How can 44.8 percent of those offered admission to Princeton’s Class of 2013 possibly be “U.S. minority students” (Notebook, April 22) out of the total pool of applicants — white, African-American, Hispanic, Native American, and Asian — who all are U.S. citizens?
Hopefully, this is a typo or a misrepresentation of Princeton’s policy of affirmative action. And this was just as the U.S. Supreme Court was hearing oral argument in the case of Ricci v. DeStefano, which involves an action brought against the city of New Haven by 20 white firefighters whose passing grades on a 2003 promotion test were thrown out because no black firemen passed and only one Hispanic had a passing grade. This is blatantly against the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which bans discrimination on the basis of race or sex. If news of the higher acceptance rate and details of such “set off an angry discussion on the Web site of The Daily Princetonian,” surely the alumni/ae of Old Nassau will be weighing in with their thoughts. Let’s hear it for the “fair and balanced” reporting of PAW.
How can 44.8 percent of those offered admission to Princeton’s Class of 2013 possibly be “U.S. minority students” (Notebook, April 22) out of the total pool of applicants — white, African-American, Hispanic, Native American, and Asian — who all are U.S. citizens?
Hopefully, this is a typo or a misrepresentation of Princeton’s policy of affirmative action. And this was just as the U.S. Supreme Court was hearing oral argument in the case of Ricci v. DeStefano, which involves an action brought against the city of New Haven by 20 white firefighters whose passing grades on a 2003 promotion test were thrown out because no black firemen passed and only one Hispanic had a passing grade. This is blatantly against the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which bans discrimination on the basis of race or sex. If news of the higher acceptance rate and details of such “set off an angry discussion on the Web site of The Daily Princetonian,” surely the alumni/ae of Old Nassau will be weighing in with their thoughts. Let’s hear it for the “fair and balanced” reporting of PAW.