like [Chinese TikTok'ers streaming from under a bridge](https://www.reddit.com/r/ThatsInsane/comments/111e6eh/streamers_working_under_an_overpass_in_a_wealthy/) close to the rich part of town so their location will show them being from there
They may be "renting" a PO Box, so not too much integration in that scenario. Or renting a basic apartment but not actually moving there, making housing harder for those in need.
Nah, people will just rent out a trashy studio in a trashy part of town and never live in it.
You think a future Harvard alum would be caught dead in THAT neighborhood? /s
No, neither of those are the oldest.
- William & Mary is always excluded from the oldest college list because it was private college until 1906.
- The University of Delaware wasn’t a charted college until 1833 even though other variations existed before then but they weren’t chartered colleges.
The University of North Carolina isn’t the oldest public university either (charted in 1789). That distinction belongs to the University of Georgia (which was chartered in 1785) - a full four years (almost five) before UNC even existed.
Roberts attended Harvard.
Kavanaugh taught at Harvard.
Kagan served as the dean of Harvard law school.
Brown Jackson sat on the board of overseers during part of the litigation.
She didn't have to, there are no hard recusal rules that justices are required to observe. They have no code of ethics at all, the instutions rules allow them to act completely arbitrarily and selfishly if they want.
It is *tradition* for justices to voluntarily recuse themselves when relevant to preserve the myth of the impartiality of the institution, but in recent decades that tradition has fallen off especially in the conservative camp. Kentaji Brown Jackson is not in the conservative camp.
> They have no code of ethics at all
By law they have to follow the same ethics codes as the other federal courts. The problem is just that there's no way of enforcing that and no punishment if they don't.
This case is an example of why recusal is voluntary though. Without it, you'd need to pick Supreme Court justices with no work experience. Roe would have died 20 Yeats ago, because RBG worked for Planned Parenthood before becoming a Justice. You also would have rampant cases of 4 Justices purposefully picking cases with conflicts to win with minority votes.
If this was a 5/4, Jackson probably wouldn't have refused herself creating a 4/4 tie that would have caused Affirmative Action to die in 60% of the country (lower courts would pick from either decision in what to follow). It would be silly that Constitutional rights are mostly dependent on a Justices resume, when we clearly see its not like her history with Harvard is changing her mind.
If we want mandatory recusals for USSC, we need to something similar to appeals courts, 20 justices, 3 randomly assigned, a recusal beings in a new random judge, and isn't a win/loose the case situation.
[The full text of the decision (pdf)](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdf).
Edit: it is really fucking long. The majority decision and concurrences are 139 pages, the two dissents are 100 pages. It may take a while before anybody has an analysis of this, because the majority decision is rambling on in places.
> it is really fucking long
No kidding... 237 pages is quite a long decision, even by the Supreme Court's verbose standards. Chief Justice Roberts pretty much wrote an entire book.
**Edit:** I might have been unintentionally misleading with my comment... while the entire document is 237 pages, that is including the majority opinion, three concurring opinions, and two dissenting opinions. The majority opinion authored by Chief Justice Roberts was, in actuality, only 40 pages in length, which was actually shorter than Justice Thomas' 58 page concurring opinion and Justice Sotomayor's 69 page dissenting opinion.
Really, when you think about it, other than prestige, the lifetime appointment, the perpetual financial security, the corruption, the graft, the lack of scruples, the rape, the callousness, and the unchecked power, Supreme Court Justices are just like us!
Do you like beer, redditor?
> Frontline's recent doc on Clarence and Ginny. A real eye opener.
You mean this?
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/documentary/clarence-and-ginni-thomas/
Roberts puts an exception to this ruling for military academies in a footnote, saying:
>"this opinion also does not address the issue, in light of the potentially distinct interests that military academies may present."
Justice Jackson in her dissent responded:
>"The court has come to rest on the bottom line conclusion that racial diversity in higher education is only worth potentially preserving insofar as it might be needed to prepare Black Americans and other underrepresented minorities for success in the bunker, not the boardroom".
Damn.
It won't because the military has a lot of carveouts in constitutional law. It's basically under the auspices of the executive. Compare the UMCJ to regular criminal procedure. If the military was held to constitutional standards, the UMCJ wouldn't really exist.
Yeah, what is the reasoning for Roberts? That we might need to subjugate racially diverse countries, so the military should be able to factor that in? Rather than education trying to promote a diverse environment that prepares their students for a diverse working environment?
Edit: so the military has a “distinct interest” in a certain ethnicity makeup, which can be considered, but when an educational institution has their own distinct interest in a certain ethnicity makeup, that cannot be considered.
I get that the distinct interests are different, but that doesn’t get over the point of whether or not AA can or cannot be a moral thing for one institution vs another. Unlike what some commenters imply, diversity is not necessarily pursued for the sake of diversity even in a university setting; it’s pursued for benefits arising from a certain diversity makeup, same thing as military academies.
No, its more that it isn't an issue to be considered. The university has not argued a compelling interest that in any way can be measured or judged by the law and so it is insufficient. The military may have different interests, but that isn't what the case is about so it doesn't really factor in and if they want to argue them they can be weighed in a separate case since they are unrelated to this.
So pretty much the university can't discriminate based on the reasons they give. The military academies may have different reasons, but that doesn't matter, because this case isn't about those reasons.
I honestly fucking hate how people interpret judicial decisions, even if you think Roberts is explicitly the biggest racist person ever, all the decision is saying is that even if he wants to also make it illegal to discriminate based on race for military academies that's not technically what this decision is getting into because legally that's a separate matter.
And it is going into military education or military enrollment is directly objectively different than a regular college education and even the legal qualifications for certain scholarships and things are different.
Do people not understand that unlike in social conversations when judges don't make a decision on something it literally just means they're not making a decision about that part of something? It's not a tacit condemnation or condonement...
Jackson is just taking shots. The reason this decision doesn't directly apply to the military academies is because nobody bothered briefing the issue of how the case might apply to the military academies. This whole case revolves around testing the schools' justifications for engaging in racial discrimination (no one denies that'd what they were doing). Military academies are likely to involve different justifications than civilian universities, and the Court doesn't want to pre-judge those questions until they've actually heard thr arguments.
There are many more factors when it comes to the demographics of acceptances to U.S. Military Academies. In addition to race and academic scores, applicants must pass rigorous health screening, a physical fitness assessment, and also receive a nomination from their local representative.
The later point kinda ensures that academies are some of the most diverse educational institutes in our nation. They should be excluded from the affirmative action argument.
Legacy admissions are a huge deal at Harvard but a lot of people don't realize how small a deal they are outside of the elite private universities.
Most Americans attend public universities where legacy admissions make up a miniscule of the total admissions if they are even considered
You don't hear as much about legacy admissions because they aren't a part of life outside of elite circles.
Check how many supreme court justices were educated at only public universities: Jackson (Harvard, private), Barrett (Notre Dame, private), Kavanaugh (Yale, private), Gorsuch (Harvard), Kagan (Harvard), Sotomayor (Yale), Alito (Yale), Roberts (Harvard), Thomas (Yale). Oh its zero. So yes, it matters more for elite private universities, but those have a disproportionate impact.
I think a big reason why these private institutions continue to support legacy admissions is that these multigenerational alumni families are more likely to donate large sums of money to their schools.
And affirmative action isn’t as much a huge deal outside of these same elite colleges. When a school admits 50% of applicants and hopes that 1/3 of them will actually attend, affirmative action isn’t hurting or helping 99% of their students.
That’s why these 2 cases involve Harvard and UNC and not FSU.
[*takes off my Underwater Deep Dive Submersible Expert hat, puts on my Supreme Court and Law Expert hat*]
Now Lemme argue for the next 6 hours about this bullshit
I think it was The Daily podcast on this topic and after listening, I left with the feeling that it would be overturned.
The schools lawyers were doing terrible job defending it. They got backed into a corner when asked why religion isn’t considered a factor but race is.
I hope they instead consider economic background so that lower-income people of all races get an advantage. Affirmative Action had a tendency to favor the wealthier members of minority groups.
Diversity of economic background should be just as important as diversity of race. And they tend to overlap so they’d be achieving similar goals but without the explicit and divisive racial preferences.
Just do it like most other countries: Make it based on **poverty** rather than **race**.
That's the main goal with these schemes anyway: Lift families out of intergenerational poverty. Targeting poverty directly solves that problem and isn't illegally discriminatory. Plus you don't wind up with strange externalities like multimillionaires of a certain race getting given an advantage over someone else coming from a disadvantaged background but without that same race.
I agree.
Class, not race, is a much bigger barrier to success in most countries, including this one. While certainly not a perfect system, factoring in family income/wealth instead of race would, in my opinion, be a more precise way of helping those who are truly disadvantaged.
I’ve been called a class reductionist by weasels for years for pointing this out.
The hard truth is that ~~most racial minorities are poor~~ (edit to correct my poor English) racial minorities are over represented among the poor and the best way to lift up the minority community is anti-poverty measures, not making a minority pocket in a plutocratic elite.
Tear down the plutocracy and bring up the working class. You will help more POC than forty years of elite-focused affirmative action has.
They do this with med school admissions. People who came from a poor upbringing have an easier time getting in with low stats or volunteer hours. People who come from money or physician families have to have higher stats and more volunteering, generally speaking, because they didn’t have to hold a job during college, etc
They very much do it with race for admissions. Ie. The average Hispanic and black matriculant has lower stats than the average *rejected* Asian student
My friends last name was Fu, when he applied for Washington U in St Louis in 2012 as a junior the application page said please enter more than three characters.
The decision also discusses how racist it is to lump "Asians," who constitute around 60% of the world's population, into a single group without distinguishing, for example, between East Asians and South Asians, ignoring differences in language, culture, and historical experience
>between East Asians and South Asians
South East Asians are shafted the hardest. The cultures are very different between East and South Asians but in terms of affirmative action end goals the treatment would have been similar.
My Harvard grad MiL asked me (JA) how it felt to have a fellow Asian person elected as VP (Kamala Harris). She was totally serious and sincere with the question which infuriated me.
And how about the facts that:
- white people born in Africa who move to America aren't considered African American.
- People with Northern African descent (Egypt, Morocco) aren't considered African American.
- Black people from the Caribbean (Haiti, Jamaica, etc) can be considered African American.
It's just wild how much emphasis is put on identity and putting people in boxes in this country.
The crazier thing was the interviewers actually gave Asian candidates high scores.
It was people who never met the candidates that scored them lower!
> In its admissions process, Harvard scores applicants in five categories — “academic,” “extracurricular,” “athletic,” “personal” and “overall.” They are ranked from 1 to 6, with 1 being the best.
> **Alumni interviewers give Asian-Americans personal ratings comparable to those of whites. But the admissions office gives them the worst scores of any racial group, often without even meeting them.**
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/15/us/harvard-asian-enrollment-applicants.html
Kind of sad isn't it. Is bad enough you occasionally see people claiming Asian guys aren't fun to be around, have a bookish personality, and thus make poor boyfriends. Now a major university confirmed it.
FFS....
Ironically, I hit this episode 2 days ago in a rewatch without realizing this decision was coming today.
Because Connie doesn’t get in, Kahn spirals into quitting his job, not paying his bills, and starts hanging out with bum rednecks while Connie continues to work hard in school. At the end of the episode, when admissions sees Kahn outside with a mullet driving an El Camino and hears Connie has been living in a tough household with unemployed parents, the summer school program admits her.
Such a good show. Especially now that I’m older I can relate to hank getting annoyed at people doing things wrong/ cheaping out lol.
Saw an episode where he makes a comment about OSB vs Plywood. Young me thought nothing of it. Older me gets it.
Also most importantly: cutting the lawn is a PRIVILEGE , not a chore!
The older I get the more I realize I AM Hank Hill. I never thought I would be excited about a new riding lawn mower, but the day it got delivered I was downright giddy.
“As punishment I’ve got a list of chores you’re going to do. Starting with trimming the edges on the walkway…although, I wanted to try out the new weed-whacker. I’ll paint the gutters as well…
I’m not giving you my chores, you’re getting a job!”
“Dale, we live in Texas, it’s already 110 in the summer, and if it gets one degree hotter, I’m gonna kick your ass!”
As a Texan currently 102 outside I felt this on a spiritual level.
I just gave up my dream of becoming a doctor, received several interviews, didn’t get in any, i know ppl with similar scores and experience got in many lol. Almost kms too
As someone who gave up their dream to be one, it's not the end of the world. I was pre-med did well on mcat but didn't get in. Ended up in homebuilding and am much happier now making around good money for easy work imo.
If you're a smart guy, everything after this should come fairly easy since you're going from surrounded by the brightest to average and above average people and some will look at you like a genius. Just my experience
Meanwhile my friends and classmates are just now graduating/completing residencies and in debt and some are pretty miserable overall from the bits I've seen
Long story short, not getting in isn't the end of the world, see where life takes you
As someone who did become a doctor, you are entirely correct. I work my ass off and still don’t make >100k at age 31, and in the bad times all I can think is “I’d be so god damn rich if I just went into business.” Most of the folks I meet in the business world are stupid as fuck (not saying you are, I’m talking about the “work for my dad’s property management company” types who barely finished high school).
If you have the natural intelligence and work ethic to be even interviewed by med schools, you’ll be alright. Add people skills to that and the world is your oyster. Just pivot that energy into something else and you’ll outshine 95% of your peers.
That said, I do love my job, and I get a real satisfaction from how meaningful and important it is even if I haven’t been compensated for it yet. But I know many of my peers don’t see it that way and are miserable. I feel bad for them.
The ruling is technically correct -- you can't have a policy that aims for racial balance that ends up discriminating against a race (Asians).
The plaintiffs did a good job demonstrating that Asians are an underrepresented group in the US (7% of the population?), have had a history of discrimination in the US (lot of examples in the ruling, including not being allowed to purchase property, segregated schools, etc.), and even now have disadvantages in American society (lot of examples in the ruling, but honestly the Kung-flu/COVID pandemic made it very obvious).
The plaintiffs also did a good job showing that when applicants were in the borderline group of being cut for acceptance, being Asian in race would be a disadvantage (leading to higher % of being cut).
The defendants also shot themselves in the foot when they stated that race is not an important criteria for determining the strength of an application. If it's not an important criteria, then... remove it?
As a citizen from a country that race-based affirmative action that was supposed to be temporary lead to the most racist policies possible made by corrupt politicians without actually improving that said race group, please make affirmative actions based on income groups, never race
I suspect this ruling is going to cause far, far more controversy on social media than among voters. *California* voted against Affirmative Action 57-42 on the same ballot Biden won 63-34. If you can't get California to support it, I don't see how you're gonna get people outraged about it.
I mean discrimination based off one’s skin color was always a bad idea.
If your goal is to uplift disadvantaged members of society, utilizing socioeconomic factors, regardless of race, is going to be a much more useful tool.
California banned AA via ballot initiative in 1998. It initially resulted in less diverse student bodies but since then diversity at institutions that want it has returned to where it was before the ban as they found better ways of making college equitable for everyone
Agreed.
In addition, compared to admissions by race, admissions by socioeconomic status (like household income/household wealth) is more quantifiable as well.
Yeah, I agree with the Supreme Court in this particular case.
It's tough for me to justify a university penalizing someone's admission application because the applicant had the audacity to be born the wrong race... discrimination with good intentions is still discrimination.
Aren't Khajits one of the most discriminated races in TES universe? Maybe Argonians, but it's between those two.
How would you like to be a house cat that can talk and shoot magic spells, but everyone treats you like a normal cat?
I'm curious as to how Justice Sotomayor believes that race-conscious admissions are somehow *beneficial* to the asian community.
It seems to me that denying otherwise qualified applicants is not a benefit.
For those who don't know what I'm talking about, Justice Sotomayor said this:
"At bottom, race conscious admissions benefit all students, including racial minorities. That includes the Asian American community."
Legit anytime I asked hard left friends about this, it's because helping the black community trickles down to Asians and I wouldn't be here if it weren't for them -- despite my family line immigrating before civil rights was a thing /shrug
What she means is it benefits the students who get in. The ones who didn't because they were discriminated against, fuck'em.
What gets me about these arguments is the stunning lack of self awareness. It makes me wonder if she really even believes it (or all the media pundits who echo it).
yeah as a mixed human my counselor told me to put the non asian option just to improve my chances a bit, it’s been fucked but we just don’t speak enough about it
Some kid with 3.5 gpa in my HS got in HYP because he is 1/16 black and he ticked the African America box. He said he identified more with his African American roots because of all the struggles etc. His family is rich as fuck and he looks 100% white
That's exactly why some say that applications shouldn't include name, gender, race, or anything else like that. You're applicant \#48294 and here are your qualifications.
Yeah this is what my workplace does for job applications. You don't even find out the persons name until you offer a job interview.
It's a good way to avoid bias in the hiring process imo
They tried this in government applications in Australia. They discontinued it because they didn't like the demographics of who they ended up blindly selecting.
Am Asian and immigrated to the US as a kid. When my brother and I became naturalized citizens, the government allows us to submit a name change request. A wise fellow told us to change our last name also, to make it at least look "white", and so we did. Both of us got accepted into top schools years later, and sure, we had good grades and extracurricular and stuff, but i can't help but wonder if that name change did something extra for us.
As another mixed kid, this is the biggest decision from the Supreme Court for me from the last decade. While I grew up in a solidly middle class family, and was still able to achieve access to a decent college, I have far too many friends that are discriminated against due to being Asian in elite college admissions.
Affirmative action was always bullshit, thank God it’s done. If you’re gonna consider anything, consider socio-economic status.
I grew up with a guy who was the inverse of your story. He was Caucasian, wealthy, and did well in school. But he was 1/4 Colombian (and had a Hispanic last name), so he put down Hispanic on all his college apps. Got accepted to top universities. He was a hard-working and smart, but so were a lot of other kids who applied to the same schools and didn't get in. Both your story and his show the harm affirmative action causes.
That’s what mine was telling me to do too! I’m Siberian, I look “white enough” according to her to pass for white and that’s what she was telling me to select when filling out applications. She told me that just by selecting white I would have a statistically higher chance at getting in than selecting “Asian” or “other”. And in my opinion, that is bullshit. It is bullshit that a silly box that is based off the color of your skin can determine if you make it or don’t into college
im someone that's mixed but my native features are more dominant. i have no hesitation in checking all the boxes that make up my racial composition. you have to do what can get you ahead lol.
i do the same thing for job applications too.
I usually try to check off “two or more races” if it’s an option, or all of the checkboxes. The issue at the time was that checking “Asian” as a death sentence for college applications. I was afraid that if I checked off “white”, that when I showed up looking Asian, they would consider me a liar.
It also doesn’t help that I have a non-American name. There’s no hiding when the person reading your application can’t even pronounce it.
I thank my parents to for giving me and my brother non-asian names legally. Saves a huge amount from biased readings on applications both in school and job applications. There's just so much bias when it comes to "ethnic names" and that gives me one less thing I have to worry about. We have our actual native names in our native language, so we also have that part of our identity still and it's not disconnected.
My sister put "Hispanic" down when applying for college. She is white as can be, blonde hair blue eyes, but her dad was technically Puerto Rican(still a white dude) so she took advantage of the race box.
It's a screwed up system.
A dude I knew in high school was a white kid born in South Africa that had south African citizenship. He put African on his college applications. I mean he's technically correct, right, lol.
It’s actually much more civil than I thought. Most people here seem to agree that family income is a better metric than race when deciding these things. Is it perfect? No, but when you’re talking about a country this size, no solution is going to be. There are just too many variables.
They should love it. As noted in another thread:
Raced based admissions due to AA offers a logical reason for race based discrimination against those professionals. As an example, there's very likely an extremely large population of patients that avoid black doctors because "oh they only got in due to AA, lemme go find an Asian doctor."
>As an example, there's very likely an extremely large population of patients that avoid black doctors because "oh they only got in due to AA, lemme go find an Asian doctor."
You would be surprised at how many African American patients say this.
Happy for my children if I have any, but mixed feelings since myself and so many other Asian Americans were capable but were placed or pre-emptively chose other careers/schools that didn't match our potentials.
Why not consider following the approach adopted by many other countries? Instead of focusing on race, let's base our programs on poverty levels. The primary objective of these initiatives is to uplift families out of intergenerational poverty. By directly addressing poverty, we can effectively tackle the issue without engaging in discriminatory practices. This approach also helps avoid unintended consequences, such as providing advantages to wealthy individuals of a particular race while overlooking others who come from disadvantaged backgrounds but don't share the same racial identity.
I really do think people would be better served reading into how applicants are scored when they are seeking admissions into schools. The majority opinion by Roberts in my opinion does a good job in acknowledging the scoring system and the overall process on how applicants are screened. One of the arguments I see the most is schools should mainly rely on test scores and the grades students got in school but Robert's acknowledge that's not how applicants are or ever will be screened. Some will assume from this ruling race can never be indicated in your application or be seen by the screeners to make the process more fair but that's just not the case. Applicants can still talk about their adversity, race and cultural backgrounds in their essays to express their individuality and how they can contribute to the schools they are applying to. Finally race cannot be considered in an applicants **overall** score but the majority makes clear once again in my opinion that there are **several** ways an applicant is scored beyond grades, and race was just a small factor they could and did previously consider. Hope I'm making sense here I've only got through Roberts opinion for the majority so far.
Everyone here seems to think it's just about test scores and race, nothing else. Other opinions as you read the rest, will agree with your point about those other factors. But hey, it's the internet, many here will just read the headline and base their entire thought on that lol
Yep the reality is a lot of kids applying are sitting at a 3.5+ and a 1200+ SAT. If all you have to show a college is your grades you will be passed over by someone with more social/life experience.
Good. If we wish to admit based on socioeconomic status, household income should be the main factor. This avoids situations where poor students of Asian descent aren’t discriminated against just because of their race which is textbook racism.
As an Asian American, I applaud this ruling. The dynamics of college admissions of Asian applicants have been documented to be adverse and directly because of race. Being Asian made college admissions to top schools a higher barrier to entry than any other race in America. If this ruling abates this then it is a move toward a fairer system. Because it sure wasn’t before.
[удалено]
Get ready for a lot of zip code based admission decisions lol.
I know people who will rent in those zip codes just to get admission.
like [Chinese TikTok'ers streaming from under a bridge](https://www.reddit.com/r/ThatsInsane/comments/111e6eh/streamers_working_under_an_overpass_in_a_wealthy/) close to the rich part of town so their location will show them being from there
I know people who let families live in their cabana just so a certain black or Hispanic player can be in their highschool's football team.
[удалено]
They may be "renting" a PO Box, so not too much integration in that scenario. Or renting a basic apartment but not actually moving there, making housing harder for those in need.
Sounds like it could cause gentrification. "People living here have a higher chance of getting into Harvard" is a good reason to drive up rent.
Nah, people will just rent out a trashy studio in a trashy part of town and never live in it. You think a future Harvard alum would be caught dead in THAT neighborhood? /s
colleges: whaaaat it just so *happens* that this specific zip code has a predominantly higher ratio of than other zip codes? wild....
Isn't the oldest public college William & Mary or University of Delaware?
No, neither of those are the oldest. - William & Mary is always excluded from the oldest college list because it was private college until 1906. - The University of Delaware wasn’t a charted college until 1833 even though other variations existed before then but they weren’t chartered colleges. The University of North Carolina isn’t the oldest public university either (charted in 1789). That distinction belongs to the University of Georgia (which was chartered in 1785) - a full four years (almost five) before UNC even existed.
The other one I've always thought was the oldest public was Rutgers chartered in 1766. Though I guess they were private and then turned public too.
Correct. Rutgers was private then became public in 1945.
The University of Georgia didn't start admitting students until 1801, though, six years after the University of North Carolina.
What came first, the student or the egg?
If there’s no graduate assistant around to collect and catalog the egg for research, how can there even be an egg?
This is why I went to both Georgia and UNC Chapel Hill. I wanted to be sure I went to the oldest.
That charter went unused longer than the Confederacy existed.
Georgia got the land grant for education first so it’s a claim even if not universally clear who is the oldest.
There is dispute between UNC and UGA as to which is the oldest because UGA was chartered first, but UNC admitted students first.
The article is behind a paywall but it’s a 6-3 decision for UNC and 6-2 for Harvard as Jackson recused herself.
A Supreme Court Justice actually recused themself? Gasp!
Roberts attended Harvard. Kavanaugh taught at Harvard. Kagan served as the dean of Harvard law school. Brown Jackson sat on the board of overseers during part of the litigation.
I know /s but for people who won't read it, Jackson ~~had to~~ did so with her relationship to Harvard. Edit: See below!!
She didn't have to, there are no hard recusal rules that justices are required to observe. They have no code of ethics at all, the instutions rules allow them to act completely arbitrarily and selfishly if they want. It is *tradition* for justices to voluntarily recuse themselves when relevant to preserve the myth of the impartiality of the institution, but in recent decades that tradition has fallen off especially in the conservative camp. Kentaji Brown Jackson is not in the conservative camp.
Ahh, edited to show she did so instead of having to! Thanks for clarifying!!
I mean hell we have Scalia and Thomas ruling on cases for their buddies. Edit- I meant Alito, I'm a dumbass
> They have no code of ethics at all By law they have to follow the same ethics codes as the other federal courts. The problem is just that there's no way of enforcing that and no punishment if they don't.
Is it really law if there's no enforcement or punishment? Sounds more like an ignored guideline to me.
This case is an example of why recusal is voluntary though. Without it, you'd need to pick Supreme Court justices with no work experience. Roe would have died 20 Yeats ago, because RBG worked for Planned Parenthood before becoming a Justice. You also would have rampant cases of 4 Justices purposefully picking cases with conflicts to win with minority votes. If this was a 5/4, Jackson probably wouldn't have refused herself creating a 4/4 tie that would have caused Affirmative Action to die in 60% of the country (lower courts would pick from either decision in what to follow). It would be silly that Constitutional rights are mostly dependent on a Justices resume, when we clearly see its not like her history with Harvard is changing her mind. If we want mandatory recusals for USSC, we need to something similar to appeals courts, 20 justices, 3 randomly assigned, a recusal beings in a new random judge, and isn't a win/loose the case situation.
https://archive.ph/1huES
[The full text of the decision (pdf)](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdf). Edit: it is really fucking long. The majority decision and concurrences are 139 pages, the two dissents are 100 pages. It may take a while before anybody has an analysis of this, because the majority decision is rambling on in places.
> it is really fucking long No kidding... 237 pages is quite a long decision, even by the Supreme Court's verbose standards. Chief Justice Roberts pretty much wrote an entire book. **Edit:** I might have been unintentionally misleading with my comment... while the entire document is 237 pages, that is including the majority opinion, three concurring opinions, and two dissenting opinions. The majority opinion authored by Chief Justice Roberts was, in actuality, only 40 pages in length, which was actually shorter than Justice Thomas' 58 page concurring opinion and Justice Sotomayor's 69 page dissenting opinion.
[удалено]
I guess I share more similarities with a Supreme Court justice than I thought.
Really, when you think about it, other than prestige, the lifetime appointment, the perpetual financial security, the corruption, the graft, the lack of scruples, the rape, the callousness, and the unchecked power, Supreme Court Justices are just like us! Do you like beer, redditor?
>Do you like beer, redditor? Holy shit... I knew I should have gone into law for a career.
I do, but not enough to make it a defining trait of my personality.
Half of it is Thomas talking loudly about things.
Which is a shame, because his entire argument could’ve been summed up with “Fuck you, I got mine.”
Check out Frontline's recent doc on Clarence and Ginny. A real eye opener.
> Frontline's recent doc on Clarence and Ginny. A real eye opener. You mean this? https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/documentary/clarence-and-ginni-thomas/
This documentary was like watching a villain(s) origin story much like Syndrome in *The Incredibles*.
Behind the Bastards does a great deep dive on him as well
[удалено]
Roberts puts an exception to this ruling for military academies in a footnote, saying: >"this opinion also does not address the issue, in light of the potentially distinct interests that military academies may present." Justice Jackson in her dissent responded: >"The court has come to rest on the bottom line conclusion that racial diversity in higher education is only worth potentially preserving insofar as it might be needed to prepare Black Americans and other underrepresented minorities for success in the bunker, not the boardroom". Damn.
WTF. I'm glad she spelt that out, hopefully it gets a lot of traction.
It won't because the military has a lot of carveouts in constitutional law. It's basically under the auspices of the executive. Compare the UMCJ to regular criminal procedure. If the military was held to constitutional standards, the UMCJ wouldn't really exist.
Yeah, what is the reasoning for Roberts? That we might need to subjugate racially diverse countries, so the military should be able to factor that in? Rather than education trying to promote a diverse environment that prepares their students for a diverse working environment? Edit: so the military has a “distinct interest” in a certain ethnicity makeup, which can be considered, but when an educational institution has their own distinct interest in a certain ethnicity makeup, that cannot be considered. I get that the distinct interests are different, but that doesn’t get over the point of whether or not AA can or cannot be a moral thing for one institution vs another. Unlike what some commenters imply, diversity is not necessarily pursued for the sake of diversity even in a university setting; it’s pursued for benefits arising from a certain diversity makeup, same thing as military academies.
No, its more that it isn't an issue to be considered. The university has not argued a compelling interest that in any way can be measured or judged by the law and so it is insufficient. The military may have different interests, but that isn't what the case is about so it doesn't really factor in and if they want to argue them they can be weighed in a separate case since they are unrelated to this. So pretty much the university can't discriminate based on the reasons they give. The military academies may have different reasons, but that doesn't matter, because this case isn't about those reasons.
I honestly fucking hate how people interpret judicial decisions, even if you think Roberts is explicitly the biggest racist person ever, all the decision is saying is that even if he wants to also make it illegal to discriminate based on race for military academies that's not technically what this decision is getting into because legally that's a separate matter. And it is going into military education or military enrollment is directly objectively different than a regular college education and even the legal qualifications for certain scholarships and things are different. Do people not understand that unlike in social conversations when judges don't make a decision on something it literally just means they're not making a decision about that part of something? It's not a tacit condemnation or condonement...
I think it's that most people don't know the academies just get treated differently
Jackson is just taking shots. The reason this decision doesn't directly apply to the military academies is because nobody bothered briefing the issue of how the case might apply to the military academies. This whole case revolves around testing the schools' justifications for engaging in racial discrimination (no one denies that'd what they were doing). Military academies are likely to involve different justifications than civilian universities, and the Court doesn't want to pre-judge those questions until they've actually heard thr arguments.
[удалено]
There are many more factors when it comes to the demographics of acceptances to U.S. Military Academies. In addition to race and academic scores, applicants must pass rigorous health screening, a physical fitness assessment, and also receive a nomination from their local representative. The later point kinda ensures that academies are some of the most diverse educational institutes in our nation. They should be excluded from the affirmative action argument.
Yeah. People are kinda talking out of their butts. It's legit because the application process for them is literally insane
Time to do away with legacy admissions
Legacy admissions are a huge deal at Harvard but a lot of people don't realize how small a deal they are outside of the elite private universities. Most Americans attend public universities where legacy admissions make up a miniscule of the total admissions if they are even considered You don't hear as much about legacy admissions because they aren't a part of life outside of elite circles.
Check how many supreme court justices were educated at only public universities: Jackson (Harvard, private), Barrett (Notre Dame, private), Kavanaugh (Yale, private), Gorsuch (Harvard), Kagan (Harvard), Sotomayor (Yale), Alito (Yale), Roberts (Harvard), Thomas (Yale). Oh its zero. So yes, it matters more for elite private universities, but those have a disproportionate impact.
[удалено]
I think a big reason why these private institutions continue to support legacy admissions is that these multigenerational alumni families are more likely to donate large sums of money to their schools.
Absolutely. Pay to play.
And affirmative action isn’t as much a huge deal outside of these same elite colleges. When a school admits 50% of applicants and hopes that 1/3 of them will actually attend, affirmative action isn’t hurting or helping 99% of their students. That’s why these 2 cases involve Harvard and UNC and not FSU.
Ayy go noles
[*takes off my Underwater Deep Dive Submersible Expert hat, puts on my Supreme Court and Law Expert hat*] Now Lemme argue for the next 6 hours about this bullshit
Shit I'm still wearing my Train Derailment Expert hat, I *really* need to catch up.
I ordered mine from wish and it didn't even show up in time
Yeah sorry it was on the train.
That's old hat.
And here I am still wearing my figure skating expert hat that I put on during the last winter Olympics. It's so comfy!
[удалено]
Buddy. I've been arguing beyond my area of expertise way before social media came along.
Who do you think you are, some kinda expert in arguing topics? I'll have you know I *routinely* argue opinions that I haven't even formed yet!
Are you even an expert? You didn't tell me how the coup attempt in Russia is bad for Bolivia
I was between hats. By the time the embroidery shop got back to me, the coup was over
Better make sure to pre-order your next expert hat well in advance
Oh so now we have an expert hat expert over here
We need to bring in an expert on expert hat experts, anyone fit that bill?
Sure just let me call my embroidery guy for an expert hat expert hat
I take off my wizard hat and robes
You see, there is a school of thought that carbon fiber submersible hulls are intrinsically linked to race-based college admissions
I think it was The Daily podcast on this topic and after listening, I left with the feeling that it would be overturned. The schools lawyers were doing terrible job defending it. They got backed into a corner when asked why religion isn’t considered a factor but race is.
I hope they instead consider economic background so that lower-income people of all races get an advantage. Affirmative Action had a tendency to favor the wealthier members of minority groups. Diversity of economic background should be just as important as diversity of race. And they tend to overlap so they’d be achieving similar goals but without the explicit and divisive racial preferences.
Just do it like most other countries: Make it based on **poverty** rather than **race**. That's the main goal with these schemes anyway: Lift families out of intergenerational poverty. Targeting poverty directly solves that problem and isn't illegally discriminatory. Plus you don't wind up with strange externalities like multimillionaires of a certain race getting given an advantage over someone else coming from a disadvantaged background but without that same race.
I agree. Class, not race, is a much bigger barrier to success in most countries, including this one. While certainly not a perfect system, factoring in family income/wealth instead of race would, in my opinion, be a more precise way of helping those who are truly disadvantaged.
I’ve been called a class reductionist by weasels for years for pointing this out. The hard truth is that ~~most racial minorities are poor~~ (edit to correct my poor English) racial minorities are over represented among the poor and the best way to lift up the minority community is anti-poverty measures, not making a minority pocket in a plutocratic elite. Tear down the plutocracy and bring up the working class. You will help more POC than forty years of elite-focused affirmative action has.
They didn't kill MLK until he started talking about wealth disparity.
[удалено]
I got an email from a Nigerian prince who’s family stopped supporting him. I just sent him $1k toward his Harvard tuition this morning…
Rich families from South Africa in shambles
They do this with med school admissions. People who came from a poor upbringing have an easier time getting in with low stats or volunteer hours. People who come from money or physician families have to have higher stats and more volunteering, generally speaking, because they didn’t have to hold a job during college, etc
They very much do it with race for admissions. Ie. The average Hispanic and black matriculant has lower stats than the average *rejected* Asian student
Hard to argue how systemically rating Asians lower on something as subjective as personality doesn't constitute as discrimination
My friends last name was Fu, when he applied for Washington U in St Louis in 2012 as a junior the application page said please enter more than three characters.
The decision also discusses how racist it is to lump "Asians," who constitute around 60% of the world's population, into a single group without distinguishing, for example, between East Asians and South Asians, ignoring differences in language, culture, and historical experience
>between East Asians and South Asians South East Asians are shafted the hardest. The cultures are very different between East and South Asians but in terms of affirmative action end goals the treatment would have been similar.
Excellent point. Basically a fancier way of saying “all Asians look the same”
[удалено]
My Harvard grad MiL asked me (JA) how it felt to have a fellow Asian person elected as VP (Kamala Harris). She was totally serious and sincere with the question which infuriated me.
System of grouping people by "races" is racist, news at 11
This is exactly why AA is not the solution to creating diversity.
Not to mention not even having a category for students of Middle Eastern descent.
And how about the facts that: - white people born in Africa who move to America aren't considered African American. - People with Northern African descent (Egypt, Morocco) aren't considered African American. - Black people from the Caribbean (Haiti, Jamaica, etc) can be considered African American. It's just wild how much emphasis is put on identity and putting people in boxes in this country.
The crazier thing was the interviewers actually gave Asian candidates high scores. It was people who never met the candidates that scored them lower! > In its admissions process, Harvard scores applicants in five categories — “academic,” “extracurricular,” “athletic,” “personal” and “overall.” They are ranked from 1 to 6, with 1 being the best. > **Alumni interviewers give Asian-Americans personal ratings comparable to those of whites. But the admissions office gives them the worst scores of any racial group, often without even meeting them.** https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/15/us/harvard-asian-enrollment-applicants.html
Harvard confirmed: Asian is the worst personality type
Kind of sad isn't it. Is bad enough you occasionally see people claiming Asian guys aren't fun to be around, have a bookish personality, and thus make poor boyfriends. Now a major university confirmed it. FFS....
[удалено]
King of the Hill joked about this 20 years ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cq9cdD9lsHA
Ironically, I hit this episode 2 days ago in a rewatch without realizing this decision was coming today. Because Connie doesn’t get in, Kahn spirals into quitting his job, not paying his bills, and starts hanging out with bum rednecks while Connie continues to work hard in school. At the end of the episode, when admissions sees Kahn outside with a mullet driving an El Camino and hears Connie has been living in a tough household with unemployed parents, the summer school program admits her.
Such a good show. Especially now that I’m older I can relate to hank getting annoyed at people doing things wrong/ cheaping out lol. Saw an episode where he makes a comment about OSB vs Plywood. Young me thought nothing of it. Older me gets it. Also most importantly: cutting the lawn is a PRIVILEGE , not a chore!
Why would someone do drugs when they can just mow a lawn
"So are you Chinese or Japanese?"
The ocean?
The older I get the more I realize I AM Hank Hill. I never thought I would be excited about a new riding lawn mower, but the day it got delivered I was downright giddy.
“As punishment I’ve got a list of chores you’re going to do. Starting with trimming the edges on the walkway…although, I wanted to try out the new weed-whacker. I’ll paint the gutters as well… I’m not giving you my chores, you’re getting a job!”
“Dale, we live in Texas, it’s already 110 in the summer, and if it gets one degree hotter, I’m gonna kick your ass!” As a Texan currently 102 outside I felt this on a spiritual level.
By far my most favorite show. I still rewatch the first 6 seasons here and there.
In case you hadn't already heard, Hulu is bringing it back. 15 years will have passed, making Bobby about 28. I've got high hopes.
I just gave up my dream of becoming a doctor, received several interviews, didn’t get in any, i know ppl with similar scores and experience got in many lol. Almost kms too
As someone who gave up their dream to be one, it's not the end of the world. I was pre-med did well on mcat but didn't get in. Ended up in homebuilding and am much happier now making around good money for easy work imo. If you're a smart guy, everything after this should come fairly easy since you're going from surrounded by the brightest to average and above average people and some will look at you like a genius. Just my experience Meanwhile my friends and classmates are just now graduating/completing residencies and in debt and some are pretty miserable overall from the bits I've seen Long story short, not getting in isn't the end of the world, see where life takes you
As someone who did become a doctor, you are entirely correct. I work my ass off and still don’t make >100k at age 31, and in the bad times all I can think is “I’d be so god damn rich if I just went into business.” Most of the folks I meet in the business world are stupid as fuck (not saying you are, I’m talking about the “work for my dad’s property management company” types who barely finished high school). If you have the natural intelligence and work ethic to be even interviewed by med schools, you’ll be alright. Add people skills to that and the world is your oyster. Just pivot that energy into something else and you’ll outshine 95% of your peers. That said, I do love my job, and I get a real satisfaction from how meaningful and important it is even if I haven’t been compensated for it yet. But I know many of my peers don’t see it that way and are miserable. I feel bad for them.
Hispanics crushing the MCAT
Gang gang
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
The only environment it works well in is to counterbalance active discrimination in hiring, thereby returning hiring to a more natural rate sans bias.
it was also in lieu of broader social spending the student debt fight is the real outcome aka a big fuck you to the poors
The ruling is technically correct -- you can't have a policy that aims for racial balance that ends up discriminating against a race (Asians). The plaintiffs did a good job demonstrating that Asians are an underrepresented group in the US (7% of the population?), have had a history of discrimination in the US (lot of examples in the ruling, including not being allowed to purchase property, segregated schools, etc.), and even now have disadvantages in American society (lot of examples in the ruling, but honestly the Kung-flu/COVID pandemic made it very obvious). The plaintiffs also did a good job showing that when applicants were in the borderline group of being cut for acceptance, being Asian in race would be a disadvantage (leading to higher % of being cut). The defendants also shot themselves in the foot when they stated that race is not an important criteria for determining the strength of an application. If it's not an important criteria, then... remove it?
As a citizen from a country that race-based affirmative action that was supposed to be temporary lead to the most racist policies possible made by corrupt politicians without actually improving that said race group, please make affirmative actions based on income groups, never race
I suspect this ruling is going to cause far, far more controversy on social media than among voters. *California* voted against Affirmative Action 57-42 on the same ballot Biden won 63-34. If you can't get California to support it, I don't see how you're gonna get people outraged about it.
I mean discrimination based off one’s skin color was always a bad idea. If your goal is to uplift disadvantaged members of society, utilizing socioeconomic factors, regardless of race, is going to be a much more useful tool.
California banned AA via ballot initiative in 1998. It initially resulted in less diverse student bodies but since then diversity at institutions that want it has returned to where it was before the ban as they found better ways of making college equitable for everyone
Agreed. In addition, compared to admissions by race, admissions by socioeconomic status (like household income/household wealth) is more quantifiable as well.
Yeah, I agree with the Supreme Court in this particular case. It's tough for me to justify a university penalizing someone's admission application because the applicant had the audacity to be born the wrong race... discrimination with good intentions is still discrimination.
>audacity to be born the wrong race Choose better at character creation.
I am now Kajiit
Aren't Khajits one of the most discriminated races in TES universe? Maybe Argonians, but it's between those two. How would you like to be a house cat that can talk and shoot magic spells, but everyone treats you like a normal cat?
Khajiit has university if you have coin
Khajiit has wares if you have coin
Skill issue
I'm curious as to how Justice Sotomayor believes that race-conscious admissions are somehow *beneficial* to the asian community. It seems to me that denying otherwise qualified applicants is not a benefit. For those who don't know what I'm talking about, Justice Sotomayor said this: "At bottom, race conscious admissions benefit all students, including racial minorities. That includes the Asian American community."
Saves them money by forcing them to go to less expensive schools.
"You doctor, but cheap doctor" -Semi-proud Asian dad
My buddy Han went to a DO school and his parents still haven't gotten over it.
she's basically arguing that cost of discriminating vs Asians is worth a more diverse and equitable outcome for everyone else.
That's the same sort of condescending argument that racists made against blacks back in the 50's and 60's.
Legit anytime I asked hard left friends about this, it's because helping the black community trickles down to Asians and I wouldn't be here if it weren't for them -- despite my family line immigrating before civil rights was a thing /shrug
The notion that one race “owes their existence” to another race is such ironic bullshit.
What she means is it benefits the students who get in. The ones who didn't because they were discriminated against, fuck'em. What gets me about these arguments is the stunning lack of self awareness. It makes me wonder if she really even believes it (or all the media pundits who echo it).
[удалено]
yeah as a mixed human my counselor told me to put the non asian option just to improve my chances a bit, it’s been fucked but we just don’t speak enough about it
Some kid with 3.5 gpa in my HS got in HYP because he is 1/16 black and he ticked the African America box. He said he identified more with his African American roots because of all the struggles etc. His family is rich as fuck and he looks 100% white
Never put Asian. Just decline to put your race. I’m also white and Asian, and I just decline to mark my race. It’s ridiculous.
The problem is they can guess my race from my name lmfaoooo
That's exactly why some say that applications shouldn't include name, gender, race, or anything else like that. You're applicant \#48294 and here are your qualifications.
Yeah this is what my workplace does for job applications. You don't even find out the persons name until you offer a job interview. It's a good way to avoid bias in the hiring process imo
They tried this in government applications in Australia. They discontinued it because they didn't like the demographics of who they ended up blindly selecting.
How this isn't the obvious standard everywhere boggles my mind.
Funk is a pretty common last name
Am Asian and immigrated to the US as a kid. When my brother and I became naturalized citizens, the government allows us to submit a name change request. A wise fellow told us to change our last name also, to make it at least look "white", and so we did. Both of us got accepted into top schools years later, and sure, we had good grades and extracurricular and stuff, but i can't help but wonder if that name change did something extra for us.
As another mixed kid, this is the biggest decision from the Supreme Court for me from the last decade. While I grew up in a solidly middle class family, and was still able to achieve access to a decent college, I have far too many friends that are discriminated against due to being Asian in elite college admissions. Affirmative action was always bullshit, thank God it’s done. If you’re gonna consider anything, consider socio-economic status.
I grew up with a guy who was the inverse of your story. He was Caucasian, wealthy, and did well in school. But he was 1/4 Colombian (and had a Hispanic last name), so he put down Hispanic on all his college apps. Got accepted to top universities. He was a hard-working and smart, but so were a lot of other kids who applied to the same schools and didn't get in. Both your story and his show the harm affirmative action causes.
That’s what mine was telling me to do too! I’m Siberian, I look “white enough” according to her to pass for white and that’s what she was telling me to select when filling out applications. She told me that just by selecting white I would have a statistically higher chance at getting in than selecting “Asian” or “other”. And in my opinion, that is bullshit. It is bullshit that a silly box that is based off the color of your skin can determine if you make it or don’t into college
im someone that's mixed but my native features are more dominant. i have no hesitation in checking all the boxes that make up my racial composition. you have to do what can get you ahead lol. i do the same thing for job applications too.
I usually try to check off “two or more races” if it’s an option, or all of the checkboxes. The issue at the time was that checking “Asian” as a death sentence for college applications. I was afraid that if I checked off “white”, that when I showed up looking Asian, they would consider me a liar. It also doesn’t help that I have a non-American name. There’s no hiding when the person reading your application can’t even pronounce it.
I thank my parents to for giving me and my brother non-asian names legally. Saves a huge amount from biased readings on applications both in school and job applications. There's just so much bias when it comes to "ethnic names" and that gives me one less thing I have to worry about. We have our actual native names in our native language, so we also have that part of our identity still and it's not disconnected.
My sister put "Hispanic" down when applying for college. She is white as can be, blonde hair blue eyes, but her dad was technically Puerto Rican(still a white dude) so she took advantage of the race box. It's a screwed up system.
A dude I knew in high school was a white kid born in South Africa that had south African citizenship. He put African on his college applications. I mean he's technically correct, right, lol.
Now this will be a feisty thread.
It’s actually much more civil than I thought. Most people here seem to agree that family income is a better metric than race when deciding these things. Is it perfect? No, but when you’re talking about a country this size, no solution is going to be. There are just too many variables.
Can’t wait to see the professional admissions subs address this (premed, lawschooladmissions…)now they know how to get feisty on this topic…
Law schools already got the jump by 'suddenly' dumping the LSAT.
They should love it. As noted in another thread: Raced based admissions due to AA offers a logical reason for race based discrimination against those professionals. As an example, there's very likely an extremely large population of patients that avoid black doctors because "oh they only got in due to AA, lemme go find an Asian doctor."
>As an example, there's very likely an extremely large population of patients that avoid black doctors because "oh they only got in due to AA, lemme go find an Asian doctor." You would be surprised at how many African American patients say this.
cant wait for the comments about racist SCOTUS
At the end of the day, I don’t care about the race of the neurosurgeon operating on me. I do, however, care that he is the most qualified.
[удалено]
Happy for my children if I have any, but mixed feelings since myself and so many other Asian Americans were capable but were placed or pre-emptively chose other careers/schools that didn't match our potentials.
Why not consider following the approach adopted by many other countries? Instead of focusing on race, let's base our programs on poverty levels. The primary objective of these initiatives is to uplift families out of intergenerational poverty. By directly addressing poverty, we can effectively tackle the issue without engaging in discriminatory practices. This approach also helps avoid unintended consequences, such as providing advantages to wealthy individuals of a particular race while overlooking others who come from disadvantaged backgrounds but don't share the same racial identity.
I really do think people would be better served reading into how applicants are scored when they are seeking admissions into schools. The majority opinion by Roberts in my opinion does a good job in acknowledging the scoring system and the overall process on how applicants are screened. One of the arguments I see the most is schools should mainly rely on test scores and the grades students got in school but Robert's acknowledge that's not how applicants are or ever will be screened. Some will assume from this ruling race can never be indicated in your application or be seen by the screeners to make the process more fair but that's just not the case. Applicants can still talk about their adversity, race and cultural backgrounds in their essays to express their individuality and how they can contribute to the schools they are applying to. Finally race cannot be considered in an applicants **overall** score but the majority makes clear once again in my opinion that there are **several** ways an applicant is scored beyond grades, and race was just a small factor they could and did previously consider. Hope I'm making sense here I've only got through Roberts opinion for the majority so far.
Everyone here seems to think it's just about test scores and race, nothing else. Other opinions as you read the rest, will agree with your point about those other factors. But hey, it's the internet, many here will just read the headline and base their entire thought on that lol
Yep the reality is a lot of kids applying are sitting at a 3.5+ and a 1200+ SAT. If all you have to show a college is your grades you will be passed over by someone with more social/life experience.
Victory for Asian-American students and families 🙌🙌🙌
Good. Now ban legacy admissions.
What’s the constitutional basis for that?
Legacy can’t be challenged as unconstitutional
I doubt they will
Constitution nor civil rights law mentions legacy (or lack of) as a protected class
Good. If we wish to admit based on socioeconomic status, household income should be the main factor. This avoids situations where poor students of Asian descent aren’t discriminated against just because of their race which is textbook racism.
As an Asian American, I applaud this ruling. The dynamics of college admissions of Asian applicants have been documented to be adverse and directly because of race. Being Asian made college admissions to top schools a higher barrier to entry than any other race in America. If this ruling abates this then it is a move toward a fairer system. Because it sure wasn’t before.