US Supreme Court Rules Against Affirmative Action in College Admissions

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This judgement from the court is very confusing.

1) It DID NOT OVERRULE GRUTTER which prohibits quotas and prevents insulation of applicants from certain racial classes from competition, but allowed diversity as a compelling interest

2) All the decision says is that Harvard's program and UNC's program as constituted violate the 14th Amendment, the same way the court ruled in Gratz vs Bollinger in 2003 and yet race based Affirmative Action did not stop after Gratz

3) It leaves open that a newly constituted Affirmative Action program "could" pass strict scrutiny by making sure that they
(a) don't have quotas,
(b) show a compelling interest that does not include diversity, righting past discrimination or rectifying historic deficit of certain races in a university,
(c) they don't use race as a stereo type and
(d) they have a clear end date.

I am going to get Harvard and other elites are going to come up with some other scheme to try to needle this thread

"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.”

--Chief Justice John Roberts

I guarantee you that black applicants - who are imminently qualified- have dealt with overt or covert racial discrimination that has impacted them, or conversely, draw inspiration from their race.

Let the essays come. It's legal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This judgement from the court is very confusing.

1) It DID NOT OVERRULE GRUTTER which prohibits quotas and prevents insulation of applicants from certain racial classes from competition, but allowed diversity as a compelling interest

2) All the decision says is that Harvard's program and UNC's program as constituted violate the 14th Amendment, the same way the court ruled in Gratz vs Bollinger in 2003 and yet race based Affirmative Action did not stop after Gratz

3) It leaves open that a newly constituted Affirmative Action program "could" pass strict scrutiny by making sure that they
(a) don't have quotas,
(b) show a compelling interest that does not include diversity, righting past discrimination or rectifying historic deficit of certain races in a university,
(c) they don't use race as a stereo type and
(d) they have a clear end date.

I am going to get Harvard and other elites are going to come up with some other scheme to try to needle this thread

"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.”

--Chief Justice John Roberts

I guarantee you that black applicants - who are imminently qualified- have dealt with overt or covert racial discrimination that has impacted them, or conversely, draw inspiration from their race.

Let the essays come. It's legal.

Yep. And the more that white kids are forced to accept the role of oppressor and enemy (vs. ally) in school, the more they can use their essays to show how race has negatively affected them. Additionally, Asian kids can use essays to show that people make certain assumptions (that have a negative affect) about them and their families that aren't necessarily true.

Bring on the newest episode of "The Biggest Victim"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:America ha been lagging behind the world for some time now. Hopefully, now thing will become better in America again. I do not want third world countries to surpass America.

Here is the POV I am talking about.

What’s the point?

As I suspected. Too dumb to even realize how far behind America has fallen.

This is directed at all races, if the US isn’t good enough for you, why are you even here? You could move somewhere else, somewhere better esp if you you have so many great qualities to offer.

And interestingly, the US has only ‘fallen’ since we began accepting people from every village in the world, that’s precisely when we began to lag behind the rest.

Since the beginning of the nation?

DP. I don't think there is a causation there, but it's true that immigration has skyrocketed over the past few decades.

What is the cause of the decline in quality US education? I am so curious. It correlates with increased immigration during the later 20th century, no?

It’s caused by the affirmative action, watering down the quality of everything so that the more “preferred race” can be selected.

Try again. The largest shift in demographics due to AA was the significant increase in enrollment for women. URMs are still...underrepresented.

"underrepresented"? that's a liberal/fascist word, not a human language

No, it's a numbers thing. URMs are not watering down the quality of anything because they aren't there.

Kids were dumbed down to accommodate more and more URMs. How hard is it to understand? Are you saying URM numbers were down since the affirmative action?

It has got to a point college admission is 'test optional' WTF

Yes and interestingly it has been show that those "tests" have a racial bias and also hurt the lower income students (no matter what race they are). So schools have chosen to use other/better methods for determining admission. Nothing new there. Been moving towards that for 1-2 decades for some schools.

yea math is really biased toward intelligent people
so they use essays that you don't even know who the F actaully wrote it

DP: See the documented literature on stereotype threat--hundreds of studies since the 1990s confirm. When a marginalized group (like Black Americans) are told a test assesses intellectual ability, they perform lower on the test. If they are told the exact same test measures effort, or learning style or something like that, they perform higher. Conversely if White or Asian-Americans perform higher on tests they are told measure intellectual ability, but lower on the same test if they are told it measures something else. The initial U of M study (Aronson & Steele) found that this difference was substantial enough to explain race-based differences in test scores of admitted students to UofM. It has since been shown to impact performance of many types of all races when a stereotype is "triggered" (e.g., White men jump lower when they are first shown images of Black basketball players than when they are just asked to jump as high as they can, women score better on spatial tests when they are not told they are tests of "mechanical aptitude" than when they are). Stereotypes that are generated over many years in subtle and not so subtle ways get triggered by tests and affect performance, especially when they are high-stakes.

Provide the link to this study. I won't surprised if you intentionally misinterpreted it.

Took me 5 seconds to google it:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167268121005151#:~:text=Steele%20and%20Aronson%20(1995)%20conducted,associated%20with%20a%20black%20identity.

Since you know most people won't you get to toss out something incendiary and troll stroll away

"We find little evidence that black students at the HBCU are affected by stereotype threat, regardless of the identity of the experimenter"
The conclusion is exactly the opposite of what you claimed in the previous post. A stereotype had no impacts on black students' test performance. So the racial difference in test performance was NOT caused by test environments as you claimed.

The study say quite a bit more than the snippet you selected.

Stop trying so hard to frame and control the narrative. Maybe encourage people click on the link and read it themselves?

Again, I see in you a dumb and uneducated person. You may claim you're cultured since you're dumb. But you do you.

It's funny that people this dumb and crazy are trying to decide the future of our kids. So it's great that the SCOTUS struct it down.

I agree with the Supreme Court ruling, but what I find hilarious is that you are out here calling people dumb (multiple times) when you don’t know how to spell STRUCK. Haha. Tell me again who is dumb?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This judgement from the court is very confusing.

1) It DID NOT OVERRULE GRUTTER which prohibits quotas and prevents insulation of applicants from certain racial classes from competition, but allowed diversity as a compelling interest

2) All the decision says is that Harvard's program and UNC's program as constituted violate the 14th Amendment, the same way the court ruled in Gratz vs Bollinger in 2003 and yet race based Affirmative Action did not stop after Gratz

3) It leaves open that a newly constituted Affirmative Action program "could" pass strict scrutiny by making sure that they
(a) don't have quotas,
(b) show a compelling interest that does not include diversity, righting past discrimination or rectifying historic deficit of certain races in a university,
(c) they don't use race as a stereo type and
(d) they have a clear end date.

I am going to get Harvard and other elites are going to come up with some other scheme to try to needle this thread

"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.”

--Chief Justice John Roberts

I guarantee you that black applicants - who are imminently qualified- have dealt with overt or covert racial discrimination that has impacted them, or conversely, draw inspiration from their race.

Let the essays come. It's legal.

Yep. And the more that white kids are forced to accept the role of oppressor and enemy (vs. ally) in school, the more they can use their essays to show how race has negatively affected them. Additionally, Asian kids can use essays to show that people make certain assumptions (that have a negative affect) about them and their families that aren't necessarily true.

Bring on the newest episode of "The Biggest Victim"

Ha ha! That is hilarious

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It was proved this time.

It can be proved next time.

Hellow to huge law suits.

Is it worth it?

If they are no longer collecting any data on race (no boxes to check) how are lawsuits going to provde discrimination? There is no rule that says a college must select only students with the highest GPA's.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This judgement from the court is very confusing.

1) It DID NOT OVERRULE GRUTTER which prohibits quotas and prevents insulation of applicants from certain racial classes from competition, but allowed diversity as a compelling interest

2) All the decision says is that Harvard's program and UNC's program as constituted violate the 14th Amendment, the same way the court ruled in Gratz vs Bollinger in 2003 and yet race based Affirmative Action did not stop after Gratz

3) It leaves open that a newly constituted Affirmative Action program "could" pass strict scrutiny by making sure that they
(a) don't have quotas,
(b) show a compelling interest that does not include diversity, righting past discrimination or rectifying historic deficit of certain races in a university,
(c) they don't use race as a stereo type and
(d) they have a clear end date.

I am going to get Harvard and other elites are going to come up with some other scheme to try to needle this thread

"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.”

--Chief Justice John Roberts

I guarantee you that black applicants - who are imminently qualified- have dealt with overt or covert racial discrimination that has impacted them, or conversely, draw inspiration from their race.

Let the essays come. It's legal.

Yep. And the more that white kids are forced to accept the role of oppressor and enemy (vs. ally) in school, the more they can use their essays to show how race has negatively affected them. Additionally, Asian kids can use essays to show that people make certain assumptions (that have a negative affect) about them and their families that aren't necessarily true.

Bring on the newest episode of "The Biggest Victim"

If whites and Asians try to do this, the AOs will laugh as they move their applications to the waitlist pile under " fake." LOL.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:America ha been lagging behind the world for some time now. Hopefully, now thing will become better in America again. I do not want third world countries to surpass America.

Here is the POV I am talking about.

What’s the point?

As I suspected. Too dumb to even realize how far behind America has fallen.

This is directed at all races, if the US isn’t good enough for you, why are you even here? You could move somewhere else, somewhere better esp if you you have so many great qualities to offer.

And interestingly, the US has only ‘fallen’ since we began accepting people from every village in the world, that’s precisely when we began to lag behind the rest.

Since the beginning of the nation?

DP. I don't think there is a causation there, but it's true that immigration has skyrocketed over the past few decades.

What is the cause of the decline in quality US education? I am so curious. It correlates with increased immigration during the later 20th century, no?

It’s caused by the affirmative action, watering down the quality of everything so that the more “preferred race” can be selected.

Try again. The largest shift in demographics due to AA was the significant increase in enrollment for women. URMs are still...underrepresented.

"underrepresented"? that's a liberal/fascist word, not a human language

No, it's a numbers thing. URMs are not watering down the quality of anything because they aren't there.

Kids were dumbed down to accommodate more and more URMs. How hard is it to understand? Are you saying URM numbers were down since the affirmative action?

It has got to a point college admission is 'test optional' WTF

Yes and interestingly it has been show that those "tests" have a racial bias and also hurt the lower income students (no matter what race they are). So schools have chosen to use other/better methods for determining admission. Nothing new there. Been moving towards that for 1-2 decades for some schools.

yea math is really biased toward intelligent people
so they use essays that you don't even know who the F actaully wrote it

DP: See the documented literature on stereotype threat--hundreds of studies since the 1990s confirm. When a marginalized group (like Black Americans) are told a test assesses intellectual ability, they perform lower on the test. If they are told the exact same test measures effort, or learning style or something like that, they perform higher. Conversely if White or Asian-Americans perform higher on tests they are told measure intellectual ability, but lower on the same test if they are told it measures something else. The initial U of M study (Aronson & Steele) found that this difference was substantial enough to explain race-based differences in test scores of admitted students to UofM. It has since been shown to impact performance of many types of all races when a stereotype is "triggered" (e.g., White men jump lower when they are first shown images of Black basketball players than when they are just asked to jump as high as they can, women score better on spatial tests when they are not told they are tests of "mechanical aptitude" than when they are). Stereotypes that are generated over many years in subtle and not so subtle ways get triggered by tests and affect performance, especially when they are high-stakes.

Provide the link to this study. I won't surprised if you intentionally misinterpreted it.

Took me 5 seconds to google it:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167268121005151#:~:text=Steele%20and%20Aronson%20(1995)%20conducted,associated%20with%20a%20black%20identity.

Since you know most people won't you get to toss out something incendiary and troll stroll away

"We find little evidence that black students at the HBCU are affected by stereotype threat, regardless of the identity of the experimenter"
The conclusion is exactly the opposite of what you claimed in the previous post. A stereotype had no impacts on black students' test performance. So the racial difference in test performance was NOT caused by test environments as you claimed.

The study say quite a bit more than the snippet you selected.

Stop trying so hard to frame and control the narrative. Maybe encourage people click on the link and read it themselves?

Again, I see in you a dumb and uneducated person. You may claim you're cultured since you're dumb. But you do you.

It's funny that people this dumb and crazy are trying to decide the future of our kids. So it's great that the SCOTUS struct it down.

I agree with the Supreme Court ruling, but what I find hilarious is that you are out here calling people dumb (multiple times) when you don’t know how to spell STRUCK. Haha. Tell me again who is dumb?

What are you a third grader or something to pick on people’s spelling? You do realize it was the iPhone autocorrect, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It was proved this time.

It can be proved next time.

Hellow to huge law suits.

Is it worth it?

If they are no longer collecting any data on race (no boxes to check) how are lawsuits going to provde discrimination? There is no rule that says a college must select only students with the highest GPA's.

DoE collects the data.
It won't be shown to colleges.

[Anonymous]

Please stick to ideas & opinions without personal insults.

We are here to learn, not to denigrate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This judgement from the court is very confusing.

1) It DID NOT OVERRULE GRUTTER which prohibits quotas and prevents insulation of applicants from certain racial classes from competition, but allowed diversity as a compelling interest

2) All the decision says is that Harvard's program and UNC's program as constituted violate the 14th Amendment, the same way the court ruled in Gratz vs Bollinger in 2003 and yet race based Affirmative Action did not stop after Gratz

3) It leaves open that a newly constituted Affirmative Action program "could" pass strict scrutiny by making sure that they
(a) don't have quotas,
(b) show a compelling interest that does not include diversity, righting past discrimination or rectifying historic deficit of certain races in a university,
(c) they don't use race as a stereo type and
(d) they have a clear end date.

I am going to get Harvard and other elites are going to come up with some other scheme to try to needle this thread

"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.”

--Chief Justice John Roberts

I guarantee you that black applicants - who are imminently qualified- have dealt with overt or covert racial discrimination that has impacted them, or conversely, draw inspiration from their race.

Let the essays come. It's legal.

Yes but they have to actually comply with the intention of the ruling-just as rating Asian applicants as having bad personalities (not overtly marking them down bc of race) simply marking everyone who writes about being an urm up will not be okay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It was proved this time.

It can be proved next time.

Hellow to huge law suits.

Is it worth it?

If they are no longer collecting any data on race (no boxes to check) how are lawsuits going to provde discrimination? There is no rule that says a college must select only students with the highest GPA's.

Also Asians kids have recived higher scores on ECs, leadership, interview, etc. as well as GPA and Tests.
AOs and interviwers have given higher scores to Asians on almsot every factors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It was proved this time.

It can be proved next time.

Hellow to huge law suits.

Is it worth it?

If they are no longer collecting any data on race (no boxes to check) how are lawsuits going to provde discrimination? There is no rule that says a college must select only students with the highest GPA's.

Also Asians kids have recived higher scores on ECs, leadership, interview, etc. as well as GPA and Tests.
AOs and interviwers have given higher scores to Asians on almsot every factors.

THis is an oversimplification of the actual data. And just at Harvard. Most places don't interview.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It was proved this time.

It can be proved next time.

Hellow to huge law suits.

Is it worth it?

If they are no longer collecting any data on race (no boxes to check) how are lawsuits going to provde discrimination? There is no rule that says a college must select only students with the highest GPA's.

DoE collects the data.
It won't be shown to colleges.

Clarification, DOE actually gets the data directly from the colleges. Colleges will need to suppress these demographic fields from the admissions review file or, if Common App deletes the check-boxes, colleges would need to collect the data upon enrollment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It was proved this time.

It can be proved next time.

Hellow to huge law suits.

Is it worth it?

If they are no longer collecting any data on race (no boxes to check) how are lawsuits going to provde discrimination? There is no rule that says a college must select only students with the highest GPA's.

Also Asians kids have recived higher scores on ECs, leadership, interview, etc. as well as GPA and Tests.
AOs and interviwers have given higher scores to Asians on almsot every factors.

THis is an oversimplification of the actual data. And just at Harvard. Most places don't interview.

DP. Anyone think colleges might start interviewing again?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It was proved this time.

It can be proved next time.

Hellow to huge law suits.

Is it worth it?

If they are no longer collecting any data on race (no boxes to check) how are lawsuits going to provde discrimination? There is no rule that says a college must select only students with the highest GPA's.

DoE collects the data.
It won't be shown to colleges.

Clarification, DOE actually gets the data directly from the colleges. Colleges will need to suppress these demographic fields from the admissions review file or, if Common App deletes the check-boxes, colleges would need to collect the data upon enrollment.

Exactly. And guess who won't be enrolling? People that were not accepted for admission.

Played.

After 400 years we expect this kind of thing. You'll learn eventually.