[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

America Erupts… ICE Raids Takeover The Streets

AC/DC- Riff Raff + Go Down [VH1 Uncut, July 5, 1996]

Why is Peter Schiff calling Bitcoin a ‘giant cult’ and how does this impact market sentiment?

Esso Your Butt Buddy Horseshit jacks off to that shit

"The Addled Activist Mind"

"Don’t Stop with Harvard"

"Does the Biden Cover-Up Have Two Layers?"

"Pete Rose, 'Shoeless' Joe Reinstated by MLB, Eligible for HOF"

"'Major Breakthrough': Here Are the Details on the China Trade Deal"

Freepers Still Love war

Parody ... Jump / Trump --- van Halen jump

"The Democrat Meltdown Continues"

"Yes, We Need Deportations Without Due Process"

"Trump's Tariff Play Smart, Strategic, Working"

"Leftists Make Desperate Attempt to Discredit Photo of Abrego Garcia's MS-13 Tattoos. Here Are Receipts"

"Trump Administration Freezes $2 Billion After Harvard Refuses to Meet Demands"on After Harvard Refuses to Meet Demands

"Doctors Committing Insurance Fraud to Conceal Trans Procedures, Texas Children’s Whistleblower Testifies"

"Left Using '8647' Symbol for Violence Against Trump, Musk"

KawasakiÂ’s new rideable robohorse is straight out of a sci-fi novel

"Trade should work for America, not rule it"

"The Stakes Couldn’t Be Higher in Wisconsin’s Supreme Court Race – What’s at Risk for the GOP"

"How Trump caught big-government fans in their own trap"

‘Are You Prepared for Violence?’

Greek Orthodox Archbishop gives President Trump a Cross, tells him "Make America Invincible"

"Trump signs executive order eliminating the Department of Education!!!"

"If AOC Is the Democratic Future, the Party Is Even Worse Off Than We Think"

"Ending EPA Overreach"

Closest Look Ever at How Pyramids Were Built

Moment the SpaceX crew Meets Stranded ISS Crew

The Exodus Pharaoh EXPLAINED!

Did the Israelites Really Cross the Red Sea? Stunning Evidence of the Location of Red Sea Crossing!

Are we experiencing a Triumph of Orthodoxy?

Judge Napolitano with Konstantin Malofeev (Moscow, Russia)

"Trump Administration Cancels Most USAID Programs, Folds Others into State Department"

Introducing Manus: The General AI Agent

"Chinese Spies in Our Military? Straight to Jail"

Any suggestion that the USA and NATO are "Helping" or have ever helped Ukraine needs to be shot down instantly

"Real problem with the Palestinians: Nobody wants them"

ACDC & The Rolling Stones - Rock Me Baby

Magnus Carlsen gives a London System lesson!

"The Democrats Are Suffering Through a Drought of Generational Talent"

7 Tactics Of The Enemy To Weaken Your Faith

Strange And Biblical Events Are Happening

Every year ... BusiesT casino gambling day -- in Las Vegas

Trump’s DOGE Plan Is Legally Untouchable—Elon Musk Holds the Scalpel

Palestinians: What do you think of the Trump plan for Gaza?

What Happens Inside Gaza’s Secret Tunnels? | Unpacked

Hamas Torture Bodycam Footage: "These Monsters Filmed it All" | IDF Warfighter Doron Keidar, Ep. 225

EXPOSED: The Dark Truth About the Hostages in Gaza

New Task Force Ready To Expose Dark Secrets


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

United States News
See other United States News Articles

Title: Dear Abigail Fisher, I Didn’t Get Into UT Either–But I’m Not Suing Anybody
Source: [None]
URL Source: http://madamenoire.com/603775/dear- ... ther-and-im-not-suing-anybody/
Published: Dec 11, 2015
Author: By Victoria Uwumarogie
Post Date: 2015-12-11 17:58:28 by Justified
Keywords: None
Views: 2602
Comments: 10

I’m sure you’ve heard of Abigail Fisher. And if you have, I’m sure you’re tired of hearing about her. She’s like the cricket in the house who just won’t get the f–k out already.

Fisher is the young woman with the ongoing discrimination lawsuit against The University of Texas at Austin, which she filed in 2008. She claimed that she was denied admission to the elite university, and was passed over while UT accepted other students based on their race. Students she deemed less qualified. As part of the admissions process, the University applies both an Academic Index, which focuses on the grades, activities and essays of a student, as well as a Personal Achievement Index, which considers the family background, socioeconomic status, and yes, race.

Fisher once said, “There were people in my class with lower grades who weren’t in all the activities I was in, who were being accepted into UT, and the only difference between us was the color of our skin.”

What activities was she in you ask? Well, the orchestra. She was “an accomplished cellist” according to CNN, who was president of her high school orchestra. And Fisher volunteered at a nursing home and with Habitat for Humanity.

Her GPA was reportedly 3.59, putting her in the top 12 percent of her class while her SAT was an 1180 according to the Dallas Observer. There has been no discussion of whether or not her GPA was a weighted one due to AP courses.

Fisher believed that it was the increase in the admission of people of color who she assumed didn’t do as much and didn’t have the same grades as her that held her back. And that is why she has been fighting to win her case since 2008, despite losing twice. She kept appealing, and the Supreme Court is presiding over her case yet again, with arguments having started this week. If she were to finally win her case, Fisher would get her $100 application fee back–and possibly be the catalyst for the end of the use of affirmative action in college admissions…

But I really need her to let that hurt go. And I know it’s hard. Her father went to the school, her sister did as well. And as she said in a video released by her lawyers, “I dreamt of going to UT ever since the second grade.” But she didn’t get in, and that s–t happened more than seven years ago. Plenty of people, some more qualified than Fisher, are rejected from universities for a myriad of reasons every year, and they don’t cry about it, let alone sue anybody. They recognize that they may not have had what it takes for that particular institution and realize that it wasn’t the place for them after all. Trust me, I know.

I applied to the University of Texas at Austin years before Fisher did. As you already know, I’m from Illinois, but my mother was born and raised in Austin. All my relatives from my mother’s side lived down there and in Houston as well as Dallas. And while none of them went to UT, I wanted to go. Interested in magazine journalism, UT’s communications program is a pretty stellar one. I had already made up a dream plan of getting in, staying in my grandmother’s home in Austin, and driving to my classes from her home. I imagined what it would be like to check out campus parties and athletic events, and what it would be like to say that I graduated from UT when all my hard work was done.

But I didn’t get in. Despite having a GPA of more than a 4.0 (and I had taken a few AP courses, including AP English and History), graduating as the 11th student out of 250, being involved in an array of activities, including being on the board for my school’s chapter of the National Honor Society, playing volleyball (all-area, all-state honorable mention), basketball (Varsity by my sophomore year), being on prom court junior year and all that fancy jazz you put in essays and on applications, I was sent a letter of rejection. I was reminded, via my rejection letter, that UT’s Top 10 Law shows favoritism to Texas students, allowing anyone within the top 10 percent of their class at a Texas high school to be admitted. The year Fisher applied, 92 percent of the incoming freshman class were brought in by that law, leaving the last eight percent to be picked in an extraordinarily competitive fashion. Considering that she was in the top 12 percent, that’s most likely why she was rejected.

The year I was rejected I could have cried and fussed and sued about the Top 10 Law. And I could have cried and fussed and made up a bogus lawsuit when I was rejected from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill too. But I’m Black. I don’t have the privilege to do all that unnecessary and expensive s–t. So instead, I unpacked all my hopes and plans about attending both schools, accepted that I’d lost about $200 in application fees, sucked it up and carried on.

I had also applied to the University of Maryland at College Park around the same time, as well as Indiana University and the University of Missouri at Columbia and got into all three. After doing campus visits and looking over financial aid packages, I chose Mizzou. Yes, that Mizzou. I was one of the six percent of Black people on that entire lily White campus. And I don’t know if me being Black had a great deal to do with my admission (you know, diversity), but I know I excelled greatly at the University. I made the most of my opportunity at the first and No. 1 journalism program in the world, even through the early rumblings of racial discord on campus (i.e., the cotton balls strewn in front of the Black Culture Center), even restarting a publication for Black students on campus. I moved on from UT because I had no choice, and by doing so, I was able to do greater things.

I also moved on because I realized that my inadequacies had nothing to do with who was admitted over me and why. I knew that my ACT score wasn’t as high as it could have been (thanks a lot, math!). I knew I could have done more volunteer work. I knew that my high school was not a respected institution due to low test scores and had been told by faculty numerous times that our diplomas “would mean nothing.” While I knew that I was a top-tier student, there were certain things I hadn’t done, and some things I had no control over, that didn’t show UT or UNC that I truly was one.

And that’s Fisher’s problem. She’s embarrassed that she didn’t follow in her family’s footsteps, and so she’s blaming students of color for why she didn’t get in, and would be okay with keeping future students of color from being able to attend UT and other institutions of higher learning. All that instead of just owning the fact that she was just an okay student with an okay GPA, okay SAT score, and okay activities record. She was hoping the Top 10 Law, which is a form of affirmative action, would allow her to measle her way into the school (but she was top 12 percent and didn’t really stand out). When it didn’t, she turned on the racial aspect of the Personal Achievement Index.

Instead of unpacking that reality about her shortcomings, she packed up her privilege, went ahead and sued the school. All while still managing to go to and graduate from another great university (Lousiana State University), and get a great job as a financial analyst that has an average median annual salary of $76,950 (she probably started at around $60k) at 25 years old. There are Black folks out here still looking for jobs after graduating. And yet, she’s still complaining:

“The only thing I missed out on was my post-graduation years. Just being in a network of U.T. graduates would have been a really nice thing to be in. And I probably would have gotten a better job offer had I gone to U.T.”

All assumptions. Her case from start to finish and her mentality now is based on assumptions. And that’s what makes me cringe. This whole thing reeks of privilege. One White woman doesn’t get into the university of her dreams and life as we know it has to change because she’s shedding White tears. Affirmative action used to help students who aren’t given the same advantages as their counterparts, who have been educated in underperforming and underfunded schools, affirmative action that White women have benefited from most, has to go. The highest court in the land has to hear her case again and again. And we have to see her face and hear her story again and again–all over a discrimination, she didn’t face.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 10.

#3. To: Justified (#0)

Her GPA was reportedly 3.59, putting her in the top 12 percent of her class while her SAT was an 1180 according to the Dallas Observer. There has been no discussion of whether or not her GPA was a weighted one due to AP courses.

Fisher believed that it was the increase in the admission of people of color who she assumed didn’t do as much and didn’t have the same grades as her that held her back. And that is why she has been fighting to win her case since 2008, despite losing twice. She kept appealing, and the Supreme Court is presiding over her case yet again, with arguments having started this week. If she were to finally win her case, Fisher would get her $100 application fee back–and possibly be the catalyst for the end of the use of affirmative action in college admissions…

Equal opportunity should not mean admitting less qualified students over more qualified students. Qualifications should not factor in participation in basket weaving club or other non-academic achievements.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisher_v._University_of_Texas

She scored 1180 on her SAT (measured on the old 1600-point scale, because UT Austin did not consider the writing section in its undergraduate admissions decision for the 2008 incoming freshman class). The 25th and 75th percentiles of the incoming class at UT-Austin were 1120 and 1370. She was involved in the orchestra and math competitions and volunteered at Habitat for Humanity.

This is the second time this case has gone to SCOTUS. The first time, Fisher prevailed and the case was remanded back to the lower court to try again.

The 25th percentile of the incoming class was SAT 1120, and Fisher had SAT 1180. That stat leaves UT with some splainin' to do.

While the article author states, "But I didn’t get in. Despite having a GPA of more than a 4.0," mostly indicating her unawareness that "Fisher had a grade point average of 3.59 (adjusted to a 4.0 scale)."

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-345_l5gm.pdf

Fisher v University of Texas at Austin, No 11-345, Cert to 5th Cir, Decided 24 Jun 2013

Held: Because the Fifth Circuit did not hold the University to the de­manding burden of strict scrutiny articulated in Grutter and Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke, 438 U. S. 265, its decision affirming the Dis­trict Court’s grant of summary judgment to the University was incor­rect. Pp. 5–13.

(a) Bakke, Gratz, and Grutter, which directly address the question considered here, are taken as given for purposes of deciding this case.In Bakke’s principal opinion, Justice Powell recognized that state university “decisions based on race or ethnic origin . . . are reviewable under the Fourteenth Amendment,” 438 U. S., at 287, using a strict scrutiny standard, id., at 299. He identified as a compelling interest that could justify the consideration of race the interest in the educa­tional benefits that flow from a diverse student body, but noted that this interest is complex, encompassing a broad array “of qualifica­tions and characteristics of which racial or ethnic origin is but a sin­gle though important element.” Id., at 315

In Gratz and Grutter, the Court endorsed these precepts, observing that an admissions process with such an interest is subject to judicial review and must withstand strict scrutiny, Gratz, supra, at 275, i.e., a university must clearly demonstrate that its “‘purpose or interest is both constitutionally permissible and substantial, and that its use of the classification is “necessary . . . to the accomplishment” of its pur­pose,’” Bakke, supra, at 305. Additional guidance may be found in the Court’s broader equal protection jurisprudence. See, e.g., Rice v. Cayetano, 528 U. S. 495, 517; Richmond v. J. A. Croson Co., 488 U. S. 469, 505. Strict scrutiny is a searching examination, and the gov­ernment bears the burden to prove “ ‘that the reasons for any [racial] classification [are] clearly identified and unquestionably legitimate.’” Ibid. Pp. 5–8.

(b) Under Grutter, strict scrutiny must be applied to any admis­sions program using racial categories or classifications. A court may give some deference to a university’s “judgment that such diversity is essential to its educational mission,” 539 U. S., at 328, provided that diversity is not defined as mere racial balancing and there is a rea­soned, principled explanation for the academic decision. On this point, the courts below were correct in finding that Grutter calls for deference to the University’s experience and expertise about its edu­cational mission. However, once the University has established that its goal of diversity is consistent with strict scrutiny, the University must prove that the means it chose to attain that diversity are nar­rowly tailored to its goal. On this point, the University receives no deference. Id., at 333. It is at all times the University’s obligation to demonstrate, and the Judiciary’s obligation to determine, that admis­sions processes “ensure that each applicant is evaluated as an indi­vidual and not in a way that makes an applicant’s race or ethnicity the defining feature of his or her application.” Id., at 337. Narrow tailoring also requires a reviewing court to verify that it is “neces­sary” for the university to use race to achieve the educational benefits of diversity. Bakke, supra, at 305. The reviewing court must ulti­mately be satisfied that no workable race-neutral alternatives would produce the educational benefits of diversity.

Rather than perform this searching examination, the Fifth Circuit held petitioner could challenge only whether the University’s decision to use race as an admissions factor “was made in good faith.” It presumed that the school had acted in good faith and gave petitioner the burden of rebutting that presumption. It thus undertook the narrow ­tailoring requirement with a “degree of deference” to the school. These expressions of the controlling standard are at odds with Grut­ter’s command that “all racial classifications imposed by government ‘must be analyzed by a reviewing court under strict scrutiny.’ ” 539 U. S., at 326. Strict scrutiny does not permit a court to accept a school’s assertion that its admissions process uses race in a permissi­ble way without closely examining how the process works in practice, yet that is what the District Court and Fifth Circuit did here. The Court vacates the Fifth Circuit’s judgment. But fairness to the liti­gants and the courts that heard the case requires that it be remanded so that the admissions process can be considered and judged under a correct analysis. In determining whether summary judgment in the University’s favor was appropriate, the Fifth Circuit must assess whether the University has offered sufficient evidence to prove thatits admissions program is narrowly tailored to obtain the educationalbenefits of diversity. Pp. 8–13.

631 F. 3d 213, vacated and remanded.

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/fisher-v-university-of-texas-at-austin-2

Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, 14-981, Cert to 5th Cir, Argued 9 Dec 2015

Various documents filed in the current SCOTUS case are available here.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-12-11   19:16:06 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: nolu chan (#3)

"... the University applies both an Academic Index, which focuses on the grades, activities and essays of a student, as well as a Personal Achievement Index, which considers the family background, socioeconomic status, and yes, race."

Fine. The Personal Achievement Index is used to get people into college.

Now, how does it help them stay there? Does each course test they take also include a Personal Achievement Index? Do they get "extra credit" for being black?

misterwhite  posted on  2015-12-12   9:09:36 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: misterwhite (#8)

Do they get "extra credit" for being black?

"Race was also taken into account in the Personal Achievement Index..."

www.faegrebd.com/20127

Roscoe  posted on  2015-12-12   9:14:24 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: Roscoe (#9)

"Race was also taken into account in the Personal Achievement Index..."

Let's cut to the chase here. The college is saying, "Your grades aren't good enough to get you into our college. But since you're black, we'll admit you."

HOWEVER, once admitted, the Personal Achievement Index is not applied to their English tests, their math tests, their history tests, etc. So they do poorly.

Who do they blame? Why, the university of course, for "fostering a hostile atmosphere" or somesuch nonsense.

Ironically, they're correct in blaming the university. But they should blame the university for admitting them in the first place to an institution in which they're academically unable to succeed.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-12-13   10:58:57 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 10.

        There are no replies to Comment # 10.


End Trace Mode for Comment # 10.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com