So much for the post-racial presidency. This report explains:
The Obama administration has asked a federal appeals court to uphold a race-conscious admissions system at the University of Texas at Austin, aiming to stymie a lawsuit that conservatives hope will spur the Supreme Court to limit affirmative action at public colleges.
The Texas case tests a 2003 Supreme Court decision that upheld a race-conscious admissions system at the University of Michigan Law School. That ruling in Grutter v. Bollinger said the law school had “a compelling interest in attaining a diverse student body.” By a 5-4 vote, the court prohibited “outright racial balancing,” but said race could be a “plus” factor to build a “critical mass” of minority students.
Since Grutter — when then Justice Sandra Day O’Connor promised racial preferences would fade away (“We expect that 25 years from now the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today.”) — universities have maintained a fiction, namely that race matters but isn’t the sole factor in admissions. Nevertheless, it matters enough to assure admission at elite schools of minority students whose test scores and grade point average are significantly worse than non-minority students. Given the Grutter roadmap (the requirement to show a “holistic” admissions approach), admissions officers and legal defenders of the thinly disguised racial-preference schemes must resort to verbal gymnastics to justify their programs:
Patricia Ohlendorf, vice president for legal affairs at the Austin campus, said many private and public universities take some account of race in admissions. Because blacks and Hispanics on average score lower on entrance exams than white and Asian-American applicants, universities have adopted affirmative-action programs to compensate.
“We think it is critical to being able to achieve the diverse institution that we think is important,” she said.
The Obama administration agrees. “[The] university’s effort to promote diversity is a paramount government objective,” says the brief filed by the Education and Justice departments. The administration disputed claims that Texas was simply engaging in raw racial preferences.
“The question is not whether an individual belongs to a racial group, but rather how an individual’s membership in any group may provide deeper understanding of the person’s record and experiences, as well as the contribution she can make to the school,” the brief says.
What?! This is just mumbo-jumbo. It’s not the individual’s race but that individual’s membership in a racial group that is of interest? An “individual’s membership in any group may provide deeper understanding of the person’s record and experiences, as well as the contribution she can make to the school”? Somehow, school admissions officers invariably achieve this “deeper understanding” especially for minority students, who have learned to provide just enough fodder in their applications to satisfy admissions officers that there is a rationale for allowing these students to leapfrog over more qualified peers.
The Fifth Circuit will decide if all of this rhetorical hocus-pocus is worthy of deference or whether, in the Obama era, it’s time to finally put an end to the racial-preference rackets. Unfortunately, the Court will find no encouragement from the not-at-all-post-racial president.
I haven’t watched a single network news broadcast (Sean and O’R don’t count) in the three years since I moved out West. Am I to understand that this is highly idiosyncratic? Anyway, aren’t those who persist in such habits disproportionately elderly and thus more biased toward Maverick anyway? I find all the navel-gazing increasingly irrelevant. It’s primarily useful for measuring one’s consumption of beer.
Get a paper bag. Place over mouth. Inhale deeply. Exhale. Repeat.
There you go. Feel better?
As Grumpy clearly points out, it is irrational to have these concerns about the MSM or Eurobama. I have seen numerous examples from the media that point to a person’s mental health as the source for questioning the Eurobama. Please!
Every once in a while, the MSM will write an article about itself, going overboard in the coverage. Of course, they quickly regain their footing to gush over the One another time. It is beyond scandalous. I believe it is a true undermining of the free press. The choice of a candidate by the global media is a turning point in world history. The pundits and opinion makers went crazy against Bush/Cheney for manipulation, distortion, and lying. What exactly is this exercise of pretending to be objective, while pushing a candidate if not the exact thing they accused the president of?
But who exactly is contributing to the Obamapalooza if not the MSM of which Fineman is a tried and true member?
Are you talking about the same MSM that looped a week of Reverend Wright saying “God damn America” 24/7, then jumped on the racist comments from a Catholic priest at the same church, then aired a week of Jesse Jackson saying he wants to cut off Obama’s junk? The same MSM that carried Obama’s boo-boo where he said Jerusalem would remain the undivided capital of Israel, and trumpeted his flip-flop on the FISA bill to the consternation of the far left? Would that McCain had the same level of coverage, he hasn’t exactly been running on all cylinders lately, and the only thing that’s saving his campaign is the fact that one or two reporters can’t catch everything.
#3 Mechick
Irrational? Well, if you like that kind of number.
Overwrought? Fer sure.
Teresita, could you outline the “everything” that the reporters can’t catch.
Grumpy, 90% of the post ignored. 90%
The MSM is totally confused. While giving Obama all this positive coverage they still are continuing their decade long love affair with “The Maverick”.
In order to keep McCain from looking foolish, CBS edited out his failure to understand that the Anbar Awakening started months before the surge. In fact they had Couric asking the question and then edited in the answer to another question.
They can’t decide which media darling they love more.
Good for Katie Couric. She didn’t accept Senator Obama’s non-answer on the surge, and called him to account for it. More please (but I won’t hold my breath).
Ever now and then a news anchor will fall out of step when the Rose Bowl parade gets out of hand, but look back a minute later and you’ll see the MSM lockstep has resumed. After the election in November there will be throat-catching documentaries and cover pieces with titles like “Were We Fair?” With the continued mass migration away the legacy media, fewer readers and viewers will bother with them.
Seth,
if you switch to consumption of wine, you don’t have to see your navel. It’s a sacrifice, but the women in our lives appreciate it.
Terisita,
did the so called MsM condemn Obama for his 20 year endorsement of “Reverend” Wright? Did they even condemn Wright? Did they condemn Obama for the Catholic Priest’s rant, or did they “jump on” Catholics again? Did their Jackson coverage hurt Obama or Jackson? Did they condemn Obama for his Jerusalem and FISA lies?
More importantly, would they have featured these stories at all if they weren’t already part of the public domain? The truth is, they spun all these scandals as damage control for their Anointed One.
Meanwhile, McCain is on top of every development with prompt responses. Like most leftists, you have trouble discerning reality. That means you’re delusional, sweetheart.