Here is the eighty-first article in our Republicans on Parade series, featuring individuals who personify what the Republican Party has become. Today’s honoree is Texas incompetent, Abigail Fisher. She is so honored for her Republican approach to college admissions.
Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard arguments in what is easily the most baffling case it’s going to hear this session, yet another attack on affirmative action policies at state universities, in this case the University of Texas at Austin. If ever there was a case that has no business in front of the high court, it is this one. The suit is a nuisance suit, it’s poorly argued, it’s disingenuous, it’s been heard before and, to make everything even more bizarre, the plaintiff’s claim to injury is demonstrably untrue. This is a case that should have been laughed out of court years ago, but instead, this is the second time — second time! — it’s being presented in front of the Supreme Court.
At stake is the claim made by Abigail Fisher, now 25, who hails from a wealthy suburb of Houston called Sugar Land, that she was deprived of her rightful admission at UT Austin because, in her view, some person of color who didn’t deserve it stole it from her.
Throughout her now seven-year campaign to make the school pay for not letting her in, Fisher has never been able to produce any evidence that the school tossed her application to make room for a less qualified minority applicant. That’s because, as UT Austin has maintained throughout this ordeal, Fisher was never getting in to their school. Fisher’s GPA and SAT scores weren’t high enough, and she didn’t have enough external accomplishments to convince the school to give her a shot otherwise. As Pro Publica explained at the time:
It’s true that the university, for whatever reason, offered provisional admission to some students with lower test scores and grades than Fisher. Five of those students were black or Latino. Forty-two were white.
Neither Fisher nor Blum mentioned those 42 applicants in interviews. Nor did they acknowledge the 168 black and Latino students with grades as good as or better than Fisher’s who were also denied entry into the university that year.
Fisher’s case only makes sense if you assume that people of color are inherently less worthy than white people…
Inserted from <Alternet>
From Fisher we learn that for Republicans, the best approach to college admissions is racism. Sadly, when the case was argued, comments from SCROTUS’ Fascist Five Injustices, indicate that they agree with her.
8 Responses to “Republicans on Parade–12/12/2015”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
It stands to reason that you picked Abigail Fisher as the one to join your Republicans on Parade, but Edward Blum, her lawyer and her rich parents were stiff competition.
Edward Blum could easily have gone on Parade when Edward Blum, tried a different tactic this time around by arguing that schools should admit mediocre white people over talented students of color because giving students of color an opportunity somehow hurts them. This sickening statement is all to obviously made for the benefit of one of our favorite justice, Antony Scalia who is known to have made the racist statement that "black people would be better served at "less advanced" schools".
And don't forget the rich parents who have started this case seven years ago and are still paying for those expensive and crafty lawyers like Blum. Because it's not credible for one moment that a mediocre high school student can afford to pay his bills, is it. She may now be leading in the case, having become addicted to the limelight, but Daddy has been behind it from the start.
But the real culprits here are terrible five of SCOTUS, but they've already been nominated for the Parade a long time ago. The fact that the allowed this case to return again is deplorable but so are the remarks of Scalia: "…black people would be better served at "less advanced" schools", Alito: as long as you have some black students, then you don’t really need to work to make sure that the student body’s diversity is reflexive of the country at large, and Roberts: ““What ‘unique perspective’ does a minority student bring to a physics class?”.
You are right, TomCat, these five should now be called the Fascist Five, because that is exactly what the represent.
Abigail Fisher needs remedial education, all right. One of my Furies candidates (along with her colleagues) needs, as I pointed out, a remedial course in White Privilege, because White Privilege 101 is WAY too advanced for her (and them). Abigail Fisher needs to be in that class too.
Although, as long as it has taken some of us who are FAR more intelligent, both intellectually and empathetically, to begin to grasp the concept, I couldn't guarantee it would even help.
I had forgotten about this case. UT is right up the road. Sugar Land is very expensive, and most live in gated communities. Since her scores were low for admissions, can't prove her case with any substantive evidence,
she should opt out for a community college, instead of complaining. What an ID.
I hope that they throw this case out. For good.
Thanks, Tom.
Affirmative Action is bad, according to the Five Fools
But Legacy Admissions to get idiot sons (I'm looking at YOU, Dubya) into elite schools is perfectly okey-dokey.
The original SCOTUS case undermining affirmative action policies was out of CA's UC Davis in 1978:
"Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978) was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States. It upheld affirmative action, allowing race to be one of several factors in college admission policy. However, the court ruled that specific quotas, such as the 16 out of 100 seats set aside for minority students by the University of California, Davis School of Medicine, were impermissible.
Although the Supreme Court had outlawed segregation in schools, and had even ordered school districts to take steps to assure integration, the question of the legality of voluntary affirmative action programs initiated by universities was unresolved. Proponents deemed such programs necessary to make up for past discrimination, while opponents believed they were illegal and a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. An earlier case that the Supreme Court had taken in an attempt to address the issue, DeFunis v. Odegaard (1974), was dismissed on procedural grounds.
Allan P. Bakke, an engineer and former Marine officer, sought admission to medical school, but was rejected for admission by several, in part because, in his early thirties, he was considered too old. After twice being rejected by U.C.-Davis, he brought suit in state court. The California Supreme Court struck down the program as violative of the rights of white applicants and ordered Bakke admitted. The U.S. Supreme Court accepted the case amid wide public attention.
The case fractured the court; the nine justices issued a total of six opinions. The judgment of the court was written by Justice Lewis Powell; two different blocs of four justices joined various parts of Powell's opinion. Finding diversity in the classroom to be a compelling state interest, Powell opined that affirmative action in general was allowed under the Constitution and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Nevertheless, U.C.-Davis's program went too far for a majority of justices, and it was struck down and Bakke admitted. The practical effect of Bakke was that most affirmative action programs continued without change. Questions about whether the Bakke case was merely a plurality opinion or binding precedent were answered in 2003 when the court upheld Powell's position in a majority opinion in Grutter v. Bollinger."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regents_of_the_University_of_California_v._Bakke
While more recent cases out of Michigan honed elements a bit, she meets none of the criteria found in any of the precedential cases and thus is fully deserving of the honor you bestow TC rather than a ruling in her favor.
I don't think I would want it known that I COULDNT get in to UT!!! Of course, that is because I am in the state right north of them and we don't get along so good when it comes down to football and other stuff!!
Little Miss Abigail needs to STFU when it comes to getting a PASS in to a college!!! She doesn't deserve one, nor needs one! She could go ANYWHERE she wanted to, but she wants to take a slot from ANOTHER white student that is so MUCH more qualified??? Ugh!!!! PUUU-LEASE!!! She doesn't qualify, so she wants to have a hissy-fit!!! I don't know. I am so sick and tired of overly rich, overly white people that let their kids do what ever the hell they want!!
Thanks all! Hugs!! Running late!
The silver spoon she was born with in her mouth has tarnished! I hope SCOTUS does not rule in her favour, but with Scalia's recent comments, I am concerned that might well be the case. Very deserving of the parade.