SCOTUS Case - Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action

[Calculon]

---

Members do not see this ad.

So the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (Proposal 2) prohibits preferential treatment of minorities in public institutions, including universities. SCOTUS just granted cert, and they will take up the case in the fall to determine if Proposal 2 violates the Equal Protection Clause.

What do you guys think will happen, and what will be the ruling's impact (if any) on med school admissions?

 

[goofball]

Let's hope that SCOTUS overturns the appellate court's decision...anything to weaken affirmative action in this country is a step forward.

 

[Calculon]

Let's home that SCOTUS overturns the appellate court's decision...anything to weaken affirmative action in this country is a step forward.

Could you elaborate?

 

[487806]

Let's home that SCOTUS overturns the appellate court's decision...anything to weaken affirmative action in this country is a step forward.

The Supreme Court will essentially enforce or overrule the Bakke decision.

 

[goofball]

The Supreme Court will essentially enforce or overrule the Bakke decision.

Wait, really?

Well, damn. Then opponents of AA don't have anything to gain from this nonsense.

 

[Calculon]

The Supreme Court will essentially enforce or overrule the Bakke decision.

Aren't those the only 2 choices? What was the other possibility?

 

[487806]

Wait, really?

Well, damn. Then opponents of AA don't have anything to gain from this nonsense.

I don't know. You can't really trust the fluctuating judicial activism.

Aren't those the only 2 choices? What was the other possibility?

That's the point.

 

[Calculon]

I don't know. You can't really trust the fluctuating judicial activism.

Why would you call it judicial activism?

 

[goofball]

I don't know. You can't really trust the fluctuating judicial activism.

What do you mean?

 

[lobo.solo]

Let's home that SCOTUS overturns the appellate court's decision...anything to weaken affirmative action in this country is a step forward.

A thought provoking video.

[YOUTUBE]6uH0vpGZJCo[/YOUTUBE]

 

[pp77]

I predict that whatever the Supreme Court decides there will be essentially no change in medical school admissions policies. They certainly won't mandate rigorous, formula-based admissions policies, and as long as we have so-called "holistic" admissions corruption and stupidity will reign. There will be fewer blacks and Latinos with 24 MCAT scores and more 27 MCAT scoring offspring of prominent physicians and other bigwigs. Forgive me for being unenthusiastic.

 

[goofball]

A thought provoking video.

[YOUTUBE]6uH0vpGZJCo[/YOUTUBE]

I thought it was interesting how he never once mentioned Asians, who were subject to discrimination and racism just as much as Blacks or Latinos in the late 19th, early 20th centuries. Furthermore, he ignores the waves of inherently disadvantaged Asian refugees who came to the United States in the later parts of the 20th century.

Why is it fair that an upper middle class black kid gets affirmative action, but a boy from a poor Hmong refugee family doesn't?

 

[lobo.solo]

I thought it was interesting how he never once mentioned Asians, who were subject to discrimination and racism just as much as Blacks or Latinos in the late 19th, early 20th centuries. Furthermore, he ignores the waves of inherently disadvantaged Asian refugees who came to the United States in the later parts of the 20th century.

Why is it fair that an upper middle class black kid gets affirmative action, but a boy from a poor Hmong refugee family doesn't?

Your argument is that it should be based on SES according to bolded right? but adcoms already take this into consideration.

This idea of having a diverse group of professionals serving the diverse population in the US is certainly important enough for the aamc to establish a term: "URM" and encourage/support schools to recruit URM students. Many times in these forum it has been establish that URM graduates go on into work with undeserved, which certainly needed. There are tons of studies that proved this, yet ORMs still whine and complaint though the number of URM it is still embarrassingly low.

 

[La Presse]

Your argument is that it should be based on SES according to bolded right? but adcoms already take this into consideration.

This idea of having a diverse group of professionals serving the diverse population in the US is certainly important enough for the aamc to establish a term: "URM" and encourage/support schools to recruit URM students. Many times in these forum it has been establish that URM graduates go on into work with undeserved, which certainly needed. There are tons of studies that proved this, yet ORMs still whine and complaint though the number of URM it is still embarrassingly low.

In addition to this, the number of minorities that get invited to interview at medical schools have something quite substantial about their application. It is not simply a dry-cut approach simply choosing based on race, national origin, or creed. Did the candidate start organizations that further foster relations in their poor communities? Did s/he pursue clinical excellence and achievement in biomedical research? Were their grades and test scores in the upper percentile of their peers?

I have seen repeatedly from my peers who are minorities make decent test scores and good grades in order to qualify for a medical school acceptance or in other cases, higher employment. On the opposite end of the spectrum, I have also seen URMs with dismal scores end up being unsuccessful or reapplicants in the medical school admissions process.

Overall, I strongly believe that AA policies do not pose as a hindrance as said by critics, or as potent as the supporters say. I simply think that the needs based approach is the way to go. There is the loss of the psychological stigma associated with race and those with poor backgrounds--who also have demonstrated success in their academics--can be given a chance in whatever field they decide to pursue, whether medicine or otherwise.

 

[Calculon]

I thought it was interesting how he never once mentioned Asians, who were subject to discrimination and racism just as much as Blacks or Latinos in the late 19th, early 20th centuries. Furthermore, he ignores the waves of inherently disadvantaged Asian refugees who came to the United States in the later parts of the 20th century.

Why is it fair that an upper middle class black kid gets affirmative action, but a boy from a poor Hmong refugee family doesn't?

+1

Your argument is that it should be based on SES according to bolded right? but adcoms already take this into consideration.

This idea of having a diverse group of professionals serving the diverse population in the US is certainly important enough for the aamc to establish a term: "URM" and encourage/support schools to recruit URM students. Many times in these forum it has been establish that URM graduates go on into work with undeserved, which certainly needed. There are tons of studies that proved this, yet ORMs still whine and complaint though the number of URM it is still embarrassingly low.

Why is it necessary to have race-based affirmative action in addition to class-based affirmative action? Class-based affirmative action seeks to compensate (not overcompensate) for the disadvantages that students of low socioeconomic groups have endured. Many racial minorities do not suffer the same disadvantages.

Yes, there is a question on AMCAS asking about socioeconomic disadvantage. However, class-based affirmative action is certainly not the emphasis in our society. The Common App asks no such question; yet, it does ask applicants to provide their race.

Nor is any preference given (usually) to LGBT applicants or religious minorities, many of whom have suffered comparable or more severe discrimination than racial minorities.

Getting back to the case at hand, whether racial AA is good policy or not, I find it difficult to believe that the race-based affirmative action will survive strict scrutiny:

Even if URM's tend to practice in underserved areas (to meet the compelling governmental interest test), race-based affirmative action explicitly violates the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. For areas outside medicine, I have no idea what the compelling governmental interest would be. IMO, diversity in and of itself would meet the rational basis test but would not survive strict scrutiny.

Race-based affirmative action is not the least restrictive means for furthering such an interest. There are many other less restrictive policies, including increased funding for minority communities, STEM internships for URM's, scholarships, service commitments, etc.

 

[487806]

Why would you call it judicial activism?

What do you mean?

The Supreme Court is divided into competing political forces, with at least one justice serving as a "swing-vote".

 

[Calculon]

The Supreme Court is divided into competing political forces, with at least one justice serving as a "swing-vote".

Right, but how does that qualify as judicial activism?

 

[487806]

Right, but how does that qualify as judicial activism?

By definition

The view that the Supreme Court justices (and even other lower-ranking judges as well) can and should creatively (re)interpret the texts of the Constitution and the laws in order to serve the judges' own considered estimates of the vital needs of contemporary society when the elected "political" branches of the Federal government and/or the various state governments seem to them to be failing to meet these needs. On such a view, judges should not hesitate to go beyond their traditional role as interpreters of the Constitution and laws given to them by others in order to assume a role as independent policy makers or independent "trustees" on behalf of society.

The point of the Supreme Court is to make decisions free from political pressure and to actively reject "suppressive" laws. The Court's ruling in this decision is judicial activism because recently they are actively attacking (or upholding) laws based on public and political pressure, which is opposite to what their duties should be.

On topic, regardless of the Court's decision, nothing will change much in the medical school application process.

 

[galaxyx]

I thought it was interesting how he never once mentioned Asians, who were subject to discrimination and racism just as much as Blacks or Latinos in the late 19th, early 20th centuries. Furthermore, he ignores the waves of inherently disadvantaged Asian refugees who came to the United States in the later parts of the 20th century.

Why is it fair that an upper middle class black kid gets affirmative action, but a boy from a poor Hmong refugee family doesn't?

Actually, this is addressed by one of the other speakers. There are multiple people who argue both for and against affirmative action in this debate, so he doesn't mention mention SE Asians and Hmong because another from his team argues the "Asian perspective" and "affirms" that affirmative action does help Asians in many regards despite the claim that it hurts Asians (which for Med school admissions, may be true, but for life in general is not). Watch the rest of the videos from the series.

 

[TriagePreMed]

I thought it was interesting how he never once mentioned Asians, who were subject to discrimination and racism just as much as Blacks or Latinos in the late 19th, early 20th centuries. Furthermore, he ignores the waves of inherently disadvantaged Asian refugees who came to the United States in the later parts of the 20th century.

Why is it fair that an upper middle class black kid gets affirmative action, but a boy from a poor Hmong refugee family doesn't?

Tell me more about how we brought in Asian slaves into the country in massive numbers and how the heritage of nearly 99% of them traces back to these slave Asians.

 

[lobo.solo]

+1



Why is it necessary to have race-based affirmative action in addition to class-based affirmative action? Class-based affirmative action seeks to compensate (not overcompensate) for the disadvantages that students of low socioeconomic groups have endured. Many racial minorities do not suffer the same disadvantages.

Yes, there is a question on AMCAS asking about socioeconomic disadvantage. However, class-based affirmative action is certainly not the emphasis in our society. The Common App asks no such question; yet, it does ask applicants to provide their race.

Nor is any preference given (usually) to LGBT applicants or religious minorities, many of whom have suffered comparable or more severe discrimination than racial minorities.

Getting back to the case at hand, whether racial AA is good policy or not, I find it difficult to believe that the race-based affirmative action will survive strict scrutiny:

Even if URM's tend to practice in underserved areas (to meet the compelling governmental interest test), race-based affirmative action explicitly violates the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. For areas outside medicine, I have no idea what the compelling governmental interest would be. IMO, diversity in and of itself would meet the rational basis test but would not survive strict scrutiny.

Race-based affirmative action is not the least restrictive means for furthering such an interest. There are many other less restrictive policies, including increased funding for minority communities, STEM internships for URM's, scholarships, service commitments, etc.

Bolded is a proxy for class

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

Tell me more about how we brought in Asian slaves into the country in massive numbers and how the heritage of nearly 99% of them traces back to these slave Asians.

Or fundamentally the hundreds of institutes designed to keep them effectively at or even below their previous status. The reality is that it's hard to compare the experiences of AA's to Asian Americans as while true, they did experience discrimination, AA effectively at every point in their history were pushed into economic ruin. As a group they are very generalizable, but this is regardless of the point, physicians act both as role models for the community and as healers. People feel more comfortable with their own, it's simply true.

Asians such as Hmongs generally being poor gain some benefit from the policies of economic and medically disadvantagedness.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

+1



Why is it necessary to have race-based affirmative action in addition to class-based affirmative action? Class-based affirmative action seeks to compensate (not overcompensate) for the disadvantages that students of low socioeconomic groups have endured. Many racial minorities do not suffer the same disadvantages.

Yes, there is a question on AMCAS asking about socioeconomic disadvantage. However, class-based affirmative action is certainly not the emphasis in our society. The Common App asks no such question; yet, it does ask applicants to provide their race.

Nor is any preference given (usually) to LGBT applicants or religious minorities, many of whom have suffered comparable or more severe discrimination than racial minorities.

Getting back to the case at hand, whether racial AA is good policy or not, I find it difficult to believe that the race-based affirmative action will survive strict scrutiny:

Even if URM's tend to practice in underserved areas (to meet the compelling governmental interest test), race-based affirmative action explicitly violates the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. For areas outside medicine, I have no idea what the compelling governmental interest would be. IMO, diversity in and of itself would meet the rational basis test but would not survive strict scrutiny.

Race-based affirmative action is not the least restrictive means for furthering such an interest. There are many other less restrictive policies, including increased funding for minority communities, STEM internships for URM's, scholarships, service commitments, etc.

Because race is another privileged v.s underprivileged issue. AA helps educate a group of people that are historically underprivilaged and thus helps build their community and move our society towards one where the boundaries and differences between race become negligible.
And true enough LGBT members do experience a lot of issues. Sexuality is an underprivileged area and the community can be aided with the addition of doctors.Which is why if you are have shown interest in helping that community it probably does help some people's applications ( Albeit many gay premeds on here tend to not report it as they fear discrimination in the application process itself).

 

[pre med 2014]

Black people are automatically distrusted because of the color of their skin. Economic disadvantage for a white person is not the same as for a black person.

 

[calvnandhobbs68]

Yes the weekly URM thread!

ITT: Lots of premeds with too much time on their hands and

 

[MaenadsDance]

I currently attend a minority-serving undergrad institution (heavily Hispanic) and am more convinced than ever that affirmative action is a good thing and ought to continue. Anyway, as a middle class white woman I am part of the class that benefited most from affirmative action, so it would be pretty darn hypocritical of me to oppose it now that "I got mine".

 

[MaenadsDance]

Because race is another privileged v.s underprivileged issue. AA helps educate a group of people that are historically underprivilaged and thus helps build their community and move our society towards one where the boundaries and differences between race become negligible.
And true enough LGBT members do experience a lot of issues. Sexuality is an underprivileged area and the community can be aided with the addition of doctors.Which is why if you are have shown interest in helping that community it probably does help some people's applications ( Albeit many gay premeds on here tend to not report it as they fear discrimination in the application process itself).

Ugh, thank you. The argument that we should just eliminate affirmative action and look at economic background only always drives me up the wall - while the effects of racism and class discrimination often intersect, they are not identical.

 

[lollerskater]

Because race is another privileged v.s underprivileged issue. AA helps educate a group of people that are historically underprivilaged and thus helps build their community and move our society towards one where the boundaries and differences between race become negligible.
And true enough LGBT members do experience a lot of issues. Sexuality is an underprivileged area and the community can be aided with the addition of doctors.Which is why if you are have shown interest in helping that community it probably does help some people's applications ( Albeit many gay premeds on here tend to not report it as they fear discrimination in the application process itself).

Yeah.. My interview rate for schools where I outed myself in the secondary was much lower than the schools where I did not out myself.

It was like 1/10 where I was out, 7/10 where I was not..

I realize that n = 1 and other factors are definitely at play, but it still left a really bad taste in my mouth..

 

[goofball]

Ugh, thank you. The argument that we should just eliminate affirmative action and look at economic background only always drives me up the wall - while the effects of racism and class discrimination often intersect, they are not identical.

So then what? We don't look at economics at all?

If we do that, we'll keep getting a situation where the people who need affirmative action the most, blacks and Latinos in disadvantaged communities, aren't benefitting from it, and the benefits instead accrue to wealthier blacks/Latinos.

 

[lollerskater]

So then what? We don't look at economics at all?

If we do that, we'll keep getting a situation where the people who need affirmative action the most, blacks and Latinos in disadvantaged communities, aren't benefitting from it, and the benefits instead accrue to wealthier blacks/Latinos.

Do you really think that college/med admissions really just see "black" or "hispanic" checked under race and then just let them waltz into their school?

 

[goofball]

Do you really think that college/med admissions really just see "black" or "hispanic" checked under race and then just let them waltz into their school?

Where on earth did I say that? That literally has nothing to do with what I posted.

 

[lollerskater]

"If we do that, we'll keep getting a situation where the people who need affirmative action the most, blacks and Latinos in disadvantaged communities, aren't benefitting from it, and the benefits instead accrue to wealthier blacks/Latinos."

Right there, you said that if we ignore economics, only the wealthy racial minorities will benefit from affirmative action. Do you actually believe that admission committees really ignore economic situation and other things that aren't related to race?

 

[goofball]

"If we do that, we'll keep getting a situation where the people who need affirmative action the most, blacks and Latinos in disadvantaged communities, aren't benefitting from it, and the benefits instead accrue to wealthier blacks/Latinos."

Right there, you said that if we ignore economics, only the wealthy racial minorities will benefit from affirmative action. Do you actually believe that admission committees really ignore economic situation and other things that aren't related to race?

I don't believe anything. Here's what some research says.


http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/college_guide/feature/the_next_step_in_affirmative_a.php

Carnevale and Rose found that race-based affirmative action roughly tripled the representation of blacks and Hispanics, but that low income students received no leg up. Likewise, William Bowen—a strong supporter of race-based affirmative action—found that at 19 selective institutions, being black, Latino or Native American increased one's chances of being admitted by 28 percentage points, but coming from a low-income family didn't help at all.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

So then what? We don't look at economics at all?

If we do that, we'll keep getting a situation where the people who need affirmative action the most, blacks and Latinos in disadvantaged communities, aren't benefitting from it, and the benefits instead accrue to wealthier blacks/Latinos.

You must have had a high verbal score.

 

[LaughingMan]

I always wonder how many SDN personalities opinions will change when they enter the professional world.

 

[Calculon]

By definition



The point of the Supreme Court is to make decisions free from political pressure and to actively reject "suppressive" laws. The Court's ruling in this decision is judicial activism because recently they are actively attacking (or upholding) laws based on public and political pressure, which is opposite to what their duties should be.

On topic, regardless of the Court's decision, nothing will change much in the medical school application process.

OK, I see where you are coming from now. Still I think the label "judicial activism" has become a meaningless one, typically being used to describe rulings with which the speaker disagrees. Opponents of desegregation called Brown judicial activism; anti-gay activists called Lawrence judicial activism.

I'm not sure why you think nothing will change in (public) med school admissions. If SCOTUS strikes AA down, public med schools cannot consider race, unless they are going to blatantly violate the law.

 

[487806]

OK, I see where you are coming from now. Still I think the label "judicial activism" has become a meaningless one, typically being used to describe rulings with which the speaker disagrees. Opponents of desegregation called Brown judicial activism; anti-gay activists called Lawrence judicial activism.

I'm not sure why you think nothing will change in (public) med school admissions. If SCOTUS strikes AA down, public med schools cannot consider race, unless they are going to blatantly violate the law.

It's still judicial activism. The only way it's not is if the Supreme Court uses the Equal Protection Clause to uphold Proposal 2. Endorsing the affirmative action in this case violates the Equal Protection Clause in the strictest sense, since special privilege is given based on race, which is not equal protection in that case. Paradoxically, maintaining diversity is a modern analog of promoting segregation in the past.

The bolded might not necessarily become true, but if it does, it won't change the medical school admission process by much. If something, it's likely going to reduce the outliers in the 10th percentile.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

Most people will get their heads out of their asses and realize that they only have like 5-10 URM classmates in a class of like 150.

 

[NickNaylor]

I'm not sure why you think nothing will change in (public) med school admissions. If SCOTUS strikes AA down, public med schools cannot consider race, unless they are going to blatantly violate the law.

Med schools have plenty of other arbitrary and subjective criteria they can use to mask off-the-books AA.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I717

 

[Calculon]

Med schools have plenty of other arbitrary and subjective criteria they can use to mask off-the-books AA.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I717

And I'm sure there will be court cases on whatever those factors are also. That's a debate for another day.

 

[Calculon]

Because race is another privileged v.s underprivileged issue. AA helps educate a group of people that are historically underprivilaged and thus helps build their community and move our society towards one where the boundaries and differences between race become negligible.
And true enough LGBT members do experience a lot of issues. Sexuality is an underprivileged area and the community can be aided with the addition of doctors.Which is why if you are have shown interest in helping that community it probably does help some people's applications ( Albeit many gay premeds on here tend to not report it as they fear discrimination in the application process itself).

How would you define privilege? Are you talking about socioeconomic status? If so, then class-based affirmative action would be a much better solution to that problem. If you are talking about racism, then why does no one ever talk about the racism that Asians and Indians face, or the bigotry that LGBT individuals face, or the prejudice that religious (or non-religious) minorities face? By that criterion, shouldn't there be affirmative action for these people, since they were also disadvantaged?

For the bolded above, why must LGBT individuals show an interest in serving the LGBT community (good for them if they do, though)? No one ever requires that blacks serve black communities or hispanics serve hispanic communities. It is the mere belonging to those groups, and not a commitment to serve, on which affirmative action is based. Even if LGBT individuals show an interest in serving the LGBT community, I have never heard of any admissions policies that would benefit them (except for possibly a few schools such as Penn and Yale).

Finally, I have yet to hear what the compelling government interest is that is necessary to justify affirmative action or how affirmative action is the least restrictive means of achieving such an interest.

 

[NickNaylor]

And I'm sure there will be court cases on whatever those factors are also. That's a debate for another day.

Yeah, good luck with that. What, is a court going to say you can't discriminate against applicants because of their interview in a performance?

Unless the adcom is run by a ***** who has a piece of paper titled "OUR ADMISSIONS QUOTAS FOR EACH RACE ARE RIGHT HERE," there is no possible way you could prove an applicant was rejected because of his/her race or any one of the other infinite number of reasons. You might be able to open records request your evaluations, but even then you could simply list other deficiencies that would be reasonable enough to make an applicant seem less palatable.

 

[487806]

Yeah, good luck with that. What, is a court going to say you can't discriminate against applicants because of their interview in a performance?

Unless the adcom is run by a ***** who has a piece of paper titled "OUR ADMISSIONS QUOTAS FOR EACH RACE ARE RIGHT HERE," there is no possible way you could prove an applicant was rejected because of his/her race or any one of the other infinite number of reasons. You might be able to open records request your evaluations, but even then you could simply list other deficiencies that would be reasonable enough to make an applicant seem less palatable.

This pretty much explains it.

 

[Calculon]

Yeah, good luck with that. What, is a court going to say you can't discriminate against applicants because of their interview in a performance?

Unless the adcom is run by a ***** who has a piece of paper titled "OUR ADMISSIONS QUOTAS FOR EACH RACE ARE RIGHT HERE," there is no possible way you could prove an applicant was rejected because of his/her race or any one of the other infinite number of reasons. You might be able to open records request your evaluations, but even then you could simply list other deficiencies that would be reasonable enough to make an applicant seem less palatable.

So, basically you would have no problem with ADCOMS violating the law by making the process less transparent.

Perhaps a case could look at the acceptance rates across races, controlling for GPA and MCAT. Assuming that racial minorities' EC's, leadership, and other qualitative characteristics do not exceed those of non-racial minorities in quality, what other explanation would there be for a disproportionate acceptance of URM's? There's your case. It's not a smoking gun, but to dismiss the possibility of such a case succeeding is naive. You're the one who's basically admitting that adcoms will "find a way" to institute AA; is it so unlikely that anyone could provide evidence attesting to that?

 

[Calculon]

It's still judicial activism. The only way it's not is if the Supreme Court uses the Equal Protection Clause to uphold Proposal 2. Endorsing the affirmative action in this case violates the Equal Protection Clause in the strictest sense, since special privilege is given based on race, which is not equal protection in that case. Paradoxically, maintaining diversity is a modern analog of promoting segregation in the past.

The bolded might not necessarily become true, but if it does, it won't change the medical school admission process by much. If something, it's likely going to reduce the outliers in the 10th percentile.

Judicial activism =/= striking down a statute or policy
Judicial activism = striking down a statute or policy due to a court's tendency to make new law rather than to interpret existing law. This could be due to political pressure or the personal views of the judges.

Just because SCOTUS strikes something down doesn't mean its judicial activism. It would be judicial activism if they struck it down SOLELY because they personally thought it was wrong. And that's a matter of opinion, which is why judicial activism is a subjective term, used to describe the rulings that people disagree with.

 

[pp77]

So, basically you would have no problem with ADCOMS violating the law by making the process less transparent.

It is already completely opaque and many ADCOMs are already violating the law.

 

[NickNaylor]

So, basically you would have no problem with ADCOMS violating the law by making the process less transparent.

Perhaps a case could look at the acceptance rates across races, controlling for GPA and MCAT. Assuming that racial minorities' EC's, leadership, and other qualitative characteristics do not exceed those of non-racial minorities in quality, what other explanation would there be for a disproportionate acceptance of URM's? There's your case. It's not a smoking gun, but to dismiss the possibility of such a case succeeding is naive. You're the one who's basically admitting that adcoms will "find a way" to institute AA; is it so unlikely that anyone could provide evidence attesting to that?

Problem #1: there is no reasonable way to objectively analyze with any meaningful level of resolution - at least to the point of "proving" that those characteristics are meaningful between two cohorts of applicants - things like "EC's, leadership, and other qualitative characteristics." Obviously you can differentiate between people that have no business being in medical school and people that are minimally qualified, but beyond that the comparisons are limited.

As far as if I have a problem with adcoms breaking "the law," frankly I don't really care. I support the URM program so I suppose from that perspective I guess I would "support" that. My more basic point, though, was that if these universities want to institute AA programs - official or under the table - it is 100% possible and very easily doable.

 

[Calculon]

Problem #1: there is no reasonably way to objectively analyze with any meaningful level of resolution things like "EC's, leadership, and other qualitative characteristics." Obviously you can differentiate between people that have no business being in medical school and people that are minimally qualified, but beyond that the comparisons are limited.

As far as if I have a problem with adcoms breaking "the law," frankly I don't really care. I support the URM program so I suppose from that perspective I guess I would "support" that. My more basic point, though, was that if these universities want to institute AA programs - official or under the table - it is 100% possible and very easily doable.

So the adcoms' defense would be "Well, shucks, I can't quantify the applicants' qualifications, so that clears us of any wrongdoing." I see. I think the petitioner might want to examine that a little more closely.

If I can't convince you that violating the law is wrong (whether it's a policy that you agree or disagree with), then I really can't say anything else.

 

[chopes31]

Yeah, good luck with that. What, is a court going to say you can't discriminate against applicants because of their interview in a performance?

Unless the adcom is run by a ***** who has a piece of paper titled "OUR ADMISSIONS QUOTAS FOR EACH RACE ARE RIGHT HERE," there is no possible way you could prove an applicant was rejected because of his/her race or any one of the other infinite number of reasons. You might be able to open records request your evaluations, but even then you could simply list other deficiencies that would be reasonable enough to make an applicant seem less palatable.

Agreed. Adcoms can reject anyone for any reason.

 

[Calculon]

Agreed. Adcoms can reject anyone for any reason.

😕 I hope you are being sarcastic.