<p>OK, you don’t like employment as an example. How about the decisions that social services or child protective services (whatever they’re called in your state) about which cases to take, which kids to remove from homes, which kids to return to homes, etc.? How about prosecutorial discretion - which crimes to prosecute, which cases to settle, what the sentences look like? These are all discretionary decisions, which are generally covered by a doctrine of absolute immunity - no lawsuits allowed.</p>
<p>I apologize if this has already been addressed, but was it a lawsuit that led to the 10% rule in Texas? I’m not a lawyer (thank goodness :)), but it doesn’t seem like that much of a stretch to me to think that a state-supported university could be “forced” to use objective criteria in admitting students when demand greatly exceeds supply. </p>
<p>Personally, I would love to see the OP take up the challenge – and, if you want to open a paypal donation account to fund your lawsuit, I’ll be the first to contribute! </p>
<p>My one and only went the private route, so I have no dog in this fight. It was our choice to accept the admissions conditions when applying. But, I’ve always been one to be on the side of the little guy when it comes to fighting city hall. I don’t necessarily believe that the Texas system is fair, but at least it’s objective and everyone understands the rules of the game. In many states, it seems pretty obvious to me that many can get professional help with applications, afford expensive SAT prep, etc. to gain an advantage over others who might be equally deserving of admittance. And, I find the thought of personal bias on the part of an admission counselor abhorrant (e.g., Johnny has a soft sopt for Tuba players).</p>
<p>“I read these two attributes to mean- if you are a bigot, race supremist, intolerant of other religions, or make distinctions about people based on their socio-economic class, you are not welcome and need not apply.”</p>
<p>So we have two classes of citizens - those with majoritarian views and those without.</p>
<p>Now it makes perfect sense not to hire a racist since he needs to work in a diverse workplace, but does it make sense in a free society to say deny them a drivers license? Beofre you answer that question carefully consider what powers you really want to give the majority because you might not always be part of it.</p>
<p>If a free society decides to tax its citizens equally but deliver services based on their religious or political or social views when views are both a fundamental and constitutional right then the burden of proof of why this is necessary must fall heavily on the government.</p>
<p>“How about any government sponsored youth sports program with tryouts … some subset of coaches and administrators get together in a closed forum and decide who makes a team and which team they make. And the best processes, as defiend by youth sports experts, do not exactly follow numerical results … the group considers many factors and decides the best outcome for all involved.”</p>
<p>If they consider factors unrelated to the sport or exercise personal animus in the decision making process - “Johnny doesn’t play select as long as I am coaching because his father is a jerk”, the the state has made an impermissable grant of authority or failed to exercise due diligence. That is just my opinion and I don’t want to see every decision turned into a federal case.</p>
<p>However when the decisions made can affect thousands of individual citizens and millions of dollars in state expenditures…</p>
<p>My fundamental belief is that the system is flawed and that holistic admissions is little more than a smoke screen to evade voter intent in states where affirmative action has been outlawed and to promote a liberal political and social agenda on a very wide range of issues unrelated to affirmative action. I don’t know how you can rationally weigh the educational benefit to the group if you are using “my summer as a pole dancer” versus “my summer clubbing baby seals” as criteria in an admissions process. </p>
<p>Every American knows and knew that while it is good to have a literate and informed citizenry (a legitimat state purpose) that literacy tests, particularly as administered were an obvious violation of civil rights. Blacks were the main though hardly the only victims of their use and we are all much better off and safer now that they have been outlawed. Vague open ended admissions processes with little or no due process or review or comprehensible standards, or appeals process, or oversight is just as bad.</p>
<p>For anybody who bothered to follow the link I would hold up the Ohio bars fitness and character review process as one that while using standards that are not reducable to a number are nonetheless clear, transparent, sensible. They would be overburdensome for a state university that has to weigh tens of thousands of applicants a year, but the system as practiced today is underburdened.</p>
<p>dadtimesthree - Olech didn’t have anything to do with zoning. It had to do with an equal protecting claim brought be a “class” with i member against a town council that harbored personal animus against the plaintif because he had successfully sued them in the past.</p>
<p>The law is pretty clear that people similar situated have to be treated the same unless there is some rational reason not do so.</p>
<p>You might want to follow your own advice and either pick up a law book. You accuse me of misapplying zning law rulings while insisting that hiring and employment decisions are the same as they dispensing of government services.</p>
<p>“The 10% rule in Texas is a statute enacted by the Legislature, I believe. I don’t think it was started by a lawsuit.”</p>
<p>It was a law passed to promote and ensure diviersity in the state university system and I highly approve of it. Unfortunately it hurts a lot of upper middle class liberals who have long enjoyed they way Texas schools in rural and poor areas have been underfunded. The best measure of a student is how he does compared to his peers.</p>
<p>I just think that poverty is largely due to the happenstance of birth, especially for the 18 and under crowd. I don’t really believe that the distribution of innate talents is radically different among the children of various economic groups. Certainly the seed planted in poor soil doesn’t flourish to the extent that seed planted in well tilled loomy bottomland does but that doesn’t speak to potential.</p>
<p>Seeing the full potential of its citizens realized is a legitimate state interest. The question is how to identify that potential so the best seeds get fertilized and watered. I can’t think of a better way of doing that than looking to the plants growing the fastest wherever the wind scattered them. I like the Texas law.</p>
<p>Doubleplay,
How many people say in their applications that they don’t respect differences, or even communicate something that would prove that to be true? Very few, I suspect. Instead, some admissions officers apply their own prejudices against certain groups and decide that because a person doesn’t hold the same opinions that dominate at the university, he won’t benefit from an education there and is rejected accordingly. Even if someone were to come right out and state that they don’t like a particular group of people, if he is a citizen, he should still have the same rights as everyone else, and I think a person like that might benefit more than most from being in a diverse environment.</p>
<p>"How many people say in their applications that they dont respect differences, or even communicate something that would prove that to be true? Very few, I suspect. Instead, some admissions officers apply their own prejudices against certain groups and decide that because a person doesnt hold the same opinions that dominate at the university, he wont benefit from an education there and is rejected accordingly. "</p>
<p>I need a what if, an example.
If what you’re saying is true, then admissions people disregard complete applications and throw them out, because they think they’re untrue. </p>
<p>“Even if someone were to come right out and state that they dont like a particular group of people, if he is a citizen, he should still have the same rights as everyone else, and I think a person like that might benefit more than most from being in a diverse environment.”</p>
<p>Again, I need a what if.
If a kid indicates in his app that he hates people from other races, I’m thinking he probably doesn’t have the good sense God gave him. ;)</p>
<p>When governments claim as all governments do, the exclusive right to shoot their own citizens it is probably not a good idea to divide the polity into those with approved views and those with disapproved views. Few things are more designed to breed contempt for government than the punishment of dissent.</p>
<p>Perhaps the greatest inheritence we have from Britain is that the British learned from a long series of fratricidal wars of religion that dissenters are best left unmolested as long as they pay their taxes and otherwise obey the law.</p>
<p>If the rest of the world would submit to that cultural best practice they would be a lot better off.</p>
<p>JVJ: Often times, there are reasons that you may not know of regarding why one student is admitted over another. It happens all the time, and often with good reason. Sometimes, however, things are unfair and one must learn how to deal with it.</p>
<p>As much as I know that you are simply venting your frustration, your question regarding a potential lawsuit leaves me with a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach. These days, if things do not go exactly as we hope, we are ready to sue someone. Instead of thinking about a lawsuit, it’s better to tell your child that the world is not always fair and that he/she must learn to deal with it. If you don’t teach your child that lesson, he/she is in for a long road in the journey of life. I’m not saying that it’s not important to stand up for what you believe, but to go around suing people when things don’t work out is a bad example to set for an adolescent.</p>
<p>Because of frivilous lawsuits, my car insurance, health insurance, college costs, EVERYTHING is more expensive. The only ones benefitting are the lawyers.</p>
<p>Don’t always blame the lawyers. It’s people like the OP that believe that there are causes of action where there are none. Yes, you can find a certain type of lawyer who will advance any notion, even idiotic ones, but they need clients to do so. You would like to think lawyers would deter people without substantial complaints but, as with doctors who treat hypochondriacs, not all will do so.</p>
<p>Well, I’m not sure what I think. I do know that if you are in a state with one really good state U and a bunch of not as great satelites or smaller "U"s and your state doesn’t have reciprocity agreements regarding tuition with neighboring states…you might be darn upset to have to pay out of state tuition to an equal or similar institution, especially if your child is statistically in the accepted heap and there is no apparent reason why the child did not get in. I think Texas actually is on the right track…take care of the kids in the state…then take care of the rest of the world. Public institutions are not private institutions…not by a long shot in my book. I haven’t done the research but it would be interesting to look at some of the top state "U"s and see what percentage of kids are from that state vs. other states vs. other countries.</p>
<p>Most flagship publics are now really semi-privates that have to use high tuition from OOS students, research funding (Federal OOS $$$) and fundraising to provide the level of education the states used to pay for. Most state flagships get less than 25% of their funding from the state taxpayers. Maybe only 25% of the slots should go to state residents.</p>
<p>Barrons, oh I do understand the intricacies of the funding for state schools…I would certainly hope that a state U that say, receives 25% of their funding from the state has a student body that is at least 25% in-state. I have to believe that this is true, but when I get bored this week, I think I’ll go digging and see for myself.</p>