Yeah I think I read some where that the 10% rule increased the minorities percentages at Texas, the problem is that is harder to argue is that the inner city schools are crap and that it is racial discrimination.

regarding the pool of admitted students who were not qualified under the 10% rule, Texas admits that race and ethnicity is/was a factor. So the real question is whether a university is justified in using race as a factor.

Kennedy again seems like a key swing vote, but all indications are that the Court wants to get away from using race as a factor in any decision by a public entity without some showing of a continued wrong that is being addressed.

I can figure it out just fine. It isn't relevant to the discussion. It is underwhelming to me that you can't figure out why it isn't.

As to the second sentence, it proves my point.

"Huehuecoyotl" does sound Mexican imo.

What if there were studies that showed that a diverse student body was beneficial to the overall school community, prestige, reputation, experience, etc.

What if, in a given applicant pool, diversity was unable to be achieved with a race-blind Admissions policy.
Should a college be forced to make their school worse in the interest of avoiding racism (lol) as you put it?

Should a white actor sue because they picked a black actor to play Martin Luther King Jr. in a biopic? Zomg institutional racism! Should male dancers sue strip clubs because they can't get hired as dancers? Zomg institutional sexism!

How far does the policy of equality-no-matter-what need to extend?

I think it will be relevant to the discussion. Let's assume it is institutionalized discrimination, which I don't think it is. So what? Bonus points if you include disparate treatment and disparate impact in your post.

Edit: the above post is important but I don't think it's central. It's advantageous though. Sometimes having the smartest group isn't as beneficial as having the most diverse group, and other times it's the other way around. Universities think they are in the first example and I would agree.

Edit 2: my post doesn't really need a response, people above and below me have already made my point

I'm just saying!

Agreed, that this will be another in the long line of cases that will automatically split 4-4 (or 4-3), the result hinging on the one swing vote. This is Justice Kennedy's court. I think the best point of reference we have to predict his decision is a 2007 case where he concurred with the other 4 members of the conservative wing but differentiated his opinion from theirs. (Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District).

It will be interesting to see if Kennedy sees this is a race-conscious, larger picture, diversity minded policy or a systemic division of individuals based on race. I'd guess, in a very close decision, it will be the latter.

To my mind, the problem with the current Supreme Court's take on affirmative action is that it is cripplingly literal-minded in its application of equal protection doctrine, ignoring the very reason racial discrimination is problematic to begin with. Going back to Carolene Products, the problem with institutionalized discrimination is that "discrete and insular minorities" can be systematically denied access to the political process and, in turn, to social and economic power. The ideal is that every demographic will have the opportunity to participate equally in social life. To claim that white people are denied this sort of power in America is, at best, laughable.

Lol...it seems like you prohibited yourself from doing research and chose to believe a highly dubious claim that looks on the surface to be unbelievable to any non racist non stupid person.

And even excluding race, some of these factors are non merit based (legacy status, family prominence etc) so it makes it harder imo to say that race cannot be a factor as well. If admissions was a pure meritocracy other than race it would be an easier case to make.

Not trying to start WWIII here, but just out of curiosity, how many people ITT would find themselves agreeing with these two assertions:

1. In the Civil War era, North should have compensated Southern slave owners to purchase those slaves their freedom

2. Using race and promoting diversity as a factor in college admissions, in an attempt to redress the still lingering impacts of legislative and de facto segregation, violates the equal protection of white Americans?

Highly likely to be fabricated by somebody pissed about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hopwood_v._Texas getting overturned.

well i posted this in the lc thread and got nothing.

We're halfway through the infallible SC's last decision to make AA constitutional for the next 25 years. Time for a review I guess.

So when do minorities get to become people instead of minorities? All I see AA doing is perpetuating racial classification in our country.

It is a culture problem. There is a culture that rejects education and embraces crime, that is not black culture, but it is poor culture. There are wealthy blacks in metro-Cleveland; it is not the color of anyone's skin, it is the effort one puts forward.