Skip to comments.Supreme Court to take up UT admission case [may strike down racial and ethnic considerations)
Posted on 10/08/2012 8:01:59 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
In the fall of 2008, the University of Texas enrolled 10,335 minority students, not including Asian-Americans. As far as Abigail Fisher was concerned, that was one too many.
Fisher had made good grades in high school - a 3.59 average on a 4.0 scale - posted a score of 1180 on the SAT test and finished as number 82 in a graduating class of 674 at Stephen F. Austin High School in Sugar Land. She figured that was good enough. Then came those dreadful words: "We regret to inform you ..."
Fisher was heartbroken. Her dad went to Texas, and her sister. She bled burnt orange. "I had dreamt of going to UT since the second grade," she said.
This week Fisher may get a little payback. On Wednesday the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the lawsuit she brought against the school that challenges an admissions policy that openly allows for the use of racial preferences. If she's successful - and legal pundits are saying there is a good chance - colleges and universities could henceforth be banned from even considering the racial or ethnic backgrounds of applicants.
(Excerpt) Read more at chron.com ...
Seems like the folks who believe in states’ rights have forgotten about them as far as this issue is concerned. Does a state have no right to set its own criterion without being second guessed by the federal government?
Impossible. Longhorn gear is priceless. And it's called the University Co-op.
That was before we saw the other side of John Roberts, he who went left to strike down part of the Arizona immigration law, and then saved Obamacare.
He probably enjoyed the good press he got from those two rulings.
The question that always pops into my mind when I hear or read about this case is why is the challenge is coming from Texas. By that I mean, why is it necessary? I mean, yes, I’d love for the Sup Court to finally get it right and just strike down the use of racial preferences, but why are preferences even allowed in allegedly conservative Texas?
The GOP has controlled Texas for years now, and the legislature supposedly got more conservative in 2010. So why hasn’t the allegedly conservative Republican legislature and the allegedly conservative Rick Perry done anything about it? Surely they have some control over the public universities in the state don’t they? Why don’t they end the use of racial preferences?
Maybe I shouldn’t single out Texas, because I can’t recall ever hearing of a Republican controlled state govt stepping in to end preferences in their public institutions of higher learning. They’ve done nothing at the federal level either.
Why is the GOP so worthless on this issue?
Surely, you already know the answer to your question, don't you?
It's because Republicans are afraid. Afraid of the media. Afraid of being called the "R" word.
So, any time racial preferences are at issue, they're going to cower in the corner. <
Besides which UT is more or less a law unto itself. "The University" has been allowed to do pretty much what it wants to do. In fact, I'm not sure it even takes any state money -- having a vast endowment of oil royalties.
In deciding to use racial preferences though, who is really making the decision? It seems in almost all cases to be bureaucrats in state agencies. It’s not like there are state laws mandating the use of racial preferences.
Nor is there is a federal law or Sup Court decision mandating the use of racial preferences in college admissions. The past Sup Court decisions have said that they can be used, not that they must be. I’m not aware of any state legislature having the stones to do what is right and end preferences, but several states have put it to the people for a direct vote and in all (but one I think???) cases, the people have voted down preferences.
States are fully able to end the use of preferences in their public institutions. The reason they don’t, even in allegedly conservative states like Texas, is cowardice. Well, there are other reasons (like the Jack Kemp strain of the party who actually support preferences and buy into the Diversity nonsense), but fear of being called names is at or near the top of the list.
Now I should add that the freedom of states to end the use of racial preferences has come into question recently. In 2006, as the GOP went down in flames, the people of Michigan voted overwhelmingly to pass a state constitutional amendment banning the use of racial preferences. Her majesty Sandra Day O’Connor (retired by then), who had saved the use of racial preferences a few years earlier, said that she thought the vote from the rubes of Michigan to be perfectly legitimate. How generous of her! However, a federal court has since struck down the state amendment. The crazy opinion says something like the banning of preferences via an amendment would make it harder for minorities to reverse it at some future date, therefore its unconstitutional! It really is one of the all time activist decisions with it’s twisted reasoning. Hopefully it will be overturned on appeal, but I never expect good things from the courts.
But my point is that the ability of the states to end the use of preferences was never in doubt until recently with this crazy federal court decision. So there is no excuse for GOP inaction on this. A Sup Court decision would be nice, but it shouldn’t be necessary. The states can and should end preferences, and their implementation by bureaucracies should never be permitted to stand.
Yeah, I do know the answer. I just wish the GOP couldn’t so brazenly betray the people who actually vote for them (i.e. whites) like they do.
I certainly don’t know the circumstances of how UT operates. But as long as they are a public university, then the legislature should be able to exercise some control over it. I would be its more about the cowardice than giving UT a free reign.
I stand corrected.....LOL
As part of a way of funding public education in The University of Texas System, two million acres of land were placed in the PUF - one million of which were in west Texas and deemed too worthless to survey by the Texas & Pacific Railroad.
Initially, the only money in the PUF came from leasing grazing rights on PUF land.
However, it just so happens that a chunk of the west Texas PUF land sits on top of the Permian Basin . . . and the PUF now generates revenue from oil, gas, sulfur, and water royalties, rentals on mineral leases, and other sources.
The PUF funds are state funds. A portion of the revenue flows each year into the Annual University Fund. 2/3 of that amount goes to UT and 1/3 goes to Texas A&M.
Contrary to the idea that UT has its own money and doesn't get money from the State of Texas, all of the PUF/AUF money it receives is government money via the Texas State Constitution.
Thanks for the clarification.
No problems. I'd ask how things are going in Rexroat, County Line, Butner, Little, and a dozen other Oklahoma towns, but some of them don't exist any longer. One of my grandfathers was building drilling rigs at the age of thirteen and hit about every company oil and gas town in Oklahoma.
Over at Texas A&M, they have their own Diversity Plan that's much more extensive than just admissions. I'm sure UT has the same - and you'll find the same at other universities if you just know where to look.
Don't make UT the scapegoat in this.
You clearly haven’t lived in Austin. Travis county, the seat of the state Capital is a hotbed of liberal activism. The UT campus is literally one-city block from the Capital building and it churns out thousands of liberals a year who want to live and work in Austin. Keep in mind that Texas has 1,024 counties (that’s not a typo - over 1,000), and every election you can easily spot Travis county when they show colorized maps to show which way the counties voted. Texas is conservative, but the legislature isn’t.