SCOTUS Case - Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action

[chopes31]

---

Members do not see this ad.

😕 I hope you are being sarcastic.

Well no. Otherwise there would be a formula for med school admissions, everybody would be the same, and SDN wouldn't exist. Fin.

 

[Calculon]

Well no. Otherwise there would be a formula for med school admissions, everybody would be the same, and SDN wouldn't exist. Fin.

So the fact that's there not an exact formula means that an adcom can reject an applicant for any reason? So if an adcom doesn't like black or gay people, their apps go in the trash. I don't think it works quite like that.

 

[pp77]

😕 I hope you are being sarcastic.

What he said is essentially true though there are exceptions. For example, an average state medical school probably would feel that it was obligated to accept a student with a 4.0 GPA and 40 MCAT even if the ADCOMs didn't particularly care for him as a person; this is not due to any sense of fair play, but just because ADCOMs fear such egregious offenses against meritocratic ideals might provoke a backlash. That is to say, such an exceptional student is at serious risk to bring his rejection to the attention of the local newspaper, who might then commence an investigation and discover in the very same year an admitted student with a 3.4 GPA and 28 MCAT who just happened to be the child of the school's Cardiology chairperson. But since most people are (by definition) not exceptional there is no risk to rejecting them.

 

[487806]

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.

The bolded states my point clearly. As I mentioned before, Proposal 2 doesn't violate the Constitution. Instead, it just reinforces the Equal Protection Clause. If the Supreme Court decides to uphold affirmative action, that is a clear sign of judicial activism (motivated by public/political pressure). Affirmative action conflicts with the Equal Protection Clause since it takes race into special consideration.

So the fact that's there not an exact formula means that an adcom can reject an applicant for any reason? So if an adcom doesn't like black or gay people, their apps go in the trash. I don't think it works quite like that.

You simply don't know why an applicant gets rejected. Out of all possible reasons for rejection, race/ethnicity is the least factor involved (despite its emphasis by SDN premeds). So, regardless of the decision (even when affirmative action is overthrown), medical school admission process will not change.

 

[chopes31]

What he said is essentially true though there are exceptions. For example, an average state medical school probably would feel that it was obligated to accept a student with a 4.0 GPA and 40 MCAT even if the ADCOMs didn't particularly care for him as a person; this is not due to any sense of fair play, but just because ADCOMs fear such egregious offenses against meritocratic ideals might provoke a backlash. That is to say, such an exceptional is at serious risk to bring his rejection to the attention of the local newspaper, who might then commence an investigation and discover in the very same year an admitted student with a 3.4 GPA and 28 MCAT who just happened to be the child of the school's Cardiology chairperson. But since most people are (by definition) not exceptional there is no risk to rejecting most of them.

Alternatively, the state school may feel obligated to reject the applicant because he/she is better suited elsewhere. There are so many qualitative factors that it's not difficult to find a deficiency in an application. Conversely, in a low stats application, identifying a qualitative proficiency might be just as easy.

 

[chopes31]

So the fact that's there not an exact formula means that an adcom can reject an applicant for any reason? So if an adcom doesn't like black or gay people, their apps go in the trash. I don't think it works quite like that.

You're right. It would be more accurate to say an adcom can reject anyone for any professionally accepted, politically correct reason. Of which there are many, possibly infinite.

 

[pp77]

Alternatively, the state school may feel obligated to reject the applicant because he/she is better suited elsewhere. There are so many qualitative factors that it's not difficult to find a deficiency in an application. Conversely, in a low stats application, identifying a qualitative proficiency might be just as easy.

I was told by one state school ADCOM that such applicants are always admitted unless they are convicted felons. In any case, the "qualitative factors" used by ADCOMs are not well understood by anybody, especially the general public which is unlikely to accept the proposition that the Cardiologist's son's essay was *that* much better.

 

[Calculon]

Alternatively, the state school may feel obligated to reject the applicant because he/she is better suited elsewhere. There are so many qualitative factors that it's not difficult to find a deficiency in an application. Conversely, in a low stats application, identifying a qualitative proficiency might be just as easy.

You're right, if you're talking about n = 2. The issue arises when systemically, URM's are being admitted at a higher rate than non-URM's, after controlling for factors like MCAT and GPA. One of the AAMC tables shows this. So if a med school played dumb and pretended that the discrepancy was due to qualitative characteristics, one would (understandably) wonder why URM's apparently have such amazing qualitative characteristics relative to non-URM's.

 

[chopes31]

I understand your point, but what I'm saying goes back to NickNaylor's post. How can you stop adcoms from admitting URMs without making the admissions process formulaic and only quantitative?

 

[Calculon]

I understand your point, but what I'm saying goes back to NickNaylor's post. How can you stop adcoms from admitting URMs without making the admissions process formulaic and only quantitative?

First, adcoms should not stop admitting URM's. They should cease giving preference to them.

But the answer is simple: If the acceptance rate of URM's is significantly higher than the acceptance rate of non-URM's, after controlling for MCAT and GPA, then you can be confident that AA is being used. There is no reason to expect that the qualitative characteristics of non-URM's exceed those of URM's or vice versa. Therefore, any significant difference that exists means URM's are being given preference.

What would the alternative explanation be? Qualitative differences might account for the differences among a small group of applicants, but it is extremely unlikely to account for the discrepancy on a national or even school-wide scale.

Basically what I am saying is that there will be a lot of variation within each category (URM vs. non-URM). But there should NOT be a lot of variation between the categories, unless AA is being used.

 

[Calculon]

.

 

[chopes31]

Okay so:

Step 1 - By judicial rule, AA is struck down.

Step 2 - It becomes apparent that after controlling for MCAT and GPA, URMs are disproportionately accepted to med school.

Step 3 - ????????????

Step 4 - Admissions are "fair"

 

[Quadratic]

Given the fact that blacks hold less than 2% of the nations total wealth, advocating against affirmative action policies in favor of "class based" approaches using Carlton Banks as the standard will result in tenuous arguments at best.

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.

Asians were NOT a class of people that were enslaved against their will, forced by threat of death to adopt a counter-productive culture, and post-slavery incarcerated frequently without evidence and murdered without justice. The very least that you can do is give a hyperbole warning before spewing such nonsense. The height of Asian discrimination was forced internment camps during WWII and racist cartoons in popular media.

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?

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.

This actually makes sense. Contrary to the linkage that people purport to exist between affirmative action and socioeconomic status, these laws were not written to import (specifically) people with disadvantaged, low income people into higher education nor permit them broader access to professional organizations. For one to suggest this is ludicrous because in the 1960s, such a mechanism to financially support these kind of endeavors on a large scale had not yet been established. Rather, the people fighting for Civil Rights Laws and Affirmative Action laws were actually middle-upper class blacks who had experienced discrimination DESPITE their wealth. Only they would have the resources to actually pay for higher education in the first place, which largely remains the case (hence the finding). So you're actually arguing that the very people who were instrumental in designing and advocating for the policies shouldn't benefit from them. Be sure to apply this concept to your family by not leaving your wealth to your progeny.

The reason why people like yourself love to use Carlton Banks as a poster-boy for these arguments is because the stereotypical characterizations of black people consist of poverty and dejection. That notion is then cleverly used to imply that any perceived pass in ANY system (be it educational or otherwise) should be given solely to folks who were born and raised in ghettos/slums, despite any actual historical associations involving class in general. Hence Carlton is an "outlier" that is benefitting from a loophole in the system! Higher education has been the privilege of the wealthy for some time. It is not surprising that to a large extent, it remains so in spite of diversity policies.

The whole point of Affirmative Action is so that Carlton, assuming strong work ethic and scores, will be less inhibited by bigots who attempt to deter him due to racial biases.

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.

This is precisely why arguments for Affirmative Action along socioeconomic lines rather than racial/gender ones are faulty. Carlton's Bel Air background coupled with his grades is really not substantial enough in changing predetermined perceptions of his abilities.

 

[Calculon]

Okay so:

Step 1 - By judicial rule, AA is struck down.

Step 2 - It becomes apparent that after controlling for MCAT and GPA, URMs are disproportionately accepted to med school.

Step 3 - ????????????

Step 4 - Admissions are "fair"

Good breakdown. Step 2 makes it evident that AA is being employed. Step 3 is SCOTUS ordering the school to stop using AA.

 

[chopes31]

Right on, so back to all the other qualitative admissions criteria. Even if URMs are disproportionately admitted (based on stats), what's to stop adcoms from using other qualitative characteristics as reasons to justify their acceptance? How can that be achieved without making admissions formulaic/strictly quantitative?

 

[Calculon]

Right on, so back to all the other qualitative admissions criteria. Even if URMs are disproportionately admitted (based on stats), what's to stop adcoms from using other qualitative characteristics as reasons to justify their acceptance? How can that be achieved without making admissions formulaic/strictly quantitative?

What would these "other qualitative characteristics" be? If you're referring to individualized characteristics (like great essays, unique life experiences, etc.), that wouldn't work because, if it were solely due those kinds of reasons, then there shouldn't be a significant difference between acceptance rates of URM's and non-URM's, after controlling for stats.

I'm not sure what the med school's explanation would be. I can't think of any reason (other than race) that could legitimately explain the acceptance rate differences between URM's and non-URM's. Essentially, the med school would be forced to lie and make up an excuse for the difference. Whatever the reason, it's not like SCOTUS would simply take them at their word, and that's why I believe that such a "hide the real reason" strategy wouldn't work.

 

[goofball]

The reason why people like yourself love to use Carlton Banks as a poster-boy for these arguments is because the stereotypical characterizations of black people consist of poverty and dejection. That notion is then cleverly used to imply that any perceived pass in ANY system (be it educational or otherwise) should be given solely to folks who were born and raised in ghettos/slums, despite any actual historical associations involving class in general. Hence Carlton is an "outlier" that is benefitting from a loophole in the system! Higher education has been the privilege of the wealthy for some time. It is not surprising that to a large extent, it remains so in spite of diversity policies.

"People like me"?
"Carlton Banks"?

The generalizations are killing me. And I don't even know who "Carlton Banks" is.

 

[Calculon]

"People like me"?
"Carlton Banks"?

The generalizations are killing me. And I don't even know who "Carlton Banks" is.

lol

 

[solesurprise]

"People like me"?
"Carlton Banks"?

The generalizations are killing me. And I don't even know who "Carlton Banks" is.

hahaha

 

[chopes31]

I agree that schools would be lying, but it wouldn't be the responsibility of SCOTUS to prove it. I'm not sure who would be tasked to prove it nor how they would do so. For example, if schools were audited by some governing body, they would have to go through each applicant and accepted student and look at what got the accepted student in over all the others. In the process, adcoms cite several bs qualitative reasons. The only outcome I see is one by one qualitative reasons are no longer valid. Alternatively, benchmark MCAT/GPA is set for everyone (e.g. Minimum 3.6 and 30 regardless of anything else). But that would undermine a lot of good potential doctors.

 

[Calculon]

I agree that schools would be lying, but it wouldn't be the responsibility of SCOTUS to prove it. I'm not sure who would be tasked to prove it nor how they would do so. For example, if schools were audited by some governing body, they would have to go through each applicant and accepted student and look at what got the accepted student in over all the others. In the process, adcoms cite several bs qualitative reasons. The only outcome I see is one by one qualitative reasons are no longer valid. Alternatively, benchmark MCAT/GPA is set for everyone (e.g. Minimum 3.6 and 30 regardless of anything else). But that would undermine a lot of good potential doctors.

I don't believe the process would have to be as intense as you described. It wouldn't be that qualitative factors wouldn't matter - as I said, within-group variation would still be large (to take into account qualitative factors). But between-group variation really shouldn't be any larger unless there are other factors at play. Since we defined our groups as URM and non-URM, the only difference is race. Thus, racial preference must be being given.

Basically, I don't think it would even to come to the sort of process you described, since I think it would be fairly evident that the schools are lying. They could hire all the superlawyers they want, but I still cannot think of a legitimate reason that would distinguish URM's from non-URM's (after controlling for stats), other than race. Even they would be struggling to come up with a reason that's not race-related (since race is how the categories are defined in the first place).

 

[Quadratic]

"People like me"?
"Carlton Banks"?

The generalizations are killing me. And I don't even know who "Carlton Banks" is.

Rest in peace. One quick question before you go: Can I invite Tom Jones to your funeral?

 

[prado]

"People like me"?
"Carlton Banks"?

The generalizations are killing me. And I don't even know who "Carlton Banks" is.

You just went full potato my friend...full potato.

 

[pre med 2014]

You just went full potato my friend...full potato.

Can't wait for the Carlton banks memes

 

[calvnandhobbs68]

Can't wait for the Carlton banks memes

 

[NickNaylor]

I don't believe the process would have to be as intense as you described. It wouldn't be that qualitative factors wouldn't matter - as I said, within-group variation would still be large (to take into account qualitative factors). But between-group variation really shouldn't be any larger unless there are other factors at play. Since we defined our groups as URM and non-URM, the only difference is race. Thus, racial preference must be being given.

Basically, I don't think it would even to come to the sort of process you described, since I think it would be fairly evident that the schools are lying. They could hire all the superlawyers they want, but I still cannot think of a legitimate reason that would distinguish URM's from non-URM's (after controlling for stats), other than race. Even they would be struggling to come up with a reason that's not race-related (since race is how the categories are defined in the first place).

Just curious, have you even applied? Honestly it seems like you don't understand how the admissions process works with respect to how arbitrary the lines are between "accept," "waitlist," and "hold."

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

The op is mad. End of conversation. It's like the idiots who worry about paying too much for health care so they reduce doctor's pays. Ending AA has little effect on increasing your chances of getting in, but socially has major negative implications for the society.

Also privilege is defined as being part of a group that garners you advantage, I.e it's multi-faceted and involved dimensions not just including monetary wealth or race.

 

[touchpause13]

+1

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

Oh no baby do NOT try and rope us into your racist ass argument.

Sent from my SCH-I405 using SDN Mobile

 

[Calculon]

Just curious, have you even applied? Honestly it seems like you don't understand how the admissions process works with respect to how arbitrary the lines are between "accept," "waitlist," and "hold."

I have applied and been accepted to several schools.

The differences among the categories you mentioned are irrelevant. "Waitlist" and "hold" are temporary classifications - they eventually become "accept" or "reject."

The op is mad. End of conversation. It's like the idiots who worry about paying too much for health care so they reduce doctor's pays. Ending AA has little effect on increasing your chances of getting in, but socially has major negative implications for the society.

Also privilege is defined as being part of a group that garners you advantage, I.e it's multi-faceted and involved dimensions not just including monetary wealth or race.

When you have nothing else to say, make personal attacks. It never fails. Let me know if you have something civil to say.

Oh no baby do NOT try and rope us into your racist ass argument.

Sent from my SCH-I405 using SDN Mobile

(see above) Not everyone who disagrees with you is a racist.

BTW, I am also gay. And I find it hilarious that you think you have the right to dictate what I say in my argument. So if you don't mind, I think I'll refer to our community when I think it is apt to do so.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

I have applied and been accepted to several schools.

The differences among the categories you mentioned are irrelevant. "Waitlist" and "hold" are temporary classifications - they eventually become "accept" or "reject."



When you have nothing else to say, make personal attacks. It never fails. Let me know if you have something civil to say.



(see above) Not everyone who disagrees with you is a racist.

BTW, I am also gay. And I find it hilarious that you think you have the right to dictate what I say in my argument. So if you don't mind, I think I'll refer to our community when I think it is apt to do so.

It's as civil as it can get on a forum. Regardless, AA benefits our society. AA could also benefit our community as well, but generally most in our community are doing well and are well integrated.

 

[touchpause13]

(see above) Not everyone who disagrees with you is a racist.

BTW, I am also gay. And I find it hilarious that you think you have the right to dictate what I say in my argument. So if you don't mind, I think I'll refer to our community when I think it is apt to do so.

I never said ur racist, but I do believe ur argument is. You can reference our community whenever you want just know that all of us don't agree with you. I also think comparing oppressions of different groups sometimes ends up doing more harm then good and can result in bad blood ppl ppl who theorically should be allies.

Sent from my SCH-I405 using SDN Mobile

 

[Calculon]

It's as civil as it can get on a forum. Regardless, AA benefits our society. AA could also benefit our community as well, but generally most in our community are doing well and are well integrated.

Civility =/= being accused of being a racist because I oppose the use of race-based AA
Civility =/= being called an idiot

In any case, vague claims as to the benefits of AA are not enough to justify its discrimination. My original post was about a SCOTUS case, not about anyone's moral views about AA. How does race-based discrimination, as used in AA, serve a compelling government interest? How is it narrowly tailored, and how is it the least restrictive means of achieving that interest (whatever the interest is)?

 

[Calculon]

I never said ur racist, but I do believe ur argument is. You can reference our community whenever you want just know that all of us don't agree with you. I also think comparing oppressions of different groups sometimes ends up doing more harm then good and can result in bad blood ppl ppl who theorically should be allies.

Sent from my SCH-I405 using SDN Mobile

I believe the comparison was apt. Even if AA is valid on its merits, it is extremely inconsistent - why give preference to one group and not others?

How is my argument racist? All I am saying is that admissions should be race-neutral. Race neutrality is consistent with the Equal Protection clause. I just don't see how AA stands up to strict scrutiny to avoid being unconstitutional.

 

[galaxyx]

Okay so:

Step 1 - By judicial rule, AA is struck down.

Step 2 - It becomes apparent that after controlling for MCAT and GPA, URMs are disproportionately accepted to med school.

Step 3 - ????????????

Step 4 - Admissions are "fair"

I'd like to point out that in the Supreme Court case of U of California vs Bakke, the court found that having a certain # of slots that only minorities or people of certain backgrounds were competing for was illegal, but there is nothing illegal about considering race as a factor in admissions as long as the 4.0 40 white guy is competing for the same spot as the 3.5 29 minority, the school can choose the 3.5 29 minority. Although the Bakke case is highly ironic, because Bakke was actually a victim of age discrimination that was irrelevant to the fact that he was white and minorities with lower stats got in. He would have likely been accepted if he were younger. It was just easier to play the race/ affirmitave action card than the age discrimination card.

Now, if a school accepts a minority with lower stats because that person is more likely to practice in an area with "need" that serves minorities over an upper class white person with better stats, how is that any different than accepting a white person with lower stats that served in the peace corp than a white person with higher stats that didn't do any volunteering at all?

 

[MelonMan]

You dont see how because you are in the medical field. Watching people here argue law might be the worst things i have ever seen on sdn.

 

[Calculon]

I'd like to point out that in the Supreme Court case of U of California vs Bakke, the court found that having a certain # of slots that only minorities or people of certain backgrounds were competing for was illegal, but there is nothing illegal about considering race as a factor in admissions as long as the 4.0 40 white guy is competing for the same spot as the 3.5 29 minority, the school can choose the 3.5 29 minority. Although the Bakke case is highly ironic, because Bakke was actually a victim of age discrimination that was irrelevant to the fact that he was white and minorities with lower stats got in. He would have likely been accepted if he were younger. It was just easier to play the race/ affirmitave action card than the age discrimination card.

Now, if a school accepts a minority with lower stats because that person is more likely to practice in an area with "need" that serves minorities over an upper class white person with better stats, how is that any different than accepting a white person with lower stats that served in the peace corp than a white person with higher stats that didn't do any volunteering at all?

First, your example is purely hypothetical. We are assuming that factors such as essays, volunteering, life experiences, etc. are constant between URM's and non-URM's because there is no reason to believe otherwise.

The second answer is that race is a suspect class, subject to strict scrutiny. I've asked this many times and no one seems to be able to answer it: What is the compelling governmental interest? How is it narrowly tailored? How is it the least restrictive means of achieving said interest (whatever that interest is)?

Since proponents of AA are the ones discriminating based on race, the burden is on you to prove that AA meets the 3 aforementioned standards.

In any event, this case focuses on the MCRI. How is the MCRI unconstitutional?

 

[Calculon]

You dont see how because you are in the medical field. Watching people here argue law might be the worst things i have ever seen on sdn.

Right, that's why no one has interests outside of their field 🙄 So a lawyer can't have evidence-based opinions about healthcare? I'm not trying to practice law in front of SCOTUS; there's a difference between having facts to back up your argument and actually practicing law.

If you don't want to read this thread, then don't read it.

 

[MelonMan]

Right, that's why no one has interests outside of their field 🙄 So a lawyer can't have evidence-based opinions about healthcare? I'm not trying to practice law in front of SCOTUS; there's a difference between having facts to back up your argument and actually practicing law.

If you don't want to read this thread, then don't read it.

Sure, it's fine to have interests outside of healthcare. I'm just noting that some of your arguments are laughable. SDN, where posters are now experts in constitutional law.

Having an opinion about AA is fine, but then when you are trying to actually argue the legality of it I find it quite humorous, that is all.

 

[Calculon]

Sure, it's fine to have interests outside of healthcare. I'm just noting that some of your arguments are laughable. SDN, where posters are now experts in constitutional law.

Having an opinion about AA is fine, but then when you are trying to actually argue the legality of it I find it quite humorous, that is all.

By that logic, why are we even allowed to have opinions about AA? Are we experts in public policy? In education? In race relations? In health economics?

And why exactly are my arguments "laughable?" Did I ever claim to be an expert in constitutional law? At least I presented an argument. I haven't heard a counter yet. It's quite easy to criticize without offering actual counterarguments, isn't it?

Keep in mind that this case does not deal solely with med schools. Many of the arguments that have been mentioned here (URM's tendency to practice in underserved areas, etc.) do not apply to undergraduate admissions or other graduate/professional admissions.

 

[MelonMan]

By that logic, why are we even allowed to have opinions about AA? Are we experts in public policy? In education? In race relations? In health economics?

And why exactly are my arguments "laughable?" Did I ever claim to be an expert in constitutional law? At least I presented an argument. I haven't heard a counter yet. It's quite easy to criticize without offering actual counterarguments, isn't it?

Keep in mind that this case does not deal solely with med schools. Many of the arguments that have been mentioned here (URM's tendency to practice in underserved areas, etc.) do not apply to undergraduate admissions or other graduate/professional admissions.

Exactly, you are not an expert, though you are definitely trying as hard as you can to come off as being one. That is why I'm laughing at you, when you say things like "I just don't see how AA stands up to strict scrutiny to avoid being unconstitutional." Of course you don't.

You must live in some idealistic world... wish I lived there too

 

[Calculon]

Exactly, you are not an expert, though you are definitely trying as hard as you can to come off as being one. That is why I'm laughing at you, when you say things like "I just don't see how AA stands up to strict scrutiny to avoid being unconstitutional." Of course you don't.

You must live in some idealistic world... wish I lived there too

Law is a side interest of mine, so if I come off as an expert I'll take that as a compliment. 😀

You realize you are making a classic ad hominem attack, right? Instead of refuting what I said, you're attacking me and my credibility. Refute my argument. The burden of proof is on you.

Saying I'm not an expert doesn't make you right. It doesn't even make you wrong. It doesn't do anything.

 

[NickNaylor]

By that logic, why are we even allowed to have opinions about AA? Are we experts in public policy? In education? In race relations? In health economics?

And why exactly are my arguments "laughable?" Did I ever claim to be an expert in constitutional law? At least I presented an argument. I haven't heard a counter yet. It's quite easy to criticize without offering actual counterarguments, isn't it?

Keep in mind that this case does not deal solely with med schools. Many of the arguments that have been mentioned here (URM's tendency to practice in underserved areas, etc.) do not apply to undergraduate admissions or other graduate/professional admissions.

No, you never claimed to be an expert, but your attempts to make legal arguments with the legal lexicon and then assuming that your argument is superior are hilarious. And your general arguments, especially with respect to "proving" that race-based admissions are happening, make you sound extremely naive and utterly clueless as to how things in the real world work. For example, going back to this:

Okay so:

Step 1 - By judicial rule, AA is struck down.

Step 2 - It becomes apparent that after controlling for MCAT and GPA, URMs are disproportionately accepted to med school.

Step 3 - ????????????

Step 4 - Admissions are "fair"

You have yet to actually comment at all about how step 2 happens, which is the whole hinge of your argument (I know I'm not quoting you, but you basically agreed that that is what would happen, saying only that "step 2 makes it evident that AA happens"). You then keep arguing further "steps" while leaving step 2 - a founding premise - completely hanging. That's what makes you sound laughable.

 

[Calculon]

No, you never claimed to be an expert, but your attempts to make legal arguments with the legal lexicon and then assuming that your argument is superior are hilarious. And your general arguments, especially with respect to "proving" that race-based admissions are happening, make you sound extremely naive and utterly clueless as to how things in the real world work.

Another ad hominem attack. Yay.

 

[NickNaylor]

Another ad hominem attack. Yay.

The more you repeat ad hominem, the more it might come true. If you want to do something minorly interesting, try explaining "step 2" in my (edited) post above.

And by the way, it's not even an ad hominem. You might consider it just a personal attack, but it isn't a logical fallacy because I'm not using it to weaken your argument. I'm using it because it amuses me. An ad hominem would be: "you are an idiot therefore your argument is invalid." I never made the second (defining) part of the fallacy.

 

[Calculon]

No, you never claimed to be an expert, but your attempts to make legal arguments with the legal lexicon and then assuming that your argument is superior are hilarious. And your general arguments, especially with respect to "proving" that race-based admissions are happening, make you sound extremely naive and utterly clueless as to how things in the real world work. For example, going back to this:



You have yet to actually comment at all about how step 2 happens, which is the whole hinge of your argument (I know I'm not quoting you, but you basically agreed that that is what would happen, saying only that "step 2 makes it evident that AA happens"). You then keep arguing further "steps" while leaving step 2 - a founding premise - completely hanging. That's what makes you sound laughable.

You realize that was a hypothetical scenario where race-based AA has already been struck down, right? And you already admitted the med schools would be basically violating the law, which you said you don't really care about (which is in itself pretty morally questionable). What's "laughable" is that you think you can violate the law and leave absolutely no evidence behind.

 

[Calculon]

The more you repeat ad hominem, the more it might come true. If you want to do something minorly interesting, try explaining "step 2" in my (edited) post above.

Come at me bro.

 

[Calculon]

The more you repeat ad hominem, the more it might come true. If you want to do something minorly interesting, try explaining "step 2" in my (edited) post above.

And by the way, it's not even an ad hominem. You might consider it just a personal attack, but it isn't a logical fallacy because I'm not using it to weaken your argument. I'm using it because it amuses me. An ad hominem would be: "you are an idiot therefore your argument is invalid." I never made the second (defining) part of the fallacy.

Good for you. Pick on people if that makes you feel better. The irony is that you're proving yourself to be what you called me.

 

[NickNaylor]

Good for you. Pick on people if that makes you feel better. The irony is that you're proving yourself to be what you called me.

It's still not an ad hominem.

😎

 

[487806]

Good for you. Pick on people if that makes you feel better. The irony is that you're proving yourself to be what you called me.

No he's not. NickNaylor is just stating that you don't know what you're talking about, and he's correct.

 

[Calculon]

It's still not an ad hominem.

😎

It is, but the process of your denying that it is is far more fascinating.