I'm confused about URM on UC Law Campuses Forum

[ag912]

Section 31, Article 1 of the California Constitution reads:

"(a) The state 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."

how are UC Campuses still allowed to deal with URM?

[crossingforHYS]

by looking at the "whole person" and what brings diversity....

[BlueDiamond]

just read something dealing with this in GTM today while at work! Regents of the University of California v. Bakke .. and the "general purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment"

[flcath]

They deal with it the same way most large eastern cities deal with the 2nd Amendment.

[ag912]

on Michigan "the Court's majority ruling, authored by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, held that the United States Constitution "does not prohibit the law school's narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body.""

Im not talking about the US Constitution, I'm talking about the California State Constitution.

[ag912]

Do those cases invalidate that section of the California Constitution or is there room for a legal case to be made?

[BlueDiamond]

Do those cases invalidate that section of the California Constitution or is there room for a legal case to be made?

Even if a case was brought law schools could just say they made a decision based on other factors.. "a compelling personal statement" etc.

[flcath]

Bear in mind that the CA supreme court seems to view the CA Constitution and code as more of "starting point" for making the law than as an authority in itself.

[ag912]

so all accepted URM candidates with lower-than-average entrance scores have compelling personal factors that are not race?

[ag912]

I wasnt talking about other law schools, ONLY University of California campuses. The amendment to the constitution made no comment about private schools, only public education.

[crossingforHYS]

on Michigan "the Court's majority ruling, authored by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, held that the United States Constitution "does not prohibit the law school's narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body.""

Im not talking about the US Constitution, I'm talking about the California State Constitution.

fair enough....but they still get around it by looking at the whole person.

[flcath]

so all accepted URM candidates with lower-than-average entrance scores have compelling personal factors that are not race?

A lifetime of DISCRIMINATION

[ag912]

discrimination isnt felt by races other than blacks, hispanics, and american indians?

[crossingforHYS]

so all accepted URM candidates with lower-than-average entrance scores have compelling personal factors that are not race?

No! They claim that race contributes to them as a whole person and then they look at the rest of the "person" Look point being is that no one has questioned them on it, and b/c they have been doing this for awhile they continue too.

UCLA may accept someone with lower test scores and say they submitted them based on a personal statement or for diversity or their life experience at that point it is all subjective period.

and re: all of them have compelling factors.......maybe they do...how do you know?

[BlueDiamond]

discrimination isnt felt by races other than blacks, hispanics, and american indians?

take it up with someone then if you are so passionate about it.. I can't wait to read it on ATL

[ag912]

I think the argument for the all-around-person can be dispelled through statistical analysis of their admissions/rejections.

[crossingforHYS]

discrimination isnt felt by races other than blacks, hispanics, and american indians?

oh god another urm debate , look discrimination is felt by all and if you can coherently write about it that will contribute to you getting it in.


can someone /thread please?

[crossingforHYS]

I think the argument for the all-around-person can be dispelled through statistical analysis of their admissions/rejections.

and bakke and the michigan cases looked at that.....still found a quota wrong and the whole person fine.

edit: state constitution or not....it still contains a federal question.

[ag912]

The Michigan case only concerned the U.S. Constitution. Under the stipulations of that document any powers not held by the US Constitutions are left to the states. The California state constitution directly bans the preferential treatment of race for public education.

[ag912]

It is not a federal question because it only concerns a state run organization.

[dr123]

so all accepted URM candidates with lower-than-average entrance scores have compelling personal factors that are not race?

A lifetime of DISCRIMINATION

I think the major compelling factor is its good PR for the school.

[crossingforHYS]

The Michigan case only concerned the U.S. Constitution. Under the stipulations of that document any powers not held by the US Constitutions are left to the states. The California state constitution directly bans the preferential treatment of race for public education.

oh my god ---yes but the bakke case dealth with the UC system....

look if you want--- sue....but I promise you there is a reason someone hasnt and that is because the federal cases can be extended here.....

discrimination of public places like a public university falls under the us constitution with the first amendment ect. and would fall under the ep clause and due process which is what the federal cases were based on.....

now please go and read a book on this if you are so interested.

[crossingforHYS]

It is not a federal question because it only concerns a state run organization.

THAT TAKES FEDERAL GRANTS AND MONEY.....LOOK UP "VMI" CASES

[BlueDiamond]

OP, you relaize that California is within the United States right?

[ag912]

the bakke case was in the 1970s, that section of the California Constitution was inserted in the late 90s. If there was a conflict wouldn't that decision have nullified the ability of the proposition to be brought to election/passed/used to amend the constitution.