Supreme Court will re-hear Texas affirmative action

The Supreme Court said Monday it will dive back into the fight over the use of race in admissions at the University of Texas, a decision that presages tighter limits on affirmative action in higher education.

The justices said they will hear for a second time the case of a white woman who was denied admission to the university's flagship Austin campus.

The conservative-leaning federal appeals court in New Orleans has twice upheld the university's admissions process, including in a ruling last year that followed a Supreme Court order to reconsider the woman's case.

The case began in 2008 when Abigail Fisher, who is white, was denied admission to the University of Texas's flagship Austin campus because she did not graduate in the top 10 percent of her high school class -- the criterion for 75 percent of the school's admissions. The university also passed her over for a position among the remaining 25 percent, which is reserved for special scholarships and people who meet a formula for personal achievement that includes race as a factor.

The case went to the U.S. Supreme Court in June 2013. But rather than issue a landmark decision on affirmative action, it voted 7-1 to tell a lower appeals court to take another look at Fisher's lawsuit. That meant the university's admissions policies remained unchanged.

Last year, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals again upheld the university's admissions policy. Fisher is a graduate of Louisiana State University.

Justice Elena Kagan is not taking part in the case. She sat out the first round as well, presumably because of her work on the case when she served in the Justice Department before joining the court.

The case, Fisher v. University of Texas, 14-981, will be argued in the fall.

Via: Fox News

Continue Reading....

Black prof thinks white privilege overshadows classroom discussions

Koritha Mitchell, a professor at Ohio State, wrote that white privilege is standard in class syllabi now because faculty are afraid to include reading materials from non-white authors.

Mitchell claims she challenges her students “simply by existing.”

One professor at Ohio State thinks that colleagues who change their materials for fear of offending students are “cowards.”

Koritha Mitchell, an associate professor of English at Ohio State University, argued on Vox that her presence as a black, female faculty member, combined with the white privilege her students are bombarded with on a daily basis, causes the classroom community to fear controversial discussions.

"My students, after all, have grown up bombarded with the message that people who belong in authority—especially authority based on intellectual accomplishments and expertise—are men, usually white men."    Tweet This

In her article titled, “I'm a professor. My colleagues who let their students dictate what they teach are cowards,” Mitchell says that her very presence makes students uncomfortable because she does “not fit any picture society has given them of an expert.”

“My students, after all, have grown up bombarded with the message that people who belong in authority—especially authority based on intellectual accomplishments and expertise—are men, usually white men,” she elaborates. “I challenge my students simply by existing.”

According to Mitchell, students also grow up learning that real literature is only written by white authors. However, she claims this learning trend isn’t limited to a certain “identity category.” She alleges that students are made uncomfortable by the presence of even a couple of required readings by authors who are not white. Mitchell said she doesn’t have the luxury of changing her curriculum to make her students more comfortable.

Universities, Mitchell said, treat students as consumers and therefore: “The customer is always right.” That is why she “read[s] about professors being afraid of their own students and changing what they teach in response to that fear.”

Edward Schlosser, the pseudonym of a college professor writing in Vox, said that he had “intentionally adjusted my teaching materials as the political winds have shifted. In this type of environment, boat-rocking isn't just dangerous, it's suicidal, and so teachers limit their lessons to things they know won't upset anybody.”

“Who can most afford to teach in ways that are least likely to inspire controversy?” Mitchell asks. The answer is anyone who is not hurt by dominant ideas: the white heterosexual male perspective dominates all others despite claiming to be neutral, the professor writes.

"Have you ever noticed how, even if standards are changed to accommodate someone, Americans never worry about standards being lowered unless the person getting the opportunity isn't white?" she continues.

Later in her article, Mitchell claims that everyone is taught that a dead black person is not a true societal loss.

“If whiteness inspires sympathy, then those who are not white will most often become targets,” she writes.

“The most influential positions are held primarily by those who are white and male not only because of this country's long history of directing affirmative action toward whites but also because white men continue to insist that their whiteness and maleness has little bearing on their actions,” Mitchell concludes her article. “The more that Americans allow this lie to hold sway, the more the culture of fear will expand.”

Via: Campus Reform

Continue Reading....

Five most interesting Supreme Court cases coming up next

Despite the government shutdown, the U.S. Supreme Court began hearing cases on Monday. In case you were wondering what cases the Supreme Court was hearing this year.

1. Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action (Docket No. 12-682):

Michigan has banned preferential treatment. Obviously, this has angered a lot of affirmative action supporters, who say the passage of the measure has violated rights outlined in the 14th Amendment equal-protection clause: rights of racial minorities in the state.

This case concerns Article 1, Sec. 26 of Michigan’s state constitution, which states, “any… public college or university, community college, or school district shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.”

The Supreme Court hears the oral arguments on this case beginning Oct. 15.

Via: Daily Caller

Continue Reading....

A Devastating Affirmative-Action Failure

The Los Angeles Times recently published a devastating case study in the malign effects of academic racial preferences. The University of California, Berkeley, followed the diversocrat playbook to the letter in admitting Kashawn Campbell, a South Central Los Angeles high-school senior, in 2012: It disregarded his level of academic preparation, parked him in the black dorm — the “African American Theme Program” — and provided him with a black-studies course.

The results were thoroughly predictable. After his first semester, reports the Times:

[Kashawn] had barely passed an introductory science course. In College Writing 1A, his essays — pockmarked with misplaced words and odd phrases — were so weak that he would have to take the class again.

His writing often didn’t make sense. He struggled to comprehend the readings for [College Writing] and think critically about the text.

“It took awhile for him to understand there was a problem,” [his instructor] said. “He could not believe that he needed more skills. He would revise his papers and each time he would turn his work back in having complicated it. The paper would be full of words he thought were academic, writing the way he thought a college student should write, using big words he didn’t have command of.”

Via: National Review Online

Continue Reading....