentment of Hispanics and Native Americans. Since it doesn’t seem to increase the latter (tell me if I'm wrong here), then there must be some other non-AA factors at work. If there are no other non-AA factors at work, we’re looking at a massive free rider problem, with Hispanics and Native Americans getting the benefits of AA without the stigmatization.

Dean,

I don't think your argument that AA is counter to the civil rights act is correct. I wrote a long post about it. The readers digest version is that AA even in its most odiuos form simply does not have the power to margenialize and disenfranchize the entire white culture in the US.

Three Fifths, Jim Crow and Segregation did.

here is the long version

Dean, you're totally right, K-12 IS the big problem. But what can be done about the Dept. of Education, the Techers Unions and Education Depts. of the universities?

I fear that this is the kind of deadlocked situation that will lead to social collapse, and a dictatorship. Mr. Heinlein and Dr. Pournelle certainly seem(ed) to think so.

Michael: For a democracy to survive, it's citizens need to not pick each others pockets at the ballot box, which we long ago started doing. That's always historically been the root of their downfall.

Segregated lunch counters did not marginalize the entire black culture of the US, Rick.

Affirmative Action causes huge damage to large numbers of black people, as well as to some white people, and is as racist as segregated lunch counters because it assumes that color alone is the governing factor in those black children's lives.

As damaging as the segregated lunch counters? That's like asking if being raped is as damaging as having your legs cut off. An odd question, that.

Will,

I contribute to my colleges alumni fund, and I don't have any kids. I wonder what THAT means.

The problem has been corrected but for how long. Affirmative action should be called Diversity action. I think in this new Century it has a new meaning. To think, that the oppression that occured over 200 years can be settled in 40 years when Affirmative action was introduced is obsurd. The Supreme Court did its job and should be praised. Race should be used to correct for past discriminations.

One thing not addressed by the mainstream media is that racial preferences divide Americans from each other by classifying all Americans by groups, i.e., race. As if America were not already race obsessed, we now have good, legal precedent for even more race obsession for the indefinite future. I see this as the biggest losing point in the recent SCOTUS decision. I fear America is headed into one long, divisive national debate resulting from this decision. I am sure everybody will want his “piece” of the diversity pie for fear of being left out. Funny, isn't this the same situation with the current Income Tax?

Blacks and Hispanics from inner cities
"requiring" race-based admissions to top universities DO graduate at a paltry 36% rate compared to qualified white students who graduate at a 70% rate. That means that two minority students drop out for every non-matriculated, qualified student who would graduate from top schools. How does this credit a top university such as the University of Michigan?

Such minority students are no more stupid than their white counterparts in suburban and exurban America are. Those kids are instead trapped in under performing public schools. You see this every day in where minorities are the majority: Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, Houston, Los Angeles, Atlanta, NYC. The worst schools in the America are in Washington, D. C. It goes on ad nauseum. Until America finds some creative way to solve the problem of under performing inner city schools, then racial preferences in university admissions will always exist. This divisive issue may well evolve into a national tinderbox. There will be less incentive to do so now that SCOTUS granted permanent status for racial preferences.

This affirmative action debate surrounding top universities is the salient issue for America's race industry. (I doubt America will solve this issue in 25 years as Sandra Day O'Connor said. She opted out of a tough decision for today since she will be off the Supreme Court by then.) There is simply too much at stake for the likes of Rev. Jesse Jackson and Rev. Al Sharpton to exploit. Does anybody really expect Jesse Jackson, Jr. to ever stop supporting race-based preferences even if these preferences support wealthy black businessmen who need affirmative action the least? He has a constituency to represent after all. He will surely play the race card since he can now cite SCOTUS precedent.

Race-based preferences extend far beyond university admissions. It also extends to granting government contracts at the national, state, and local levels. Which firm will pave the local highway you drive every day? Can an out-of-town minority firm force your county commissioners to grant them the contract citing court rulings? I believe every firm should get an equal shot. But when it comes to messing with another's money, this will get very nasty indeed. The University of Michigan admissions policy is important since it is the most salient. This recent SCOTUS decision possibly sets a dangerous, divisive precedent for top universities to promote race at the expense of merit. Numerous lawsuits will certainly follow. Everybody wants to not be excluded, you know.

There might well be a flip side to this debate not yet discussed. Will University of Michigan's race based admissions policy turn away qualified in state students to other state supported law schools? It undoubtedly will. They will probably attend Wayne State or University of Detroit's law school. Will this enrich these two law schools' academic reputations at the expense of the University of Michigan's? Only time will tell.