US Supreme Court Rules Against Affirmative Action in College Admissions

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, this. The white population will increase at elite schools and all other races will decline. This organization lost when a white person was the face of the lawsuit so they found Asians to be the front. Worked like a charm.

They lost challenging geography the first time around and they won challenging race the second. White rural parents with smart kids should be popping champaign

[Anonymous]

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

Name and zip code can be used as a proxy for race at a high degree of accuracy, but running a program like that would seem to violate the holding of this case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You missed the final text of that opinion.

"But, despite the dissent's assertion to the contrary, universities may not simply establish through application essays or other means the regime we hold unlawful today."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

The above arrogant poster is wrong.

Applicants can still write about how their race affected them as an individual in their college app essays.

Students are free to discuss how race affected his or her life. However, the SCOTUS emphasis is, "despite the dissent's assertion to the contrary, universities may not... establish ... the regime we hold unlawful today."
So, there.

LOl ! Wow ! You really need to read the opinion before posting incorrect information. So there !

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Yeah!

- Asian.

I co-sign this and I’m black.

I hate race-based affirmative action for “diversity” reasons and completely agree with Justice Thomas on how stigmatizing it is for black students at elite schools. It bothers me to no end how every one (especially on DCUM) readily dismisses conservative black voices as if we are some imaginary creatures that cannot possibly diverge from liberal stereotypes. (I’m looking at you, Biden, with your “you’re not black if you don’t vote for me” crap.)

News flash: pull up a Pew poll, even among African Americans, a majority did NOT support race-based admissions advantages for college.

I did not vote for Trump but I considered it. And I am grateful for his appointments to the Supreme Court because they’ve restored sanity to the interpretation of the Constitution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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 !

Yep, white students really benefited......

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So you think it was fair that Brown's kids would have gotten a bump based on race while a white or asian janitor's kid would be dinged for their race?

The janitor's would have gotten a bigger bump based on their income status. But also no matter how rich Brown's kids are--they are still more likely to be stopped by the police, monitored in every store they go into, etc. Racism affects every day life for Black people in this country in a very dramatic way--no matter how rich they are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.”

They are, though. If you think elite institutions are suddenly going to become majority Asian, you're kidding yourself, because this country is too damn racist for that, too.

US is 7% Asian.

Harvard is 30% Asian
MIT is 40% Asian

This ruling will apply upward pressure on those numbers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Great day! God has spoken.

What in the world does this mean. You think the Supreme Court is God's word?

[Anonymous]

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?

Even if they are, it's easier to mask the above.

I think people are also forgetting that colleges don't have the goal of only admitting students with the uber high stats. There is a wide range of students who can "make it" at these elite schools. So even if your entry stats are "inferior", you can still graduate and do well at the school. Their goal is to create a community - not just an academic super class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1

Prior to the ruling, Asian-American students had something of a hook based on the diversity they brought to many college environments. Not MIT, but a lot of national universities and liberal arts schools. That advantage is now gone.

If they had to use their race to get in, they didn't deserve to get in.

Clear rules, equal opportunities, and transparency are what we want

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.”

They are, though. If you think elite institutions are suddenly going to become majority Asian, you're kidding yourself, because this country is too damn racist for that, too.

US is 7% Asian.

Harvard is 30% Asian
MIT is 40% Asian

This ruling will apply upward pressure on those numbers.

This actually helps Asian Americans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.”

They are, though. If you think elite institutions are suddenly going to become majority Asian, you're kidding yourself, because this country is too damn racist for that, too.

US is 7% Asian.

Harvard is 30% Asian
MIT is 40% Asian

This ruling will apply upward pressure on those numbers.

I very much doubt that.

[Anonymous]

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.

Name and zip code can be used as a proxy for race at a high degree of accuracy, but running a program like that would seem to violate the holding of this case.

University programs "may never use race as a stereotype or negative," Chief Justice Roberts writes in majority

He said the Harvard and University of North Carolina programs violated the Equal Protection Clause because they failed to offer “measurable” objectives to justify the use of race. He said the programs involve racial stereotyping and had no specific end point.

“University programs must comply with strict scrutiny, they may never use race as a stereotype or negative, and — at some point — they must end,” he wrote.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So you think it was fair that Brown's kids would have gotten a bump based on race while a white or asian janitor's kid would be dinged for their race?

The janitor's would have gotten a bigger bump based on their income status. But also no matter how rich Brown's kids are--they are still more likely to be stopped by the police, monitored in every store they go into, etc. Racism affects every day life for Black people in this country in a very dramatic way--no matter how rich they are.

Who the @#^&$# is Brown?

Colorblind-struck much?