Should the Court Uphold UT’s Race-preferential Admission Policy?

[Nous]

I've actually called the City about violations.
They couldn't have cared in the least.
The City ignores the law in some cases......
- Senior discounts
- Student discounts
They're powerful voting blocks.
All laws are what gov wants to enforce, not necessarily what is on the books.

That's disappointing. I never really thought of the non-enforcement of these local public accommodation laws.

We had also had a law which provided benefits to unmarried significant others,
but only if they're homosexuals. They openly discriminated against hetero couples.

Numerous cities passed such ordinances back in ancient times when same-sex couples were denied the right to marry, though I was unaware that any were sex-discriminatory. Hopefully that sort of stuff remains in the good ole days.

 

[dust1n]

What’s a “racial disparity”? By what yardstick does one measure when a racial disparity in college admissions exists?

I'm not at statistician, but I assure you that given that many of the factors involved can be quantified, than various forums of analysis can be done on recorded data. I'm sure you are familiar with statistics, correct?

"Princeton University researchers have found that ignoring race in elite college admissions would result in sharp declines in the numbers of African Americans and Hispanics accepted with little gain for white students.

In a study published in the June issue of Social Science Quarterly, authors Thomas Espenshade and Chang Chung examined the controversial notion that eliminating affirmative action would lead to the admission of more white students to college and found it to be false. The assertion that qualified white students are being displaced by less qualified minority students was a prime plaintiff argument in the 2003 U.S. Supreme Court cases against the University of Michigan (Gratz v. Bollinger and Grutter v. Bollinger).

"We're trying to put these admission preferences in context so people understand that lots of students, including those with SAT scores above 1500, are getting a boost," said Espenshade, the professor of sociology who co-authored "The Opportunity Cost of Admission Preferences at Elite Universities" with Chung, a senior technical staff member in the Office of Population Research. "The most important conclusion is the negative impact on African American and Hispanic students if affirmative action practices were eliminated."

According to the study, without affirmative action the acceptance rate for African-American candidates likely would fall nearly two-thirds, from 33.7 percent to 12.2 percent, while the acceptance rate for Hispanic applicants likely would be cut in half, from 26.8 percent to 12.9 percent. While these declines are dramatic, the authors note that the long-term impact could be worse.

"If admitting such small numbers of qualified African-American and Hispanic students reduced applications and the yield from minority candidates in subsequent years, the effect of eliminating affirmative action at elite universities on the racial and ethnic composition of enrolled students would be magnified beyond the results presented here," the report says.

The authors also cite other studies and the actual experience of the University of California system where affirmative action has been eliminated: "The impacts are striking. Compared to the fall of 1996, the number of underrepresented minority students admitted to the University of California-Berkeley Boalt Hall Law School for the fall of 1997 dropped 66 percent from 162 to 55.... African-American applicants were particularly affected as their admission numbers declined by 81 percent from 75 to 14, but acceptances of Hispanics also fell by 50 percent. None of the 14 admitted African-American students chose to enroll. Of the 55 minority students admitted, only seven enrolled in the fall of 1997, a falloff that had the effect of reducing the underrepresented minority share in the first year class to 5 percent in 1997 compared with 26 percent in 1994."

Removing consideration of race would have little effect on white students, the report concludes, as their acceptance rate would rise by merely 0.5 percentage points. Espenshade noted that when one group loses ground, another has to gain -- in this case it would be Asian applicants. Asian students would fill nearly four out of every five places in the admitted class not taken by African-American and Hispanic students, with an acceptance rate rising from nearly 18 percent to more than 23 percent. Typically, many more Asian students apply to elite schools than other underrepresented minorities. The study also found that although athletes and legacy applicants are predominantly white, their numbers are so small that their admissions do little to displace minority applicants.

The authors based their work on models previously developed in a 2004 study where they looked at more than 124,000 elite university applicants' SAT scores, race, sex, citizenship, athletic ability and legacy in combination with their admission decision. This more recent study honed in on more than 45,000 applicants.

https://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S11/80/77I23/index.xml

It may the case that there are other methods more effective at addressing such discrepancies, since they are likely more to do with economic, housing, and early education segregation, then say, the subtle racist tendencies of people who poor over college admissions.

If the problem is just ignored instead and not redressed at all, because it's unconstitutional (you know, the document that legally enforced slavery for almost a century) as you stipulate, which has yet to be determined since the Justices have yet to rule on it, I suspect Americas racial problems will backslide and getting severely worse, as if they weren't already.

As mentioned in the OP, the Court has explicitly said that racial quotas and/or “racial balancing” are unconstitutional. The reason is because such methods of racial discrimination do not meet the strict scrutiny standard of narrow tailoring.

Affirmative action =/= racial quotas.

Every university is limited in the number of students it can accommodate next year.

I guess if every university was able to accept every applicant, everyone would go to Harvard or Yale or Columbia or Stanford.

Again, you seem to be working on the incredibly mistaken notion that any of those schools maintain some empirically sound means of determining what student is more likely to do better than any other given student, that students are admitted to schools based solely on how smart they are (why exactly do schools maintain so many sports teams again?), and that the students admitted do so because they crossed a threshold of admittance, when in fact, they are selecting a part of the population that is already qualified to attend a school, but are not perceived to be the best 500 out of the 4000.

 

[Revoltingest]

What do you mean legal obligation to educate, exactly?

Regarding primary education, schools can't turn anyone away (generally).

 

[Revoltingest]

That's disappointing. I never really thought of the non-enforcement of these local public accommodation laws.

Numerous cities passed such ordinances back in ancient times when same-sex couples were denied the right to marry, though I was unaware that any were sex-discriminatory. Hopefully that sort of stuff remains in the good ole days.

They'll think up new abominations to plague us.

 

[dust1n]

Regarding primary education, schools can't turn anyone away (generally).

But, they do turn people away? And not always because they failed to me an educational criteria. Am I mistaken?

 

[Revoltingest]

But, they do turn people away? And not always because they failed to me an educational criteria. Am I mistaken?

They do turn away special cases which aren't related to something as irrelevant as political ideology, eg, behavior problems.
But generally speaking, they must educate all the kids, even going so far as severe special needs types.

 

[dust1n]

They do turn away special cases which aren't related to something as irrelevant as political ideology, eg, behavior problems.
But generally speaking, they must educate all the kids, even going so far as severe special needs types.

So why is playing sports ever a relevant consideration in the admissions process by admitting students on the premises of playing sports? Exp: "In order to assure success on their playing fields, admissions directors are setting aside specific numbers of places for recruited athletes and going lower on the academic ladder to fill them. Amherst College, for example, designates 75 out of the 450 places in each year's freshman class for athletes recruited by coaches in 27 varsity sports. At Williams, a perennial winner of the Sears Cup given to the most successful overall athletic program in each division, 71 athletes are given preferential admission in a class of 550." http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/07/e...n-athletes-win-preference.html?pagewanted=all

 

[Revoltingest]

So why is playing sports ever a relevant consideration in the admissions process by admitting students on the premises of playing sports? Exp: "In order to assure success on their playing fields, admissions directors are setting aside specific numbers of places for recruited athletes and going lower on the academic ladder to fill them. Amherst College, for example, designates 75 out of the 450 places in each year's freshman class for athletes recruited by coaches in 27 varsity sports. At Williams, a perennial winner of the Sears Cup given to the most successful overall athletic program in each division, 71 athletes are given preferential admission in a class of 550." http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/07/e...n-athletes-win-preference.html?pagewanted=all

Sports supposedly brings in money.

 

[dust1n]

Sports supposedly brings in money.

Ah I see. And that has to do with intellectual worthiness of admissions because...? Colleges can turn away students that don't actively make more money for the school outside of tuition?

 

[Revoltingest]

Ah I see. And that has to do with intellectual worthiness of admissions because...? Colleges can turn away students that don't actively make more money for the school outside of tuition?

That's how it works.
I'm not a fan, but it is what it is.

 

[dust1n]

That's how it works.
I'm not a fan, but it is what it is.

Is it constitutional?

 

[George-ananda]

I’m not sure that university boards who create these race-preferential policies do so (primarily) for social engineering purposes. For one thing, surely they are aware that even though the university is admitting a higher percentage of “underrepresented” racial minorities, they are generally not graduating that percentage. I recall one of the briefs in Fisher I providing the calculation that showed the total of African American and Hispanic students admitted under its race-preferential policy in one year was about 55, compared to literally thousands admitted under its Top 10% Plan. But UT apparently believes that the African American or Hispanic student who goes on to become a name in his/her field is more likely to be a student from a more affluent, more educated family, who went to a “whiter” school. The affirmative action policies seem to be rooted in the worst kind of racism.

Actually my post was trying to address the 500lb guerilla in the room; Genetics. I think genetics has something to do with the over/under representation on campuses on the sports field and in the higher level math classes, etc.. I might draw hate for saying that but it is honestly what I believe with malice towards none. It just 'is what it is' and I didn't create it that way.

 

[Revoltingest]

Is it constitutional?

I'd say so....but I'm getting into an area I've not considered before.
(My opinion is worth only half of what you paid.)

 

[Apex]

Personally, I am a fan of affirmative action. In fact, I think schools should greatly expand these programs to include all sports teams. Judging an athlete only by their athletic ability is narrow minded and enforces the traditional ableist discrimination. For example, blacks are over represented in NCAA football by 295% when compared to the US population. Yet Asians are under represented by 952%! Clearly collegiate football teams should be forced to recruit fewer black players, and more Asian players. All for the good of diversity, of course.


http://web1.ncaa.org/rgdSearch/exec/saSearch
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States

 

[Nous]

I'm not at statistician, but I assure you that given that many of the factors involved can be quantified, than various forums of analysis can be done on recorded data.

It creates “racial disparity” any time a university discriminates on the basis of race in its admissions whereby applicants of one race are required to have higher academic credentials (GPA, SAT) in order to be admitted than is required for applicants of another race. This is what race-preferential admissions policies do.

Espenshade noted that when one group loses ground, another has to gain -- in this case it would be Asian applicants. Asian students would fill nearly four out of every five places in the admitted class not taken by African-American and Hispanic students, with an acceptance rate rising from nearly 18 percent to more than 23 percent. Typically, many more Asian students apply to elite schools than other underrepresented minorities.

Yes, it’s primarily Asian Americans who are getting shafted by racist affirmative action admissions policies. See paragraphs 207-223 in this complaint against Harvard (citing another Espenshade study): http://studentsforfairadmissions.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/SFFA-v.-Harvard-Complaint.pdf It’s unfair and it’s stupid to erect such obstacles for Asian Americans. Nothing good comes of it.

According to the study, without affirmative action the acceptance rate for African-American candidates likely would fall nearly two-thirds, from 33.7 percent to 12.2 percent, while the acceptance rate for Hispanic applicants likely would be cut in half, from 26.8 percent to 12.9 percent.

Under UT’s Top 10% Plan (which any university can implement some version of), admissions of African American and Hispanic students rapidly increased to the levels created by the previous affirmative action policy.

In any case, admissions data are not a good measure success. Law professor Gail Heriot cites a plethora of studies showing high attrition rates (and lower future earnings) of students who enter college in the lower percentile of their class, which is precisely the circumstance facing students who are admitted not on the basis of their grades on the basis of their race through affirmative action policies: http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-sad-irony-of-affirmative-action Heriot notes that this evidence suggests that affirmative action policies have resulted in fewer African American physicians, scientists, engineers, lawyers and professors than there would have occurred under race-neutral admission policies.

Affirmative action =/= racial quotas.

The affirmative action policies struck down in Bakke and Gratz, as well as several of the affirmative action hiring polices held to violate the Equal Protection Clause imposed systems of racial quotas (or "racial balancing"). That's why these policies were struck down.

Again, you seem to be working on the incredibly mistaken notion that any of those schools maintain some empirically sound means of determining what student is more likely to do better than any other given student, that students are admitted to schools based solely on how smart they are (why exactly do schools maintain so many sports teams again?), and that the students admitted do so because they crossed a threshold of admittance, when in fact, they are selecting a part of the population that is already qualified to attend a school, but are not perceived to be the best 500 out of the 4000.

I wasn't making any comment about any admissions policy any school does use. I was only noting the impossibility of any school admitting every applicant.

 

[Nous]

Actually my post was trying to address the 500lb guerilla in the room; Genetics. I think genetics has something to do with the over/under representation on campuses on the sports field and in the higher level math classes, etc.. I might draw hate for saying that but it is honestly what I believe with malice towards none. It just 'is what it is' and I didn't create it that way.

You might be right. You certainly don't induce hatred in me due to any such comment. I am skeptical of heavily genetic theories of intelligence, given that there are so many environmental factors that influence the expression of intelligence.

 

[George-ananda]

You might be right. You certainly don't induce hatred in me due to any such comment. I am skeptical of heavily genetic theories of intelligence, given that there are so many environmental factors that influence the expression of intelligence.

My opinion is that the genetic factor is greatly underrated in importance for academic success. The genetic factor is much clearer in physical traits like athletic abilities.

 

[Nous]

My opinion is that the genetic factor is greatly underrated in importance for academic success.

What, in your opinion, should be done or said differently in academia with regard to “the genetic factor” relating to intelligence?

What exactly is “the genetic factor” relating to intelligence? Some heritability studies show that genes can only account for very little of the variance in IQ: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ Of course, many of these studies seem to use inadequate methodologies.

I am unaware that any race or ethnic group has been shown to inherently or genetically possess greater intelligence than another. I would need the most rigorous sort of methodologies in multiple studies before drawing such a conclusion. I’m unsure that IQ tests are an adequate measurement of intelligence.

 

[George-ananda]

What, in your opinion, should be done or said differently in academia with regard to “the genetic factor” relating to intelligence?

Not much change except for ethnicity-blind admission.

What exactly is “the genetic factor” relating to intelligence? Some heritability studies show that genes can only account for very little of the variance in IQ: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ Of course, many of these studies seem to use inadequate methodologies.

I am unaware that any race or ethnic group has been shown to inherently or genetically possess greater intelligence than another. I would need the most rigorous sort of methodologies in multiple studies before drawing such a conclusion. I’m unsure that IQ tests are an adequate measurement of intelligence.

Well you can find data, studies and social scientists on both sides of this heated issue and nothing will settle it. I don't wish to have that endless debate. After a lifetime of information and consideration we each form our own position. Of course to me, my position seems a no-brainer but others might see (or wish to see) the world differently.

I believe the best understanding on the innumerable traits (physical and mental) is overlapping bell curves with different center points.

 

[dust1n]

Personally, I am a fan of affirmative action. In fact, I think schools should greatly expand these programs to include all sports teams. Judging an athlete only by their athletic ability is narrow minded and enforces the traditional ableist discrimination. For example, blacks are over represented in NCAA football by 295% when compared to the US population. Yet Asians are under represented by 952%! Clearly collegiate football teams should be forced to recruit fewer black players, and more Asian players. All for the good of diversity, of course.


http://web1.ncaa.org/rgdSearch/exec/saSearch
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States

I've personally never come across a justification for why athletics is even a consideration for someone going to an institute of higher learning. And yet, it seems to be pretty acceptable to have quotas concerning athletics as the first and foremost factor in students admissions.

It creates “racial disparity” any time a university discriminates on the basis of race in its admissions whereby applicants of one race are required to have higher academic credentials (GPA, SAT) in order to be admitted than is required for applicants of another race. This is what race-preferential admissions policies do.

Sure, except in this case the "racial disparity" is meant to address a "racial disparity" that already exists within school admissions, and in general, the larger segregation within society.

Yes, it’s primarily Asian Americans who are getting shafted by racist affirmative action admissions policies. See paragraphs 207-223 in this complaint against Harvard (citing another Espenshade study): http://studentsforfairadmissions.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/SFFA-v.-Harvard-Complaint.pdf It’s unfair and it’s stupid to erect such obstacles for Asian Americans. Nothing good comes of it.

Someone should let them know that athletes take up far more spots from Asian American students then affirmative action policies. Nothing good comes of it.

Under UT’s Top 10% Plan (which any university can implement some version of), admissions of African American and Hispanic students rapidly increased to the levels created by the previous affirmative action policy.

Factually unsupported.

https://utexas.app.box.com/s/8ctu8vo7fja7s3w7ahgfjsp5jeckh43d

In any case, admissions data are not a good measure success. Law professor Gail Heriot cites a plethora of studies showing high attrition rates (and lower future earnings) of students who enter college in the lower percentile of their class, which is precisely the circumstance facing students who are admitted not on the basis of their grades on the basis of their race through affirmative action policies: http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-sad-irony-of-affirmative-action Heriot notes that this evidence suggests that affirmative action policies have resulted in fewer African American physicians, scientists, engineers, lawyers and professors than there would have occurred under race-neutral admission policies.

There's a lot to unpack there. Is there a specific element you are wanting to address? Some of the points are extraneous and some of them are good points, but I'm not actually sure what you are getting here. There are multiple models of affirmative action used by different institutions, and that fact appears to be of little importance to the author of this essay, who took little time to thoroughly address the data she's sourcing from books I can't afford to buy just to look at it for the purposes of this conversation. It also extrapolates largely from various studies to say things like, "Heriot notes that this evidence suggests that affirmative action policies have resulted in fewer African American physicians, scientists, engineers, lawyers and professors than there would have occurred under race-neutral admission policies." None of the studies she quoted seem to suggest that doing anyway with any affirmative action program is going to result in more physicians, scientists, etc...

The affirmative action policies struck down in Bakke and Gratz, as well as several of the affirmative action hiring polices held to violate the Equal Protection Clause imposed systems of racial quotas (or "racial balancing"). That's why these policies were struck down.

Because quota systems are not allowed. The Supreme Court has upheld multiple programs, and the notion that schools should be concerned about diversity on their programs, and to develop programs which seek to redress is also constitutional. But, we'll see.

I wasn't making any comment about any admissions policy any school does use. I was only noting the impossibility of any school admitting every applicant.

Or apparently, even more than a tiny minority of every applicant.

Speaking of fairness is academics again:

"If grades make you a long shot for college, you're much more likely to get a break if you can play ball.

An Associated Press review of admissions data submitted to the NCAA by most of the 120 schools in college football's top tier shows that athletes enjoy strikingly better odds of having admission requirements bent on their behalf.

The notion that college athletes' talents give them a leg up in the admissions game isn't a surprise. But in what NCAA officials called the most extensive review to date, the AP found the practice is widespread and can be found in every major conference.

The review identified at least 27 schools where athletes were at least 10 times more likely to benefit from special admission programs than students in the general population."

http://espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=4781264