[Vision2020] Isn't This Racist?

[John Harrell]

{see below for article and URL.. I thought this article was interesting}

Excerpt:

  The facts in the Michigan undergraduate case are easily understood: 

  On a 150-point admissions scale, an applicant gets points for various 
  achievements: three points for an outstanding essay, 12 points for a 
  perfect SAT score, 80 points for a 4.0 grade-point average--and 20 points 
  for being black, Hispanic or American Indian. White or Asian students with 
  lower than a 950 SAT score are automatically rejected; but if you are black, 
  Hispanic or Indian the rejection score is less than 850.

  And if race-based preferences are constitutional in university admissions, 
  may there be race-based preferences in other areas--for job applications, 
  juror selection or the election of state legislators? 


>From Bad to Diverse - The Supreme Court debates whether the 14th Amendment means what it
says

WSJ ^ | April 4, 2003 | PETE DU PONT
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pdupont/?id=110003289

Is racial discrimination in the selection of applicants to attend colleges and law
schools acceptable--and constitutional--if its purpose is
to achieve diversity in the student body? 

That was the question argued before the Supreme Court Tuesday. The University of Michigan
says yes, the social goal of diversity is
paramount. The qualified students rejected because of their race say no, such procedures
violate their rights under the 14th
Amendment, which guarantees "equal protection of the laws," and Title VI of the 1964
Civil Rights Act, which makes discrimination
"on the ground of race, color, or national origin" illegal for any institution receiving
federal funds. 

The facts in the Michigan undergraduate case are easily understood: On a 150-point
admissions scale, an applicant gets points for
various achievements: three points for an outstanding essay, 12 points for a perfect SAT
score, 80 points for a 4.0 grade-point
average--and 20 points for being black, Hispanic or American Indian. White or Asian
students with lower than a 950 SAT score are
automatically rejected; but if you are black, Hispanic or Indian the rejection score is
less than 850. The law-school preference program
is different but practices the same race-based discrimination in favor of certain
minority applicants. 

There is an old law school adage: When you have the law on your side, argue the law; when
you have the facts, argue the facts; and
when you have neither the law nor the facts, pound on the table and scream like hell.
There was a polite bit of the latter in the
courtroom on Tuesday.

Maureen Mahoney, arguing the law school's case, said that of the "2,500 students who are
rejected each year, probably only 80 of
them . . . would have gotten an offer of admission from Michigan under a race-blind
system." That, she concluded, "is a very small
and diffuse burden" relative to the benefits of the racial preference program. 

To which Justice Antonin Scalia replied: "I don't know any other area where we . . .
decide the case by saying, well, there are very
few people being treated unconstitutionally." 

In the undergraduate case, there is a two-track admissions system, one for selected
minorities, and the other for everyone else.
Solicitor General Theodore Olson, weighing in on the plaintiffs' side, noted that "the
University of Michigan admissions program has
created a separate path and a separate door for preferred minorities. . . . If they meet
basic qualifications, their path is always clear and
their door is always open. . . . Nonpreferred groups face rigorous competition to get
through the other door." 

Indeed, the university's lawyer, when pressed to identify a single minimally qualified
minority member who got the 20-point racial
bonus and was rejected for admission, admitted, "I can't give you one." 

All of which leads to deeper questions. If there are to be race-based preferences, who
gets to pick the minorities that get the
preference? In the 1978 Bakke case, which involved University of California medical
students, Asian-Americans were included in the
preference class; at Michigan they are not. The 14th Amendment would not seem to give
state university admissions officials the
power to make such decisions, but that is what Michigan demands.

And if race-based preferences are constitutional in university admissions, may there be
race-based preferences in other areas--for job
applications, juror selection or the election of state legislators? 

{..snip.. see URL for complete article..}

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
http://tax.yahoo.com