Justices duck major ruling on affirmative action

So Kagan recuses herself from this case but not Obamacare. Her lack of ethics is showing. But what is new, she is a left Democratic wing b@t.

When I applied to 6 SUNY schools in Western New York I checked “other” in the demographic box & wrote in “human”. 5 of them sent my applications back saying they were incomplete with that section highlighted. The 6th school sent me an acceptance letter. 8 years later I sent an email out to the 5 other schools showing them the $67K receipt for my dual undergrad & MS program degrees and asked that since the 6th school had accepted and that demographic policy was therefore not a SUNY issue if there was a particular reason they were not willing to take my borrowed money without first knowing the color of my skin. They have not replied.

affirmative action is reverse discrimination. it just causes more racism and resentment

Either take that annoying Zinc ad off or I’ll delete Reuters from everything on my computer. Brazen and worse than any popup. I’m not going to put up with having to close your Zinc ad to read the news.

Affirmative action is legalized racial descrimination.

In the aforementioned case, Justice O’Connor predicted that racial discrimination would end, and preferences would be rendered moot, by 2023.

…and all this case REALLY says to me is that this young woman, as nice and wholesome as
she says she is must be a sore loser. I wanted to go to Princeton, but my stats -while very impressive – were not as impressive as others, so I went to another university. And I OWN THAT FACT > now, sure, I COULD have decided to take my personal disappointment out by
suing Princeton because another student go in, in my place. But then I would just be a
self-absorbed, sore loser who is so unwilling to accept responsibility for my OWN performance that I sue it out of the school, yank another student (who honestly might have come from much more difficult circumstances and done just about as well as me and frankly might have deserved the extra chance more than me…) BUT I DIDN’T SUE…because I’m not only smart, I’m a decent person who sincerely believes everyone should have a chance. And this girl knows that affirmative action IS NOT THE REAL REASON. Disappointed by her. I sure as heck wouldn’t hire her because I know the odds are very high that if I don’t promote her to her liking I’ll be sued. Education is about learning, not litigation.

…and all this case REALLY says to me is that this young woman, as nice and wholesome as
she says she is must be a sore loser. I wanted to go to Princeton, but my stats -while very impressive – were not as impressive as others, so I went to another university. And I OWN THAT FACT > now, sure, I COULD have decided to take my personal disappointment out by
suing Princeton because another student go in, in my place. But then I would just be a
self-absorbed, sore loser who is so unwilling to accept responsibility for my OWN performance that I sue it out of the school, yank another student (who honestly might have come from much more difficult circumstances and done just about as well as me and frankly might have deserved the extra chance more than me…) BUT I DIDN’T SUE…because I’m not only smart, I’m a decent person who sincerely believes everyone should have a chance. And this girl knows that affirmative action IS NOT THE REAL REASON. Disappointed by her. I sure as heck wouldn’t hire her because I know the odds are very high that if I don’t promote her to her liking I’ll be sued. Education is about learning, not litigation.

Why even have a Supreme Court?

The US needs to finally grow up and be honest instead of pretending no one knows what they are doing.

We have First Class citizens (non-whites), who have one set of Rights, including the rights called out in the Constitution, then we have Second Class citizens (white women), who have fewer rights than First Class Citizens, and then, at the bottom of the heap, just above most, but not all, non-resident aliens, we have Third Class citizens (white men) who have rights very difficult to identify.

If we are to have a racial and sexual caste system, at least let us codify it so people can know who they are. But to pretend that we all have “equal rights” or that we have “equal protection under the law” is to make a mockery of human intelligence. Like our endless wars, this is part of our heritage from the self-annoited “greatest” generation, which never applied its horrid policies to itself but left them as their “legacy” to their children.

More hypocrisy.

While I understand uninformed, knee-jerk reactions are easier that well-informed, thoughtful opinions, some of the comments here show a woeful ignorance of the case. First and foremost, even if Abigail had received “full points” points for race, she would have still been denied admission. This is because race is such a small portion of an applicant’s overall score that it wouldn’t have overcome Abigail’s mediocre academic score. Furthermore, of the students who were admitted over Abigail despite having lower grades and test scores, only five were black or Latino. This might be a bigger deal if UT hadn’t also admitted 42 white students who had lower grades and test scores than Abigail! Furthermore, 168 black or Latino students with grades and test scores BETTER than Abigail’s were also denied admittance into the school that year. Thus, Abigail’s argument that she was unfairly excluded due to her race conveniently ignores the fact that UT’s admission process would have denied her regardless of race. Her argument ignores the fact that the process benefitted several white people as well. Her argument ignores the fact that the process also denied entrance to many minorities who were presumably more “qualified” than she!

The bottom line is that affirmative action isn’t the “reverse-discrimination” oppression that commenters such as 4sight2020 or TheNewWorld would have you believe. This case only highlights that the fear of affirmative action policies wrongly excluding more qualified white applicants is yet another right-wing fear that is based more in their imaginations than reality.

And because my arguments ARE based in reality, I’m more than happy to back up these assertions with facts. (See around pages 13-16 in the PDF linked below)

http://www.utexas.edu/vp/irla/Documents/Brief%20for%20Respondents.pdf

“…it considers an applicant’s race as one of many factors.”

THIS IS RACISM AT ITS CORE.

@RexMax46:

Oh thank you! I never really understood that looking favorably at someone’s race was not race discrimination if the person is black, but is definitely race discrimination if the person is white. It is amazing what the light of knowledge reveals to those of us “knee-jerk” thinkers who cannot really understand what a syllogism is.

The bottom line is that making a decision based on someone’s race is racial discrimination. It is in fact the bald definition of racial discrimination. Likewise making a decision based on someone’s sex is sex discrimination. No ifs. No buts. No “it is complicated” evasions. Either this is wrong, or there never was a wrong in the first “Jim Crow” place. It really is simple, not complicated. Really.

If we want a country based on race, let us have one openly, not one based on deceptive verbal gymnastics. Highly proportional quotas, including ethnicity and religion, would be so much fairer and so much easier to enforce. And so much more just.

This is really very simple: Affirmative Action = Discrimination. You can try to argue that it is discrimination with a purpose, or anything else you want. But, there is no getting around the fact that it is discrimination. And, in this country, discrimination is supposed to be illegal…

@RexMax46

Well I am not arguing the points of Abigail’s case. My statement is very simple and it is very accurate. Affirmative action is used to provide more opportunities to minorities based on racial demographics. It is racial (based on their race) discriminiation (the prejudicial and/or distinguishing treatment of an individual based on their actual or perceived membership in a certain group or category). I am not arguing whether it was needed or not, or whether it needs to be continued or not, but lets be honest, it is by its very definition racial descrimination.

@RexMax46, not quite friend, this is not a “right-wing fear” as much as you would like to paint anyone against affirmative action as a racist. I’ll clear the air for you.

I am a communist. Farther left than you I’ll bet. I believe that racial & gender based divisions among humans are inventions of the landed & ruling economic cast designed to create divisions among the lower class as just one of many divisions intended to ensure we do not unify against them. History bears this out when one realizes these ideas are meted out from above (for example the demonization of Jews by the Christian churches of the middle ages) and then echoed for generations at the ground level.

ANY use of gender or race to determine the “qualifications” of a person, be it in the interest of exclusion or inclusion, is ignorance and bigotry. While you give something to someone on the basis of race, you also take something away from someone else on that same basis. Both are stupid.

Before you waste time & words firing back some pseudo-intellectual reply about how stupid communism is, I’ll tell you don’t bother, I’ve heard it all and still don’t care. Unless you’re rich you have no business being a capitalist and are nothing but a deluded lottery player.

@crittertron

I think communism could be an ideal system on small scales. I think the failure of it in the past has been it being turned into more of a government based feudal system than everyone working together for the good of the community. There are some interesting Libertarian philosophies that are a bit communitist based and takes away land ownership and such. I would say in the defense of capitalism, if monopolies and predatory policies are kept in check, it gives people the best opportunity to create wealth for themselves. But that is the indivdualist in me. But again there are definitely merrits to communism that many of your fellow Americans will quickly dismiss due to it being demonized for the last 7 decades.

@usagadfly
You’re welcome! I’ll also inform you that a big difference between Jim Crow and UT’s affirmative action policies is that Jim Crow laws were shown to adversely effect citizens and cause measurable damage while there is no similar evidence for UT’s affirmative action policies. Also, it is truly moronic to view white males as “third class citizens” when the top ten wealthiest Americans are either white males or gained their wealth solely because they were related to a white male.

@TheNewWorld
Since you aren’t talking about this story, you are openly breaking Reuter’s terms of agreements for posting comments.

@crittertron
You are correct, as you have proven those on the left are equally capable of experiencing unfounded fear as well. And I’m also able to see how, as a communist, you are clearly unable to see that although simple, all-encompassing rules may be seem good in theory, they often won’t work when applied to real world problems. I wish we could live in a world without racial bias and inequality, but the truth is we don’t. I fail to see how being blind to the issue can be anything but a detriment to finding its solution. I’ll ask you, what completely color-blind steps do you think UT should take to overcome the disproportionately low enrollment rates of minorities? Who has UT’s admission policies wronged? Who was barred admission to UT solely because of the color of their skin? How can you can UT’s affirmative action policies be a crime when, unlike the persecution of the Jews, you can’t even find ONE victim who has been adversely affected by said policies?

Kinda sad that people who say they hate racism work day and night to promote it, as long as blacks get the benefit.

@RexMax46

I guess you can’t even bother to read the headline. Hear I will type it out for you. “Justices duck major ruling on affirmative action.” The story isn’t about the details of the case, it is about the justices kicking back the case to the lower courts, and hence avoiding the whole affirmative action issue which is much, much larger than her little case. You can go back to your self absorbed smug commenting now.

Affirmative action being “ducked” by the Supreme Court simply means that they did not consider the Constitution, merely current “polls”. Affirmative action is a form of “reverse” discrimination requiring in effect a “quota” requirement based upon race. This argument has gone on for over 30 years without definitive results. It is time the court did their job and deal with this problem!