What?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=297195&forum_id=2#4275281)

Are you saying there wasn't a constitutional question at issue?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=297195&forum_id=2#4275518)

Answer this question: Do you believe state-sanctioned racial discrimination is a constitutional issue?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=297195&forum_id=2#4275580)

shut your fucking mouth you 2nd tier student.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=297195&forum_id=2#4275591)

No. Comment. Necessary.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=297195&forum_id=2#4275476)

1) Is race a good proxy for "diversity"?

2) Isn't student quality more compelling in education than diversity?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=297195&forum_id=2#4275247)

is this "hurt" a problem if asians were over-represented to begin with? clearly, asians, as a group, have few problems competing within a white society. any biases which exist against them, clearly, are not detrimental enough to negatively impact their representation in a collegial setting.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=297195&forum_id=2#4275513)

YES!!!!! They worked harder, did better in school and standardized tests, and they should be fucking rewarded as INDIVIDUALS, not punished because they are Asian.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=297195&forum_id=2#4275550)

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=02-241#dissent1

EDIT: wait, scalia wrote in the case:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=02-241#other1

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=297195&forum_id=2#4275318)

I join the opinion of The Chief Justice. As he demonstrates, the University of Michigan Law School's mystical "critical mass" justification for its discrimination by race challenges even the most gullible mind. The admissions statistics show it to be a sham to cover a scheme of racially proportionate admissions.

I also join Parts I through VII of Justice Thomas's opinion.* I find particularly unanswerable his central point: that the allegedly "compelling state interest" at issue here is not the incremental "educational benefit" that emanates from the fabled "critical mass" of minority students, but rather Michigan's interest in maintaining a "prestige" law school whose normal admissions standards disproportionately exclude blacks and other minorities. If that is a compelling state interest, everything is.

I add the following: The "educational benefit" that the University of Michigan seeks to achieve by racial discrimination consists, according to the Court, of " 'cross-racial understanding,' " ante, at 18, and " 'better prepar[ation of] students for an increasingly diverse workforce and society,' " ibid., all of which is necessary not only for work, but also for good "citizenship," ante, at 19. This is not, of course, an "educational benefit" on which students will be graded on their Law School transcript (Works and Plays Well with Others: B+) or tested by the bar examiners (Q: Describe in 500 words or less your cross-racial understanding). For it is a lesson of life rather than law--essentially the same lesson taught to (or rather learned by, for it cannot be "taught" in the usual sense) people three feet shorter and twenty years younger than the full-grown adults at the University of Michigan Law School, in institutions ranging from Boy Scout troops to public-school kindergartens. If properly considered an "educational benefit" at all, it is surely not one that is either uniquely relevant to law school or uniquely "teachable" in a formal educational setting. And therefore: If it is appropriate for the University of Michigan Law School to use racial discrimination for the purpose of putting together a "critical mass" that will convey generic lessons in socialization and good citizenship, surely it is no less appropriate--indeed, particularly appropriate--for the civil service system of the State of Michigan to do so. There, also, those exposed to "critical masses" of certain races will presumably become better Americans, better Michiganders, better civil servants. And surely private employers cannot be criticized--indeed, should be praised--if they also "teach" good citizenship to their adult employees through a patriotic, all-American system of racial discrimination in hiring. The nonminority individuals who are deprived of a legal education, a civil service job, or any job at all by reason of their skin color will surely understand.

Unlike a clear constitutional holding that racial preferences in state educational institutions are impermissible, or even a clear anticonstitutional holding that racial preferences in state educational institutions are OK, today's Grutter-Gratz split double header seems perversely designed to prolong the controversy and the litigation. Some future lawsuits will presumably focus on whether the discriminatory scheme in question contains enough evaluation of the applicant "as an individual," ante, at 24, and sufficiently avoids "separate admissions tracks" ante, at 22, to fall under Grutter rather than Gratz. Some will focus on whether a university has gone beyond the bounds of a " 'good faith effort' " and has so zealously pursued its "critical mass" as to make it an unconstitutional de facto quota system, rather than merely " 'a permissible goal.' " Ante, at 23 (quoting Sheet Metal Workers v. EEOC, 478 U. S 421, 495 (1986) (O'Connor, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part)). Other lawsuits may focus on whether, in the particular setting at issue, any educational benefits flow from racial diversity. (That issue was not contested in Grutter; and while the opinion accords "a degree of deference to a university's academic decisions," ante, at 16, "deference does not imply abandonment or abdication of judicial review," Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U. S. 322, 340 (2003).) Still other suits may challenge the bona fides of the institution's expressed commitment to the educational benefits of diversity that immunize the discriminatory scheme in Grutter. (Tempting targets, one would suppose, will be those universities that talk the talk of multiculturalism and racial diversity in the courts but walk the walk of tribalism and racial segregation on their campuses--through minority-only student organizations, separate minority housing opportunities, separate minority student centers, even separate minority-only graduation ceremonies.) And still other suits may claim that the institution's racial preferences have gone below or above the mystical Grutter-approved "critical mass." Finally, litigation can be expected on behalf of minority groups intentionally short changed in the institution's composition of its generic minority "critical mass." I do not look forward to any of these cases. The Constitution proscribes government discrimination on the basis of race, and state-provided education is no exception.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=297195&forum_id=2#4275353)

...I think that Affirmative Action is well intentioned. I do not think it is perfect. But, implicit in the argument against it is that the minority is always undeserving and unqualified. White people who argue against it never talk about the thousands of times a day during which a black person pays higher interest rates, or rent, or more for a car, or doesn't get the job, or the promotion, etc. They speak as if Affirmative Action is happening in a vacuum. I also find it interesting that they don't much like being discriminated against. Welcome to the club! Try it on for 300 - 400 years and get back to me.

When so-called “race” problems come up, you hear people say, “We’ve got to put race behind us.” When I hear that, I know one thing: the speaker is white. That’s because white people think they don’t have race. Other people have race: brown people, black people, yellow people, red people, foreign people... you know, the people who are constantly complaining. But we white Americans like to think of ourselves as race neutral—we’re like glass, invisible when it comes to race. The fact that we can live with the illusion is a testament to the power we hold. Well, hello America: Elvis is dead and race lives.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=297195&forum_id=2#4275471)

does that answer your question?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=297195&forum_id=2#4275492)

if u require further persuasion, search for the words "black" "aa" or "nig" in threads on this very site.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=297195&forum_id=2#4275547)

Me, I don't particularly care. I think racially-based AA's a bad idea myself, but man some of the bitterness around here is a stone riot.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=297195&forum_id=2#4279009)

But the real issue is underrepresentation. Underreresentation leads to a lack of legitimacy. As long as such a relatively small overrepresentation doesn't really take away from a bunch of other groups represenation by a significant amount, then I don't think its a big deal.

But ideally we'd have everybody fairly proportionally represented.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=297195&forum_id=2#4275442)

On the one hand he says maybe as many as half of the URMs that go to law school wouldn't be admitted at all without AA and on the other says its hurts blacks.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=297195&forum_id=2#4275395)

Blacks drop out at much higher rates

Blacks fail to pass the bar exam at much higher rates

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=297195&forum_id=2#4275439)

I have yet to see it be "destroyed".

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=297195&forum_id=2#4275538)

"JFK didn't authorize affirmative action in 1961 because he wanted a social identity mixer."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=297195&forum_id=2#4275344)

until then.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=297195&forum_id=2#4275628)