Breaking news - supreme court upholds michigan ban on racial profiling

[as seen on tv]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/22/supreme-court-upholds-mich-affirmative-action-ban/

In a news release just minutes ago, the US supreme court announced in a 6-2 decision that they will NOT overturn a Michigan Law that bans racial profiling in college admissions.

The law - affirmed by voters several years ago - bans the use of racial/ethnic/religious affiliation to deny or assist enrollment of students at taxpayer supported colleges. The law - as upheld - requires all students be treated equallly (based on grades and SAT scores), rather discriminiated against because of factors over which they have no control.

Opponents of the law had hoped to overturn it, and require colleges to enroll students who did not meet normal critieria, and deny enrollment to other students who did, based solely on race.

There appears to be no recourse now for proponents of racial profiling, since the supreme court has the last word, and has said definitively that the federal government has no standing to force individual states to engage in racial discrimination.

This, of course, may lead to a flurry of "copycat laws" in other states, overturning their own profiling laws, leading to a more color-blind use of tax dollars and other resources.

 

[marvin martian]

Excellent ruling! Although the Dem/Progs have tried to stand in the way of equality at every turn, this ruling may help fulfill MLK's dream of people being judged for the content of their character rather than the color of their skin.

 

[as seen on tv]

Excellent ruling! Although the Dem/Progs have tried to stand in the way of equality at every turn, this ruling may help fulfill MLK's dream of people being judged for the content of their character rather than the color of their skin.

do you think any of the resident racial profilers who haunt this site will "get it", LOL?

 

[marvin martian]

do you think any of the resident racial profilers who haunt this site will "get it", LOL?

There's an epidemic of white guilt going around among our Dem/prog population. Symptoms include self-hatred, a consuming need to post anti-white hate speech and a tendency to devalue the societal contributions of white people. I hear that Pfizer is working on a drug...

 

[as seen on tv]

There's an epidemic of white guilt going around among our Dem/prog population. Symptoms include self-hatred, a consuming need to post anti-white hate speech and a tendency to devalue the societal contributions of white people. I hear the Pfizer is working on a drug...

i'd love to see the graduation rates for "affirmative action" admissions vs. "no help needed admissions".

they probably rival the graduation rates for NCAA football and basketball recruits

 

[connieb]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/22/supreme-court-upholds-mich-affirmative-action-ban/

In a news release just minutes ago, the US supreme court announced in a 6-2 decision that they will NOT overturn a Michigan Law that bans racial profiling in college admissions.

The law - affirmed by voters several years ago - bans the use of racial/ethnic/religious affiliation to deny or assist enrollment of students at taxpayer supported colleges. The law - as upheld - requires all students be treated equallly (based on grades and SAT scores), rather discriminiated against because of factors over which they have no control.

Opponents of the law had hoped to overturn it, and require colleges to enroll students who did not meet normal critieria, and deny enrollment to other students who did, based solely on race.

There appears to be no recourse now for proponents of racial profiling, since the supreme court has the last word, and has said definitively that the federal government has no standing to force individual states to engage in racial discrimination.

This, of course, may lead to a flurry of "copycat laws" in other states, overturning their own profiling laws, leading to a more color-blind use of tax dollars and other resources.

If they are serious about eliminating it, they shouldn't even ask to what gender, race or religion you are upon application. Actually, it would be extremely interesting to modify the admissions process to be totally blind. No name they could use to determine gender or ethnicity, no address they could use to figure if you are from a certain neighborhood. See stats, scores, "resume" and that is it. Make your decision based on that info.

 

[Marcus Aurelius]

Liberals, you may now commence whining like little bitches about how the SCOTUS hates black people. Especially that Clarence Thomas guy.

“Today, the Supreme Court moved us closer to the colorblind principle that Martin Luther King advocated and that is embedded in the 14th Amendment,” Project 21 Co-Chairman Horace Cooper said. “I’m pleased that the principle of treating all Americans the same under the law can go forward in Michigan.”

 

[as seen on tv]

If they are serious about eliminating it, they shouldn't even ask to what gender, race or religion you are upon application. Actually, it would be extremely interesting to modify the admissions process to be totally blind. No name they could use to determine gender or ethnicity, no address they could use to figure if you are from a certain neighborhood. See stats, scores, "resume" and that is it. Make your decision based on that info.

actually, those who are interested in racial profiling don't need a "checkoff box" to accomplish this.

i once visited a friend of mine who works as a loan officer (not mortgages - auto loans). there are no race boxes on auto loan applications. but she made a pretty convincing case that she could profile applicants based on name, address, and other routine info.

the net impact of giving more college admissions, home loans, or any other benefit based on being a racial minority is like a tax increase - it increases the cost to everyone else who is NOT in the favored group getting the benefit, since they must subsidize the preferences doled out by politicians.

with the end of michigan racial profiling in college admissions, expect the cost of tuition to de-celerate (not increase as fast as it had), since the admissions pool will skew more towards "fully qualified" applicants, which generally means more affluent households, and thus lower numbers qualifying for scholarships.

it is a little known fact that the cost of college is actually half the "list price" (on average). Thus, if tuition is listed at 30,000 annually, the actual cost is probably closer to 15,000. someone paying 15,000 is paying "full price", and someone paying 30,000 is paying double, and subidizing anyone who gets in for free, or for less than 15,000.

 

[Alinvegas]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/22/supreme-court-upholds-mich-affirmative-action-ban/

In a news release just minutes ago, the US supreme court announced in a 6-2 decision that they will NOT overturn a Michigan Law that bans racial profiling in college admissions.

The law - affirmed by voters several years ago - bans the use of racial/ethnic/religious affiliation to deny or assist enrollment of students at taxpayer supported colleges. The law - as upheld - requires all students be treated equallly (based on grades and SAT scores), rather discriminiated against because of factors over which they have no control.

Opponents of the law had hoped to overturn it, and require colleges to enroll students who did not meet normal critieria, and deny enrollment to other students who did, based solely on race.

There appears to be no recourse now for proponents of racial profiling, since the supreme court has the last word, and has said definitively that the federal government has no standing to force individual states to engage in racial discrimination.

This, of course, may lead to a flurry of "copycat laws" in other states, overturning their own profiling laws, leading to a more color-blind use of tax dollars and other resources.

Let the lawsuits begin.

 

[as seen on tv]

Let the lawsuits begin.

no - this ENDS the lawsuits. various groups had been suing their way through michigan courts and federal courts. the US supreme court is the "last stand"

 

[connieb]

actually, those who are interested in racial profiling don't need a "checkoff box" to accomplish this.

i once visited a friend of mine who works as a loan officer (not mortgages - auto loans). there are no race boxes on auto loan applications. but she made a pretty convincing case that she could profile applicants based on name, address, and other routine info.

the net impact of giving more college admissions, home loans, or any other benefit based on being a racial minority is like a tax increase - it increases the cost to everyone else who is NOT in the favored group getting the benefit, since they must subsidize the preferences doled out by politicians.

with the end of michigan racial profiling in college admissions, expect the cost of tuition to de-celerate (not increase as fast as it had), since the admissions pool will skew more towards "fully qualified" applicants, which generally means more affluent households, and thus lower numbers qualifying for scholarships.

it is a little known fact that the cost of college is actually half the "list price" (on average). Thus, if tuition is listed at 30,000 annually, the actual cost is probably closer to 15,000. someone paying 15,000 is paying "full price", and someone paying 30,000 is paying double, and subidizing anyone who gets in for free, or for less than 15,000.

I know that you can use the name and address which is why I thought it would be interesting to remove that info from admissions applications. Obviously you would need to assign a number or something, but no one making admissions decisions would know anything about the person other than what was on their detail. Even maybe gives schools a rating - so they could say they came from an A+ HS, a B hS, etc..

But, I completely agree with your opinion on how that essentially raises the costs for everyone else. I had a friend in HS who had some learning difficulties - borderline dyslexic, performed awful on standardized tests, etc. Now she would likely be in all sorts of special programs and classes and have an IEP - but those things weren't done for anyone other than "problem" students back in the day. She tried hard and did her work as required but didn't score well or get good grades. So, she applied to a pretty good college, I was surprised. and even more so when she was accepted... but her GPA had left her a trust fund for college and she could pay full price, and they accepted her in with "remedial assistance". Her parents had to actually prove they could pay the asking price of tuition... so, I figure they were desperate for some kids to come in who could pay their asking price, to be able to offer whatever scholarships and tuition they wanted to, to the kids who didn't.

My college actually had the rare occurrence that less than full-time students paid a lower per credit price. I took advantage of that when I switched from full - time which made my tuition decrease by about 1/2. The difference was so great - that I gave up two partial scholarships and a grant by switching to part time - - and that plus the savings from living off campus versus on campus, made my portion as a part time student, less than my portion would have been as a full time student even after the grants and scholarships came off tuition. The reason being, they were competing with other state schools that offered night/weekend options - and they wanted those students... and in order to get them they had to be competitive.They were not, as a private school, competitive in the full-time student arena.

connie

 

[as seen on tv]

I know that you can use the name and address which is why I thought it would be interesting to remove that info from admissions applications. Obviously you would need to assign a number or something, but no one making admissions decisions would know anything about the person other than what was on their detail. Even maybe gives schools a rating - so they could say they came from an A+ HS, a B hS, etc..

But, I completely agree with your opinion on how that essentially raises the costs for everyone else. I had a friend in HS who had some learning difficulties - borderline dyslexic, performed awful on standardized tests, etc. Now she would likely be in all sorts of special programs and classes and have an IEP - but those things weren't done for anyone other than "problem" students back in the day. She tried hard and did her work as required but didn't score well or get good grades. So, she applied to a pretty good college, I was surprised. and even more so when she was accepted... but her GPA had left her a trust fund for college and she could pay full price, and they accepted her in with "remedial assistance". Her parents had to actually prove they could pay the asking price of tuition... so, I figure they were desperate for some kids to come in who could pay their asking price, to be able to offer whatever scholarships and tuition they wanted to, to the kids who didn't.

My college actually had the rare occurrence that less than full-time students paid a lower per credit price. I took advantage of that when I switched from full - time which made my tuition decrease by about 1/2. The difference was so great - that I gave up two partial scholarships and a grant by switching to part time - - and that plus the savings from living off campus versus on campus, made my portion as a part time student, less than my portion would have been as a full time student even after the grants and scholarships came off tuition. The reason being, they were competing with other state schools that offered night/weekend options - and they wanted those students... and in order to get them they had to be competitive.They were not, as a private school, competitive in the full-time student arena.

connie

aha - you're referring to the famous "mary jane" vs. "maria" coding, where some corporation had the interviewer use a coded entry (for herself as interviewer) to designate wether the applicant was black, hispanic, or other. (What did they use the applicant was asian? Mari Soo Lee?)

I find it mind boggling that anyone would exclude good workers based on race or religion. Good workers are so hard to find.

that said, our company is fortunate enough to do almost ALL customer contact over the phones, so appearance doesn't matter. I honestly don't know how some of the people working here with hundreds of rivets in their flesh and tribal tats visible on arms and neck expect work in a "meet the public" environment though. some appearances are so extreme that probably even Starbucks would reject them as barristas.