Talk show host Bill O'Reilly called him "a loon." The head of a conservative think tank said he fed students propaganda and egged on a student "mob."Read the whole thing. Who knows the causal connection between the meeting one day and the disruption the next? My point — and I'm quoted toward the end of this piece — is that the University should not act scared about this. It should not concede that the CEO's activity is a threat. Presumably, the admissions policies are aligned with the case law and within the range permitted under the Equal Protection Clause. Why stir up negative emotion and anxiety?
The comments were directed at UW-Madison's chief diversity officer, Damon Williams, who has been at the center of an admissions maelstrom ever since the Virginia-based Center for Equal Opportunity alleged in a report this month that the university gives preferential treatment to black and Hispanic students.
Learning a day early that the center planned to release its findings at a Madison news conference, Williams and Dean of Students Lori Berquam convened a meeting of students to discuss "a threat to our diversity efforts." The next day, a group of students disrupted the news conference, forcing the center's president and a former UW-Madison professor to leave the room.
The appropriate attitude is confidence and pride, demonstrating a belief in the chosen policy. The organization that has attacked us is serious and hardworking. It's not a random swipe at us that deserves no attention. We should respond in a way that suits a public university and have a reasonable, vigorous debate, including a conversation with the people of the state. The people have the power to trump the University's policy choice by legislation, so simple political sense ought to make us want to make a good argument aimed at them. But quite apart from political pragmatism, we should, as a matter of principle, show that we care about the citizens of Wisconsin who were excluded in the admissions process. As a university, we should take advantage of what is an opportunity to teach and to demonstrate a love for debate and weighing diverse viewpoints.
I mean, diversity is supposed to be the central value. And — here's a lesson in what the Supreme Court has said the Equal Protection Clause means — the diversity that justifies the use of racial classification "is defined by reference to the educational benefits that diversity is designed to produce."
The reason the Court has allowed some flexibility to use race in admissions is that it supposedly connects to the University's educational mission. If that connection is real, it ought to show.
पोस्ट्स
८९ टिप्पण्या:
Perfect, Professor.
Are you sure you work there?
The "Diversity is necessary" sign on the picture in the article is interesting. That assertion is debateable, but if you want to make it effectively, attention to typeface and font color are also necessary. Most of us learned this in grade-school art class.
How can that be? Diversity Chief's have been known to be mild-mannered, quite, unassuming people since they bought the first slaves in Africa.
"diversity is supposed to be the central value"
Diversity is more important than quality?
"we did reassure them of their purpose"
Hummmmm.
"The reason the Court has allowed some flexibility to use race in admissions is that it supposedly connects to the University's educational mission. If that connection is real, it ought to show."
If you're happy and you know it, then you really ought to show it
If you're happy and you know it, clap your hands.
Diversity is more important than quality?
You haven't been on an American university campus lately, haven't you? There, the answer to the question is so self-evident, it need not be asked.
I mean, diversity is supposed to be the central value.
Why?
seriously....
We should respond in a way that suits a public university and have a reasonable, vigorous debate, including a conversation with the people of the state.
That, of course, is the last thing the University wants. If the people of Rhinelander and similar places figure out how much their students are discriminated against in the UW admissions process, there might well be consequences.
UW-Madison should take diversity lessons from Howard University.
No Irish need apply.
...the educational benefits that diversity is designed to produce.
So one person benefits and another is denied benefits based on the presence of melanin in the skin or the lack thereof. The whole thing stinks no matter what tortured arguments can be made in its defense.
Who knows the causal connection between the meeting one day and the disruption the next?
Anyone with half a brain.
We need to quit worrying about diversity and focus on establishing the best education possible and producing scientists, engineers, teachers, business leaders, etc that are the highest level possible.
We are losing the education race to Europe, China, Japan and many other developed nations because the liberal establishment doesn't care about the quality of the education or how well educated the student becomes, but simply whether or not the preferred number of under-educated, ill-prepared graduates are non-white, non-Asian and non-male.
Where is the proof that diversity improves the student body? IF, and that is a big if, it does improve the students, does it do so enough to offset the harm it causes?
If that connection [of 'diversity' to education - Ed.] is real, it ought to show.
And the diversity should go beyond pigmentation to include viewpoints. Then the University had better show how it supports all viewpoints, too.
Down here in Texas, "diversity" means 100% latino.
I'll ask it again-
Why is "diversity" an inherent value?
(let alone 'the central value')
The word "threat" is key here, isn't it?
What's the threat?
I can't quite get past that word. What did the CEO threaten Damon Williams and UW with?
UW has arrogated to itself a function that it has no business assuming... racial social engineering. I've lived through the monstrosity of rationalizations about why a university should be concerning itself with this, so I know how it happened.
It never should have happened.
UW (and the educational establishment as a whole) needs to get out of the racial social engineering business.
The "threat" as I perceive it is that the administration of UW will be forced to withdraw itself from a venture that they had no business involving themselves in in the first place. They were very arrogant to assume that racial social engineering is their business.
We are losing the education race to Europe, China, Japan and many other developed nations
I wouldn't worry about Europe. They're going to demographically send themselves back to the 14th century. China and India, on the other hand...
And if that connection is REASONABLE, then there shouldn't be a problem.
And therein lies the problem.
The "threat" to Damon Williams is, of course, to his wallet.
He's a leech on the taxpayers. He's a leech with his own goon squad.
Clearly, UW takes too much of the taxpayers' money. If they have enough money to waste $150,000 on Commissar Williams, what more proof is needed?
How much money is UW wasting on its Diversity crusade? How many administrators are pocketing fat checks off this racket?
The Diversity racket is a great source of jobs for loafers and race hustlers. I can see why the con artists running this racket don't want to give it up. They might have to go to work.
"We should respond in a way that suits a public university and have a reasonable, vigorous debate, including a conversation with the people of the state."
Unfortunately, you did act in a way that suits a [modern] public university: avoid all rational discussion because someone's "feelings" might get hurt, and shout down anyone who disagrees with you.
That kind of behavior is common any place that leftists are in charge, because their policies are not about making the world a better place, but about getting more power for themselves and those like them. SO why are you even remotely surprised that's it's what happened here?
The solution (which would also help with fighting the great increases in tuition) is to greatly prune back the administration, starting by firing every single person with "diversity", "climate", or anything racial in their job title, or work center (black student center, etc.).
MarkG said...
UW-Madison should take diversity lessons from Howard University.
Howard at .3% white is far more diverse than a place like Morehouse.
Both, I would argue feel that being diverse would harm both their Mission and their Brand. Both do a great job.
Why does the Black community think Diversity for thee and not me is a good idea?
Perhaps it's not about diversity at all, but rather spoils....
If that connection is real, it ought to show.
Winnow, placement, or show, it's still a race, and it shouldn't be.
Was the UW-Madison's diversity chief ever a community organizer?
After all, community organizer is just another name for rabble rouser.
Ann Althouse said...
Who knows the causal connection between the meeting one day and the disruption the next?
Who went out and talked up the students? Somebody had to put the idea in their heads.
The scam is the claim to excellence at the same time as exalting diversity.
If Harvard wants to elevate the value of diversity and populate the student body with a broad range of applicants, fine. I have no problem with that.
But to then also claim the pinnacle spot of excellence is the lie.
Compare Harvard to the NBA. The NBA has no diversity program. It is the highest venue of basketball skill in the world, and lately has become interestingly more diverse.
Take a look at the 2011 draft. Picks 1 - 7 were from: USA, USA, Turkey, Canada, Lithuania, Czech Republic, Congo.
I guess Harvard and UW don't really believe that diversity could be achieved without their help.
As as been claimed many times - they implicitly admit the inferiority of those they claim to help.
What are the benefits of diversity? Especially in the 21st century.
All I see is the devaluation of the a college diploma.
Why should skin color matter at all?
chick lit: Winnow, placement, or show, it's still a race...
Just wonderful.
As as been claimed many times - they implicitly admit the inferiority of those they claim to help.
Winner, winner, chicken dinner.
"Why stir up negative emotion and anxiety?"
Because identity politics is emotion based, not reason based. Williams realizes that the stated justification for preferential treatment of people of certain skin colors is held aloft by gossamer wings.
As Mark Steyn quotes someone as saying: with respect to ideas, the opposite of "diversity" is "university."
"diversity is supposed to be the central value"
I thought education was supposed to be the central value.
Want to see the ultimate outcome of diversity policies? Just look at the SCOAMF called obama...that is it's perfect conclusion...never held to ANY performance standard!!!
The reason liberal avoid thinking deeply about the true nature of "diversity" is that it takes them to a dark, dark place.
A place where their own deeply rooted racism stares them right back in the face.
Progressivism is a house of lies, cloaked in virtue.
Sorry Ann, but "diversity" in libspeak means the same democrap socialist ideology merely packaged in different coverings. You never see the diversity lovers go after conservatives and/or republicans for attendance at their closed shop universities.
Why is "diversity" an inherent value?
Diversity might be a value for a school in a mostly white state like Wisconsin because it exposes white University students to cultures/values that they might not otherwise have encountered, and that they might encounter in their professional career.
If you were hiring for a position in a diverse city, and the applicants were equal but for their interactions with diverse clientele, whom would you pick?
If you want to get a good idea of the excellence that Diversity brings to education, check out KC Johnson's Durham in Wonderland blog.
You'll encounter there the incredible Group of 88 that tried to lynch the Duke lacrosse team. You'll encounter characters like Houston Baker, and a cadre of other race hustlers.
Read the whole story and then tell me that the great Diversity Crusade is about academic excellence or that it is even about diversity.
"'I mean, diversity is supposed to be the central value.' Why? seriously...."
Read that quote in context. Diversity is supposed to be the central value if the university is going to take race into account. A classification by race is subjected to strict scrutiny under the legal doctrine, and that means it must be narrowly tailored toward the achievement of a compelling state interest. The only compelling interest the Court has recognized is the kind of diversity that produces value in the classroom by making it apparent that members of different groups are in fact individuals with different attributes and not merely exemplars of their race. If that isn't the value underly the the race discrimination, then it is unconstitutional.
Does the representation of Jehovah Witnesses and Seventh Day Adventists on the campus of UW equal that of their representation in the population as a whole? Some efforts should be made to recruit this population. Also there are a great many people who find sexual fulfillment in golden showers. These people live in the the shadows. If they were given preferential treatment in college acceptance, they might be encouraged to make themselves known and thereby topple another harmful sexual bias.....If your goal is diversity, go for diversity.
"If you were hiring for a position in a diverse city, and the applicants were equal but for their interactions with diverse clientele, whom would you pick?"
So UW-Madison needs to sift and winnow for more minorities so white people have a better chance of getting jobs?
MadisonMan said...
Why is "diversity" an inherent value?
Diversity might be a value for a school in a mostly white state like Wisconsin because it exposes white University students to cultures/values that they might not otherwise have encountered, and that they might encounter in their professional career.
That would seem to argue that someplace like Morehouse ought to have a diverse (e.g. white) faculty to provide encounters for the black male students with the types of supervisors they would likely encounter in their careers.
Obviously Morehouse goes exactly the other way, with a pretty much all blackj male faculty as role models to an all black male student body. Tryng to teach a lot more than book learning...
I think they do a great job...
it works for them, and they are clearly a member of academia that has a different and diverse approach using a non-diverse approach. repetition intended...
If you were hiring for a position in a diverse city, and the applicants were equal but for their interactions with diverse clientele, whom would you pick?
This is the type of question we always hear, but biggest problem with it is that nobody admits that it's bullshit. After many years of hiring folks, I have never once seen two "equal" applicants when trying to fill a position. There are always standouts and chaff.
"All things being equal" is a false argument in terms of hiring actual people in the real world.
Let's try this one on for size. If you're trying to fill a position in a call center and its down between two "equal" candidates, but one has a strong urban accent with awful diction in general, while the other speaks clearly, which would you hire?
I submit to you that things have gotten to the point where skin color in the above example is pointless. I don't know about the rest of you, but I've run into plenty of lily-white applicants for whom "fo' sho'" is simply how they talk.
"The reason the Court has allowed some flexibility to use race in admissions is that it supposedly connects to the University's educational mission. If that connection is real, it ought to show."
Oh, it shows alright. It shows in project labor agreements, in which public contracts favor higher-priced labor unions over taxpayer interests; it shows in school admissions in which less qualified but more politically favored students of two races are admitted over more qualified students of two other, but less politically favored races; it shows in a "progressive income tax" scheme in which 1% of the earners (who earn 25% of total income) pay 40% of total income taxes; it shows in a new federal health care law in which families of four earning as much as $89,400 will receive taxpayer subsidies to buy health coverage; it shows in a federal $790 billion "stimulus" wasted on long-standing Democrat constituencies; it shows in federal "loans" to unproven, unsustainable businesses to Obama bundlers.
If one of the purposes of public universities' education missions is to educate students, even if indirectly and quiet by accident that politics trumps merit and puts a thumb on the scales, then yes, mission accomplished.
We should respond in a way that suits a public university and have a reasonable, vigorous debate, including a conversation with the people of the state.
Instead of running around in a panic like you've been caught perptrating a fraud.
Oh, wait.....
Bottom line: It's important for our universities to discriminate against whites and Asians so that we can compete against diversity-embracing countries like Germany, China and South Korea.
The authorities traditionally have restrained violence.
But since the 1968 Dem Convention in Chicago the left wing in authority positions have institutionalized an encouragement of violence among students.
Corruption can be restrained but it cannot be reversed.
More to Browndog's point, progressivism is vice cloaked as virtue.
Diversity might be a value for a school in a mostly white state like Wisconsin because it exposes white University students to cultures/values that they might not otherwise have encountered, and that they might encounter in their professional career.
UW-Madison would already have an extremely diverse student body without "diversity" efforts. Just look at all of the foreign students.
If "diversity" means black and hispanic, there really is no learning curve for white people to deal effectively with them. They're just people.
For example, what "value" should a white scientist be aware of when dealing with a black scientist at a conference?
So now in America, the elite colleges have diversity of skin color.
So, as Ann has said, you can look around and see "that members of different groups are in fact individuals with different attributes..."
But by damn, if you dare have a thought other than the prescribed "truth" you are severely condemned and, in some cases, drummed out of your program.
This is the diversity the left values.
The "educational benefits" of diversity is bullshit they throw to the wall and whatever sticks are the "benefits".
Because nothing says "diversity" like Marxists and liberals of differring skin tones.
Diversity might be a value for a school in a mostly white state like Wisconsin because it exposes white University students to cultures/values that they might not otherwise have encountered, and that they might encounter in their professional career.
Two years in the Army would do that job much better. And the person undergoing the 'diversity' would be paid for it!
Quayle - Where performance really matters, diversity doesn't. Education is of secondary importance in the American univeristy today, of no importance in liberal arts. In liberal arts all you need to know is high school level math and writing skills, plus parrot back to your profs their liberal dogma.
Two years in the Army would do that job much better. And the person undergoing the 'diversity' would be paid for it!
No argument with that.
"The only compelling interest the Court has recognized is the kind of diversity that produces value in the classroom by making it apparent that members of different groups are in fact individuals with different attributes and not merely exemplars of their race. If that isn't the value underly the the race discrimination, then it is unconstitutional."
Actually, the left has no interest in the individuals, or showing that they are more than exemplars of their race. They are interested only in expanding their power, and see this as a means. If they were truly interested in the individuals, they wouldn't be so apoplectic when "individuals" in their particular groups wander off their little reservations. See: Sarah Palin and Clarence Thomas. They don't fit into the left's little categories, and are treated accordingly.
So there are educational benefits in letting in less qualified applicants? Or is diversity so powerful that it mitigates or compensates for an intellectually inferior classroom?
Of course not. Once you put it in operational terms, diversity is a straw man.
Trey
Two years in the Army would do that job much better. And the person undergoing the 'diversity' would be paid for it!
Bingo. And the arguement that white need to be exposed to other skin colors to be better humans is racistto the core.
There are far more racially homogenous neighborhoods in the big city but no one talks about their need for 'diversity' so they can grow as human beings. Rather, we are told that their racially homogenous neighborhoods are just "keeping it real" and to be celebrated for their "vibrant cultures".
Menawhile, when whites are in a homogenous neighborhoods, we're told that they are developmentally and culturally crippled in some way; bigots who need some re-education with some "diversity" brainwashing, to be conveniently provided by people with those phony-baloney "diversity" degrees.
Fuck that noise. It's so obviously racist that anyone who makes such claims should be ashamed of themselves.
It is a fraud through and through that thrives on white guilt and false accusations.
I'm tired of anti-white racism being passed off as "diversity". It has become complete bullshit designed to keep the money flowing to scores of race hustlers and leftist Diversity-Industrial Complex diploma mill graduates.
The only thing I have to address to the courts is to marvel at how people with a legal education graduate degree can say such stupid things and then make it binding law on the rest of us.
Try to find some hard science diversity research. I did. What I found was sloppy "research" that invoked obvious tautologies.
Like: "In one of the studies that specifically tested these new measures (Chang 1996), the results show that racial diversity has a direct positive impact on the individual white student: The more diverse the student body, the greater the likelihood that the white student will socialize with someone of a different racial group or discuss racial issues."
So the finding was that with whites are more likely to come into contact and have interactions with non-whites if there are more non-whites around. Wow. That is deep.
And there is not even an attempt to tie these interactions in with improved academic achievement or job placement. It is set up that more inter-racial interactions are good in and of themselves. At least for the white kids I guess.
Now I love it when people go to college and I pull for one race, the human race. But if the rest of the diversity "research" is this poor then valueing diversity in education is nothing more than a fairy tale.
Trey
Good points Sgt. Ted. "Diversity" is just the same lie as "separate but equal" from another perspective.
Trey
So the finding was that with whites are more likely to come into contact and have interactions with non-whites if there are more non-whites around. Wow. That is deep.
I think it's much more enriching to notice a group of foreign students sitting at a table at the Union than a group of black students. You can always see black people on TV, but you can't always see foreigners, especially weird ones.
It is time to burst the whole public education scam. It is a ponzi scheme where untold billions are thrown down a rathole to produce morons who can't get a job.
Take the govenment and the govenments money out of the equation.
Cut taxes and only spend money on important stuff like guns and bombs.
All the money going to colleges is a big waste.
I dunno, but that "Diversity is Necessary" sign is absurd.
What makes it so is the use of different colors for each letter.
Since the sign would actually be easier to read if all the letters were the same color (other than yellow, as there's no contrast with the white posterboard) its message is at war with its graphic design.
Mr. Williams has a very selective memory. He and I exchanged a few emails immediately after the event, and this is a snippet of what I wrote, condemning his actions as incitement:
"The Badger Herald reported that at your Monday evening meeting, students were given materials for creating protest signs and told by you "don't wait for us to show the way." The following day at the press conference, many of these very same students then illegally entered the Doubltetree Hotel, assaulted hotel staff, shouted down the speech of Mr. Clegg, unlawfully obstructed his exit, and then occupied the establishment for the remainder of the day while ignoring police instruction. You appeared at the protest and did not advocate for the students to disband. You then also Tweeted your support of the protest and its organizers."
But now he'd like to duck any responsibility for the mob, though he still will not criticize its actions. The University is luck to have Professors Downs and Althouse as the only apparent defenders of truly free speech.
But now [Williams would] like to duck any responsibility for the mob, though he still will not criticize its actions.
I've wondered whether he would ever get counseled by any superiors at the university. I (cynically) suspect they'd need to go to him first to make sure their "counseling" language was not racially insensitive. Therein lies a dilemma.
Institutional discrimination by incidental features or anything other than individual merit can never be justified.
So much for enlightenment. Denigration of individual dignity is the new normal.
Was the crowd of incited students diverse? Who was taking count of the races present? If the wrong percentage of whites, blacks, etc were present, was someone holding individuals back to prevent them from screwing up the racial percentages?
Hmm... What about classes? When I taught at UW, I don't recall seeing diversity in my classrooms. Why are they stopping at admissions and not monitoring classroom-specific diversity?
What about the dorms? Or the campus clubs? Or majors? "Sorry, Miss, there are too many women majoring in English Lit right now. Maybe you should try Physics instead. I hear there are some openings for women over there."
"If that connection is real, it ought to show." It's not and it doesn't.
Diversity might be a value for a school in a mostly white state like Wisconsin because it exposes white University students to cultures/values that they might not otherwise have encountered, and that they might encounter in their professional career.
So, the premise would have to be that "White culture/values" are flawed. Other cultures are not.
The way to improve upon the white culture is to replace it with aspects of other cultures?
Again- A house of lies.
"diversity" is a tool progressive use to destroy the very cultures they claim to celebrate.
individual cultures are counter to the collective
@Althouse-
Thank-you for clarifying.
"Does the representation of Jehovah Witnesses and Seventh Day Adventists on the campus of UW equal that of their representation in the population as a whole?"
That question is premised on a misunderstanding of the compelling interest that can support racial classifications. You're assuming that race balancing is permitted, but it is specifically rejected. If the evidence shows that classroom diversity (for the purpose of educating everyone) is NOT what the policy is tailored to and that matching the percentages in the population was what was really going on, then the policy fails the strict scrutiny test.
I think very few people realize this!
"Was the crowd of incited students diverse? Who was taking count of the races present? If the wrong percentage of whites, blacks, etc were present, was someone holding individuals back to prevent them from screwing up the racial percentages?"
Well, the news reports I saw did not reveal the race of the students, so I don't know. You know how the media are about this.
"So, the premise would have to be that "White culture/values" are flawed. Other cultures are not. The way to improve upon the white culture is to replace it with aspects of other cultures?"
Another way to look at this -- and I see it in the SCt cases -- is that affirmative action gets accepted because of the way it serves white people. Even though some white applicants may be losers in the process, the white students who do get in are supposedly getting some educational enrichment through the presence of students who are in various minority groups.
That's what Scalia seems to be complaining about here in Grutter:
"The “educational benefit” that the University of Michigan seeks to achieve by racial discrimination consists, according to the Court, of “ ‘cross-racial understanding,’ ” ante, at 18, and “ ‘better prepar[ation of] students for an increasingly diverse workforce and society,’ ” ibid., all of which is necessary not only for work, but also for good “citizenship,” ante, at 19. This is not, of course, an “educational benefit” on which students will be graded on their Law School transcript (Works and Plays Well with Others: B+) or tested by the bar examiners (Q: Describe in 500 words or less your cross-racial understanding). For it is a lesson of life rather than law–essentially the same lesson taught to (or rather learned by, for it cannot be “taught” in the usual sense) people three feet shorter and twenty years younger than the full-grown adults at the University of Michigan Law School, in institutions ranging from Boy Scout troops to public-school kindergartens. If properly considered an “educational benefit” at all, it is surely not one that is either uniquely relevant to law school or uniquely “teachable” in a formal educational setting. And therefore: If it is appropriate for the University of Michigan Law School to use racial discrimination for the purpose of putting together a “critical mass” that will convey generic lessons in socialization and good citizenship, surely it is no less appropriate–indeed, particularly appropriate–for the civil service system of the State of Michigan to do so. There, also, those exposed to “critical masses” of certain races will presumably become better Americans, better Michiganders, better civil servants."
Which human beings are used as a means to serve the interests of other human beings? That's an inconvenient question of the sort that tends to get a big emotional reaction, but it should be looked at carefully and contemplated.
A more "approprite" UW response would have been to call an "expert" Law School grad and plant a car bomb at the Doubltree thus raising awareness of the "Diversity Crisis" no?
O'Reilly called Damon Williams a loon? How dare he say that about UW's esteemed "thought leader".
The Althouse position, with which I agree, is a good argument for why the DC's actions were incitement.
Instead of showing confidence in the University's policy, he treated challenge as a nefarious act by people of questionable character and motives. In the context, and given the highlighting of the press conference, this is incitement enough.
Again, Althouse says that "presumably" the University position is consistent with the case law. Fair enough. And careful. But now the presumption will be tested with a searching review.
The professor is conducting a seminar here. Free instruction in constitutional law and how to read a case.
Three years in Law School and I never learned a damned thing from another student. Why should I they were students not teachers. I know they couldn't have learned anything about Law from me because I knew nothing about it, that's why I was in school and not representing clients. On the other hand, I've learned a lot from people of all different types but very little of it had anything to do with their race. Scalia is right the whole argument put forth about diversity in Grutter just doesn't wash especially in Law but also in Organic Chem, Donne's poetry, or any modern language to name just a few.
Another way to look at this -- and I see it in the SCt cases -- is that affirmative action gets accepted because of the way it serves white people.
OUTSTANDING!
I never thought of it in that context.
Ha! Learned something from Althouse today...
Further, that would also make the converse true.
Further still, would that not make the case for segregation?
Further still, would that not make the case for segregation?
You're trying to argue something logically in a debate where logic only exists on one side of the table.
Brown noser is an ugly term, befitting only a dog.
Althouse raises an extremely tangential point about the presumed immorality of using affirmative action law students to benefit the whites as if this phenomenon really existed. How exactly does the race of 10 percent of the class benefit the other ninety percent in mastering the intricacies of the Uniform Commercial Code, the IRS Code, the Banking Laws or all those other pesky things your clients pay you to know about so that their cases are fairly decided. Short answer it doesn't.
Scalia opened his dissent in Grutter with this:
"I join the opinion of The Chief Justice. As he demonstrates, the University of Michigan Law School’s mystical “critical mass” justification for its discrimination by race challenges even the most gullible mind."
He closed it with this:
"The Constitution proscribes government discrimination on the basis of race, and state-provided education is no exception."
Preach it, paisano.
Just what you want when you fork over a fee to your lawyer: a gullible mind.
chickenlittle said...
Brown noser is an ugly term, befitting only a dog.
_____________
Talking to me?
I don't mind if someone calls me out, or gets person.
This is, you'd better be right.
In this case, you can't be more wrong.
Any "regular" would know that--
Since I"m getting set to watch the Tigers spank the Yankees, and in a good mood, I'll just leave it at that.
> The only compelling interest the Court has recognized is the kind of diversity that produces value in the classroom by making it apparent that members of different groups are in fact individuals with different attributes and not merely exemplars of their race.
In other words, they shouldn't admit black democrats....
@browndog: My apologies! Your 3:29 broke my scarcasm detector.
One of the two competing designs for the St James Quarter in Newcastle upon Tyne, which will stand near to the famous football stadium of the same name, could see a 29-storey mixed use tower if Napper Architects beat off rival Ryder Architecture.
Paid Forum Posting Job
Powerboat CoursesSalt Lake City Car Accident Attorneys
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा