Coulter: Dems Don't Have the Constitution for Racial Equality

"We've had a civil war, a constitutional amendment, a Supreme Court ruling, a National Guard mobilization and a federal civil rights law to try to get the Democrats to stop with the race discrimination."

No wonder her biggest claim to fame lately is being a Fox News pundit.

 

I'm very sorry that I gave that story a hit.

First of all, she doesn't understand the Michigan system. As has been explained here previously, you don't get 20 points for being black. I said it before and I'll say it again: there's no such thing as "more qualified" and "less qualified", only qualified or not. If Michigan is allowing in unqualified minority candidates, there's a case. If not, everything beyond that is a subjective decision to try to have the "best" incoming class possible, which would include diversity of a variety of things. Any school that had, say, a campus full of Ann Coulters or Colin Grabows or obies or whoever would not be as conducive to gaining a well-rounded education than one that had real diversity, in nationality, race, class, interests and upbringing.

Second, she seems to think that SAT scores are the sole determinant for college admissions, which they are not. Nowhere. Not one place takes the top X% of SAT scores for admissions. If the point is to find the people with the highest IQs, which it's not, most every academic would tell you that the answer is likely not to be found among SATs, which can be coached.

Third, she ignores the sea change in party affiliation that took place in the 1950s and 1960s when trying to link Southern Democrats during the civil rights era to current Dems. Virtually all those Democrats who blocked entrances to southern schools switched to the Republican Party decades ago.

Finally, by saying that schools can discriminate by any form other than race totally ignores the point that other disciminating factors such as legacies lead to discrimination on legally-unprotected grounds. If every legacy is white and only legacies are admitted, that's racial discrimination. If a school admitted only naturally blonde people, the school is using hair color as a proxy for race.

By not understanding the law and how it is applied, she makes herself look ignorant. By resorting to calling Democrats "idiots" and "embiciles" instead of making enlightened arguments, she makes herself look sad and lost.

 

You got it, Big Soccer pundit!

 

What if one is cheapr than the other? What if one was closer to my home? What if one worked faster, or returned my phone calls nicely, or explained things to me clearly so that I didn't feel like I was being fleeced? What if one just made me feel more comfortable?

And, considering that Michigan (especially the law school) is quite competitive for out-of-state candidates, the concept of "minimal qualifications" is actually pretty high bar to clear. In your analogy, it's like getting a degree in mechanical engineering instead of going to Happy Jack Mechanics' School. Come on, Colin, there's a hell of lot more to choosing among qualified candidates than test scores.

 

I often interview people for high tech ASIC designs or verification positions within my hardware group. 75% of the time the person is "qualified" to perform the job.

It is my job (as well as the other interviewers) to find the "most" qualified person for the job.

Perhaps your point is about college only but if you are extending it to real life, I am not sure I understand.

Andy

 

Funny you should bring this up, because I was wondering where all of the conservative outcry over "less qualified" whites gaining entrance to historically black colleges was.

 

So why don't you think a student is "more qualified" if they come from an underrepresented background, then?

 

Shouldn't you be?

I would say so, but that's just my opinion.

 

There is a distinction between college and workplace because they have two very different goals.

In a business, the degree of qualification, at least in theory, would translate to productivity, which in turn leads to profit, the ultimate goal for a business.

In college, academic qualification becomes less important as long as the student is qualified enough to do the work and remain in school.
After the cut off point, academic qualification is not as important as what an applicant contributes beyond the classroom, whether in a leadership role, extra curricular activities, or simply adding to a diverse learning environment.

Sure, good grades may indicate a highly motivated student and high standards look good on admissions brochures, but beyond that, it's simple one of a myriad of factors that goes into selecting students. It's not the be-all end-all of admissions.

 

Interesting, since you're intensely interested about less qualified black students being admitted into traditionally white unversities.

You really have no idea why black colleges exist, do you?

 

Colin,

It's dissappointing that an intelligent person like yourself should stoop to the low-level intellect of Ann Coulter on Con Law. She's a flim-flam artist, pure and simple.

Wonder how she feels about the very pro-active and ingenious use by the Supreme Court of the very same equal protection clause in Bush v. Gore to the definite benefit of one George W. Bush.

 

That's what I'm getting at. How much outcry is there over the U of M's Law School's admissions criteria in comparison to the race-based criteria now being used in some historically black colleges? If conservatives can speak out against Michigan's practices, why are they not speaking out against race-based admissions in historically black colleges that favor whites?

 

I don't really have much to add except:

1. Ann Coulter is an idiot. She always has been, probably always will be.

2. She couldn't resist throwing THE CIVIL WAR into her argument.

 

OK, just don't expect us to take it seriously.

 

Love her or hate her, her opinions are far closer to the American mainstream than are Noam Chomsky's.


Alex

 

Yes, you've earned this valuable right.

Funny?!?! Like a toothache, maybe.