Question about race and admissions

fabrizio
Sun, 16 Mar 2008 15:21:24 +0000

Newjack88,



Go ahead and take it that way. I just don’t see the point of further discussing it. What benefit do you see from us discussing this minute point? Anyways, I will take your tendencies to argue over irrelevant points while completely ignoring the relevant ones as you not having any good reason to being so opposed to having racially and gender balanced student bodies.



Please keep in mind that I have answered your question, “what is your argument for not considering race?” by noting that race is a factor irrelevant to participation in university life.

When you weren’t convinced and asked me how extracurriculars and essays are more relevant than race, I gave you examples and reasons why both are far more relevant to participation in university life than race is in post #71.

When you still weren’t convinced and asked me, “wouldn’t race be relevant if the school had a <insert ethnicity=”“> club or a multicultitural club?” I said no and pointed out in post #74 that your question rests on the assumption that being part of an ethnicity means being intimately familiar with that ethnicity. I gave you an example based on my experience with American Chinese, many of whom do not speak Chinese and are not familiar with Chinese history, customs, and culture.</insert>

Also, remember that racial balancing is not a compelling state interest and is in fact patently un-Constitutional.



As for the argument about changing names, colleges already ask you to give previous last names. Right now it’s optional but, if it were found that many kids were changing their names to get an “edge” in the college admissions game, i’m pretty sure that field would become required.



I’m not sure if you’ve applied to any colleges yet, but when I applied last year, none of the four on my list required that I list previous last names. To see if anything had changed, I downloaded this year’s application for admission at my current university and found no “previous names” box. The Ivy Leagues used to ask this question decades ago to discriminate against Jews. That you have not unequivocally denounced this seem to be OK with its being a required question surprises me.

You say that Grutter had nothing to do with the way in which Parents Involved was decided. Then, why was it referenced so many times by the Justices? If case X is frequently referred to in an opinion, then case X must have had something to do with the way in which case Y was decided. Otherwise, it wouldn’t have been cited.