"Together but not equal under the law" seems to be the goal of those who desire to discriminate on the basis of race or ancestry.

It took so long to match our laws to our nation's founding principle that "all men are created equal," why do the leftists want to return to unequal treatment under the law?

In fact, for many purposes, the administration takes them completely out of the minority catagory so that it doesn't boost the column and take away the reason to "fix" something.

Interesting, African Americans and caucasians are now nearly equally unrepresented.

Read between the lines. Universities don't recognize diversity as anything other than skin color (intellectual diversity anyone?). Therefore this is a loaded question designed to elicit a certain response. I'd wage three-quarters of applicants mention their racial or ethnic background as their contribution to "diversity."

WASPs have a hard time answering such a question because they are propagandized to think that being a WASP isn't "diverse." Therefore barring any intellectual acrobatics, their response is much less compelling and reflects poorly on their application.

Her main point seemed to be that since the federal government will allow more discrimination (not her term) to take place than Washington currently allows, we should allow it.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=347&invol=483

"To separate them from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone."

Does admission to a college or university based on race as one factor which outweighs merit-based factors generate a feeling of inferiority as well?

But for the use of race as a factor in the admissions process, would they be admitted?

The leftists say that people of certain ancestries are not capable of gaining admission on their own individual merit.

It is clear that the leftists firmly believe in the inferiority of some people based on race or ancestry.

Why let the leftists put students into a situation which, as the supreme court stated in Brown, will "generate a feeling of inferiority?"

Sure, the supreme court -- to the everlasting shame of the justices who joined in that opinion -- recently held that arbitrary discrimination in the university admissions process based on race or ancestry doesn't violate our federal constitution.

That means it can be done (just as Plessy v. Ferguson had previously made "separate but equal" racial segregation constitutional).

It doesn't mean it is the right thing to do, nor does it mean that it should be done.

I'm not saying that it can't be used as an indentifying feature, like eye color, but it should absolutely not be a basis for who does, or doesn't get into college, or who does or doesn't get a government contract. If you are trying to positively identify someone, skin tone can be helpful, but it can't tell you one bit about who someone is, or how you might expect them to perform on some task.

There is a good article in last week's newsweek that talks about how many students who got in to college based on affirmative action are actually doing quite poorly. The idea being that affirmative action only focused on getting them in, not in preparing them for what they'd have to do, or helping actually do it.

And, to think that I really believe that blacks were under-represented in college.

This is yet another example of Democrats continuing to believe that the public is as stupid as they've tried to make us through bad public schools (geezzzz, what does that say about me?!).

You know, I'm just down to the point now that I do not believe a single thing that comes out of a Democrat's mouth. I used to think I was just being cynical, but I see now that this is just logical.

They really should be careful, though, because their favorite vilan - "whitey" - might start calling for quotas for white people. Oh, the horror.

The previous president (McCormack) answered this question. Solely & exclusively at the expence of white males, since addressing Asian overrepresentation would be "unfair". Asians win due to effort. Whites win due to "institutional racism"

There is no underlying ethnic imbalance.....It's just time for the Dems to throw out another hot-button issue to distract us from their pending tax increases - and to psych us into shame over I-200 so we will be more willing to pay the tax increases....
They just haven't got it yet! They are so transparent!

I still want to know how all of those illegal aliens - (that we fund tuition for with our tax dollars )- figure in all of this?

One older federal employment form had "Hispanic" broken down into five subsets, as if this information was somehow pertinent to performing the job.

Keeping track of racial information of any sort for any reason, except medical perhaps, perpetuates institutionalized racism.

You stated more clearly what I was trying to say. I've also been put off by "white" being listed as a race. The don't list Black, Red, Brown, and Yellow, so why am I white? My guess is because they aren't interested in gathering data about me because my ancestors didn't have a history of being oppressed by anyone other than people who looked just like them.

How do I know this? I am Asian myself, but with the backbone and brain. I've heard Asian community leaders telling people that Republican policies will kill minorities (Asians included), poison water, polute air, etc. - all the typical Democratic propaganda.

And to answer your question - there is no % of "minorities" (they don't include asians as a minority) that they will be happy with so long as there are still evil white males going to school here.

UW has more seminars, lectures, staff meetings, action areas, etc. on "diversity" than I care to remember, and just try suggesting that diversity does NOT = skin color...And the atmosphere is such that anyone who does not openly admit that "diversity" should be the UW's highest priority is scoffed at.

I've been ridiculed more than once for suggesting some measure of intellectual diversity. It is 110% clear to me that at UW, diversity means:

3 black socialists, 2 hispanic socialists, a native american socialist, a few female socialists, and one european white male socialist.

Case in point of how far they'll go: I went to a small high school where most people's fathers were fishermen or loggers (now an extinct species). A lot of the kids there did ok, but not stellar. Around a 3.0 gpa. They (white kids) were not admitted to the UW. But this one friend of mine, who went to a AAA school, parents made 6 figure incomes, had a terrible 2.0 gpa, got admitted through the "equal opportunity" program - obviously for skin color only.

That has to do with "sex." Yes, this is a digression from your article, but an interesting one.

Nation-wide there are now many more women in college then men. At some universities the numbers are so skewed that students have complained. Remember, that while we like to think of Universities as institutions of learning, they are also places where many teenagers mature into adults through social experiences and experimentation. Actually, they are also businesses that are very concerned about retention of customers once they are accepted and concerned about word of mouth reputation to next years batch of customers.

There is a real fear at some university placement offices that if the female to male ratio gets too far out of line, it will negatively impact the desirability of that university to women applicants; as it will implicitly mean either a restricted social life for some or unwanted completion for available men.

As such (from the rumors I have heard) some universities in some parts of the US are actually beginning to unofficially lower the standards for male applicants. How about that! Soon Males may be come an endangered species that needs protection on some college campuses. Who would have thought quotas could have come full circle.

Personally, this whole quota thing and how Universities have tried to use their superior intellect in getting the perfect diversity is all a little too much for me to handle. I kind of like Adam Smith's free market approach.