SCOTUS on Harvard and UNC
-
“The student must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual—not on the basis of race,” Roberts wrote. “Many universities have for too long done just the opposite. And in doing so, they have concluded, wrongly, that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned but the color of their skin. Our constitutional history does not tolerate that choice.”
@George-K said in SCOTUS on Harvard and UNC:
“The student must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual—not on the basis of race,” Roberts wrote. “Many universities have for too long done just the opposite. And in doing so, they have concluded, wrongly, that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned but the color of their skin. Our constitutional history does not tolerate that choice.”
But in practice, it can be simple for an admissions office to still weight in favor of preferred minorities, citing the struggles that the community endures and the student has had to overcome indicates a strength of character that is highly valued by the institution.
What does the ruling actually accomplish? I’m not sure that it accomplishes more than just getting rid of the verbiage. The DEI Offices will still make sure that it’s weighted towards preferred minorities.
-
@George-K said in SCOTUS on Harvard and UNC:
“The student must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual—not on the basis of race,” Roberts wrote. “Many universities have for too long done just the opposite. And in doing so, they have concluded, wrongly, that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned but the color of their skin. Our constitutional history does not tolerate that choice.”
But in practice, it can be simple for an admissions office to still weight in favor of preferred minorities, citing the struggles that the community endures and the student has had to overcome indicates a strength of character that is highly valued by the institution.
What does the ruling actually accomplish? I’m not sure that it accomplishes more than just getting rid of the verbiage. The DEI Offices will still make sure that it’s weighted towards preferred minorities.
@LuFins-Dad said in SCOTUS on Harvard and UNC:
@George-K said in SCOTUS on Harvard and UNC:
“The student must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual—not on the basis of race,” Roberts wrote. “Many universities have for too long done just the opposite. And in doing so, they have concluded, wrongly, that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned but the color of their skin. Our constitutional history does not tolerate that choice.”
But in practice, it can be simple for an admissions office to still weight in favor of preferred minorities, citing the struggles that the community endures and the student has had to overcome indicates a strength of character that is highly valued by the institution.
What does the ruling actually accomplish? I’m not sure that it accomplishes more than just getting rid of the verbiage. The DEI Offices will still make sure that it’s weighted towards preferred minorities.
They can just go by economic class, which few people have an issue with, and which would favor black people even more than they currently are. This ruling is more of a principle thing, than a practical effect thing.
-
Haven't read the ruling yet, but I suspect I will agree with it.
I would also rather the universities/colleges give admission preferences by socioeconomic factors rather than by racial factors.
@Axtremus said in SCOTUS on Harvard and UNC:
Haven't read the ruling yet, but I suspect I will agree with it.
I would also rather the universities/colleges give admission preferences by socioeconomic factors rather than by racial factors.
Yep. I haven’t posted here yet because we all knew this was coming and talked about it at length after orals.
I’m excited to see and hear about the opinions in the coming days.
-
I'm not excited about the three dissenting Justices.
-
Cool, let’s make this about me.
I’m interested in Sotomayor’s dissent, but largely to see how legally illiterate it is. If Kagan wrote also I’d read it, she’s the best writer on the court. Not so interested in Jackson.
@Jon said in SCOTUS on Harvard and UNC:
Cool, let’s make this about me.
Please don't pretend to be above it, it's gross when you do that.
I’m interested in Sotomayor’s dissent, but largely to see how legally illiterate it is. If Kagan wrote also I’d read it, she’s the best writer on the court. Not so interested in Jackson.
They all get an equal vote. You should be interested not least in the justice your guy nominated, if only to calibrate your expectations for future nominations.
-
A numeric look at how racist selective programs can actually be. Here’s some AMA data on med school admission by race:
@xenon said in SCOTUS on Harvard and UNC:
A numeric look at how racist selective programs can actually be. Here’s some AMA data on med school admission by race.
Law school
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1674427966842093573.html
1/ Over the more than 50 years affirmative action's morally squalid and racist practices were in place, how many white and Asian applicants were denied admission in favor of less qualified black and Hispanic applicants? I was likely one of them, and maybe you were, too.
2/ Years ago, I applied to a top law school, and was rejected.
My GPA: 0.3 points higher than average GPA of blacks admitted
My LSAT: Higher than the average at this school
Average LSAT of blacks admitted: MUCH lower than my score and the white average
3/ My undergrad degree: In a program ranked #1 in nation.
Also: I had received academic awards, had a book published by an academic imprint as an undergrad, had glowing recommendations from well-known scholars.
4/ A few years after I was rejected, the admission records of the law school leaked, and the data appeared in the media. There was a stat I've never forgotten: About 1 out of every 7 blacks admitted dropped out. The white drop-out rate was essentially zero.
5/ So dozens of qualified white and Asian applicants who would have graduated had they been admitted were denied admission in favor of black admits who dropped out because they had no business being admitted in the first place.
6/ The way that liberals in the media processed the information in this leak is what drove me from the left and toward the center. There's something deeply disordered about the American left's moral compass and sense of fairness.
6/ Overwhelmingly, it wasn't disadvantaged BIPOCs benefiting from affirmative action, but rather middle-class ones who attended good K-12 schools. And yet liberals pretended not only that affirmative action was social justice but also that whites and Asians were not harmed.
7/ Of course it's entirely possible I wouldn't have gotten into that law school even if there hadn't been affirmative action. But over 90% of the black applicants who got in under AA wouldn't have either.
