Jimmy Pham argues that race should have nothing to do with admissions at UT in his blog post "Race-Based Admissions". Pham states that UT has been accepting students based on race, though UT states that though they do consider race it is not a major part in the decision making process and they consider race in order to create a more diverse student body.
Pham writes this blog toward people who are interested in improving the admission methods of universities. He assumes that the reader knows that race is taken into consideration when looking at applications. It is also assumes that people understand the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment.
Pham points out a current court case where a white student (Abigail Fisher) sued UT because she had been denied entry even though she had better academics and more extracurricular involvement than other students who had been accepted and also happen to be a different race. This court case strengthens Pham's argument, he isn't the only person who feels that race shouldn't be an issue when accepting students. It also adds legitimacy to his argument, there has to be evidence in order to place a law suit. The evidence has been summed up and because of the suit the details do not need to be stated. Pham then addresses the universities defense in this case. UT states that they use race in their admissions in order to keep a diverse student body. While this may seem like a good idea Pham points out that this actually makes the university more racial because they are using race to accept or deny admissions. Pham sums up his argument stating that race shouldn't be considered at all, only a person's merits should be taken into consideration when deciding whether that student should be accepted or not.
I have felt that race shouldn't be considered for a long time, I also feel that it shouldn't even be asked on applications. I have always questioned what my race has to do with my work ethic and credentials. Though I have always questioned this I haven't heard of any court cases I also haven't discussed this issue with any one else so it is very nice to hear another person's opinion, especially since we agree. I am very interested to see how this case turns out and hope that this will keep race from being a part of any decision making whether it be in school admissions or job applications.
Sunday, November 18, 2012
Sunday, November 4, 2012
City of Austin Propositions 3 and 4
The current City Council has six members which are elected by the whole city. This system doesn't reflect the diversity of Austin, seeing as how five of the current council members live downtown or in West or Central Austin (Austin American Statesman). With this lack of diversity the people have decided it is time for a change. 33,000 signatures were collected in order to get Proposition three on the ballot (The Daily Texan).
Proposition 3, commonly known as the 10 to 1 plan, calls for 10 single member districts with the mayor being elected by the city. These districts would be drawn by a 14 member council with no interference from the city council. This plan would require a large council, their staff, and the council to draw the districts which would cost approximately $5,622,000 according to Progress Texas. The City of Austin Council also put together a Proposition to reform the current Council in Proposition 4.
The 8 to 2 to 1 plan or Proposition 4 was put together by the City Council. They want 8 district representatives and 2 at large council members. The district lines would be drawn by City Ordinance (The Daily Texan). According to Progress Texas this plan would also cost $5,622,000. Both Propositions would call for a Mayor being elected at large.
In order to one of these propositions to come into effect they would need 50% of the vote, if they both get 50% then the one with the highest votes would win and if neither get 50% the system doesn't change.
While both of these Propositions have differences, they are both quite similar so much so that the conspiracy theorist it me is screaming. Prop 3 was initiated and written by the citizens. Prop 4 was initiated and written by the City Council. That in combination with the fact that a Proposition needs 50% to pass makes me think that the City initiated Prop 4 in hopes of splitting the vote so neither would be able to get 50% and therefore the system would stay the same with no change.
Proposition 3, commonly known as the 10 to 1 plan, calls for 10 single member districts with the mayor being elected by the city. These districts would be drawn by a 14 member council with no interference from the city council. This plan would require a large council, their staff, and the council to draw the districts which would cost approximately $5,622,000 according to Progress Texas. The City of Austin Council also put together a Proposition to reform the current Council in Proposition 4.
The 8 to 2 to 1 plan or Proposition 4 was put together by the City Council. They want 8 district representatives and 2 at large council members. The district lines would be drawn by City Ordinance (The Daily Texan). According to Progress Texas this plan would also cost $5,622,000. Both Propositions would call for a Mayor being elected at large.
In order to one of these propositions to come into effect they would need 50% of the vote, if they both get 50% then the one with the highest votes would win and if neither get 50% the system doesn't change.
While both of these Propositions have differences, they are both quite similar so much so that the conspiracy theorist it me is screaming. Prop 3 was initiated and written by the citizens. Prop 4 was initiated and written by the City Council. That in combination with the fact that a Proposition needs 50% to pass makes me think that the City initiated Prop 4 in hopes of splitting the vote so neither would be able to get 50% and therefore the system would stay the same with no change.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)