Posted on 02/21/2012 6:54:26 PM PST by reaganaut1
The news that the Supreme Court is revisiting the use of race as a factor in admissions decisions, just nine years after upholding it in a University of Michigan case, has admissions officials worried about maintaining diversity and confounded that the question is being reconsidered so soon.
“Nine years, when you’re talking about a decision of this magnitude, it really took me aback,” said Tom Parker, the dean of admissions at Amherst College. “What happens with the next president, the next Supreme Court appointee? Do we revisit it again, so that higher education is zigging and zagging? If the court says that any consideration of race whatsoever is prohibited, then we’re in a real pickle. Bright kids have no interest in homogeneity. They find it creepy.”
While a handful of states have laws banning affirmative action, most colleges and universities seeking a diverse student body do consider race in admissions, said Ada Meloy, general counsel of the American Council on Education.
“You can’t give extra points or say you’re looking for three more black students,” she said. “That would be dangerous. But reviewing the entirety of an application, colleges and universities that use holistic admissions talk about, ‘Here’s this person, from this part of the country, who went to this kind of high school, is of this ethnicity and would bring these qualities.’ ”
And if they could no longer be allowed to do that, admissions officials say, it would be impossible to maintain their current level of diversity.
“We do focus on socioeconomic status and other factors, and they’re helpful, but without race-conscious admissions, I don’t think we could get the same results,” said Stephen Farmer, vice provost at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
I like your idea!
“The essential truth of Nathan Bedford’s first maximum of American politics (all politics in America is not local but ultimately racial) is confirmed by this article.”
I can’t argue with this maxim.
But - if true - what does this portend for the future?
And, how much longer before the boiling point is reached?
NAH! It's NEVER the fault of the Educrats. They would be more likely to find minority students inferior because of their race.
Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)
Not if the other students in the same classes are excelling. It will then be apparent that some students just don't put forth the effort.
The news yesterday was that Obama has set up an African Americans for Obama movement. Can you imagine a, "whites for George Bush" movement and the reaction it would have generated?
I think they're looking for violence this summer and will exploit both of these Astroturf movements to gain it.
Maybe that’s what is needed is a ‘whites for X’ movement. They won’t be able to complain without being shown for what they are.
Actually, they couldn't care less about homogeneity.
Colleges Worry That Court Could Make Racial Discrimination Harder to Maintain
Great point.
Unless you agree that Zimbabwe is the same as Zurich
That God is a fictional character
That a baby isn’t precious
That driving a car or breathing is killing the planet
That murdererers need educations, not retribution
That no person is illegal
That Government should take from one to pay for another
That any criticism of Obama is racially-tinged
That Pat Buchanan is racist, but Rev. Wright and Cornel West are fine for interviews on MSNBC
That people who hunt, fish or fix cars are bitter clingers
That Government produces better medical care than private sector doctors, hospitals and prescriptions
That the Europeans are smarter than Americans
That Islam is merely mis-understood, not dangerous
That cutting off your penis or two men marrying and adopting is normal
That everyone but Christian White Males are victims, even though they are outweighed by 92% of the world
That Hitler was Right Wing
That Mao, Stalin, Che, Castro, Chavez or Pol Pot were for the worker and always left out of history lessons
That Teddy Kennedy was a good man
That the Immigration Reform Act of 1965 was good for the USA
That only cops and military people need guns
That protesting lenders who refeused to make loans to people with no ID or job was bad...but those same lenders were bad for lending the money to people who had no ID or job
That Bill Clinton is a Saint and GW Bush is a demon
That meeting with Hugo Chavez on a private plane to spew hate about the country that made you rich and safe is cool
That skewing the lines between W2 or 1099 income vs. investmement income is really just greedy
That ID for voting is disenfranchising, but using ID for free cell phones and taxpayer handouts is OK
That somehow when a Koran is burned or deal Taliban is pissed on, you never blame Obama, but anything with Haditha was a direct order from GWB
Attacking Libya and Africa is OK, if you are Obama
100 rounds of golf in 4 years is relaxation and OK for Obama, but 20 in 3 is the seed of hatred for Bush.
Obama’s grades - not a question. Bush’s C and D’s were mocked.
ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CBS, CNN, NPR< PBS, LAT, NYT and WaPo are reliable sources of info, Fox is Faux News.
OWS is sympathetic but going to a 1%’er for DNC fundraisers is A-OK.
George Soros and Bill Gates are good for humanity but Abelson and the Koch Bros. are evil.
If you are a Liberal, you place you head in the sand and weep for a dictator like Mao or Stalin to lead you and your tenured professors or OWS fleabag buddies to the promised land.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
