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?

[KDIGGZ]

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 Tim]

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.

[KDIGGZ]

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

[KDIGGZ]

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

[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]

 

 

[KDIGGZ]

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.