Log in  
Sign up

Play online chess!

From	Message
astinkyfart 10-Oct-12, 15:52	IF you are white you dont get into Texas? Has anyone else been keeping up with this? Justices Take Up Race as a Factor in College EntryBy ADAM LIPTAK DiggRedditTumblrPermalink.WASHINGTON — In a 2003 decision that the majority said it expected would last for 25 years, the Supreme Court allowed public colleges and universities to take account of race in admission decisions. On Tuesday, the court signaled that it might end such affirmative action much sooner than that. By agreeing to hear a major case involving race-conscious admissions at the University of Texas, the court thrust affirmative action back into the public and political discourse after years in which it had mostly faded from view. Both supporters and opponents of affirmative action said they saw the announcement — and the change in the court’s makeup since 2003 — as a signal that the court’s five more conservative members might be prepared to do away with racial preferences in higher education. The consequences of such a decision would be striking. It would, all sides agree, reduce the number of African-American and Latino students at nearly every selective college and graduate school, with more Asian-American and white students gaining entrance instead. A decision barring the use of race in admission decisions would undo an accommodation reached in the Supreme Court’s 5-to-4 decision in 2003 in Grutter v. Bollinger: that public colleges and universities could not use a point system to increase minority enrollment but could take race into account in vaguer ways to ensure academic diversity. Supporters of affirmative action reacted with alarm to the court’s decision to hear the case. “I think it’s ominous,” said Lee Bollinger, the president of Columbia University, who as president of the University of Michigan was a defendant in the Grutter case. “It threatens to undo several decades of effort within higher education to build a more integrated and just and educationally enriched environment.” Opponents saw an opportunity to strike a decisive blow on an issue that had partly faded from view. “Any form of discrimination, whether it’s for or against, is wrong,” said Hans von Spakovsky, a legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation, who added that his daughter was applying to college. “The idea that she might be discriminated against and not be admitted because of her race is incredible to me.” Arguments in the new case are likely to be heard just before the presidential election in November, and they may force the candidates to weigh in on a long dormant and combustible issue that has divided the electorate. There was little immediate reaction from the campaign trail and in official Washington on Tuesday, which may be attributable to the political risks the issue presents to both Democrats and Republicans. Some polls show that a narrow majority of Americans support some forms of affirmative action, though much depends on how the question is framed, and many people have at least some reservations. The new case, Fisher v. University of Texas, No. 11-345, was brought by Abigail Fisher, a white student who says the University of Texas denied her admission because of her race. The case has idiosyncrasies that may limit its reach, but it also has the potential to eliminate diversity as a rationale sufficient to justify any use of race in admission decisions — the rationale the court endorsed in the Grutter decision. Diversity, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote, encourages lively classroom discussions, fosters cross-racial harmony and cultivates leaders seen as legitimate. But critics say there is only a weak link between racial and academic diversity. The Grutter decision allowed but did not require states to take account of race in admissions. Several states, including California and Michigan, forbid the practice, and public universities in those states have seen a drop in minority admissions. In other states and at private institutions, officials generally look to race and ethnicity as one factor among many, leading to the admission of significantly more black and Hispanic students than basing the decisions strictly on test scores and grades would. A Supreme Court decision forbidding the use of race in admission at public universities would almost certainly mean that it would be barred at most private ones as well under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which forbids racial discrimination in programs that receive federal money. In her majority opinion in Grutter, Justice O’Connor said the day would come when “the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary” in admission decisions to foster educational diversity. She said she expected that day to arrive in 25 years, or in 2028. Tuesday’s decision to revisit the issue suggests the deadline may arrive just a decade after Grutter. The court’s membership has changed since 2003, most notably with the appointment of Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., who replaced Justice O’Connor in 2006. Justice Alito has voted with the court’s more conservative justices in decisions hostile to government use of racial classification. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. has been particularly skeptical of government programs that take account of race. “Racial balancing is not transformed from ‘patently unconstitutional’ to a compelling state interest simply by relabeling it ‘racial diversity,’ ” he wrote in a 2007 decision limiting the use of race to achieve integration in public school districts. Justices Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas agreed. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, the court’s swing justice, also voted to invalidate the programs. But he was less categorical, sharply limiting the role race could play in children’s school assignments but stopping short of forbidding school districts from ever taking account of race. Still, Justice Kennedy has never voted to uphold an affirmative action program. In Texas, students in the top 10 percent of high schools are automatically admitted to the public university system, a policy that does not consider race but increases racial diversity in part because so many high schools are racially homogenous. Ms. Fisher just missed that cutoff at her high school in Sugar Land, Tex., and then entered a separate pool of applicants who can be admitted through a complicated system in which race plays an unquantified but significant role. She sued in 2008. Ms. Fisher is soon to graduate from Louisiana State University. Lawyers for the University of Texas said that meant she had not suffered an injury that a court decision could address, meaning she does not have standing to sue. Ms. Fisher’s argument is that Texas cannot have it both ways. Having implemented a race-neutral program to increase minority admissions, she says, Texas may not supplement it with a race-conscious one. Texas officials said the additional effort was needed to make sure that individual classrooms contained a “critical mass” of minority students. The lower federal courts ruled for the state. Chief Judge Edith Jones of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, dissenting from the full appeals court’s decision not to rehear Ms. Fisher’s case, was skeptical of state officials’ rationale. “Will classroom diversity ‘suffer’ in areas like applied math, kinesiology, chemistry, Farsi or hundreds of other subjects if, by chance, few or no students of a certain race are enrolled?” she asked. Justice Elena Kagan disqualified herself from hearing the case, presumably because she had worked on it as solicitor general.
cody16 14-Oct-12, 00:04	Yes, this is absolutely terrible. It astonishes me to see such blatant discrimination being allowed and even encouraged in our public universities, especially in 2012. I hope we soon see the day when race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity or other classification hold no place in determining one's capabilities and qualifications.
astinkyfart 14-Oct-12, 00:43	Deleted by astinkyfart on 14-Oct-12, 05:58.
astinkyfart 14-Oct-12, 05:58	Deleted that last one. Put wrong topic here by accident
deadofknight 14-Oct-12, 15:52	Under Obama, racism has become the issue du jour... So divisive. Everything he touches is against someone else....never seeks a solution; just rams his ideology upon the people...
dmaestro 14-Oct-12, 23:19	Blaming Obama for racism becoming an issue is just more right wing smoke and mirrors blaming the victim, DOK. Racism is alive and well in Amerikkka. There is a provable, positive association between racism and conservatism although only a minority of conservatives are actually racist. The fact is that white males are a privileged class and thus way more conservative than the general population, and if only they voted the tea party would rule America with an iron fist and the social programs we take for granted would never have passed. Conservatives have ignited class war in Amerikkka and the rich are taking everyone else to the cleaners. Conservatism by its very nature enables plutocracy and privilege. Sorry but some of us see through the smoke and mirrors, DOK. You all want to take us back to the gilded age which was also the golden age of the GOP.
dmaestro 14-Oct-12, 23:24	en.wikipedia.org Get a clue...
astinkyfart 15-Oct-12, 04:19	It comes from theory en.wikipedia.org
softaire 15-Oct-12, 07:13	dm During the 2008 campaign, Senator BO promised to be the "Post Racial" President and bring all the people together. He was going to bring the political parties together also. One of the reasons he did so well in that election was that White America really had hope that this change would occur. Not only has there been no leadership or attempt to bring the political parties together, there has been no leadership or attempt to bring the races together. In fact, it has been an effort to divide and conquer, based in part on race, income, and religion. Overall, however, one thing I think people can see is that his results have been treating all people equally... NOBODY has prospered (except his friends). Poor Blacks are certainly worse off as well as poor Whites. And, we have seen how the entire Middle Class as lost ground.
dmaestro 15-Oct-12, 07:26	The theory has evidence behind it, based more on cultural norms than outright racism,too complex to explain here. The main point Obama didn't originate it and can hardly be blamed for racial politics or affirmative action in the form being challenged. I do expect the Supreme Court to further restrict use of affirmative action in admissions. I think too much money is spent chasing proportional numbers and not on what we term as actionable barriers. Studies support the idea that the election of Obama will have a long term positive effect on racial divisions.
chaz5 15-Oct-12, 09:55	Softy ... ... your post is almost accurate. Yes, Obama's promise that you cite has been unfulfilled but mostly due to the intransigence of the tea party stonewalling tactics. Blame is not one-sided here and you know that. Yet, certain groups have done well ... corporations are making huge profits, the wealthy are becoming more mega wealthy, and social laws are threatened with erosion. Only the middle class has suffered (and stand to suffer more) by these new GOP tactics. What saddens me is how the GOP is not playing a leadership role here ... they have chosen not to hoping to take care of themselves first and foremost.
softaire 15-Oct-12, 10:47	chaz You can write THAT and still pretend to be a non-biased independent? HA!
chaz5 15-Oct-12, 11:23	Softy ... ... I have become Independent because the GOP has shifted right and left me with no where else to go. You choose to look at how the GOP has shifted as being their new direction or something. Can you not see this from any other perspective than the one you choose to embrace?
thumper 15-Oct-12, 12:22	Softie Many liberals are calling themselves "independent" these days. It's all the rage. Their politics is almost party line liberal of course but they try to project an image of 'impartiality'. They apparently think this gives them credibility when they 'independently' agree with almost every liberal talking point and profess sadness and disappointment at not being able to find ANY worthy conservative. No worries, it's all good fun and games. It's all about tactics trying to influence others to agree with the liberal party line and/or oppose conservative ideology.
dmaestro 15-Oct-12, 13:06	Thumper offers proof of the purge. He dismisses any republicans who don't go along with the tea party line like chaz as "liberals", "rinos". Todays righties make goldwater and buckley moderate. Anyone who looks at GOP positions can see they have shifted right despite the hollow claims of these righties. Extremism has become mainstream tea party dogma. Nothing short of even more determined opposition will deter the tea party from its extremist agenda and neo McCarthy tactics.
thumper 15-Oct-12, 13:27	Purge? Proof of the purge? What 'purge'? This is just more lib construct trying to manufacture credibility. The only people claiming Chaz is a 'moderate', and that loudly and often, is the self identified far left and the guy who almost never disagrees with them... Chaz. You can look at the issues item by item and compare what conservatives and liberals from past generations thought of them, then compare what modern conservatives and liberals think of them. The leftward stretch is not only obvious, it's substantial.
astinkyfart 15-Oct-12, 13:48	I like how its always. If only you were like the old day conservative, I actually agreed with them but no...this new breed of conservative must be stopped, they are radical! Just another ploy to get votes and pretend conservatives are just a little bit higher on the moral compass than terrorist although liberals in most instances find less fault in the taliban.
astinkyfart 15-Oct-12, 13:49	chaz What has changed so much with the gop?
chaz5 15-Oct-12, 13:52	Thumper ... ... but you choose to ignore how the right has indeed shifted further right ... and you choose to dismiss how independents disagree with Liberals ... which is your choice of course; but, it doesn't make your assessment accurate. Or, is this just another divisive tactic to urge disagreement amidst Liberals and virtually anyone who sees the logic of their views whether or not they agree with them. It seems you confuse understanding and agreement often ... one does not mean the other or both.
dmaestro 15-Oct-12, 14:06	Political science research shows that the tea party influenced GOP is the most conservative it has been in the last century. It is obvious even to serious conservatives who can actually think like Jeb Bush or Joe Scarborough that the extremists have too much influence.
dmaestro 15-Oct-12, 14:18	As I have said, I was once a fiscal moderate socially liberal republican. While I did move to the left I understand and appreciate that earlier perspective. If the GOP was still the home of those like Chaz we could get something done with compromise. Today's tea party represents everything that caused me to leave the GOP and move left. Chaz does not have to be liberal, it is the lack of reasonability that makes discussions with righties difficult.
astinkyfart 15-Oct-12, 14:49	Im still asking what is the difference? I think liberals have become more liberal not the other way around.
dmaestro 15-Oct-12, 17:05	Well how many times do we have to repost the studies showing the right is drifting right? Sorry but it is your tea party ship that is moving, not the dock! Of course you don't think so you are a conservative not a moderate. Here is just one clue, Obamacare mandate was based on the right wing heritage foundation proposal not on the single payer leftist preference, but you all moved so far to the right your own ideas are now called socialism. And you expect serious discussions and middle ground as you keep reneging and moving the goal posts to the right? Ain't gonna happen and you are more to blame for the division than either the center or the left. Get real.
thumper 15-Oct-12, 17:42	DM "And you expect serious discussions and middle ground... "? With middle ground being -0- and you being -9 how would you accept -0- as the middle ground from someone who's +2? Back in the day libs were at -3 and cons were +3 so they could get to -0- with negotiations. You're shooting for a -4 as 'middle ground'. Read the Constitution and tell me if the people who wrote it are closer to me or closer to you ideologically. I and most of the people reading this know the answer but do you dare to say it?
dmaestro 15-Oct-12, 18:14	It depends on whether you look at the letter or the spirit of what the founders produced. The dominant group here frames it with literalism and frozen context. I frame it on the founders spirit, a vision of a more enlightened era, a promised land they could not enter but could dream of. Is it 1787 or 2012? That is the question.
chaz5 15-Oct-12, 19:46	Stinky ... ... we've been talking about how the GOP has moved right, but you don't see it. I'm not sure if I can come up with anything you wouldn't instantly deny. In the 70s, 80s, and 90s, we used to talk about smaller gov't ... yet the right has expanded gov't far faster on their own. We used to talk about out-of-control entitlement programs ... instead of compromises, all I see are stone walls. We used to talk about give-and-take between parties, but now the Tea Party Express has left the station on their own and doesn't talk at all. And, when questioned, it's always Obama's fault. When Obama came up with "Obamacare" it was denounced by the GOP as being socialist; yet it was almost identical to the GOP's proposals up to that point ... now denied and reversed. Is it so much about tried-and-true conservative principles, or is it merely "anything but Obama" that is driving the Tea Party Express? Let's get back to Buckley principles!
dmaestro 15-Oct-12, 19:52	www.npr.org We on the left can work with centrists or traditional, reason based conservatives. Reason based conservatives can evolve like Buckley did on marijuana, and can discuss facts. The neocons and social conservative or tea party types are not reason based but faith based, and they so devolve, not evolve.

GameKnot: play chess online, Internet chess league, online chess puzzles, monthly chess tournaments, chess teams, chess clubs, free online chess games database and more.