are colleges racist?

[fabrizio]

<p>

Well, I never said that the URMs are every bit as qualified. They aren’t.

</p>

<p>Correction noted and accepted. I applaud your honesty in saying this as well as acknowledging pages back that "URM"s are getting in not because of their “sterling qualities” in holistic admissions but because they are "URM"s.</p>

<p>

@Hunt

But at least at the Ivies, they are qualified enough to thrive.

@JHS

sewhappy: Thomas writes few opinions, and they are rarely very interesting. He hardly ever votes differently from Scalia (who writes lots of opinions, many of which are interesting, but fewer majority opinions than a great Justice would). He doesn’t participate in the public discussion of a case that goes on at the argument.

</p>

<ol>
<li><p>But Justice Thomas often expresses his views in separate concurrences (e.g. Grutter, Gratz, and Parents Involved).</p></li>
<li><p>From 1994 to 2003, Justices Souter and Ginsburg voted together 85.6% time compared to 86.7% of the time for Justices Scalia and Thomas. Is either Justice Souter or Justice Ginsburg a leech off the other?</p></li>
<li><p>As I pointed out before, both Justices Brennan and Marshall were also known to be quiet on the bench. Does their stoicity likewise suggest underqualification?</p></li>
</ol>

<p>My point in bringing up Justice Thomas isn’t to derail the thread but rather to highlight what I view as an inconsistency. poetsheart, at least, seems to have acknowledged that.</p>