Racial and gender discrimination at public institutions should always be illegal.

 

Originally Posted by ginwilly

U of M is pretty well known for the reverse discrimination cases their law school has lost. There have been undergrads there with perfect LSAT and 4.0 not admitted because of quotas.

I doubt very much this is true.

Has there been 4.0 and a 180 LSAT not admitted to U of M Law because of quotas? Link?

Also, more harm than good? If you say so. Empirical evidence is not your schtick - i get it.

 

Originally Posted by Lord Supremo

I doubt very much this is true.

then google U of M reverse discrimination cases and edumacate yourself

 

Originally Posted by Lord Supremo

I doubt very much this is true.

Found this easy enough.

 

"Caucasian American" candidates with Ms. Grutter's credentials (LSAT score of 161 and grade point average of 3.81) had an admission rate of only 8.6%. But black Law School applicants with exactly the same credentials had an admission rate of 100 %.

http://www.adversity.net/education_2_michu_1.htm

 

Originally Posted by p00pymcp00perton

Has there been 4.0 and a 180 LSAT not admitted to U of M Law because of quotas? Link?

Also, more harm than good? If you say so. Empirical evidence is not your schtick - i get it.

damnit, google is my friend. Detroit news is not.

Grutter v Bollinger, 161 and 3.8 which was higher than others that were not white but were admitted. It went to the supreme court so you are probably already familiar with the case.

apologies.

yes, more harm than good. What in that liberal mind of yours makes you think discriminating based on race helps with race relations in any way?

some history behind UM and affirmative action cases

http://www.adversity.net/education_2_mich.htm

http://www.adversity.net/education_2_michu_3.htm

one thing affirmative action does in the case of quotas is diminishes real achievements of blacks, especially women in historically mens jobs. If a black woman makes detective the white force will think she got it to fill a quota, especially if their qualified (at least in their eyes) white buddy was passed over because of her. Without quotas those people would have no argument, with quotas it's obv they do.

 

Originally Posted by p00pymcp00perton

I'm still waiting for the link to the 4.0/180 law school candidate that got rejected. Yale is the only school in the country I have ever heard of doing such a thing.

You just being purposefully obtuse? Pretty sure gin already corrected himself on that.

I need to take the lsat if all I need is a 161 to be accepted.

 

Originally Posted by Dyzalot

You just being purposefully obtuse? Pretty sure gin already corrected himself on that.

Ive been purposefully obtuse for the past few months. Not really into serious posts outside of some legal issues. This thread is just as useless as the thread i never made about the 6th Circuit holding that the individual mandate is constitutional earlier in the week. I was anticipating the pitchforks coming out, the ridiculous use of the word quotas in terms of modern day affirmative action, and other comical replies.

My stance on the issue really is to mail postcards to Anthony Kennedy. The future of allowing race to be a factor in admissions decisions will be up to him (funny, i never see the pitchforks when a candidate's legacy status can be used as a factor in admissions). There really is no legal analysis to be made here other than pointing that fact out.

i have no doubt that 4.0/180s have been rejected because they don't think the student will actually attend the school if admitted

 

Originally Posted by p00pymcp00perton

Also, more harm than good? If you say so. Empirical evidence is not your schtick - i get it.

i'll do it for him:

http://www2.law.ucla.edu/sander/syst...anderfinal.pdf

to be fair we've had the affirmative action discussion before in OT with about as much success. Some people think discriminating based on race is good or bad depending on the race. It's mind bottling.

When asked if this policy has run it's course or if it should be a permanent one there were answers of probably in another 20 years we won't need this. So the logic is that in 20 years it will be a bad law but it's good now. It's the same argument the other side made when women's suffrage and equal rights were discussed. Maybe some day women should vote, but now is not the time.

how does discriminating based on race help with racial relations?

 

Originally Posted by p00pymcp00perton

Have race relations improved or deteriorated since the passage of the civil rights acts?

That is irrelevant to gin's question since a "lesser" form of discrimination replaced a much more pervasive one. In fact one could argue that race relations have improved because overall there is less racial discrimination.

 

Edit - In simple English, since the passage of the civil rights acts and all of those pesky "reverse racism" titles and clauses established, race relations have improved.

Because it reduced racial discrimination. Not because it increased it.

 

Originally Posted by p00pymcp00perton

Have race relations improved or deteriorated since the passage of the civil rights acts?

yes. Is this because because of the civil rights act or because society has been educated. How often do you hear polish jokes? It was constant just a few short decades ago and there is no law prohibiting Polish jokes. People genuinely thought being polish meant you were less intelligent.

how does discriminating based on race help with race relations?