Group contemplating challenge to UNC Affirmative Action

[RChildress107]

The Michigan law and the ability for states to enact such laws should have been struck down.

And the Warren Court in the 50's and 60's likely would have struck down the law. The Court and the law have swung the other direction since Nixon got elected. If Hilary wins two straight terms the Court and eventually the law will likely swing back (though Scalia might stay on til he's 95 just out of spite).

That's the way it is.

 

[RJKarl]

A perfect example of what will happen if such laws keep getting passed. In CA they passed such a law. In 2009 there were 5000 freshmen at UCLA. 95 are black. 73 of them were scholarship athletes.

At Ann Arbor, black freshman enrollment is down 30% since the law was passed.

These law will resegregate our country. That is 100% their purpose.

 

[TuffaloDeac10]

A perfect example of what will happen if such laws keep getting passed. In CA they passed such a law. In 2009 there were 5000 freshmen at UCLA. 95 are black. 73 of them were scholarship athletes.

At Ann Arbor, black freshman enrollment is down 30% since the law was passed.

These law will resegregate our country. That is 100% their purpose.

Usually-retrograde institution does retrograde thing.

 

[Wakeforest22890]

For every Brown there's at least one Plessy v Ferguson. SCOTUS is usually bad.

Brown wasn't even really a good decision. It was the right decision but the legal rationale is not very good.

I disagree that the SCOTUS is usually bad though. I think that even though Brown wasn't the best decision that it was right for the country at the time period (with 20/20 hindsight of course). I also don't agree with the line of Commerce Clause cases which just kept expanding and expanding it, but most of the time I think the SCOTUS gets things right.

 

[TuffaloDeac10]

Brown wasn't even really a good decision. It was the right decision but the legal rationale is not very good.

I disagree that the SCOTUS is usually bad though. I think that even though Brown wasn't the best decision that it was right for the country at the time period (with 20/20 hindsight of course). I also don't agree with the line of Commerce Clause cases which just kept expanding and expanding it, but most of the time I think the SCOTUS gets things right.

It's a retrograde influence on the country. I don't mean it consistently churns out indefensible or poorly-founded opinions but that for most of the history of the country the Supreme Court has acted in a way to make things worse than they were before review. You see it in Dred Scot, in Plessy, in the Lochner era. Pretty much the period from FDR's court-packing threat to Clay v US or Roe v Wade (depending on whether you're pro-life or pro-choice) plus gay rights cases from Romer onwards is the only period the judiciary should look at itself and be proud of what it did.

 

[PhDeac]

Do you think that is a product of a Court made up of people who are appointed for life who may be out of touch with modern society?

 

[jhmd2000]

Do you think that is a product of a Court made up of people who are appointed for life who may be out of touch with modern society?

Says the tenure-track professor..

 

[Wakeforest22890]

It's a retrograde influence on the country. I don't mean it consistently churns out indefensible or poorly-founded opinions but that for most of the history of the country the Supreme Court has acted in a way to make things worse than they were before review. You see it in Dred Scot, in Plessy, in the Lochner era. Pretty much the period from FDR's court-packing threat to Clay v US or Roe v Wade (depending on whether you're pro-life or pro-choice) plus gay rights cases from Romer onwards is the only period the judiciary should look at itself and be proud of what it did.

I don't believe the Supreme Court has made things worse than they were before the review. I think a lot of it has to do with their decisions coming at poor times which then enshrines current beliefs that need to be overturned later on. It depends on what the role of the judiciary should be. Is it to interpret the law and find an "eternal truth" or is it supposed to reflect the current Court's understanding of the law which then becomes something future citizens can become reliant upon.

The problem with any decision on social issues is that social tides turn and they (almost) always become more progressive, so whenever something is passed by the Court reflecting the current opinion which is then in turn accepted as the way things are and should always be, you're always going to run into a problem down the road when the tides inevitably ebb and flow.

On the other side of that coin, I don't personally believe it's the Court's position to be on the progressive front of social movements (as it was in Brown) as I find that falls within the legislating portion of the separation of powers. Obviously resonable minds can disagree IMO.

 

[Eagles_Legendz]

I'm pro-affirmative action as a social policy but I think it was probably the right decision. It's not the same thing as 50s or 60s segregation. Legally speaking, I find more to support the majority opinion than the dissent (which really doesn't have much law in it at all). The more distressing part is the number of clueless white voters who feel threatened enough by AA to pass this via constitutional amendment/voters who don't realize why AA is important because they naively believe the playing field has been equalized.

 

[Milhouse]

Says the tenure-track professor..

lol

 

[PhDeac]

Do you think that is a product of a Court made up of people who are appointed for life who may be out of touch with modern society?

Of course, I'm appointed for life to research and teach about modern society and I am continually in touch with 18-35 year olds who are the heartbeat of this nation.

 

[DeaconSig]

Of course, I'm appointed for life to research and teach about modern society and I am continually in touch with 18-35 year olds who are the heartbeat of this nation.

I thought that was Chevrolet.

 

[jhmd2000]

Of course, I'm appointed for life to research and teach about modern society and I am continually in touch with 18-35 year olds who are the heartbeat of this nation.

Simmer down, Ph, we still love you. Not as much as you love you, but more than you think we do.

 

[PhDeac]

I'm sure I regret this, but I'll ask anyway.

jhmd, your thoughts on the use of race in admissions are well-founded. What do you think about the role of race in university recruiting efforts?

 

[jhmd2000]

I'm sure I regret this, but I'll ask anyway.

jhmd, your thoughts on the use of race in admissions are well-founded. What do you think about the role of race in university recruiting efforts?

I think the sooner we stop treating people as objects of their skin color and start treating them as individuals, the better. In all aspects, all of the time, no exceptions. I don't see what good it does. I get the theory behind diversity as its own end, but what does that really mean? Diversity of what, exactly? If I surrounded myself with twenty-five people who looked different but thought exactly the same, does the fit your definition of "diverse"? How "diverse" is the faculty in your department, politically?

Do we celebrate the "diversity" that RJ aspires to, which is surrounding himself with people he agrees with but chastising people he disagrees as [I won't repeat his recent unfortunate phrase here, but you know what I mean]? Shouldn't we care more about how people think and act than how they look?

 

[TownieDeac]

don't forget, america is a melting pot!

 

[PhDeac]

Could you answer the question?

 

[TownieDeac]

I think it's fairly clear he thinks it should play no role in recruiting efforts.

 

[TownieDeac]

Coming up on 100 years since Kallen's Democracy vs the Melting Pot. Still unbelievably relevant today.

 

[jhmd2000]

Could you answer the question?

Why should we favor one person over another because of their skin color? It seems to me that that has caused more than enough trouble in our history already.