Quote:
Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Doesn't it depend on the purpose? For example, Texas created a program that admitted the top 10% from every high school class into UT-Austin. It's created some problems, but has also helped ensure that diversity remains. And it's not race-explicit.
Now, I suppose that calling for "geographic diversity" is pretty much a bogus way around the intent of the vote, rather than a good-faith effort to comply with a mandate of race-neutral admissions while still ensuring diversity.
|
How about a category of "economicly disadvantaged"?
Proposal 2 bans some forms of discrimination, but not all - discrimination on the basis of alumni status of parents, for example, is not banned, and that will have a racial impact.
The beauty of the top 10% approach is that it is just as likely to work against the alumni kid as anyone else, so it doesn't institutionalize any kind of past bias; but, it probably also works against a number of groups of kids that could contribute a lot to the school (jocks and art students can make common cause here).
I agree that bad-faith efforts to find a pure proxy for race ought not to work, but I think there can be good faith efforts to promote diversity without making that a proxy for affirmative action.
Threaded Mode