US Supreme Court Rules Against Affirmative Action in College Admissions

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"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."

Minority dissent. This is not the court's ruling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nothing will change. Listen to a podcast from a few mos back w/ UC Berkeley admissions head who said that they look at other factors that imply race.

Well, if you heard it on a podcast, I'm sure that trumps Supreme Court rulings.

[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?

I can see Asisan population in upward pressure to like 50%

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree that this helps poor, rural whites. SC decision deplored admitting affluent blacks as a way to increase black enrollment. Kids of all races attending great schools in large MSAs are f*cked.

Where does everyone think this enormous pool of financial aid for poor rural and first gen students is coming from? Sure the Ivys and a few other select schools can afford it, but the majority of colleges need tuition paying students. I guess the most valuable students will shift from full pay URMs to full pay rural and first gen

Except that there aren't that many full pay rural or full pay first gen. I was one (25 years ago) but I've never known anybody else who was. Now that I think about it at my HYPS I'm not sure I knew anyone else who was first gen and maybe one person who was rural.

I was rural and first gen, admitted but without the financial aid necessary to actually attend. It was actually really shocking that the school expected my working class parents to take out $80K in parent loans on top of the Pell Grant and on top of those loans I was supposed to carry myself. Maybe things have improved in the last 25 or so years, but the only thing being rural, first generation, and from an obscure state helped with was admission, not actual ability to attend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nothing will change. Listen to a podcast from a few mos back w/ UC Berkeley admissions head who said that they look at other factors that imply race.

If they actually said that, there will be some easily winnable lawsuits filed soon because the opinion explicitly bans it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nothing will change. Listen to a podcast from a few mos back w/ UC Berkeley admissions head who said that they look at other factors that imply race.

Well - you can’t use “other factors” to intentionally reach the same racially discriminatory result. If the Cal admissions head was claiming they use other data as a proxy for race to the same ends that the Court just outlawed, that’s still a violation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My impression is that this decision means:

Race cannot be an objective factor in the college admissions process, but it can be a subjective factor.

It has always been subjective factor.
They can't use it anymore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is going to benefit low income, rural, and first Gen families as these categories will become a race neutral way of achieving diversity, which is likely no one on this thread.

This is a good thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

No, of course not. They still are required to keep data to make sure they are not discriminating and to provide DOE demographic data. The case did NOT strike down Affirmative Action. People using that line a) don't know what affirmative action actually is, and b) didn't read the decision.

It’s long and you probably didn’t either 😂

I did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maybe colleges can draw more heavily from low income, diverse high schools. The biggest losers might be the wealthy AA and Hispanic kids

+1. If they look at the top 5% of each high school, they can still reach their goals. Many schools have a higher population of minorities than others.

They will follow the TJ model.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Her first name is Ketanji.

Any problem with that???????

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Exactly, nobody called RBG "Bader".

[Anonymous]

Funny how people are missing the fact that AA largely benefits WHITE WOMEN.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Interesting that Thomas has not resigned the Supreme Court position that he got via a now-illegal race-based preference.

How was his selection race-based? Do you think Sotomayor’s or Jackson’s was? Do you have anything intelligent to say in response to this post? No? Great, I’m opening a bottle of champagne. Thank you, SCOTUS!

I believe PP was pointing to Thomas' college admissions being race-based preference...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Funny how people are missing the fact that AA largely benefits WHITE WOMEN.

This hasn’t been true in decades.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Funny how people are missing the fact that AA largely benefits WHITE WOMEN.

This is a popular response but today’s decision has nothing to do with sex-based preferences. So eat your cookie and let the adults talk.