Supreme Court Strikes Down College Affirmative Action

[SoCal Deek]

48 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

CBU? 

[The Frankish Reich]

4 minutes ago, John from Riverside said:

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

John, this is what I've always wondered about the UC system (and I've lived in California before).

- The UC system is superb. Really, still the best state university system in the country.

- It has multiple campuses. For historical and geographical reasons, some (Berkeley, UCLA) are in ridiculously high demand. Others (particularly Merced nowadays) much lower demand.

- But admissions is still handled on a campus-by-campus basis.

Wouldn't the racial/ethnic composition look different if we considered the UC system as a whole, rather than the campus-by-campus focus?

[boyst]

3 hours ago, KDIGGZ said:

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 

Exactly. Never in the history of this country were asians ever forced into camps because of their race, never exploited for cheap labor, never subject to laws specialized to keep them behind!

Edited June 29, 2023 by boyst

[B-Man]

 

 

Affirmative Action's Demise and Higher Education

Fruits of a credibility collapse

GLENN HARLAN REYNOLDS,   JUN 29, 2023

 

So the Supreme Court has ruled against Harvard and UNC, and in the process fatally wounded the “diversity” and “affirmative action” practices of most every higher education institution in America.

 

There’s a lot to say about that, but I want to mark one important point:  This ruling represents a drastic retreat in the social position of higher education.  Though the ruling itself is not so much the cause as a symptom.

 

Media accounts I’ve seen have tended to suggest that the Supreme Court had found that “diversity” is a compelling interest, sufficient to justify overriding the Constitution’s ban on racial discrimination.  For example, the Wall Street Journal’s report stated:  “For 45 years, the Supreme Court has recognized a limited exception to that rule for university admissions, one based on the schools’ academic freedom to assemble classes that support their educational mission. Diversity was a compelling interest, the court had found.”

 

But the Supreme Court did not itself find that diversity was a compelling interest.  Rather, it deferred to universities’ claims that diversity was a compelling interest.  A court defers to someone else when it says that it may have a different opinion on the matter itself but it will allow the opinion of the person or entity in question to control because of their expertise.  So, for example, under the now moribund doctrine of Chevrondeference, the Court would defer to an agency’s interpretation of the statute it administers, even if the Court would have interpreted the statute differently.

 

Thus, for example, in Grutter v. Bollinger the Court said:  “The Law School has a compelling interest in attaining a diverse student body.  The Law School’s educational judgment that such diversity is essential to its educational mission is one to which we defer.” .

 

Deferring to an agency or a university on the question of what policies best serve a compelling interest is one thing; deferring on the question of what constitutes a compelling interest is another, much bigger, thing.  But that is what the Court has done up to now.

 

But no longer.  As the majority opinion today noted:  “The universities’ main response to these criticisms is ‘trust us.’  They assert that universities are owed deference when using race to benefit some applicants but not others. While this Court has recognized a “tradition of giving a degree of deference to a university’s academic decisions,” it has made clear that deference must exist ‘within constitutionally prescribed limits.’”

 

{snip}

 

This shows in popular culture as well. Higher education is mocked more, treated as a waste of money, a place where henpecked professors are afraid to say anything, and where administrators live high while students learn nothing. Polls indicated that a lot of people agree. It’s unsurprising that we’re seeing less respect in the courts, too.

 

So, regardless of what happens with affirmative action – lots of lying and dodging by schools, lots of civil rights lawsuits by plaintiffs is my prediction – I think a larger prediction is that higher education will in general enjoy less favorable judicial treatment in the future than it has enjoyed over the past century or so.  If so, it will have no one to blame but itself.

 

https://instapundit.substack.com/p/affirmative-actions-demise-and-higher?sd=pf

 

.

[John from Riverside]

16 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

John, this is what I've always wondered about the UC system (and I've lived in California before).

- The UC system is superb. Really, still the best state university system in the country.

- It has multiple campuses. For historical and geographical reasons, some (Berkeley, UCLA) are in ridiculously high demand. Others (particularly Merced nowadays) much lower demand.

- But admissions is still handled on a campus-by-campus basis.

Wouldn't the racial/ethnic composition look different if we considered the UC system as a whole, rather than the campus-by-campus focus?

I think the answer to that is yes, I work at a UC university that is in extremely high demand which really leans on its diversity

 

You have everything here one of the things that I really pride myself on is a lot of my students are veterans that are returning from serving overseas and using their Montgomery, G.I. bills to go to school and has a Veteran myself I get to help them

17 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

CBU? 

No, I’d rather not give the University here. If you PM me . I’ll give it to you.

Edited June 29, 2023 by John from Riverside

[boyst]

3 minutes ago, John from Riverside said:

I think the answer to that is yes, I work at a UC university that is in extremely high demand which really leans on its diversity

 

You have everything here one of the things that I really pride myself on is a lot of my students are veterans that are returning from serving overseas and using their Montgomery, G.I. bills to go to school and has a Veteran myself I get to help them

No, I’d rather not give the University here. If you PM me . I’ll give it to you.

It's either UC Sunnydale or Adams College.

[SoCal Deek]

9 minutes ago, John from Riverside said:

I think the answer to that is yes, I work at a UC university that is in extremely high demand which really leans on its diversity

 

You have everything here one of the things that I really pride myself on is a lot of my students are veterans that are returning from serving overseas and using their Montgomery, G.I. bills to go to school and has a Veteran myself I get to help them

No, I’d rather not give the University here. If you PM me . I’ll give it to you.

No worries 

[The Frankish Reich]

12 minutes ago, John from Riverside said:

No, I’d rather not give the University here. If you PM me . I’ll give it to you.

I mean, you are John from Riverside, not John from Santa Cruz ...

(Hey, I get it, and appreciate the insights)

[BillsFanNC]

 

[Gregg]

10 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said:

 

 

Says our not normal President.

[Big Blitz]

 

 

Kids will find ways to get ChatGPT to write them a money “how I was oppressed” essay.  

[Big Blitz]

 

 

[K D]

7 minutes ago, Big Blitz said:

 

 

Kids will find ways to get ChatGPT to write them a money “how I was oppressed” essay.  

Wow did Harvard just publicly state that they will be going against the SCOTUS ruling by trying to skirt the rules? Let the lawsuits commence!

Edited June 29, 2023 by KDIGGZ

[Buffarukus]

4 hours 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

 

based on actual metrics and not just pigment? content of character not color of skin?

 

this was the rational thinking liberals used to know and i think everyone agreed on...except for racists. 

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

4 hours ago, The Frankish Reich said:

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. 

 

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

My children’s heritage includes Argentinian on their mother’s side.  
 

I went back and forth on this issue for a while.   I’m never sure if I made the right choice. 
 

On the bright side, when my daughter reminds me of my role in the patriarchy, I offer to offload her cell phone bill directly to her in solidarity with The Cause.    We move on, the dance continues.  

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

46 minutes ago, KDIGGZ said:

Wow did Harvard just publicly state that they will be going against the SCOTUS ruling by trying to skirt the rules? Let the lawsuits commence!

It helps to think of the organization as a Corporation, acting in its own best interest for its own purpose.   When that happens, some stakeholders will be thrilled with the result in spite of working against the law of the land, others will be disappointed.  
 

Where there is a will, there is a way.  

[T&C]

Why would anyone be upset about this? I don't get it. 

[Pokebball]

3 minutes ago, T&C said:

Why would anyone be upset about this? I don't get it. 

Universities have had freedoms that not all of us have had

[T&C]

34 minutes ago, Pokebball said:

Universities have had freedoms that not all of us have had

It just seems to me that this "helps" level the playing field for people wanting to go to school. If it's the snooty legacy rich types who have a problem with it they can just suck it. Everyone deserves the same opportunities if qualified.

 

Hearing about these go arounds though reminds me of the job world. Sure, companies can't fire you for certain things... even in a right to work state... but if they for some reason want you gone they'll just find something else. I've seen it hundreds of times. So we'll see.

[Big Blitz]

Libs are the biggest racists on earth.