Supreme Court Upholds Michigan Ban on Affirmative Action

stevielips said:
 
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.
Click to expand...
theres actually no conversation, people like you will never see the other side

ive had this conversation countless times with many people who i would actually consider open minded, ive realized that when it comes to race, people who are against AA and decide to not believe that there is a white privilege will die with that mindset, theres no contributing to the discussion

youre always going to believe whatever you want because the very small sprinkle of instances youve witnessed suggest otherwise, you actually want to believe youre right, this is a very cut and dry situation, stats prove that whites have a serious advantage based on race, aa didnt even level the playing field, it let a small handful in, yet some people are still crying that its a huge role in white people getting denied for education

the only hope for racial equality is that future generations start to integrate voluntarily, seamlessly, and sincerely, while at the same time ousting old racial relation mindsets

so once you realize there is a need for aa in some industries in this present time, that will be one step in the right direction
 
Last edited:
Horrible decision. Affirmative Action is GREAT 
smokin.gif

 
What we really learned today via Jennifer Gratz and Abigail Fisher (who wasn't qualified to begin with at UT-Austin), is that when you don't get into your dream school, you make a federal case out of it. I just find it ironic that white women are celebrating this decision where without it, they'd be in the same boat that many minorities are.
 
^some good points, I believe the issue here is that race becomes an overwhelming criterion, even disproportionately so, which skews selection that some to consider far beyond leveling the playing field
 
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...


I'm a propionate of income based affirmative a toon.

However, A) people need to really stop acting like affirmative action is a negro issue, statistically women have benefited more than the negro B) having a well mixed school of negroes, Latinos, women Asians creates a better world, it breaks up the 'old boys club' by virtue of giving people the same credentials.
 
A) not sure if directed towards me, but black/white is merely an example. In my field I'm more used to gender-based AA

B) although I agree diversity provides those involved access to different ways of thought and in turn can develop a better sense of perspective, among other things, the cost of establishing this diversity should be monitored somewhat carefully, honestly a cost/benefit model would not be entirely inappropriate

Income based AA sounds like a much better metric to me
 
Before the Affirmative Action ban in Michigan, the Black student population was +/-7%. The most recent numbers given for the Black population at Ann Arbor is 4.4%. How many of those are athletes? This is still too much for some.

The Supreme Court put the remedies of discrimination in the hands of voters. This is a very dangerous slope we're approaching as people are stupid especially those who let preconceived notions fuel their reasoning.

Can we get Methodical Management Methodical Management to give his opinion on this?
 
GetYaShinebox said:
A) not sure if directed towards me, but black/white is merely an example. In my field I'm more used to gender-based AA

B) although I agree diversity provides those involved access to different ways of thought and in turn can develop a better sense of perspective, among other things, the cost of establishing this diversity should be monitored somewhat carefully, honestly a cost/benefit model would not be entirely inappropriate

Income based AA sounds like a much better metric to me
Click to expand...
Income based is still inherently unfair as well, judging by your standard. By changing the qualification of the policy, you are essentially saying the policy is effective. 

The question of need for the policy would be the best argument against it. But the evidence all points to the fact that AA is needed.  So pundits don't come up with a valid reason against it, they just resort to "better" alternatives. 
 
Last edited:
stevielips said:
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.
Click to expand...


Please google away; I'd love to see these specific "examples" of black privilege--at the expense of white folk--in corporate America.




...
 
^of course, considering only one of whichever variable would be unfair. I think we'll agree that AA is necessary, but would likely never agree to which extent it should be used

Consider this:
Student A has a GPA of 4.0, has red hair, and also happens to be a child of two Ivy League PhDs.
Student B has a GPA of 3.999, has brown hair, and happens to be from a broken home with no support.

Just based on these two facts, Student B is probably more qualified, since they presumably had more obstacles in their path to getting good grades (indicator of ability to excel in a challenging academic environment)

Now, AA can come along and consider another factor, say hair color, which attempts to level the selection for red-haired kids. Student A gets accepted, Student B doesn't.

The problem? IMO, AA plays too great of a role in selection. Not that it is not necessary, or that some factor should not be incorporated the help red-haired kids, but that it overcame possibly more relevant aspects of the students' credentials
 
Last edited:
but there are laws that are bias, some Montana laws are bias against people who don't live in Montana, there are Laws that favor women, there are Laws that favor certain people over other people. There are three level of scrutiny when it comes to the 14th Amendment equal protection clause, Strict, Heightened and Rational basis,

First  the right must be a "fundemental right" which means a right implicit in the American concept of ordered liberty; such as education. Then it must apply to a "suspect class" which would be any group of people without substantial voting power, then the law must be applied unfairly to favor one group over another group. In the case of affirmative action they apply rational basis scrutiny, which means the law must have a "rational relation" to the goal it is trying to achieve so long as it doesn't favor one person over another person in a suspect class.

So rational basis applies to affirmative action; affirmative action seems to deflect to the Rawls two principles of Justice, which says discrimination is ok so long as it benefits the least advantages members of society, while the second says public offices need to be open to all people in order to assure equality for future generations, which is better for society

Now, I do believe that the rigid system of Affirmative action no longer reflects the reality of todays world, as in a rich black kid has an advantage over a poor white kid, however, I do believe the ideals and principles affirmative action is based on are very solid; following Rawls second principle of justice, public offices and access need to be open to all people, even if some qualified people don't get in, thats just the way the cookie crumbles, not everyone can be a winner, choices must be made. The choices as they stand keep a whole people down, whereas the chooses being made by affirmative action favor the least advantaged disfavoring some, albeit deserving, people. That being said, the best way to remedy this is to base it along income lines instead of race lines, income doesn't necessarily have a color.

Economic and social mobility are the hallmarks of a well functioning society, it is a hedge against revolution as the poor are promised the opportunity to move up in their lifetime. There was a reason they didn't let Negroes read during slavery, education is a key to freedom, the key to economic and social mobility,  and everyone with even the slightest hint of ability should be able to get in.

I went to a undergrad I was overqualified for, and am in Law school that I am barely qualified for. I do feel some hints of insecurity, but I often beat out a lot of my contemporaries on tests and in trial cases, not the best but around the middle of the pack. I went to a highschool that wasn't accredited when I graduated, so I know there are things I didn't learn, I came into undergrad with a disadvantage and it shows everyone once in a while in Law school.

So to say affirmative action is a bad idea is a fallacy, but I do think race based discrimination begs more questions than it solves.
 
GetYaShinebox said:
^of course, considering only one of whichever variable would be unfair. I think we'll agree that AA is necessary, but would likely never agree to which extent it should be used

Consider this:
Student A has a GPA of 4.0, has red hair, and also happens to be a child of two Ivy League PhDs.
Student B has a GPA of 3.999, has brown hair, and happens to be from a broken home with no support.

Just based on these two facts, Student B is probably more qualified, since they presumably had more obstacles in their path to getting good grades (indicator of ability to excel in a challenging academic environment)

Now, AA can come along and consider another factor, say hair color, which attempts to level the selection for red-haired kids. Student A gets accepted, Student B doesn't.

The problem? IMO, AA plays too great of a role in selection. Not that it is not necessary, or that some factor should not be incorporated the help red-haired kids, but that it overcame possibly more relevant aspects of the students' credentials
Click to expand...
More relevant? In accordance with what? It is proven that pure statistical evidence- hard skills, vs more subjective - soft skills. Top companies have used the latter, so why shouldn't elite colleges apply a similar method?

One can argue that neighborhood, life experiences and challenges can shape a student more than their grades. So the question still remains what is the value in achievement, or what is achievement. You and individuals with your state of mind have a very obtuse understanding of achievement. For example, is a student with hearing loss who scorea a 31 on their ACT is more impressive than a minority with a perfect score? I'd say so. 

This isn't to make allegories all day, it's just to prove that hard statistics are not the end all be all. It's the same reason why Law Schools required a writing section.
 
Last edited:
paulprince3730 said:
theres actually no conversation, people like you will never see the other side

ive had this conversation countless times with many people who i would actually consider open minded, ive realized that when it comes to race, people who are against AA and decide to not believe that there is a white privilege will die with that mindset, theres no contributing to the discussion

youre always going to believe whatever you want because the very small sprinkle of instances youve witnessed suggest otherwise, you actually want to believe youre right, this is a very cut and dry situation, stats prove that whites have a serious advantage based on race, aa didnt even level the playing field, it let a small handful in, yet some people are still crying that its a huge role in white people getting denied for education

the only hope for racial equality is that future generations start to integrate voluntarily, seamlessly, and sincerely, while at the same time ousting old racial relation mindsets

so once you realize there is a need for aa in some industries in this present time, that will be one step in the right direction
Click to expand...

Notice how your opinion must be write and his is soo wrong that he's cursed with that mindset. He is absolutely right about civil servant jobs going to minorities much easier in big cities. It's been happening in NYC for a long time now. Minorities with lets say a 96 on the fire department exam compared to a white male with the same score is getting the job over him every time. How is there no contributing to a discussion? Because it isn't your view? ha. You will never have racial equality if any group is getting hand outs that comes from AA in plenty of cases.
 
BlackIntellect said:
More relevant? In accordance with what? It is proven that pure statistical evidence- hard skills, vs more subjective - soft skills. Top companies have used the latter, so why shouldn't elite colleges apply a similar method?

One can argue that neighborhood, life experiences and challenges can shape a student more than their grades. So the question still remains what is the value in achievement, or what is achievement. You and individuals with your state of mind have a very obtuse understanding of achievement. For example, is a student with hearing loss who scorea a 31 on their ACT is more impressive than a minority with a perfect score? I'd say so. 

This isn't to make allegories all day, it's just to prove that hard statistics are not the end all be all. It's the same reason why Law Schools required a writing section.
Click to expand...

In my example, grades and background may be more relevant indicators of a candidate's abilities compared to their hair color (this should not have to be explained to you). I agree that if you extend this to a real-world example, credentials on paper are not always reflective of someone's abilities. I see it almost everyday, accumulation of degrees and certifications are often no substitute for cognitive skills not proven by grades, exams scores, etc.

You are having difficulty with recognizing my point; AA is a useful tool, but it must be used carefully. That is all I've said, but by all means, keep flapping your gums...
 
Last edited:
paulprince3730 said:
theres actually no conversation, people like you will never see the other side

ive had this conversation countless times with many people who i would actually consider open minded, ive realized that when it comes to race, people who are against AA and decide to not believe that there is a white privilege will die with that mindset, theres no contributing to the discussion

this is a very cut and dry situation, stats prove that whites have a serious advantage based on race, aa didnt even level the playing field, it let a small handful in, yet some people are still crying that its a huge role in white people getting denied for education
Click to expand...

View media item 679184
Man. They get subjected to less than a fraction of the barriers and glass ceilings (that miniorities have been facing for hundreds of years in this country) over the course of 5 decades, and all of the sudden AA is the worst thing ever. :lol:
 
Last edited:
This thread is pointless. Despite the fact that studies show that workplace discrimination still exists and that less qualified candidates are legally not allowed to be hired over more qualified candidates people are still going to stick to their guns and pretend that affirmative action is reverse racism. You guys don't care about the truth of affirmative action you just want to believe that you are being treated unjustly.

Oh and by the way, the greatest beneficiaries of affirmative action are WHITE WOMEN. Also statistically speaking 8.4% of all US marriages are interracial. Why do I talk about interracial marriage? Because the overwhelming majority of white women will marry white men. So guess whose family benefits from a mother with higher income and a college education? Exactly.
 
Rell826 said:
Before the Affirmative Action ban in Michigan, the Black student population was +/-7%. The most recent numbers given for the Black population at Ann Arbor is 4.4%. How many of those are athletes? This is still too much for some.

The Supreme Court put the remedies of discrimination in the hands of voters. This is a very dangerous slope we're approaching as people are stupid especially those who let preconceived notions fuel their reasoning.

Can we get @Methodical Management to give his opinion on this?
Click to expand...
this is the point i made in hs when this whole thing gained wind

it was funny who was for and against AA
 
just nikes said:
 
paulprince3730 said:
theres actually no conversation, people like you will never see the other side

ive had this conversation countless times with many people who i would actually consider open minded, ive realized that when it comes to race, people who are against AA and decide to not believe that there is a white privilege will die with that mindset, theres no contributing to the discussion

youre always going to believe whatever you want because the very small sprinkle of instances youve witnessed suggest otherwise, you actually want to believe youre right, this is a very cut and dry situation, stats prove that whites have a serious advantage based on race, aa didnt even level the playing field, it let a small handful in, yet some people are still crying that its a huge role in white people getting denied for education

the only hope for racial equality is that future generations start to integrate voluntarily, seamlessly, and sincerely, while at the same time ousting old racial relation mindsets

so once you realize there is a need for aa in some industries in this present time, that will be one step in the right direction
Click to expand...
Notice how your opinion must be write and his is soo wrong that he's cursed with that mindset. He is absolutely right about civil servant jobs going to minorities much easier in big cities. It's been happening in NYC for a long time now. Minorities with lets say a 96 on the fire department exam compared to a white male with the same score is getting the job over him every time. How is there no contributing to a discussion? Because it isn't your view? ha. You will never have racial equality if any group is getting hand outs that comes from AA in plenty of cases.
Click to expand...
like i said theres no conversation, and its not my opinion, its the truth
 
Az102 said:
 
This thread is pointless. Despite the fact that studies show that workplace discrimination still exists and that less qualified candidates are legally not allowed to be hired over more qualified candidates people are still going to stick to their guns and pretend that affirmative action is reverse racism. You guys don't care about the truth of affirmative action you just want to believe that you are being treated unjustly.

Oh and by the way, the greatest beneficiaries of affirmative action are WHITE WOMEN. Also statistically speaking 8.4% of all US marriages are interracial. Why do I talk about interracial marriage? Because the overwhelming majority of white women will marry white men. So guess whose family benefits from a mother with higher income and a college education? Exactly.
Click to expand...
 
was just reading a long facebook argument about this topic and everyone arguing against aa was asian

it just comes down to what you think is more fair, 1 spot left

student A: white, comes from middle class home 4.0 gpa 2200 sat, sports clubs ect..

student B: black, comes from lower class home 3.9 gpa 2100 sat, sports clubs ect

is it unfair to let student A in because he had more advantages growing up than student B, or is it unfair letting student B in because student A is better on paper?

and of course the college will also factor in the race populations of the school, ideally its better to have students learning in a racially diverse environment
 
Rell826 said:
Before the Affirmative Action ban in Michigan, the Black student population was +/-7%. The most recent numbers given for the Black population at Ann Arbor is 4.4%. How many of those are athletes? This is still too much for some.

The Supreme Court put the remedies of discrimination in the hands of voters. This is a very dangerous slope we're approaching as people are stupid especially those who let preconceived notions fuel their reasoning.

Can we get @Methodical Management to give his opinion on this?
Click to expand...
I trust that those who know me have a pretty good idea about how I feel about it.  This is nothing new.  We're suffering through a period of retrenchment.  Our schools are more segregated today than they were in the 60's.  The racial wealth gap has only burgeoned during the recession.  The criminal justice system continues to arrest, prosecute, and sentence people of color at a vastly disproportionate rate.  Employment discrimination is eminently well documented.  

In what reality have we "leveled the playing field?"  

These arguments have already been hashed out ad infinitum since the 90's and the anti-affirmative action campaign in California.  It comes down to differing perceptions of fairness and a willingness to acknowledge majority privilege. 

Two quick points bear mention here:

First, anyone who would invoke Dr. King's name or rhetoric to attack affirmative action is grossly unfamiliar with Dr. King's work.  I could - and have - post thousands of words about this alone, but it's kind of a waste.  Using Dr. King to attack affirmative action is like saying the "founding fathers" supported racial equality based on one line from one document.  http://www.inmotionmagazine.com/king2.html

Second, "class based" affirmative action is not in any way a viable - let alone superior - substitute for race-based affirmative action: http://prospect.org/article/affirming-opportunity

Women still earn less than men for doing the same jobs.  Women, especially single mothers, are far and away more likely to live in poverty.  In spite of this, we intuitively reject the notion that "class based" affirmative action can address sexism in any meaningful way.  No sane person would confuses the problems of the poor with the injustices faced exclusively by women.  A woman is more likely to be poor, because of sexism, and it may be reasoned that if women are disproportionately more likely to be poor, that they would benefit disproportionately from anti-poverty programs, but this, in and of itself, cannot level the playing field.  Men would continue to out-earn women at every income level. 

This decision isn't an endorsement of "color blindness."  It is turning a blind eye to racism.  I expected nothing less from the Roberts Court. 

History repeats itself.  Just look at the failure of Southern Populism in the 1890's, and the continued failure of working class Americans to achieve "class consciousness."  Du Bois had all of this pegged eighty years ago. 

Racism is always at its fiercest in tough economic times.  The vulnerability experienced by working class Whites during such periods is exploited without fail by moneyed interests.  Never mind that, thanks in part to things like legacy preferences, inherited wealth, and the grotesque inequities in our education system, White Americans are already disproportionately represented in student bodies around the country even WITH so-called "racial preferences" in place.  Never mind that the White unemployment rate is HALF that of the Black unemployment rate.  The very prospect of a minority "stealing" a White person's job or seat is still considered a greater injustice than corporate welfare and the concentration of wealth and opportunity into fewer and fewer hands.  

This is classic scapegoating, and voters are falling for it hook, line, and sinker.  

There are a lot of people in this country who'd be happier making seven dollars an hour while a person of color makes five than they would if everyone made fifteen dollars an hour.  

Fairness is a relative concept.  And so is privilege.  
 
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