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

Thomas's concurrence explicitly stated the court is overturning Grutter.

Harvard needs a real paying attorney. It relied too much on free legal advice it was reading from anonymous forums.

[Anonymous]

No college will ever accept or see that data point again. They will continue rejecting upward of 97% of their candidates. Only going forward, someone who believes they were rejected due to race or ethnicity will have to prove the college somehow even knew their race or ethnicity.

How are they going to do that?

Welcome to the new sh*t show

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No college will ever accept or see that data point again. They will continue rejecting upward of 97% of their candidates. Only going forward, someone who believes they were rejected due to race or ethnicity will have to prove the college somehow even knew their race or ethnicity.

How are they going to do that?

Welcome to the new sh*t show

They will see the data point after the admission season. They still need to report the data for the enrolled class to US Dept of Ed.

Perhaps they will have their consultants work on some algorithms to "guess" race and ethnicity and then see how correct the algorithm was on the back end, when they see the data later.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No college will ever accept or see that data point again. They will continue rejecting upward of 97% of their candidates. Only going forward, someone who believes they were rejected due to race or ethnicity will have to prove the college somehow even knew their race or ethnicity.

How are they going to do that?

Welcome to the new sh*t show

They will see the data point after the admission season. They still need to report the data for the enrolled class to US Dept of Ed.

Perhaps they will have their consultants work on some algorithms to "guess" race and ethnicity and then see how correct the algorithm was on the back end, when they see the data later.

And the enrolled class will be 100% accepted students. No way to connect a rejection to race or ethnicity.

Good luck with your guessing algorithm and imaginary lawsuit.

Game over. Blum played you.

[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:

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?

I tried about 25 ways to get my iphone to autocorrect struck (or anything close) to struct. It never did. And the t and k are really far apart...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No college will ever accept or see that data point again. They will continue rejecting upward of 97% of their candidates. Only going forward, someone who believes they were rejected due to race or ethnicity will have to prove the college somehow even knew their race or ethnicity.

How are they going to do that?

Welcome to the new sh*t show

They will see the data point after the admission season. They still need to report the data for the enrolled class to US Dept of Ed.

Perhaps they will have their consultants work on some algorithms to "guess" race and ethnicity and then see how correct the algorithm was on the back end, when they see the data later.

And the enrolled class will be 100% accepted students. No way to connect a rejection to race or ethnicity.

Good luck with your guessing algorithm and imaginary lawsuit.

Game over. Blum played you.

Sorry, I was not the PP imagining the lawsuits. (I'd be skeptical that there will be lawsuits.)

[Anonymous]

Since the race question is optional (plus many schools don't use the common app), if more people refuse to answer the race question, it will make it pretty hard to prove anything.

I'm white and always check "prefer not to answer" and have for as long as I can remember.

[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

Thomas's concurrence explicitly stated the court is overturning Grutter.

Harvard needs a real paying attorney. It relied too much on free legal advice it was reading from anonymous forums.

Colleges usually have the best attorneys out there.

[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.

Nobody cares. Don't you understand?

There are enough smart whites - you just want to claim there are not.

[Anonymous]

I have a question - so many Asians claiming to belong here - why isn't THEIR school good enough for their kids? I mean, if they are so smart??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have a question - so many Asians claiming to belong here - why isn't THEIR school good enough for their kids? I mean, if they are so smart??

Whats their school??
We ar not talking about international students.

Duh

[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.

Nobody cares. Don't you understand?

There are enough smart whites - you just want to claim there are not.

Surely you're a "nobody" so you don't care. There are definitely people who care, e.g., the SCOTUS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have a question - so many Asians claiming to belong here - why isn't THEIR school good enough for their kids? I mean, if they are so smart??

So many people whites claiming to belong here - why didn't they go to THEIR european schools but had to murder native Americans to steal their lands?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a question - so many Asians claiming to belong here - why isn't THEIR school good enough for their kids? I mean, if they are so smart??

Whats their school??
We ar not talking about international students.

Duh

Maybe your alma mater?

[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

Thomas's concurrence explicitly stated the court is overturning Grutter.

Harvard needs a real paying attorney. It relied too much on free legal advice it was reading from anonymous forums.

Colleges usually have the best attorneys out there.

They lost