BOSTON (AP) — Lawsuits filed Monday against Harvard University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill argue that affirmative action policies should be banned at colleges across the nation.

The federal suits allege Harvard and UNC rely on race-based affirmative action policies that impact admissions of high-achieving white and Asian American students. The Harvard lawsuit also contends that the Ivy League university specifically limits the number of Asian Americans it admits each year.

The Project on Fair Representation, an Alexandria, Virginia-based legal defense fund, said Monday's filings will be the first in a series of legal challenges against colleges across the country in an effort to ban race-based admission policies outright.

http://news.yahoo.com/harvard-unc-sued-o...27793.html

Good. Admitting and hiring people based off the color of their skin is discrimination. Choose the best qualified people, that's the way of equality. If you didn't make the cut and you're black, tough shiit. If you didn't make the cut and you're white, tough shiit.

Didn't California get rid of AA? Aren't all of the universities majority Asian now?

(11-18-2014 12:39 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  Didn't California get rid of AA? Aren't all of the universities majority Asian now?

I don't know, but AA has run its course. Discrimination should be frowned upon.

It's getting interesting now.

What's the newest?

I thought some student in either Michigan or Texas sued over something similar. I think she lost, but can not remember exactly how that turned out.

(11-18-2014 04:55 PM)VA49er Wrote:  I thought some student in either Michigan or Texas sued over something similar. I think she lost, but can not remember exactly how that turned out.

Abigail Noel Fisher was that white bread's name. She sued the University of Texas for rejecting her even though she placed in the top 12% of her graduating class at Stephen F. Austin High School.

Had she been anything other than white with the stats she had, she'd have been accepted immediately. She was a victim of that white privilege crap we so often hear about by the uneducated, uninformed morons up north. Disgusting.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/10/us/affirma...n-profile/

Oh, and she was rejected by a vote of 7-1.

(11-18-2014 12:39 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  Didn't California get rid of AA? Aren't all of the universities majority Asian now?

The State of California? Cal-Berkeley? The University of California system (10 campuses)?

(11-18-2014 12:39 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  Didn't California get rid of AA? Aren't all of the universities majority Asian now?

You be carefur what you say, Carifonya Asian brow up your caa





YOO NAHK ON MY FAMIRY!

(11-18-2014 12:39 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  Didn't California get rid of AA? Aren't all of the universities majority Asian now?

And give up making a fortune on alcoholics who fall off the bandwagon... OH you mean that other AA? Automobile Assoc...

not them either?

(11-18-2014 10:17 AM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  Good. Admitting and hiring people based off the color of their skin is discrimination. Choose the best qualified people, that's the way of equality. If you didn't make the cut and you're black, tough shiit. If you didn't make the cut and you're white, tough shiit.

Not stating a position here, but could we trust people to do that? I'll admit that my trust in does not extend very far.

F it. This is what I think. If AA went away tomorrow and some Asian, Indian, or white kid lost his place at a university to a person of any other race, they'd still complain that it was because of race-based something.

Believe me, I know what it's like to have people assume that you're less qualified and that you get your school paid in full just for being black. I know what it's like to have people say that you're getting promoted so fast just for being black. And I know that even a swift repeal of AA policy won't stop these people from just assuming that they are almost inherently more qualified and they will STILL say that they get passed up because of race.

Nomad, I don't disagree that folks often are the victims of stereotyped perceptions of groups that do not apply equally to individuals in that group. However, admission policies are mostly based upon standardized and relatively objective measures. Now if your argument was the "fairness" of standardized tests, I might agree more; but when one kid has a 1400 SAT and another has a 1300 SAT (all else being equal), it is unfairly biased to choose the kid with the lower SAT score just because of some protected societal demographic. And I would assert such preference is in large part why you may have experienced the stereotyped perceptions in the workplace. If equality is the goal, then equality should be the standard in getting there..........

(11-19-2014 07:16 PM)ODUsmitty Wrote:  Nomad, I don't disagree that folks often are the victims of stereotyped perceptions of groups that do not apply equally to individuals in that group. However, admission policies are mostly based upon standardized and relatively objective measures. Now if your argument was the "fairness" of standardized tests, I might agree more; but when one kid has a 1400 SAT and another has a 1300 SAT (all else being equal), it is unfairly biased to choose the kid with the lower SAT score just because of some protected societal demographic. And I would assert such preference is in large part why you may have experienced the stereotyped perceptions in the workplace. If equality is the goal, then equality should be the standard in getting there..........

There isn't equality though; not from birth. A 1400 and a 1300 aren't close the entire story and don't automatically say "more qualified" to me. What if the guy who got the 1400 was a white/Asian kid, who came from an upper-middle class family, who forced him to take prep courses, bought the books, gave them everything they needed. The 1300 was a black kid who came from nothing and had to make that score on his own. Which is more qualified?

Based upon the standardized test score, the individual with the 1400 is more qualified. However, your scenario is a much more about disproportionate allocation/misuse of resources within the public school system, even though the majority of inner city public schools spend per child at a much higher level.......so this is not a money issue, it is an allocation and accountability one.

If standardized testing can be utilized properly, those students with potential (not race-normed, but firm standards) should be allocated similar tools to capitalize on that potential fully. If a certain group lags with objective and equal criteria, then family factors should be considered.....but the onus for that improvement HAS to be that community/demographic take enough responsibility to ensure that its best and brightest are given every chance to succeed on a level playing field. This is a pathway that would destroy any of the "entitled" stereotypes that you may have faced in your career.

Now, that is not easy, and would rely on objective measures on which we can agree, a system that ranks students based upon those measures, allocates resources to ensure all are given the tools to succeed, and lagging groups to take some accountability for their success. Would take at least a generation, but isn't that model better than the LBJ model that has led to nothing but generational dependence, breakdown of the family structure in minority communities, and the propagation of victim status and associated racial polarization?

EDIT: By the way, I appreciate the opportunity to actually discuss this with you without the venom so often associated with this topic...........!

(11-19-2014 08:02 PM)ODUsmitty Wrote:  Based upon the standardized test score, the individual with the 1400 is more qualified. However, your scenario is a much more about disproportionate allocation/misuse of resources within the public school system, even though the majority of inner city public schools spend per child at a much higher level.......so this is not a money issue, it is an allocation and accountability one.

If standardized testing can be utilized properly, those students with potential (not race-normed, but firm standards) should be allocated similar tools to capitalize on that potential fully. If a certain group lags with objective and equal criteria, then family factors should be considered.....but the onus for that improvement HAS to be that community/demographic take enough responsibility to ensure that its best and brightest are given every chance to succeed on a level playing field. This is a pathway that would destroy any of the "entitled" stereotypes that you may have faced in your career.

Now, that is not easy, and would rely on objective measures on which we can agree, a system that ranks students based upon those measures, allocates resources to ensure all are given the tools to succeed, and lagging groups to take some accountability for their success. Would take at least a generation, but isn't that model better than the LBJ model that has led to nothing but generational dependence, breakdown of the family structure in minority communities, and the propagation of victim status and associated racial polarization?

EDIT: By the way, I appreciate the opportunity to actually discuss this with you without the venom so often associated with this topic...........!

No problem...I'm actually not in favor or against AA. I often switch sides as I think of the details.

(11-19-2014 07:40 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  There isn't equality though; not from birth. A 1400 and a 1300 aren't close the entire story and don't automatically say "more qualified" to me. What if the guy who got the 1400 was a white/Asian kid, who came from an upper-middle class family, who forced him to take prep courses, bought the books, gave them everything they needed. The 1300 was a black kid who came from nothing and had to make that score on his own. Which is more qualified?

Admissions should be blind to color, gender, religion, etc. What better why is there to not discriminate other than taking those little check boxes off the application? A kid given a head start shouldn't be discriminated against because of sympathy of someone who didn't. And if you look at college sports, how many undeserving kids got into college merely on athletic ability and never capitalized on the academic side?

(11-19-2014 06:26 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  F it. This is what I think. If AA went away tomorrow and some Asian, Indian, or white kid lost his place at a university to a person of any other race, they'd still complain that it was because of race-based something.

Believe me, I know what it's like to have people assume that you're less qualified and that you get your school paid in full just for being black. I know what it's like to have people say that you're getting promoted so fast just for being black. And I know that even a swift repeal of AA policy won't stop these people from just assuming that they are almost inherently more qualified and they will STILL say that they get passed up because of race.

On he flip side I know what it's like to be ranked in the top 5 of a 10 slot hiring class and be told the only thing we are waiting on before we offer you the job is getting a drug test scheduled only to be told that the city council rejected the hiring because there weren't enough minorities in the hiring class. BTW, the same Chief that had to break that news to me told me 10 years later over a cold beer at the SC Firefighter's Association Conference that the hiring class I was supposed to be a part of had an 80% attrition rate during basic training and the only two people who survived were the only two he was able to retain off the original list. He told me how that one lost class had thrown their entire promotional schedule out of whack because with the 80% attrition rate they were forced to later promote people who wouldn't have been eligible for promotion to fill Sr Firefighter and Engineer slots, and how it would later affect their Captain promotions. You are talking effects that would take 20+ years to work their way out of the system. But hey....they initially hired more blacks and women so everything was good right?