SCOTUS outlaws race as college admissions factor

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That has never been true. POC who were QUALIFIED were admitted, it was never about admitting unqualified students. That a racist lie straight from hell!

If they were qualified, they wouldn't have needed affirmative action to admit them.

The whole issue is because there are a lot more students who meet the qualifications for Harvard and would likely to do well at Harvard, than the available slots at Harvard. The underlying issue is that Harvard is ridiculously overvalued by parents whose genius kids would be just as successful with degrees from any of 100 other excellent universities.

Then they should admit the qualified applicants by lottery. Seems a bit more fair IMO.

They like to create a class that is not too lopsided, that has just the right ration of engineers and art majors, athletes and musicians, city residents and rural dwellers, and students from all 50 states. You can't get that from a lottery.

Why should we be ok with such social engineering? Isn’t that so very Machiavellian? Why would society incest that much power in such a small unelected group?

These are private institutions. No one is forcing you to apply there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That has never been true. POC who were QUALIFIED were admitted, it was never about admitting unqualified students. That a racist lie straight from hell!

If they were qualified, they wouldn't have needed affirmative action to admit them.

You are dumb as a bucket of rocks to believe that.
RACISM GENIUS!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That has never been true. POC who were QUALIFIED were admitted, it was never about admitting unqualified students. That a racist lie straight from hell!

If they were qualified, they wouldn't have needed affirmative action to admit them.

The whole issue is because there are a lot more students who meet the qualifications for Harvard and would likely to do well at Harvard, than the available slots at Harvard. The underlying issue is that Harvard is ridiculously overvalued by parents whose genius kids would be just as successful with degrees from any of 100 other excellent universities.

It is much more than a plus factor to pick between two equal candidates. Harvard gets a lot of qualified applications, but this ruling is about all colleges even if Harvard is just the plaintiff.

No, it's really only highly selective colleges that are affected.

When you are a school that accepts 80-100% of your applicants, this ruling is not going to affect you. And the majority of students attend schools that accept at such high levels. Only 6% of students attend a school with an admit rate at or below 25%.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/07/03/opinion/for-most-college-students-affirmative-action-was-not-enough.html

In the wake of the Supreme Court decision that struck down race-conscious admissions, we should recognize that, in practice, affirmative action mattered a great deal for very few and very little for most.

Yes, the decision will likely dramatically reduce the racial diversity of incoming classes at highly selective institutions like Harvard, Stanford and the University of North Carolina.

But because affirmative action only opened a tiny window of access to America’s most elite institutions, the ruling will make little difference for most college students.

Even with affirmative action in place, most students of color did not go to elite colleges, and last week’s ruling does nothing to change that. The current opportunity to bring racial equity to American higher education lies in a collective re-commitment to the quality and success of more accessible institutions.

Why will the minority admission rate drop drastically without affirmative action, if all the candidates are about equal, with over 100x applying vs the number who are qualified according to a previous poster?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This case was about Asian students suing, yet the NYT never fails

Thank you for mentioning this. I’ve been wondering why nothing is being said about Asian American students.

Progressives are stuck in a black/white binary and haven’t updated their model to that of today’s multiracial democracy.

Instead they’ve shoehorned Asians into the white adjacent category and Latinos into the oppressed category and carried on.

Never really cared if Asian Americans and Latinos have their own thoughts and ideas about it.

Excellent summation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That has never been true. POC who were QUALIFIED were admitted, it was never about admitting unqualified students. That a racist lie straight from hell!

If they were qualified, they wouldn't have needed affirmative action to admit them.

The whole issue is because there are a lot more students who meet the qualifications for Harvard and would likely to do well at Harvard, than the available slots at Harvard. The underlying issue is that Harvard is ridiculously overvalued by parents whose genius kids would be just as successful with degrees from any of 100 other excellent universities.

It is much more than a plus factor to pick between two equal candidates. Harvard gets a lot of qualified applications, but this ruling is about all colleges even if Harvard is just the plaintiff.

No, it's really only highly selective colleges that are affected.

When you are a school that accepts 80-100% of your applicants, this ruling is not going to affect you. And the majority of students attend schools that accept at such high levels. Only 6% of students attend a school with an admit rate at or below 25%.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/07/03/opinion/for-most-college-students-affirmative-action-was-not-enough.html

In the wake of the Supreme Court decision that struck down race-conscious admissions, we should recognize that, in practice, affirmative action mattered a great deal for very few and very little for most.

Yes, the decision will likely dramatically reduce the racial diversity of incoming classes at highly selective institutions like Harvard, Stanford and the University of North Carolina.

But because affirmative action only opened a tiny window of access to America’s most elite institutions, the ruling will make little difference for most college students.

Even with affirmative action in place, most students of color did not go to elite colleges, and last week’s ruling does nothing to change that. The current opportunity to bring racial equity to American higher education lies in a collective re-commitment to the quality and success of more accessible institutions.

Why will the minority admission rate drop drastically without affirmative action, if all the candidates are about equal, with over 100x applying vs the number who are qualified according to a previous poster?

Because (1) rich people can easily game this system as they do any system and you aren’t going to change that and (2) when there are too many qualified candidates the easiest way to distinguish between them is to exaggerate the weight of the quantifiable variables and deemphasize the unquantifiable variables, which favors those who have been groomed all their lives to excel at the SAT and other tests. In essence, you are picking the Harvard class based largely on how hard and how long their parents have obsessed over getting them into Harvard.

[Anonymous]

Say goodbye to your gains among black voters, Republicans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Say goodbye to your gains among black voters, Republicans.

You want colleges to discriminate in favor of black people to get more votes for Democrats?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That has never been true. POC who were QUALIFIED were admitted, it was never about admitting unqualified students. That a racist lie straight from hell!

If they were qualified, they wouldn't have needed affirmative action to admit them.

The whole issue is because there are a lot more students who meet the qualifications for Harvard and would likely to do well at Harvard, than the available slots at Harvard. The underlying issue is that Harvard is ridiculously overvalued by parents whose genius kids would be just as successful with degrees from any of 100 other excellent universities.

It is much more than a plus factor to pick between two equal candidates. Harvard gets a lot of qualified applications, but this ruling is about all colleges even if Harvard is just the plaintiff.

No, it's really only highly selective colleges that are affected.

When you are a school that accepts 80-100% of your applicants, this ruling is not going to affect you. And the majority of students attend schools that accept at such high levels. Only 6% of students attend a school with an admit rate at or below 25%.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/07/03/opinion/for-most-college-students-affirmative-action-was-not-enough.html

In the wake of the Supreme Court decision that struck down race-conscious admissions, we should recognize that, in practice, affirmative action mattered a great deal for very few and very little for most.

Yes, the decision will likely dramatically reduce the racial diversity of incoming classes at highly selective institutions like Harvard, Stanford and the University of North Carolina.

But because affirmative action only opened a tiny window of access to America’s most elite institutions, the ruling will make little difference for most college students.

Even with affirmative action in place, most students of color did not go to elite colleges, and last week’s ruling does nothing to change that. The current opportunity to bring racial equity to American higher education lies in a collective re-commitment to the quality and success of more accessible institutions.

Why will the minority admission rate drop drastically without affirmative action, if all the candidates are about equal, with over 100x applying vs the number who are qualified according to a previous poster?

Because (1) rich people can easily game this system as they do any system and you aren’t going to change that and (2) when there are too many qualified candidates the easiest way to distinguish between them is to exaggerate the weight of the quantifiable variables and deemphasize the unquantifiable variables, which favors those who have been groomed all their lives to excel at the SAT and other tests. In essence, you are picking the Harvard class based largely on how hard and how long their parents have obsessed over getting them into Harvard.

And, you think this has not also affected poor white kids? I graduated from a middle class high school many, many years ago. There were some very affluent kids in my class. I don't think any of my classmates went to an IVY. I'm not even sure that any applied. Almost all went to college, though. Mostly state colleges. Some went to highly regarded liberal arts colleges.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Say goodbye to your gains among black voters, Republicans.

Interesting that in oral arguments these universities claimed that nope - there is no discrimination going on. Nope, we are not using race as a major factor in admissions.

Now that the SCOTUS decision has come down, schools are insisting that, without considering race, minority admissions will plummet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Say goodbye to your gains among black voters, Republicans.

I don't believe that's the case. Progressives and racists believe the same thing-- that people are defined by their race and that people should be treated as members of groups rather than be evaluated for individual merit. They differ on what actions to take, but they both share the same foundational belief. I don't think most black people see the world this way, so I don't think this ruling will have an effect on black voting patterns. Also, they don't react well to Biden telling them that they aren't black, to him, unless they vote for him, etc, and surely he will say even more of this garbage during the campaign.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Say goodbye to your gains among black voters, Republicans.

You want colleges to discriminate in favor of black people to get more votes for Democrats?

False premise, as has been repeatedly pointed out by many other posters. And again, say goodbye to the black vote.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Say goodbye to your gains among black voters, Republicans.

I don't believe that's the case. Progressives and racists believe the same thing-- that people are defined by their race and that people should be treated as members of groups rather than be evaluated for individual merit. They differ on what actions to take, but they both share the same foundational belief. I don't think most black people see the world this way, so I don't think this ruling will have an effect on black voting patterns. Also, they don't react well to Biden telling them that they aren't black, to him, unless they vote for him, etc, and surely he will say even more of this garbage during the campaign.

+1

Moreover, most of the black beneficiaries of AA who would care enough about this ruling for it to change their voting behavior are already upwardly mobile and college educated and they were going to vote democrat regardless.

This is way down on the list of issues to care about for most black voters.

Do you really think a "blexit" voter is going to change their mind because AA was struck down? Talk about out of touch...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Say goodbye to your gains among black voters, Republicans.

I don't believe that's the case. Progressives and racists believe the same thing-- that people are defined by their race and that people should be treated as members of groups rather than be evaluated for individual merit. They differ on what actions to take, but they both share the same foundational belief. I don't think most black people see the world this way, so I don't think this ruling will have an effect on black voting patterns. Also, they don't react well to Biden telling them that they aren't black, to him, unless they vote for him, etc, and surely he will say even more of this garbage during the campaign.

Talk about garbage - Your entire premise is completely wrong. They don't at all believe the same thing. Racists want to deny blacks college. Progressives want to help blacks attain college and want to make more black families succeed and get out of multigenerational poverty. People like you act as if rights are like a pizza, where you only have so many slices and giving someone else a slice takes a slice away from you. That is not at all the case. White college admissions did not decline because of affirmative action - instead, with the passage of civil rights legislation and increased black attendance, colleges and unversities got bigger and more numerous.

Also, all the trying to make hay of "you ain't black" did nothing to change the black vote. All the right-wing-sponsored #BLEXIT astroturfing did not work. You are only preaching to your own conservative choir with your arguments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That has never been true. POC who were QUALIFIED were admitted, it was never about admitting unqualified students. That a racist lie straight from hell!

If they were qualified, they wouldn't have needed affirmative action to admit them.

The whole issue is because there are a lot more students who meet the qualifications for Harvard and would likely to do well at Harvard, than the available slots at Harvard. The underlying issue is that Harvard is ridiculously overvalued by parents whose genius kids would be just as successful with degrees from any of 100 other excellent universities.

Then they should admit the qualified applicants by lottery. Seems a bit more fair IMO.

They like to create a class that is not too lopsided, that has just the right ration of engineers and art majors, athletes and musicians, city residents and rural dwellers, and students from all 50 states. You can't get that from a lottery.

Why should we be ok with such social engineering? Isn’t that so very Machiavellian? Why would society incest that much power in such a small unelected group?

These are private institutions. No one is forcing you to apply there.

Private yes, but take substantial government funding in various forms, which means Federal laws applies. Only one college doesn't take government funding and that is Hillsdale. Harvard could try to go down this path but it means giving up billions in Federal funding as well as access to Federal grants for research and loans for students.

I do wonder what the implications are for contracting set asides for minority owned businesses. I suspect it's just a matter of time. But on the other hand, most "minority owned" businesses in Federal contracting are owned by Asians and South Asians so that's probably why there's little noise in defending those set asides.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Say goodbye to your gains among black voters, Republicans.

I don't believe that's the case. Progressives and racists believe the same thing-- that people are defined by their race and that people should be treated as members of groups rather than be evaluated for individual merit. They differ on what actions to take, but they both share the same foundational belief. I don't think most black people see the world this way, so I don't think this ruling will have an effect on black voting patterns. Also, they don't react well to Biden telling them that they aren't black, to him, unless they vote for him, etc, and surely he will say even more of this garbage during the campaign.

I wrote on this website about a decade ago that separating people into all these groups and favoring some groups over others is racism. In typical DCUM fashion, my post was deleted.

Also, Biden has some of the highest approval ratings coming from black voters. Why? The guy is clearly a racist as defined above and per prior statements, but they've largely bought into this rewritten definition (pandering?) coming from the left in which anything negative that happens to a person of color can ONLY be explained by "racism", end of story.