Here are some tweets on the story:
- I worried about Nick Wallenda falling 1,500 feet until Discovery announced they had paramedics on the scene. What a load off
- Pointless putting an ambulance at the bottom of the Grand Canyon; should have just put a fellow with a shovel down there
- I'd walk across the Grand Canyon, but I have a fear of widths
- Nik Wallenda: "It's extremely important that I make it to the other side." No kidding, buddy
- Dude's wife just said: "Nicolas would never do anything dangerous." Uhhhh ... are we watching the same thing?
- They've been "minutes away" on this walk forever now
- If he falls, I'll never watch reality television again (there was a 10-second delay)
- Too nervous to tweet
- But can he chew gum at the same time?
Supreme Court Ruling On University of Texas Admissions Criteria
Let's see if I can understand this.
1. UT has only so many openings/seats for admission to the university.Later, June 29, 2013: an op-ed piece in the WSJ on college admissions and racial preferences, this time involving the very photogenic Jennifer Gratz and the University of Michigan.
2. UT guarantees admission to top 10% of each and every graduating high school class.
3. In 2003 when Supreme Court allowed universities to consider "the whole person" as part of the admissions program, UT instituted an additional pathway, based on "the whole person" concept, for those who are not in the top 10% of their class (the specifics of what constitutes "a whole person" are mushy).
4. A white female was not admitted. She sued UT, saying that she was not admitted because she was white (or, better said, she did not meet the criteria of "a whole person" set by UT.
5. The lower courts disagreed; saying that the university could reject her because ... well, that's where it gets confusing......she obviously didn't graduate in the top 10% of her class or she would have been admitted; so she was in the pool based on "the whole person" concept. Somehow, she did not meet the admissions committee's criteria that would have admitted her under the "whole person concept."
6. The Supreme Court sent the case back to the lower court saying that the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals made legal errors when it upheld the university program. The lower court should have scrutinized the university program more strictly. In other words, the Supreme Court does not want to rule whether the UT policy is constitutional or not. And so we kick the can down the road again. In the meantime, UT can continue to run things the way it wants. But it's very clear SCOTUS was unhappy with a "mushy" "whole person concept" and wants that corrected by the lower court. Good luck.
7. After being denied admission to UT, the plaintiff went to LSU ("across the state line") from which she graduated.
8. LSU has had a better football team that UT over the past few years. That's all that really counts in the south.
9. The plaintiff has moved back to Austin. A graduate degree from UT would be super and more prestigious and valuable than just an undergraduate diploma from UT.