That is not the kind of sophistry a good professor employs. Socrates would have ripped that line of argument apart with a quickness.

Uh.. guys?
I think you might want to read what he said more carefully. He's denying that race discrimination and legacy preferences for alumni are comparable.

I don't see any problem with what he said. The supreme court's interpretation of the 14th amendment doesn't treat all discrimination equally (irony unintended).

Race and sex based discrimination are more inherently suspect than other forms of discrimination. That is to say, some forms of discrimination seem inherently less likely to qualify as necessary in order to achieve some legitimate governmental good.

Now the some would disagree with the supreme court's levels of suspicion (eg should sex based discrimination been held to the highest level as race is, should discrimination on the basis of sexuality or disability be treated as more suspect?) but the basic idea is sound and I think something we can all agree on: not all discrimination is equal.

The argument sumarised as "no one should receive special treatment" means "no one should receive special treatment unless it is necessary so as to achieve some legitimate governmental good". Can't some of this stuff be assumed? Sentences can get pretty long if you have to add all this stuff on the end of them all the time.

Race discrimination is almost never *required* to achieve a legitimate governmental good.

Now possibly you could argue that legacy preferences for alumni do not serve any legitimate governmental good in the first place but that's a whole 'nother question from asking if discrimination against people not related to alumni is *required* to achieve that goal.

So please don't get those two confused: the necessity part (or level of inherent suspicion) and the governmental good part.

What's with these black folks. We, gave them slavery, sharecropping, segregation, and lynchings, and now they want affirmative action too. What nerve!

While I oppose legacy admissions, should the outrage not be directed rather at those who perpetuate the policy, i.e. the college admissions offices themselves? You seem to be blaming Republicans, somehow.

I also not only oppose admission of unqualified atheletes, but any and all athletic scholarships even for qualified students. Still, I would imagine that there are more minorities than whites gaining unqualified admission for athletic skill, so this is in effect another side door to evade restrictions on minority quotas.

Certainly, any admissions policy other than merit is unfair. But your statement that "There is no way on earth that Bush could have gotten into Yale on his merits." is extreme. I suppose you don't think he could have gotten into Harvard for his MBA either?

Hey, since GW Bush is such an ignoramus, perhaps he could be used as the poster child for admission preferences: after all, even the supposedly "unqualified", he has succeeded in life beyond most people's dreams.

I'm not opposed to legacy admissions. I think a family tradition of attending the same schools is fine, and if the schools want to jeopardize their own standing by letting in losers, more power to them.

I am profoundly opposed to a President who has had all manner of preferences shown to him over the course of his life getting all high-n-mighty in claiming that all preferences are wrong.

hmm.. if you are a private institution.. can't you let in anyone you want? and if i'm correct.. yale can do that.. but the university of michigan can't.. because they aren't private.

"hmm.. if you are a private institution.. can't you let in anyone you want? and if i'm correct.. yale can do that.. but the university of michigan can't.. because they aren't private."

Good point. But that doesn't make the fact go away: Bush has been the beneficiary of numerous preferences his whole life. For him to pretend otherwise is despicable.

so i guess we have to select our elected leaders based on what credibility they have and let them know ahead of time not to try and pass any legislation that they have no credibility on. i see.

"...we have to select our elected leaders based on what credibility they have and let them know ahead of time not to try and pass any legislation that they have no credibility on."

Bush isn't trying to pass legislation; he's trying to influence a court proceeding.

Otherwise, you're exactly right. We should never have elected a guy who is clearly a moron to pass judgment on the admissions policies of public universities in this country.

Unfortunately, although most of us didn't actually VOTE for Bush, he is still allowed to act as President, even on matters on which his credibility is shot. That doesn't mean I--and all other right-thinking people--can't despise his hypocrisy.

he does ooze a bit but don't blame him.. it's in his genes.

You guys got my vote.