Supreme Court Strikes Down College Affirmative Action

[The Frankish Reich]

https://www.scotusblog.com/

[Tommy Callahan]

Solid ruling. 

 

but will be attacked hard by the left, as it is right now on twitter.

 

nothing but

 

Expand the courts now

 

There are ways to go around this ruling to ensure diversity.  

 

and so on

 

LOL, and like clockwork to argue there are ways around this to keep admissions race based vs qualified based.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 29, 2023 by Chris farley

[John from Riverside]

As someone that works directly in this field, this really doesn’t affect how we do admissions that much
 

I am an admissions counselor at a University here in Southern California

 

we put weight on diversity, but the diversity is not based on skin color it’s based on other factors for instance, if you are a black person, but come from a well-to-do family and have a mother and a father that are doctors, then you would not be eligible for diversity, fellowships and admission

Edited June 29, 2023 by John from Riverside

[Tiberius]

@Chris farley is thinking he might have a chance to get into ECC now. 

[boyst]

i don't post here much since the worthwhile folks left.

 

but, i just want to stand here and beat the drum of victory on the folks who don't like this.

[The Frankish Reich]

I'll focus not on law, but on the more sociological aspects.

 

Affirmative action as we understand it came from a bygone age - an age in which "minority" and "black" basically meant the same thing. 

 

1. The United States is a different place now. To the extent anyone was harmed by affirmative action policies in the 1970s, it was white applicants. Now the record is clear that the greatest harm falls on another minority, Asian American students. This led to a contradiction that couldn't be resolved within the old fashioned affirmative action context. It was doomed by demographic change.

 

2. The nature of the black and hispanic populations is also different. Many admission slots that count for "black" or "hispanic" students go to kids of very recent immigrants from Africa or South America. These were not the descendants of enslaved black people; in fact, they may be kids of Nigerian physicians who immigrated to the United States, or kids of an Argentinian CEO who were born and raised here. I have a lawyer friend. His father is an Irish/Polish American. His mother is a first-generation hispanic (from Mexico) American. His daughter is hispanic by any definition, born of a 1/2 hispanic father and a non-hispanic white mother. She has an "Anglo" Irish name, certainly doesn't reject her 1/4 hispanic ancestry, but really has no connection to the kinds of children of southwestern American hispanics who have historically faced discrimination, including New Mexicans who were on that land long before any Anglo people arrived. I'm sure she checked the "hispanic" box on her college applications, and that it was perfectly fair for her to do so. But she really doesn't increase "diversity" at all at any college she goes to - she's a blond haired kid with an Irish name from an upper middle class professional family. Again, a contradiction that was bound to result an a policy change. 

 

So that blunt remedial weapon of affirmative action is dead. Let's hope that universities and companies try to rethink what merit really means and to devise admission/hiring programs that work for the America of the 2020s and beyond. 

 

7 minutes ago, John from Riverside said:

As someone that works directly in this field, this really doesn’t affect how we do admissions that much
 

I am an admissions counselor at a University here in Southern California

 

we put weight on diversity, but the diversity is not based on skin color it’s based on other factors for instance, if you are a black person, but come from a well-to-do family and have a mother and a father that are doctors, then you would not be eligible for diversity, fellowships and admission

Thanks ... always good to hear from someone who actually has first-hand knowledge.

Edited June 29, 2023 by The Frankish Reich

[Pokebball]

5 minutes ago, John from Riverside said:

As someone that works directly in this field, this really doesn’t affect how we do admissions that much
 

I am an admissions counselor at a University here in Southern California

 

we put weight on diversity, but the diversity is not based on skin color it’s based on other factors for instance, if you are a black person, but come from a well-to-do family and have a mother and a father that are doctors, then you would not be eligible for diversity, fellowships and admission

There was enough concern by UNC and Harvard to fight this all the way to and through the SCOTUS. Perhaps some schools admission diversity processes are different?

 

A question in your process - if you have a black applicant equal to an Asian applicant in every other category, does one have an admission advantage over the other?

[K D]

Anyone who is against this ruling...

 

You are a RACIST. We have no use for your kind in our society. We are all HUMANS, stop trying to segregate us. Common sense has prevailed today!

[boyst]

11 minutes ago, Pokebball said:

There was enough concern by UNC and Harvard to fight this all the way to and through the SCOTUS. Perhaps some schools admission diversity processes are different?

 

A question in your process - if you have a black applicant equal to an Asian applicant in every other category, does one have an admission advantage over the other?

In my state yes. 

[BillsFanNC]

 

[Tommy Callahan]

23 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

@Chris farley is thinking he might have a chance to get into ECC now. 

tibs doing the only thing its capable of.

 

 

[BillsFanNC]

11 minutes ago, KDIGGZ said:

Anyone who is against this ruling...

 

You are a RACIST. We have no use for your kind in our society. We are all HUMANS, stop trying to segregate us. Common sense has prevailed today!

 

The NYT goes full racist in response...

 

 

 

[Orlando Buffalo]

Florida has already worked a way to help poor children who go to lesser schools gain admission. If you are in the top 10% of your class you are automatically eligible for acceptance to all State Universities except UF and FSU, they are even more selective. If your school does not offer all the AP courses my son was able to take them you still can go to a good school and if you fulfill the Bright futures scholarship requirements you can go for free, or at least really close to free.

[K D]

2 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said:

 

The NYT goes full racist in response...

 

 

 

This is a great day for poor Asian Americans who did everything right and then got turned down by the colleges of their choice! END ASIAN HATE 

[The Frankish Reich]

Somewhere south of Virginia:

I tried to ignore you, but I just can't do it! 

Let me post something, please! Not my reasoned opinion (I don't do that, or don't have one). I know: I'll post something from the other side with one of those "ooh, look, I think I can misconstrue this so that I get to call someone racist!! And no, I won't look to see what the other side is saying - that would require me to stop "ignoring" the NYT feed. I know, I'll piggy back on Jordan Peterson or his bastard child, some guy named James Lindsay!! That'll make me look smart ... right, mom, I look smart, don't I? I'm ignoring all the wrong people and following all the right people just like a lost puppy.

Edited June 29, 2023 by The Frankish Reich

[Tommy Callahan]

9 minutes ago, Orlando Tim said:

Florida has already worked a way to help poor children who go to lesser schools gain admission. If you are in the top 10% of your class you are automatically eligible for acceptance to all State Universities except UF and FSU, they are even more selective. If your school does not offer all the AP courses my son was able to take them you still can go to a good school and if you fulfill the Bright futures scholarship requirements you can go for free, or at least really close to free.

IN NY there are a crap load of options for free college if one is from poverty, and  a HSG.

 

 

 

 

Edited June 29, 2023 by Chris farley

[LeviF]

1 minute ago, Chris farley said:

Solid ruling. 

 

but will be attacked hard by the left, as it is right now on twitter.

 

nothing but

 

Expand the courts now

 

There are ways to go around this ruling to ensure diversity.  

 

and so on

 

 

 

 

 

If the colleges involved or the dissenting justices could have come up with anything but half-hearted legal theory that the Court had rejected decades ago, maybe their case could have been made.

[John from Riverside]

29 minutes ago, Pokebball said:

There was enough concern by UNC and Harvard to fight this all the way to and through the SCOTUS. Perhaps some schools admission diversity processes are different?

 

A question in your process - if you have a black applicant equal to an Asian applicant in every other category, does one have an admission advantage over the other?

If there are equal it goes down to other factors
 

In my programs, you have to have a faculty willing to take you into their lab in order to gain admission this is done for financial reasons as students normally receive a fellowship stipend in the first year and then, after that they’re working, as either a teaching assistant, or a lab researcher in their major professors lab

 

If two students are equal, it goes to other factors such as what type of research work have they done to prepare them for graduate school such as internships

[K D]

9 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

 

 

Looks like a no-brainer to me! W

[B-Man]

 

 

Justice Thomas joins the majority opinion in full but writes separately "to offer an originalist defense of the colorblind Constitution; to explain further the flaws of the Court’s Grutter jurisprudence; to clarify that all forms of discrimination based on race—including so-called affirmative action—are prohibited under the Constitution; and to emphasize the pernicious effects of all such discrimination."

 

Thomas expresses his opinion that efforts to use race-based solutions to do good have gone wrong. In segregationist days, it was argued "that race-based discrimination was needed 'to preserve harmony and peace and at the same time furnish equal education to both groups.'" And slaveholders have "argued that slavery was a ‘positive good’ that civilized blacks and elevated them in every dimension of life.'"

 

We cannot now blink reality to pretend, as the dissents urge, that affirmative action should be legally permissible merely because the experts assure us that it is “good” for black students....

 

Simply treating students as though their grades put them at the top of their high school classes does nothing to enhance the performance level of those students or otherwise prepare them for competitive college environments.... Those students who receive a large admissions preference are more likely to drop out of STEM fields....

[I]t seems increasingly clear that universities are focused on “aesthetic” solutions unlikely to help deserving members of minority groups.... [T]hese programs are overinclusive, providing the same admissions bump to a wealthy black applicant...

Finally, it is not even theoretically possible to “help” a certain racial group without causing harm to members of other racial groups....

 

 

The Court’s opinion rightly makes clear that Grutter is, for all intents and purposes, overruled. And, it sees the universities’ admissions policies for what they are: rudderless, race-based preferences designed to ensure a particular racial mix in their entering classes...

 

The majority opinion does not say it overrules Grutter. It seems to demand that Grutter be followed more stringently. It is left to Thomas to assert that Grutter is "for all intents and purposes, overruled."

 

https://althouse.blogspot.com/2023/06/watching-supreme-court.html