SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
CNN reports that the Supreme Court of the US (SCOTUS) by a vote of 6 - 2 has upheld a Michigan law banning the use of racial criteria in college admissions, finding that a lower court did not have the authority to set aside the measure approved in a 2006 referendum supported by 58% of voters. "This case is not about how the debate about racial preferences should be resolved. It is about who may resolve it," wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy. "Michigan voters used the initiative system to bypass public officials who were deemed not responsive to the concerns of a majority of the voters with respect to a policy of granting race-based preferences that raises difficult and delicate issues." Kennedy's core opinion in the Michigan case seems to exalt referenda as a kind of direct democracy that the courts should be particularly reluctant to disturb. This might be a problem for same-sex marriage opponents if a future Supreme Court challenge involves a state law or constitutional amendment enacted by voters. Justice Sonia Sotomayor reacted sharply in disagreeing with the decision in a 58 page dissent. "For members of historically marginalized groups, which rely on the federal courts to protect their constitutional rights, the decision can hardly bolster hope for a vision of democracy (PDF) that preserves for all the right to participate meaningfully and equally in self-government."
The decision was the latest step in a legal and political battle over whether state colleges can use race and gender as a factor in choosing what students to admit. Michigan has said minority enrollment at its flagship university, the University of Michigan, has not gone down since the measure was passed. Civil rights groups dispute those figures and say other states have seen fewer African-American and Hispanic students attending highly competitive schools, especially in graduate level fields like law, medicine, and science. "Today's decision turns back our nation's commitment to racial equality and equal treatment under the law by sanctioning separate and unequal political processes that put undue burdens on students," National Education Association President Dennis Van Roekel said in a statement. "The Supreme Court has made it harder to advocate and, ultimately, achieve equal educational opportunity."
(Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Friday April 25 2014, @08:58PM
> Your frothing
Lol, project much?
> and pointless strawman doesn't change the fact that the error in logic I pointed is, in fact, an error in logic.
No, the error in logic is yours. It's conspiracy theory bullshit where the proof is in the lack of proof.
(Score: 1) by GeminiDomino on Friday April 25 2014, @09:41PM
Except I made no assertions about results, only about methodology. So that's where your strawman comes in. Apparently, you can't handle your dogma being exposed for what it is.
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of our culture"
(Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Friday April 25 2014, @10:44PM
> Except I made no assertions about results, only about methodology.
Lol, the old "just saying" defense. Hey, it is possible you are a murderer, but it isn't PC to say that so it tends not to be investigated. Just saying.
The actual fact is that there has been PLENTY of investigation into "racial" differences in ability and the only guys who claim to have found positive results just also happen to hang with neo-nazi types. [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 1) by GeminiDomino on Friday April 25 2014, @11:29PM
That's not true at all. There was also that one (can't find a cite now, but I'm sure you're familiar with it) that found the disparity in the results of standardized testing (I believe it was the SAT), and drew the conclusion that the test was "culturally biased."
The fact that you continue to try to attribute racist leanings to me based on nothing more than my objection to "facts" which are nothing near, though, makes it obvious that talking to you is pointless tail-chasing.
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of our culture"
(Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Saturday April 26 2014, @01:47AM
> That's not true at all.
That's just wishful thinking on your part. You've done nothing to back up your claims.
> There was also that one (can't find a cite now, but I'm sure you're familiar with it) that found the disparity
> in the results of standardized testing (I believe it was the SAT), and drew the conclusion that the test was "culturally biased."
So wait, you are citing something that contradicts your premise - that unbiased studies showed that there were racial differences in intelligence - and you think that proves your point? WTF?
> The fact that you continue to try to attribute racist leanings to me based on nothing more
> than my objection to "facts"
Yeah your objection to facts, facts that you yourself have now cited, is pretty much the problem here.
(Score: 1) by GeminiDomino on Saturday April 26 2014, @03:28AM
So wait, you are citing something that contradicts your premise - that unbiased studies showed that there were racial differences in intelligence - and you think that proves your point? WTF?
It doesn't contradict my premise. The study showed a statistical difference, and the conclusion was that the problem was with the test, not with the assumption. That's a methodology problem.
At this point, I can't tell if you're being deliberately obtuse or not.
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of our culture"
(Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Saturday April 26 2014, @03:49AM
> It doesn't contradict my premise. The study showed a statistical difference, and the conclusion
> was that the problem was with the test, not with the assumption. That's a methodology problem.
So what? How does that have any bearing on anything relevant here? A study that, by your own words, did not show one way or the other has absolutely no bearing on the fact that all the studies that have shown a difference were associated with neo-nazis.
> At this point, I can't tell if you're being deliberately obtuse or not.
Right back at you.