US Supreme Court Rules Against Affirmative Action in College Admissions

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wonder what Harvard is going to do now!

Nothing. They can still focus on Pell Grant recipients. And it's not the black students. They will likely pull in ore poor whites and maybe even more black students. That 9% isn't going to the Asian category.

Harvard University

Pell grant recipients - 13%

White
36%
Asian
20%
Black
9%
Hispanic
12%
International
12%
Two or more races
7%
Unknown
3%

[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?

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.

+1000

"They are creating a community---not just an academic super class" and they are doing this when they have to reject over 96% of applicants. So there will always be applicants who feel they are rejected when they are the stronger candidate

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wonder what Harvard is going to do now!

Still going to be Harvard. Acceptance rate will be 2-4% next year as people think this somehow means they can get in and apply in even greater numbers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1

Harvard and other tippy top schools reject plenty of white kids with perfect/near perfect test scores, stellar grades, and multiple awards. So how can a white applicant with, say, a 1600 SAT score, stellar GPA, and great ECs prove they were discriminated against because of their race when plenty of similar white applicants were also rejected? Are you suggesting that these schools will now be forced to accept all such applicants, and thus have to double or triple the size of their entering classes, to avoid losing discrimination lawsuits?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

But there is always a subjective factor. My prediction is percentages stay roughly the same because they are looking at the whole applicant not just grades and GPA. I think the discrimination was not as widespread as many in here think, but it was a convenient explanation for why kids did not get in, when in reality, it is because 96% of kids don’t get in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I believe they are referencing Supreme Court justice Ketanji Brown Jackson

[Anonymous]

Yale University

Pell Grant recipients - 21%

White
37%
Asian
21%
Black
8%
Hispanic
15%
International
10%
Two or more races
7%
Unknown
1%

[Anonymous]

President Obama issued a statement that supports the decision in a subtle manner.

First Lady Obama also issued a statement that acknowledges the decision and recognizes that some must work harder.

Neither expressed any type of outrage or anger or even strong disappointment at the decision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will the race box be taken off of the common app ??!?!??!!

? It’s currently on there for next cycle

New Common App doesn't come up until August 1st. The box will obviously be gone.

[Anonymous]

"In so holding, the Court cements a superficial rule of colorblindness as a constitutional principle in an endemically segregated society
where race has always mattered and continues to matter. The Court subverts the constitutional guarantee of equal protection by further entrenching racial inequality in education, the very foundation of our democratic government
and pluralistic society."

"Today, the Court concludes that indifference to race is the only constitutionally permissible means to achieve equality in college admissions."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:President Obama issued a statement that supports the decision in a subtle manner.

First Lady Obama also issued a statement that acknowledges the decision and recognizes that some must work harder.

Neither expressed any type of outrage or anger or even strong disappointment at the decision.

(OP again)

In my view, both President Obama & First Lady Obama show true leadership & understanding & compassion in their public statements addressing this decision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1

Harvard and other tippy top schools reject plenty of white kids with perfect/near perfect test scores, stellar grades, and multiple awards. So how can a white applicant with, say, a 1600 SAT score, stellar GPA, and great ECs prove they were discriminated against because of their race when plenty of similar white applicants were also rejected? Are you suggesting that these schools will now be forced to accept all such applicants, and thus have to double or triple the size of their entering classes, to avoid losing discrimination lawsuits?

A generalized wrong that is hard to prove at the individual level but easy to prove at the group level is the whole point of class actions

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Take it up with the justices. You are barking at the wrong person. You elected Trump. You voted in the SCOTUS justices. Elections have consequences.

The current majority is not getting rid of legacies or athletic recruits, affirmative action has long been a particular target for conservatives, they don’t care about the other categories. We likely won’t see the SC accept another college admissions case for years now that they can declar success on AA.

Like anything else in life...legacy and athletic recruits directly impacts the families of all of the conservative supreme court justices (even Clarence Thomas), so why in god's name do you think they will touch those?

Asians have served as the "useful idiots" in these cases.

Thanks for showing Asians how you really feel about us. Gross.

[Anonymous]

Too many applicants were taking advantage of affirmative action, eg., claiming to be 1/8 Hispanic despite being from a wealthy white family (just bc a great-grandmother came from Spain).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

SC Justice Ketanji Brown who wrote the dissenting opinion on the case we are discussing.

Colorblind-struck much?

Her last name is Jackson….

Her second to last name is Brown.