US Supreme Court Rules Against Affirmative Action in College Admissions

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have sat in admissions rooms when decisions are being made.

We can now all sit in that same room, never mention race, never see race box-checks, and practically configure the same class of admittees.

The joke's on y'all.

Pretty sick you admit to practicing discrimination.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From Columbia University:

"higher education will take five years to fully adjust to the new legal landscape, as committees and task forces—already in place at many schools—explore ways to employ income levels, socioeconomic factors and other race-neutral factors to maintain diversity."

Folks...us white people are the winners. Do you think the group that brought the cases to the Supreme Court care about Asians?

doesn't matter what you think. getting rid of AA will give Asian students (more) equal chances to be admitted. If white students are better, they deserve it.

Not exactly. Going forward, Asian students will no longer benefit from what is currently a very strong URM advantage at top 20 SLACs and underrepresented Asian subgroups (e.g., from Myanmar) will no longer have a URM hook at Ivies.

The lawsuits were brought by a white supremacist legal organization, so the idea that Asians were ever in a position to gain something meaningful is frankly preposterous. The American right-wing, filled as it is with anti-Asian bigots, stoked anger among Asian-American parents and students as a way of entrenching white privilege. Facts.

[Anonymous]

Supreme Court rejects affirmative action in ruling on universities using race in admissions decisions.

[Anonymous]

Doesn't an applicant's name convey race in a vast, vast number of cases? It must be about 90% accurate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand some of you. Are you upset that Supreme Court overturned a racist law?

This co-opting of the term "racist" is disingenuous. Did you read SC Justice Brown's dissent? There are reasonable disagreements with affirmative action (as well as reasonable justifications for it), but higher education is an important tool in addressing systemic racism in our society that disproportionately affects Black families given the history of slavery, Jim Crow laws and their residual effects in so many ways in present society (disproportionate policing and sentencing for similar crimes is just one example), but also impacts other URMs. Systemic racism will be harder to address without the types of affirmative action policies colleges developed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have sat in admissions rooms when decisions are being made.

We can now all sit in that same room, never mention race, never see race box-checks, and practically configure the same class of admittees.

The joke's on y'all.

Pretty sick you admit to practicing discrimination.

Lawsuits will start flying if AO do what that pp says. They will line up academic merit (scores/GPAs) and activities—-they can show they were discriminating based on race very easily.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The decision will have a very narrow impact, but an impact in the short-term that can be re-imagined and re-crafted to produce similar outcomes in the long-term.

Remember, the number of Black and Latino yearly graduates from 100 highly selective colleges that presumably use race as a factor in admissions represent only 1% of the aggregate total of students in four-year colleges. 1% (!!!)

State universities know their in-state high schools backward and forward. They know how to recruit and admit diverse populations. See Texas. See Georgia. 29% of UTA is Latino. 22% of Berkeley is Latino.

Why do people insist on pointing out that this only applies to a small percentage of students? No one cares about Southern New Hampshire or Grand Canyon even though both have 100k students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The decision will have a very narrow impact, but an impact in the short-term that can be re-imagined and re-crafted to produce similar outcomes in the long-term.

Remember, the number of Black and Latino yearly graduates from 100 highly selective colleges that presumably use race as a factor in admissions represent only 1% of the aggregate total of students in four-year colleges. 1% (!!!)

State universities know their in-state high schools backward and forward. They know how to recruit and admit diverse populations. See Texas. See Georgia. 29% of UTA is Latino. 22% of Berkeley is Latino.

UC Berkeley's undergraduate population is made up of 42.2% Asian, 19.7% White, 4.4% Black, and 21% Hispanic students as of 2020.
And the state of California population as a whole, is 40% latino

[Anonymous]

Re-thinking ED strategy for next year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The decision will have a very narrow impact, but an impact in the short-term that can be re-imagined and re-crafted to produce similar outcomes in the long-term.

Remember, the number of Black and Latino yearly graduates from 100 highly selective colleges that presumably use race as a factor in admissions represent only 1% of the aggregate total of students in four-year colleges. 1% (!!!)

State universities know their in-state high schools backward and forward. They know how to recruit and admit diverse populations. See Texas. See Georgia. 29% of UTA is Latino. 22% of Berkeley is Latino.

UC Berkeley's undergraduate population is made up of 42.2% Asian, 19.7% White, 4.4% Black, and 21% Hispanic students as of 2020.
And the state of California population as a whole, is 40% latino

Important post. Thank you !

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The decision will have a very narrow impact, but an impact in the short-term that can be re-imagined and re-crafted to produce similar outcomes in the long-term.

Remember, the number of Black and Latino yearly graduates from 100 highly selective colleges that presumably use race as a factor in admissions represent only 1% of the aggregate total of students in four-year colleges. 1% (!!!)

State universities know their in-state high schools backward and forward. They know how to recruit and admit diverse populations. See Texas. See Georgia. 29% of UTA is Latino. 22% of Berkeley is Latino.

CA is 40% Hispanic, so Hispanics have exteremely low representation at Berkeley.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Doesn't an applicant's name convey race in a vast, vast number of cases? It must be about 90% accurate.

Yes, of course. And people are still free to talk about their backgrounds in their essays. And AOs are still able to chose with their own inherent set of biases, so long as those biases cannot be proven.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From Columbia University:

"higher education will take five years to fully adjust to the new legal landscape, as committees and task forces—already in place at many schools—explore ways to employ income levels, socioeconomic factors and other race-neutral factors to maintain diversity."

Folks...us white people are the winners. Do you think the group that brought the cases to the Supreme Court care about Asians?

doesn't matter what you think. getting rid of AA will give Asian students (more) equal chances to be admitted. If white students are better, they deserve it.

Not exactly. Going forward, Asian students will no longer benefit from what is currently a very strong URM advantage at top 20 SLACs and underrepresented Asian subgroups (e.g., from Myanmar) will no longer have a URM hook at Ivies.

The lawsuits were brought by a white supremacist legal organization, so the idea that Asians were ever in a position to gain something meaningful is frankly preposterous. The American right-wing, filled as it is with anti-Asian bigots, stoked anger among Asian-American parents and students as a way of entrenching white privilege. Facts.

I’m pretty sure those are not “facts.”

[Anonymous]

Do colleges like whinining about your race?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Students can still discuss how race affected their lives in college essays according to today's US Supreme Court opinion.

College applications cannot have boxes to check indicating an applicant's race.

However, unlike many on this board kept arrogantly asserting, the end of Roberts' opinion clearly specifies that universities MAY NOT use essays or any other soft means to set up essentially the same system in effect today. That means they cannot use a "back door" to still discriminate via soft methods. So, sorry racist people on DCUM, your dreams are shattered lol

He also said: "nothing in this opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise" - so it's pretty clear that schools can still find ways to meet their goals. They just can't state that the goal is to admit based on race.