The contraargument being that the donor who buys his son/daughter a seat at the table creates facilities and resources for hundreds of students considering how modern lectures operate.
Its not like that child gets exclusive use of those resources.
I know you are perfectly fine with keeping colleges rich and white.
Yet you want to complain about race and unfairness.I know you are perfectly fine with keeping colleges rich and white.
I know you are perfectly fine with keeping colleges rich and white.
I'm in favor of letting colleges determine their own admissions standards provided they don't discriminate on basis of race or gender. Saying that we need to fight back against the evil rich kids is ridiculous.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, Michigan universities are now barred from giving preferential treatment to blacks and other racial minorities but not from giving preferential treatment to students of "generous" rich families.
Merit, and merit alone, should be what gets someone into a college program. If you let people in because of race, sex, money, etc. and they happen to be too stupid to stay in the program, what then? The drop-out rate won't look good for the school. Do they have to dumb down the college programs to accommodate for morons that get let in? Provide extra tutor sessions to bring them up?
And I would fully back a lawsuit to tackle that discrimination. Just need someone to initiate it.
One could argue that the fact that a student's parent succeeded at college might make it more likely for the student to succeed as well. In which case legacy admissions would make sense.
It almost certainly makes more sense than using the color of a person's skin.
I'm in favor of letting colleges determine their own admissions standards provided they don't discriminate on basis of race or gender. Saying that we need to fight back against the evil rich kids is ridiculous.
One could argue that the fact that a student's parent succeeded at college might make it more likely for the student to succeed as well. In which case legacy admissions would make sense.
It almost certainly makes more sense than using the color of a person's skin.
Discrimination based on class is not illegal. Something making you butthurt is not basis for a lawsuit.
One could also say that this theory has been studied and determined to be true. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/education/2010-03-30-FirstGenDorm30_ST_N.htm?POE=click-refer
I know you are perfectly fine with keeping colleges rich and white.
What I'm confused by is what gave nehalem the idea that colleges do or should only select on academic performance for admissions. I'm not aware of a single institution in the entire country that does this.
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/04/schuette/361063/state schools “shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin” in hiring, contracting, or education.
I'm confused how me making an argument that is supportive of legacy admissions gives you the idea that I think colleges do or should only select on academic performance
I am also confused how liberals could make the argument that a law that says:
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/04/schuette/361063/
could possibly unconstitutional. Because if it was it seems to me that laws that require private business not to discriminate on the same exact things would also be unconstitutional.
Schools are free to consider things other than academics for admission so long as they are not discriminating on the basis of generally accepted protected classes
You said legacy admissions would make more sense than race based admissions due to their greater propensity to succeed academically. They would only make more sense if that was the only criteria you were using for admissions. If not, you couldn't make such a judgment based on that evidence.
Logic 101.
If I were you I would read Sotomayor's dissent as she explains exactly that at great length. If you're confused there's really no explanation other than your ignorance at this point.
Well it seems awfully retarded to admit people to a school that are almost certainly going to fail out. Wasting their time and money.
Logic 101.
But I guess in liberalland black people are more like trees than actual people. They are just their to enrich your experience
Well, why don't you explain in a few paragraphs why it is okay for the government to discriminate on the basis of race, but not okay for private businesses.
If it takes 50 pages of BS to explain the difference, I think that is pretty much an admission you are full of shit.
Irrational and a non sequitur.
How about you go read the document that exactly answers your question. I'm not here to read things for you.
Justice Sotomayor tried to get around this problem by claiming that though diversity is the underlying rationale for the constitutionality of preferences, preferences nevertheless disproportionately benefit “racial minorities” (a category that oddly in her estimation seems to include a non-racial group, Hispanics, and excludes a racial group, Asians). Making it more difficult for them to get this benefit is unconstitutional, even in the absence of discriminatory intent.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...22/why-the-result-in-schuette-was-inevitable/Meanwhile, it’s telling, as Ilya notes, that Sotomayor never mentions Asian Americans. It’s well-established that affirmative action preferences in higher education make it more difficult for Asian-American applicants to win admission. By the dissent’s own reasoning, therefore, overturning the ban on preferences would be unconstitutional for harming a racial minority, i.e., Asians, to wit: ”Everyone else can try to get a constitutional amendment passed via referendum in Michigan to ban certain factors that are harmful to them from being considered by admissions committee, such as legacy preferences or sports preferences. Only Asian Americans are prohibited from trying to get a constitutional amendment that will benefit them, i.e., one that bans consideration of race.” Had the dissent been the majority, the Supreme Court would have restructured Michigan’s political process to the disadvantage of Asian Americans, and thus, even in the absence of discriminatory intent, been unconstitutional decision under the (hypothetical) majority’s own theory!
I'm not defending Sotomayor's dissent, so I don't know why you're bothering to talk to me about it. It's really telling that you've participated in a thread this much without even bothering to do any basic research like reading what the decision and the dissents said though. lol.
Excellent point. Ending this "discrimination" would be cutting off our nose to spite our face.The contraargument being that the donor who buys his son/daughter a seat at the table creates facilities and resources for hundreds of students considering how modern lectures operate.
Its not like that child gets exclusive use of those resources.
Excellent point. Ending this "discrimination" would be cutting off our nose to spite our face.
Well it seems awfully retarded to admit people to a school that are almost certainly going to fail out. Wasting their time and money.
Logic 101.
But I guess in liberalland black people are more like trees than actual people. They are just their to enrich your college experience
Well, why don't you explain in a few paragraphs why it is okay for the government to discriminate on the basis of race, but not okay for private businesses.
If it takes 50 pages of BS to explain the difference, I think that is pretty much an admission you are full of shit.