Supreme Court Upholds Michigan Ban on Affirmative Action

Brownstone

Brownstone

8,273
6,909
Joined
Aug 22, 2012
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/23/us/supreme-court-michigan-affirmative-action-ban.html?hp&_r=0



WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld a Michigan constitutional amendment that bans affirmative action in admissions to the state’s public universities, in a fractured decision that revealed deep divisions among the justices over what role the government should play in protecting racial and ethnic minorities.


The 6-to-2 ruling effectively endorsed similar measures in seven other states and may encourage additional measures banning the use of race in admissions. States that forbid affirmative action in admissions decisions, like Texas, 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.

In five opinions spanning more than 100 pages, the justices set out starkly conflicting views. The justices in the majority, with varying degrees of vehemence, said that policies affecting minorities that do not involve intentional discrimination should ordinarily be decided at the ballot box rather than in the courtroom.
 
Last edited:
This is a tough one... UofM is one hell of a hard school to get in to. They stay turning people away with 32+ ACT scores and tons of good extra curricular achievements like it's nothing. My opinion is if the academic credentials are even, and it's between a woman or minority vs a white male, I have no issue with taking the woman or minority student over the white male. 

White males obviously have a huge advantage in this country. 
 
Last edited:
Chopper said:
This is a tough one... UofM is one hell of a hard school to get in to. They stay turning people away with 32+ ACT scores and tons of good extra curricular achievements like it's nothing. My opinion is if the academic credentials are even, and it's between a woman or minority vs a white male, I have no issue with taking the woman or minority student over the white male. 

White males obviously have a huge advantage in this country. 
Click to expand...

I don't believe this is true anymore as it pertains to admissions, and jobs.

The best person in ANY aspect should get the position, period. I'm sick of affirmative action policies in 2014.
 
IMO it has nothing to do with race, but background/upbringing.

A white kid from a trailer park in OK with barely literate parents will have a much harder time getting good grades than a suburban black kid with professional parents. Thus if they end up with equal marks, the white kid is likely more deserving due to the greater adversity he overcame

This is because the environment for one is much more conducive to academic success than the other.

This is also why AA is not the end all be all and in some cases may be entirely counterproductive, which is probably why this ruling took place.
 
GetYaShinebox said:
IMO it has nothing to do with race, but background/upbringing.

A white kid from a trailer park in OK with barely literate parents will have a much harder time getting good grades than a suburban black kid with professional parents. Thus if they end up with equal marks, the white kid is likely more deserving due to the greater adversity he overcame

This is because the environment for one is much more conducive to academic success than the other.

This is also why AA is not the end all be all and in some cases may be entirely counterproductive, which is probably why this ruling took place.
Click to expand...

Exactly. There was a time that it was needed, but abused. People with lower scores than others were accepted into certain establishments to fill a quota. That isn't healthy at all. There shouldn't be any type of "quotas" in 2014 though. The best person should win.
 
stevielips said:
I don't believe this is true anymore as it pertains to admissions, and jobs.

The best person in ANY aspect should get the position, period. I'm sick of affirmative action policies in 2014.
Click to expand...
The problem is discrimination does exist in the job market. Why is it that people like you are so quick to attack affirmative action going as far as taking it to the supreme court but you ignore the fact that racial discrimination exists in the job market? If you don't believe me see for your self.

University study originally published in the American Economic review journal . It explains that "black" sounding names get less call backs

http://www.nber.org/digest/sep03/w9873.html

This is a study published in The Labor Journal of Economics. It talks about managers racial hiring preferences.

http://moya.bus.miami.edu/~lgiuliano/Hires.pdf

Another Journal article I found linked from a Washington post article that stated "white males receive substantially more job leads for high-level supervisory positions than women and members of minorities."

http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/10.1525/sp.2009.56.3.385.pdf

By the way all you have to do is Google information about job discrimination and you will see a ton of articles if you require further proof.
 
i was heated after the ruling ... i put this right along side them striking down the voting rights act last year. It's like they live in a bubble and they truly believe / act like minorities are on equal footing with whites. that is what upsets me. The SCOTUS is out of their minds. Justice Sotomayor dissenting opinion is amazing. I'm going to save those 58 pages as a reminder ...
 
Last edited:
Az102 said:
The problem is discrimination does exist in the job market. Why is it that people like you are so quick to attack affirmative action going as far as taking it to the supreme court but you ignore the fact that racial discrimination exists in the job market? If you don't believe me see for your self.

University study originally published in the American Economic review journal . It explains that "black" sounding names get less call backs
http://www.nber.org/digest/sep03/w9873.html

This is a study published in The Labor Journal of Economics. It talks about managers racial hiring preferences.
http://moya.bus.miami.edu/~lgiuliano/Hires.pdf

Another Journal article I found linked from a Washington post article that stated "white males receive substantially more job leads for high-level supervisory positions than women and members of minorities."
http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/10.1525/sp.2009.56.3.385.pdf


By the way all you have to do is Google information about job discrimination and you will see a ton of articles if you require further proof.
Click to expand...

I can also google the reverse and give you examples there too.

I can't speak for everyone or everything, I can only say what I see personally. I live in a major city with tons of diversity. I know for a FACT it swings in the other direction, or I should say, used to swing heavily in the direction for women and minorities that wasn't warranted. There were quotas to fill and to me, thats total BS.
 
GetYaShinebox said:
IMO it has nothing to do with race, but background/upbringing.

A white kid from a trailer park in OK with barely literate parents will have a much harder time getting good grades than a suburban black kid with professional parents. Thus if they end up with equal marks, the white kid is likely more deserving due to the greater adversity he overcame

This is because the environment for one is much more conducive to academic success than the other.

This is also why AA is not the end all be all and in some cases may be entirely counterproductive, which is probably why this ruling took place.
Click to expand...

Well said.
 
i was quoting s lips

Az102 said:
The problem is discrimination does exist in the job market. Why is it that people like you are so quick to attack affirmative action going as far as taking it to the supreme court but you ignore the fact that racial discrimination exists in the job market? If you don't believe me see for your self.

University study originally published in the American Economic review journal . It explains that "black" sounding names get less call backs
http://www.nber.org/digest/sep03/w9873.html

This is a study published in The Labor Journal of Economics. It talks about managers racial hiring preferences.
http://moya.bus.miami.edu/~lgiuliano/Hires.pdf

Another Journal article I found linked from a Washington post article that stated "white males receive substantially more job leads for high-level supervisory positions than women and members of minorities."
http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/10.1525/sp.2009.56.3.385.pdf


By the way all you have to do is Google information about job discrimination and you will see a ton of articles if you require further proof.
Click to expand...

here goes another one that refuses to believe ... people really are blind ... and it's disgusting ... ignorance must be bliss ... they just did a study in my line of work that shows that minorities have been getting lower raises than their counterparts even if they perform better work ... it's ingrained in this society ... this is why people continue to complain ... there have been improvements but there is SO much more that has to happen
 
Last edited:
stevielips said:
I can also google the reverse and give you examples there too.

I can't speak for everyone or everything, I can only say what I see personally. I live in a major city with tons of diversity. I know for a FACT it swings in the other direction, or I should say, used to swing heavily in the direction for women and minorities that wasn't warranted. There were quotas to fill and to me, thats total BS.
Click to expand...
The idea of less qualified candidates is a myth. Here is an article about the top ten myths of affirmative action.

http://www.understandingprejudice.org/readroom/articles/affirm.htm

Only businesses that work as federal contractors have an obligation to adhere to affirmative action. It is actually ILLEGAL to choose less qualified minorities over more qualified whites.

http://www.timesdispatch.com/workit...cle_cbbbd8cc-e586-11e2-b34e-001a4bcf6878.html

Of everything I posted I urge you to at least read the article I posted above this sentence. It goes into detail how affirmative action works in the job market. By the way everything I posted is about jobs not about college admissions which this thread is actually about.
 
Posted earlier but didn't get traction. Just reenact the Black Codes while we're at it. I don't like the thought of a quota, but this is so necessary in education and employment. Even the statistics used by colleges to show enrollment are false because you have students that classify as black because they believe it gives them an upper hand. Opponents only cry discrimination when minorities are being put in better positions to improve their socio-economic status. White women have benefited more from this than anyone which why Abigail Fisher's case against the University of Texas was hilarious because she would've been admitted under Affirmative Action had she got in. This belief that "you're taking a qualified white person's seat" really has to stop. It's nothing but privilege and arrogance wrapped in one.
 
Last edited:
Az102 said:
The idea of less qualified candidates is a myth. Here is an article about the top ten myths of affirmative action.
http://www.understandingprejudice.org/readroom/articles/affirm.htm

Only businesses that work as federal contractors have an obligation to adhere to affirmative action. It is actually ILLEGAL to choose less qualified minorities over more qualified whites.
http://www.timesdispatch.com/workit...cle_cbbbd8cc-e586-11e2-b34e-001a4bcf6878.html

Of everything I posted I urge you to at least read the article I posted above this sentence. It goes into detail how affirmative action works in the job market. By the way everything I posted is about jobs not about college admissions which this thread is actually about.
Click to expand...

Yeah I get it. Those are recent articles. What about in the 80s and 90s when civil servant jobs were in FACT given to less qualified applicants? You're basing your opinion on what others wrote and not what was reality.This still DOES exist, in Philly anyway, and I've learned it from the horses mouths not by some article...

Back to the topic... When it comes to schooling, THE BEST APPLICANT should be accepted.
 
stevielips said:
Yeah I get it. Those are recent articles. What about in the 80s and 90s when civil servant jobs were in FACT given to less qualified applicants? You're basing your opinion on what others wrote and not what was reality.This still DOES exist, in Philly anyway, and I've learned it from the horses mouths not by some article...

Back to the topic... When it comes to schooling, THE BEST APPLICANT should be accepted.
Click to expand...
To be fair I went on a job tangent because you mentioned jobs in your quote. I also posted recent articles because you mentioned affirmative action policies on 2014. What exactly have you learned from the horses mouth? What have you been told?  
 
I don't like the reality of the public creating a law which was put in place to offset minority presence in the work place and in educational institutions. Kind of seems counterproductive, as stated before Sotomeyer wrote quite eloquently, and I would invite both those opposed and in favor of the decision to read what she said.
 
Az102 said:
To be fair I went on a job tangent because you mentioned jobs in your quote. I also posted recent articles because you mentioned affirmative action policies on 2014. What exactly have you learned from the horses mouth? What have you been told?  
Click to expand...

Let's just say I come from a HUGE family and know dozens and dozens of civil servants personally. Some on the low end some are high ranking officials. I'd say its not as bad as it was but there was a time that the Philadelphia police and fire departments were required to hire a set amount of minorities regardless of scoring. How does this benefit anyone? Do you want someone less qualified protecting your kids? Again, I can only speak from my personal experience but the reverse is true and still exists. You won't see dozens of articles on things like that though because it doesn't fit the sources agenda.
 
corporations are people. I don't see why Anyone would be surprised with any ruling from this court anymore
 
Last edited:
stevielips said:
Let's just say I come from a HUGE family and know dozens and dozens of civil servants personally. Some on the low end some are high ranking officials. I'd say its not as bad as it was but there was a time that the Philadelphia police and fire departments were required to hire a set amount of minorities regardless of scoring. How does this benefit anyone? Do you want someone less qualified protecting your kids? Again, I can only speak from my personal experience but the reverse is true and still exists. You won't see dozens of articles on things like that though because it doesn't fit the sources agenda.
Click to expand...
I understand your point, but less qualified and quotas are not one in the same.
 
GetYaShinebox said:
IMO it has nothing to do with race, but background/upbringing.


A white kid from a trailer park in OK with barely literate parents will have a much harder time getting good grades than a suburban black kid with professional parents. Thus if they end up with equal marks, the white kid is likely more deserving due to the greater adversity he overcame


This is because the environment for one is much more conducive to academic success than the other.


This is also why AA is not the end all be all and in some cases may be entirely counterproductive, which is probably why this ruling took place.
Click to expand...
This may be true, and I agree with your sentiment. But lets look at the bigger picture. Using your example- lets say both a white kid and a black kid from that same trailer park apply- now who's at the greater disadvantage?
 
BlackIntellect said:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/23/us/supreme-court-michigan-affirmative-action-ban.html?hp&_r=0



WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld a Michigan constitutional amendment that bans affirmative action in admissions to the state’s public universities, in a fractured decision that revealed deep divisions among the justices over what role the government should play in protecting racial and ethnic minorities.


The 6-to-2 ruling effectively endorsed similar measures in seven other states and may encourage additional measures banning the use of race in admissions. States that forbid affirmative action in admissions decisions, like Texas, 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.

In five opinions spanning more than 100 pages, the justices set out starkly conflicting views. The justices in the majority, with varying degrees of vehemence, said that policies affecting minorities that do not involve intentional discrimination should ordinarily be decided at the ballot box rather than in the courtroom.
Click to expand...
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
 
stevielips said:
 
Chopper said:
This is a tough one... UofM is one hell of a hard school to get in to. They stay turning people away with 32+ ACT scores and tons of good extra curricular achievements like it's nothing. My opinion is if the academic credentials are even, and it's between a woman or minority vs a white male, I have no issue with taking the woman or minority student over the white male. 

White males obviously have a huge advantage in this country. 
Click to expand...
I don't believe this is true anymore as it pertains to admissions, and jobs.

The best person in ANY aspect should get the position, period. I'm sick of affirmative action policies in 2014.
Click to expand...
lol how can you highlight the fact he said "if the academic credentials are even" yet totally ignore it at the same time??????
 
BlackIntellect said:
stevielips said:
Let's just say I come from a HUGE family and know dozens and dozens of civil servants personally. Some on the low end some are high ranking officials. I'd say its not as bad as it was but there was a time that the Philadelphia police and fire departments were required to hire a set amount of minorities regardless of scoring. How does this benefit anyone? Do you want someone less qualified protecting your kids? Again, I can only speak from my personal experience but the reverse is true and still exists. You won't see dozens of articles on things like that though because it doesn't fit the sources agenda.
Click to expand...
I understand your point, but less qualified and quotas are not one in the same.
Click to expand...

I agree somewhat. I'm positive there's some fantastic minority cops and fireman that got their job because of a quota. I don't want to go on a huge tangent about things I just truly feel in this day and age there shouldn't be any crutches, in anything. That's why our economic system is so messed up because big business wasn't allowed to fail. I also believe that if you're under 30 in this country and believe you're being held back for whatever reason than you seriously need to reevaluate things.
 
paulprince3730 said:
lol how can you highlight the fact he said "if the academic credentials are even" yet totally ignore it at the same time??????
Click to expand...

Relax bro stop trying to start something and actually add to the conversation. I highlighted that section because that was what I was going to respond to which I did. If ALL scores are equal then other factors should then apply. When I say the BEST I don't always mean the best SCORE either, I mean the BEST period. That's why colleges conduct interviews with prospective students and weigh in extra curricular activies.
 
BlackIntellect said:
GetYaShinebox said:
IMO it has nothing to do with race, but background/upbringing.


A white kid from a trailer park in OK with barely literate parents will have a much harder time getting good grades than a suburban black kid with professional parents. Thus if they end up with equal marks, the white kid is likely more deserving due to the greater adversity he overcame


This is because the environment for one is much more conducive to academic success than the other.


This is also why AA is not the end all be all and in some cases may be entirely counterproductive, which is probably why this ruling took place.
Click to expand...
This may be true, and I agree with your sentiment. But lets look at the bigger picture. Using your example- lets say both a white kid and a black kid from that same trailer park apply- now who's at the greater disadvantage?
Click to expand...

Glad you asked

Flip your situation around, black and white kid with upper middle class upbringing, supportive parents, high grades, extracurricular activities, etc. Who's at the greater disadvantage for acceptance to a selective university?

The question is hypothetical, but my answer to your question would share many similarities with your answer to mine. But really, perspective is key, and can see where you're coming from
 
Last edited:
Quoting MLK has been the racist's go to response to this decision today. Funny how words can be misconstrued and twisted to fit one's agenda.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

The ultimate sneaker enthusiast community.

NikeTalk was created as a way of giving back to both the sneaker enthusiast community and to the greater global community of which we are all a part.

NikeTalk is NOT affiliated with Nike Inc. in any way, shape, or form. All opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Nike, Inc.

© 1999-2024 NikeTalk.com

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom