US Supreme Court Rules Against Affirmative Action in College Admissions

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

VT

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

VT

Ok what is wrong with VT?

[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.

DP: The concurrence isn't the holding. However, PP's point at 3.b does seem to effectively overturn it because the court broadly wrote off every normal reason for wanting diversity in an educational setting as "unreviewable" thus invalid, which is, of course, ridiculous. In essence the Court has determined that the government now gets to set university mission statements and priorities, and has decided for itself that educating future leaders in a diverse classroom is not allowed unless you accidentally happen upon a diverse group of students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

CommonAp can collect data, then just send it to DoE and not to colleges.
This is not a rocket science.

Common App would have to have a government contract to do that data collection work for the government -- not sure they want to enter that field. There is no incentive for them to gratuitously share their data. If they did want such a contract, they would have to comply with Affirmative Action Clauses like all companies that do business with the government, btw -- oh, the irony.

[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??

You mean asian american kids arent real Americans?

[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??

You mean asian american kids arent real Americans?

Don't fall for all the racist trolls on this site--both those pretending to be Asian Americans and those pretending to be against them. There's a lot of sock puppeting going on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:America, F* yeah! Finally asians receive equal treatment under the law, not just "URM"

In synopsis I glanced, the Court summarized affirmative action is stereotypical, something to that effect, assuming all race thinks alike, are similar, etc. I guess affirmative action assumes certain people are just naturally challenged intellectually. This is a great day for URM, as they will no longer be assumed to be inferior. Those who make it will be presumed to be qualified. Finally, URMs will receive equal treatment under the law. It's a great day in America when all people, whites, brown, and blacks are judged by the content of their character.

Are student-athletes assumed to be inferior?

Are third-generation alumni students assumed to be inferior?

A bit more nuanced than that. Some student athletes help a school boost its brand, increase publicity, and generate income. Do obscure and expensive sports like fencing, sailing, squash, and arguably lacrosse and field hockey really generate income for schools? Student athletes who play money-generating sports can also now benefit from leveraging NIL deals.

Student athletes generate SUPERIOR revenue for the colleges and universities. They will be cherished forever as they should be.

[Anonymous]

From this thread I gather that now that Asians are done with African Americans, they are going to move onto white Americans. Asians are going to show whites how to behave. They will show us how to have COVID vaccine cards on our phones, they will fix our legacy admissions and so on. That’s because they are superior. They will own Harvard and Wall Street. Then the Oval Office. They can do this because Asia is perfect. They will bring Asian perfection to America. Is that correct?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:From this thread I gather that now that Asians are done with African Americans, they are going to move onto white Americans. Asians are going to show whites how to behave. They will show us how to have COVID vaccine cards on our phones, they will fix our legacy admissions and so on. That’s because they are superior. They will own Harvard and Wall Street. Then the Oval Office. They can do this because Asia is perfect. They will bring Asian perfection to America. Is that correct?

Per the nonsense spouted by a troll or two on this topic, yes that is correct.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:From this thread I gather that now that Asians are done with African Americans, they are going to move onto white Americans. Asians are going to show whites how to behave. They will show us how to have COVID vaccine cards on our phones, they will fix our legacy admissions and so on. That’s because they are superior. They will own Harvard and Wall Street. Then the Oval Office. They can do this because Asia is perfect. They will bring Asian perfection to America. Is that correct?

White liberals have huge and fragile egos. This was only to get the discriminative AA tossed out. It hurts your egos just because you can no long slander Asians as much as you used to? What a bunch of douchebags and evil souls!

[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.

That still wouldn't prove a damn thing. 98% rejection means 98% won't get in. The burden of proof will be on them and even with unelected legislators disguised as judges, it will be next to impossible to prove that being Asian was the *main* reason why you got rejected.

[Anonymous]

Yawn. This decision will be forgotten and normalized in 5 years when people will casually say, "remember when we let a few people in Harvard's admission office use the color of an applicant's skin in deciding who is accepted? wow, that was wild."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What is it with some people and the obsession with higher education? There is more to life. Aren’t you bored out of your gourd? It seems robotic to some people who can’t hyper focus on one thing for their entire life. It’s insufferable.

You’re insufferable to us too. So there is that

Ohhh burn. Hey, at least I am confident and secure enough in my own abilities, a state school is just fine. Obsessing over getting into an Ivy League is just so gauche.

I agree. There’s a difference between caring about education and being obsessed with it only being delivered from the mouths of Top 50 professors.

[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.

Read his opinion carefully. He added a caveat,
"Grutter is, for all intents and purposes, overruled" It's not REALLY overruled

Plus that's his individual opinion. The majority opinion, did not say this at all. Only the majority ruling is binding

Plus there court arrived at the same conclusion in Gratz, that University of Michigan's undergraduate policy violated the 14 th amendment, just like they have ruled on Harvard and UNC. The Gratz decision from 2003 did not stop race based Affirmative Action

All any University has to do, is say, it's changed it's policy slightly and carry on as if nothing has happened. Then somebody will sue after a few years.

By the time the case lands again in the Supreme Court it will be almost a decade. SFFA, First filled in 2014.

At that time if the court is still conservative, they can again rule that the new policy is also unconstitutional. The university already gets 10 years to keep doing what it is doing.


Then they go back and try again. And so it goes.

This decision is not what the media is making it out to be. It's a nothing burger. NOTHING WILL CHANGE.

[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.

Read his opinion carefully. He added a caveat,
"Grutter is, for all intents and purposes, overruled" It's not REALLY overruled

Plus that's his individual opinion. The majority opinion, did not say this at all. Only the majority ruling is binding

Plus there court arrived at the same conclusion in Gratz, that University of Michigan's undergraduate policy violated the 14 th amendment, just like they have ruled on Harvard and UNC. The Gratz decision from 2003 did not stop race based Affirmative Action

All any University has to do, is say, it's changed it's policy slightly and carry on as if nothing has happened. Then somebody will sue after a few years.

By the time the case lands again in the Supreme Court it will be almost a decade. SFFA, First filled in 2014.

At that time if the court is still conservative, they can again rule that the new policy is also unconstitutional. The university already gets 10 years to keep doing what it is doing.


Then they go back and try again. And so it goes.

This decision is not what the media is making it out to be. It's a nothing burger. NOTHING WILL CHANGE.

Number of Asian students has been increasing already.