SCOTUS outlaws race as college admissions factor

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Racist DCUMers claiming Asians students are basically all the same and all have affluence and tutoring when there are massive differences between people of South East Asian decent vs those of North East and East Asian descent. SE Asians are way more impoverished, yet they get lumped in with the stupidly broad category of 'Asian'. It's almost as if a continent with 3+ billion people is not monolithic and descendants from those areas in our country have vastly different experiences.

Good for Asians for standing up for their rights to not be judged based on their race or ridiculously offensive racial stereotypes that are used to pre-emptiveky judge their character and personality by admissions staff. It's so insane we have to argue over this. The road to hell is always paved with good intentions, but affirmative action led us down the path of using race based discrimination and ridiculous personality stereotypes of Asians to help people reject them from.admisisons and jobs just so they could reach a desired quota.

72% of Asians hold college degrees. Tell me where the discrimination is?!

Still waiting for an answer. Where is the discrimination?

Harvard applied much higher admissions standards to Asian applicants, with the lowest admission rates despite having the highest scores. Blacks, by contrast, have the lowest scores and GPAs but the highest admission rates among races. If that is not discrimination, then there is no such thing as discrimination.

How will this be policed and disclosed going forward? Can't Harvard just use some other fig leaf to get to the same result?

Absolutely. If you think diversity at Harvard is fig leaf and Harvard thinks it is important, why do you want to attend? You do not even agree with their educational mission.

The decision has a dumptruck sized loophole written right into it. The court says that: "Nothing prohibits universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected the applicant’s life, so long as that discussion is concretely tied to a quality of character or unique ability that the particular applicant can contribute to the university.” Colleges will just use the applicant essays to do this. That will further privilege wealthy minorities who know how to play this game, and disadvantage poor ones who don't.

It appears elsewhere in the ruling, "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.” I don't think that loophole is that big. " [W]hat can
not be done directly cannot be done indirectly."

Is SCOTUS going to sit in the Harvard admissions office to police whether the admissions office is making the decision based only on race, or instead based on how their race is tried to their character or ability to contribute?

No idea, but the above quote seems pretty clear that they can't employ affirmative action through other means. I imagine though the liability/litigation factor and potential for having to disclose its admissions data, it will have to lead to some changes. Even if they use socioeconomic data or something else, if the end result is the same, then I'm sure they'll be liable.

The point is that those are empty words. It's not a standard that a court can police or litigate at the individual applicant level.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Racist DCUMers claiming Asians students are basically all the same and all have affluence and tutoring when there are massive differences between people of South East Asian decent vs those of North East and East Asian descent. SE Asians are way more impoverished, yet they get lumped in with the stupidly broad category of 'Asian'. It's almost as if a continent with 3+ billion people is not monolithic and descendants from those areas in our country have vastly different experiences.

Good for Asians for standing up for their rights to not be judged based on their race or ridiculously offensive racial stereotypes that are used to pre-emptiveky judge their character and personality by admissions staff. It's so insane we have to argue over this. The road to hell is always paved with good intentions, but affirmative action led us down the path of using race based discrimination and ridiculous personality stereotypes of Asians to help people reject them from.admisisons and jobs just so they could reach a desired quota.

72% of Asians hold college degrees. Tell me where the discrimination is?!

Still waiting for an answer. Where is the discrimination?

Harvard applied much higher admissions standards to Asian applicants, with the lowest admission rates despite having the highest scores. Blacks, by contrast, have the lowest scores and GPAs but the highest admission rates among races. If that is not discrimination, then there is no such thing as discrimination.

How will this be policed and disclosed going forward? Can't Harvard just use some other fig leaf to get to the same result?

Absolutely. If you think diversity at Harvard is fig leaf and Harvard thinks it is important, why do you want to attend? You do not even agree with their educational mission.

The decision has a dumptruck sized loophole written right into it. The court says that: "Nothing prohibits universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected the applicant’s life, so long as that discussion is concretely tied to a quality of character or unique ability that the particular applicant can contribute to the university.” Colleges will just use the applicant essays to do this. That will further privilege wealthy minorities who know how to play this game, and disadvantage poor ones who don't.

It appears elsewhere in the ruling, "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.” I don't think that loophole is that big. " [W]hat can
not be done directly cannot be done indirectly."

Is SCOTUS going to sit in the Harvard admissions office to police whether the admissions office is making the decision based only on race, or instead based on how their race is tried to their character or ability to contribute?

No, but you can bet every bulldozer parent will now litigate every rejection from every elite school.

I wonder if admissions officers can be held personally liable in these cases. Can you imagine how much litigation this decision will result in? Universities are going to have make their decisions and policies "litigation proof". As usual, the only beneficiaries are the lawyers and consultants!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Good. Applications should get a number and when the admissions people look they don’t see a name, gender or race. The only one who knows is the person submitting the application They can anonymize the process.

Applications should be submitted by anyone who wants, but admissions should be blind only accepting the best students.

If schools collect tax money they should be not allowed to favor one group over another

The problem is, "a number" is a test score and perhaps a GPA. It says nothing of what that student may contribute to the life of the community, what areas of study that student may want to pursue, etc. If a school is 100% CS majors or 100% art history majors, it may not be a very interesting place. Similarly, if everyone is of a similar background and outlook, there also won't be much interesting discussion in the classrooms or the student unions. It requires a mix of cultures and perspectives to foster a positive college environment. The admissions offices need to be able to pick and choose amongst the tens of thousands of qualified candidates to have a composition that balances the interests.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Racist DCUMers claiming Asians students are basically all the same and all have affluence and tutoring when there are massive differences between people of South East Asian decent vs those of North East and East Asian descent. SE Asians are way more impoverished, yet they get lumped in with the stupidly broad category of 'Asian'. It's almost as if a continent with 3+ billion people is not monolithic and descendants from those areas in our country have vastly different experiences.

Good for Asians for standing up for their rights to not be judged based on their race or ridiculously offensive racial stereotypes that are used to pre-emptiveky judge their character and personality by admissions staff. It's so insane we have to argue over this. The road to hell is always paved with good intentions, but affirmative action led us down the path of using race based discrimination and ridiculous personality stereotypes of Asians to help people reject them from.admisisons and jobs just so they could reach a desired quota.

72% of Asians hold college degrees. Tell me where the discrimination is?!

Still waiting for an answer. Where is the discrimination?

Harvard applied much higher admissions standards to Asian applicants, with the lowest admission rates despite having the highest scores. Blacks, by contrast, have the lowest scores and GPAs but the highest admission rates among races. If that is not discrimination, then there is no such thing as discrimination.

How will this be policed and disclosed going forward? Can't Harvard just use some other fig leaf to get to the same result?

Absolutely. If you think diversity at Harvard is fig leaf and Harvard thinks it is important, why do you want to attend? You do not even agree with their educational mission.

The decision has a dumptruck sized loophole written right into it. The court says that: "Nothing prohibits universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected the applicant’s life, so long as that discussion is concretely tied to a quality of character or unique ability that the particular applicant can contribute to the university.” Colleges will just use the applicant essays to do this. That will further privilege wealthy minorities who know how to play this game, and disadvantage poor ones who don't.

It appears elsewhere in the ruling, "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.” I don't think that loophole is that big. " [W]hat can
not be done directly cannot be done indirectly."

Is SCOTUS going to sit in the Harvard admissions office to police whether the admissions office is making the decision based only on race, or instead based on how their race is tried to their character or ability to contribute?

No, but you can bet every bulldozer parent will now litigate every rejection from every elite school.

This! So much this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank God my Lao son will be evaluated now based on his merits and not because he is thrown into some ludicrously broad category they consists of 'Asians'. The only way to even have had a chance at Harvard prior to this ruling would have been to score extra personality points for him since he would have been judged the hardest. He could have done a side rapping career or done stand up comedy rather than study math just to show Harvard he can keep it real with his personality or can be funny rather than be good at math.

Do know that not everyone can go to Harvard regardless of affirmative action.

+1. Almost every qualified student gets rejected from Harvard regardless of race.

That may be true, but at least it can now be based primarily on merit, which anyone has control over, and not ridiculous racial stereotypes for character and ethnicity, which no one can control.

Well, that's not really true and I know because my kids are huge beneficiaries of a wealthy, two-parent household with undergraduate/graduate degrees from Ivy League institutions. It's easy to acknowledge "merit" without recognizing vastly different starting positions. But hey, my kids benefit from this so why should I complain?

+1

Let me hear PP’s opinions on the merit of all of the legacies admitted to HYP. Mommy and Daddy’s old money and name really equals merit to me! Utter nonsense.

Not a legacy and don’t really care but if your family built the place and made it what it is…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Racist DCUMers claiming Asians students are basically all the same and all have affluence and tutoring when there are massive differences between people of South East Asian decent vs those of North East and East Asian descent. SE Asians are way more impoverished, yet they get lumped in with the stupidly broad category of 'Asian'. It's almost as if a continent with 3+ billion people is not monolithic and descendants from those areas in our country have vastly different experiences.

Good for Asians for standing up for their rights to not be judged based on their race or ridiculously offensive racial stereotypes that are used to pre-emptiveky judge their character and personality by admissions staff. It's so insane we have to argue over this. The road to hell is always paved with good intentions, but affirmative action led us down the path of using race based discrimination and ridiculous personality stereotypes of Asians to help people reject them from.admisisons and jobs just so they could reach a desired quota.

72% of Asians hold college degrees. Tell me where the discrimination is?!

Still waiting for an answer. Where is the discrimination?

Harvard applied much higher admissions standards to Asian applicants, with the lowest admission rates despite having the highest scores. Blacks, by contrast, have the lowest scores and GPAs but the highest admission rates among races. If that is not discrimination, then there is no such thing as discrimination.

How will this be policed and disclosed going forward? Can't Harvard just use some other fig leaf to get to the same result?

Absolutely. If you think diversity at Harvard is fig leaf and Harvard thinks it is important, why do you want to attend? You do not even agree with their educational mission.

The decision has a dumptruck sized loophole written right into it. The court says that: "Nothing prohibits universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected the applicant’s life, so long as that discussion is concretely tied to a quality of character or unique ability that the particular applicant can contribute to the university.” Colleges will just use the applicant essays to do this. That will further privilege wealthy minorities who know how to play this game, and disadvantage poor ones who don't.

It appears elsewhere in the ruling, "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.” I don't think that loophole is that big. " [W]hat can
not be done directly cannot be done indirectly."

Is SCOTUS going to sit in the Harvard admissions office to police whether the admissions office is making the decision based only on race, or instead based on how their race is tried to their character or ability to contribute?

No, but you can bet every bulldozer parent will now litigate every rejection from every elite school.

This! So much this.

Good. Incentivize parents to kick ass. Those who don’t should suffer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Racist DCUMers claiming Asians students are basically all the same and all have affluence and tutoring when there are massive differences between people of South East Asian decent vs those of North East and East Asian descent. SE Asians are way more impoverished, yet they get lumped in with the stupidly broad category of 'Asian'. It's almost as if a continent with 3+ billion people is not monolithic and descendants from those areas in our country have vastly different experiences.

Good for Asians for standing up for their rights to not be judged based on their race or ridiculously offensive racial stereotypes that are used to pre-emptiveky judge their character and personality by admissions staff. It's so insane we have to argue over this. The road to hell is always paved with good intentions, but affirmative action led us down the path of using race based discrimination and ridiculous personality stereotypes of Asians to help people reject them from.admisisons and jobs just so they could reach a desired quota.

72% of Asians hold college degrees. Tell me where the discrimination is?!

Still waiting for an answer. Where is the discrimination?

Harvard applied much higher admissions standards to Asian applicants, with the lowest admission rates despite having the highest scores. Blacks, by contrast, have the lowest scores and GPAs but the highest admission rates among races. If that is not discrimination, then there is no such thing as discrimination.

How will this be policed and disclosed going forward? Can't Harvard just use some other fig leaf to get to the same result?

Absolutely. If you think diversity at Harvard is fig leaf and Harvard thinks it is important, why do you want to attend? You do not even agree with their educational mission.

The decision has a dumptruck sized loophole written right into it. The court says that: "Nothing prohibits universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected the applicant’s life, so long as that discussion is concretely tied to a quality of character or unique ability that the particular applicant can contribute to the university.” Colleges will just use the applicant essays to do this. That will further privilege wealthy minorities who know how to play this game, and disadvantage poor ones who don't.

It appears elsewhere in the ruling, "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.” I don't think that loophole is that big. " [W]hat can
not be done directly cannot be done indirectly."

Is SCOTUS going to sit in the Harvard admissions office to police whether the admissions office is making the decision based only on race, or instead based on how their race is tried to their character or ability to contribute?

No, but you can bet every bulldozer parent will now litigate every rejection from every elite school.

I wonder if admissions officers can be held personally liable in these cases. Can you imagine how much litigation this decision will result in? Universities are going to have make their decisions and policies "litigation proof". As usual, the only beneficiaries are the lawyers and consultants!

No, the admissions officers cannot be held personally liable. The universities aren't even being held "liable" in the sense of having to pay money damages. They are just being ordered to stop doing what they've been doing.

[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:Racist DCUMers claiming Asians students are basically all the same and all have affluence and tutoring when there are massive differences between people of South East Asian decent vs those of North East and East Asian descent. SE Asians are way more impoverished, yet they get lumped in with the stupidly broad category of 'Asian'. It's almost as if a continent with 3+ billion people is not monolithic and descendants from those areas in our country have vastly different experiences.

Good for Asians for standing up for their rights to not be judged based on their race or ridiculously offensive racial stereotypes that are used to pre-emptiveky judge their character and personality by admissions staff. It's so insane we have to argue over this. The road to hell is always paved with good intentions, but affirmative action led us down the path of using race based discrimination and ridiculous personality stereotypes of Asians to help people reject them from.admisisons and jobs just so they could reach a desired quota.

72% of Asians hold college degrees. Tell me where the discrimination is?!

Still waiting for an answer. Where is the discrimination?

Harvard applied much higher admissions standards to Asian applicants, with the lowest admission rates despite having the highest scores. Blacks, by contrast, have the lowest scores and GPAs but the highest admission rates among races. If that is not discrimination, then there is no such thing as discrimination.

How will this be policed and disclosed going forward? Can't Harvard just use some other fig leaf to get to the same result?

Absolutely. If you think diversity at Harvard is fig leaf and Harvard thinks it is important, why do you want to attend? You do not even agree with their educational mission.

The decision has a dumptruck sized loophole written right into it. The court says that: "Nothing prohibits universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected the applicant’s life, so long as that discussion is concretely tied to a quality of character or unique ability that the particular applicant can contribute to the university.” Colleges will just use the applicant essays to do this. That will further privilege wealthy minorities who know how to play this game, and disadvantage poor ones who don't.

It appears elsewhere in the ruling, "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.” I don't think that loophole is that big. " [W]hat can
not be done directly cannot be done indirectly."

Is SCOTUS going to sit in the Harvard admissions office to police whether the admissions office is making the decision based only on race, or instead based on how their race is tried to their character or ability to contribute?

No, but you can bet every bulldozer parent will now litigate every rejection from every elite school.

This! So much this.

Good. Incentivize parents to kick ass. Those who don’t should suffer.

Bulldozer parents don’t kick ass. They’re raising insufferable entitled children who will do nothing good for society. Waste of opportunity.

[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:Racist DCUMers claiming Asians students are basically all the same and all have affluence and tutoring when there are massive differences between people of South East Asian decent vs those of North East and East Asian descent. SE Asians are way more impoverished, yet they get lumped in with the stupidly broad category of 'Asian'. It's almost as if a continent with 3+ billion people is not monolithic and descendants from those areas in our country have vastly different experiences.

Good for Asians for standing up for their rights to not be judged based on their race or ridiculously offensive racial stereotypes that are used to pre-emptiveky judge their character and personality by admissions staff. It's so insane we have to argue over this. The road to hell is always paved with good intentions, but affirmative action led us down the path of using race based discrimination and ridiculous personality stereotypes of Asians to help people reject them from.admisisons and jobs just so they could reach a desired quota.

72% of Asians hold college degrees. Tell me where the discrimination is?!

Still waiting for an answer. Where is the discrimination?

Harvard applied much higher admissions standards to Asian applicants, with the lowest admission rates despite having the highest scores. Blacks, by contrast, have the lowest scores and GPAs but the highest admission rates among races. If that is not discrimination, then there is no such thing as discrimination.

How will this be policed and disclosed going forward? Can't Harvard just use some other fig leaf to get to the same result?

Absolutely. If you think diversity at Harvard is fig leaf and Harvard thinks it is important, why do you want to attend? You do not even agree with their educational mission.

The decision has a dumptruck sized loophole written right into it. The court says that: "Nothing prohibits universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected the applicant’s life, so long as that discussion is concretely tied to a quality of character or unique ability that the particular applicant can contribute to the university.” Colleges will just use the applicant essays to do this. That will further privilege wealthy minorities who know how to play this game, and disadvantage poor ones who don't.

It appears elsewhere in the ruling, "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.” I don't think that loophole is that big. " [W]hat can
not be done directly cannot be done indirectly."

Is SCOTUS going to sit in the Harvard admissions office to police whether the admissions office is making the decision based only on race, or instead based on how their race is tried to their character or ability to contribute?

No, but you can bet every bulldozer parent will now litigate every rejection from every elite school.

I wonder if admissions officers can be held personally liable in these cases. Can you imagine how much litigation this decision will result in? Universities are going to have make their decisions and policies "litigation proof". As usual, the only beneficiaries are the lawyers and consultants!

No, the admissions officers cannot be held personally liable. The universities aren't even being held "liable" in the sense of having to pay money damages. They are just being ordered to stop doing what they've been doing.

So if they continue to do it they will be liable.

[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:Racist DCUMers claiming Asians students are basically all the same and all have affluence and tutoring when there are massive differences between people of South East Asian decent vs those of North East and East Asian descent. SE Asians are way more impoverished, yet they get lumped in with the stupidly broad category of 'Asian'. It's almost as if a continent with 3+ billion people is not monolithic and descendants from those areas in our country have vastly different experiences.

Good for Asians for standing up for their rights to not be judged based on their race or ridiculously offensive racial stereotypes that are used to pre-emptiveky judge their character and personality by admissions staff. It's so insane we have to argue over this. The road to hell is always paved with good intentions, but affirmative action led us down the path of using race based discrimination and ridiculous personality stereotypes of Asians to help people reject them from.admisisons and jobs just so they could reach a desired quota.

72% of Asians hold college degrees. Tell me where the discrimination is?!

Still waiting for an answer. Where is the discrimination?

Harvard applied much higher admissions standards to Asian applicants, with the lowest admission rates despite having the highest scores. Blacks, by contrast, have the lowest scores and GPAs but the highest admission rates among races. If that is not discrimination, then there is no such thing as discrimination.

How will this be policed and disclosed going forward? Can't Harvard just use some other fig leaf to get to the same result?

Absolutely. If you think diversity at Harvard is fig leaf and Harvard thinks it is important, why do you want to attend? You do not even agree with their educational mission.

The decision has a dumptruck sized loophole written right into it. The court says that: "Nothing prohibits universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected the applicant’s life, so long as that discussion is concretely tied to a quality of character or unique ability that the particular applicant can contribute to the university.” Colleges will just use the applicant essays to do this. That will further privilege wealthy minorities who know how to play this game, and disadvantage poor ones who don't.

It appears elsewhere in the ruling, "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.” I don't think that loophole is that big. " [W]hat can
not be done directly cannot be done indirectly."

Is SCOTUS going to sit in the Harvard admissions office to police whether the admissions office is making the decision based only on race, or instead based on how their race is tried to their character or ability to contribute?

No, but you can bet every bulldozer parent will now litigate every rejection from every elite school.

I wonder if admissions officers can be held personally liable in these cases. Can you imagine how much litigation this decision will result in? Universities are going to have make their decisions and policies "litigation proof". As usual, the only beneficiaries are the lawyers and consultants!

No, the admissions officers cannot be held personally liable. The universities aren't even being held "liable" in the sense of having to pay money damages. They are just being ordered to stop doing what they've been doing.

If someone rejected under a university's new admissions policies is able to prove the new admissions policies continue to discriminate by race, wouldn't the university be held liable? How would this be different than any entity held liable for racial discrimination? It seems the DEI initiatives at companies are now in the crosshairs of this type of litigation as a result of this decision. Why aren't colleges and universities?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good. Applications should get a number and when the admissions people look they don’t see a name, gender or race. The only one who knows is the person submitting the application They can anonymize the process.

Applications should be submitted by anyone who wants, but admissions should be blind only accepting the best students.

If schools collect tax money they should be not allowed to favor one group over another

The problem is, "a number" is a test score and perhaps a GPA. It says nothing of what that student may contribute to the life of the community, what areas of study that student may want to pursue, etc. If a school is 100% CS majors or 100% art history majors, it may not be a very interesting place. Similarly, if everyone is of a similar background and outlook, there also won't be much interesting discussion in the classrooms or the student unions. It requires a mix of cultures and perspectives to foster a positive college environment. The admissions offices need to be able to pick and choose amongst the tens of thousands of qualified candidates to have a composition that balances the interests.

They still can, the applicants will put all that stuff in m, just when admissions see it they see a number and not a name/race etc…that way anyone in state can apply and their merit will get them in. Any extra stuff including mentions if their race etc should be excluded.

Then we get the best students.

I also think colleges need to ban all these student groups that emphasis their race, gender, orientation or anything else. Want ti walk around and be trans? Go ahead no one cares. But we don’t need school finding and backing to pay for it and do it off campus.

We sick at education, our test scores stink, we’re falling behind and coddle students.

[Anonymous]

Does this mean that every elite college will be run over by Asians while every other race gets frozen out?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No more fake white “Latinos” whose European ancestors moved to South America getting admissions preferences over other similarly white students.

Or white guys who are 1/64 Native American getting a full ride.

[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:Racist DCUMers claiming Asians students are basically all the same and all have affluence and tutoring when there are massive differences between people of South East Asian decent vs those of North East and East Asian descent. SE Asians are way more impoverished, yet they get lumped in with the stupidly broad category of 'Asian'. It's almost as if a continent with 3+ billion people is not monolithic and descendants from those areas in our country have vastly different experiences.

Good for Asians for standing up for their rights to not be judged based on their race or ridiculously offensive racial stereotypes that are used to pre-emptiveky judge their character and personality by admissions staff. It's so insane we have to argue over this. The road to hell is always paved with good intentions, but affirmative action led us down the path of using race based discrimination and ridiculous personality stereotypes of Asians to help people reject them from.admisisons and jobs just so they could reach a desired quota.

72% of Asians hold college degrees. Tell me where the discrimination is?!

Still waiting for an answer. Where is the discrimination?

Harvard applied much higher admissions standards to Asian applicants, with the lowest admission rates despite having the highest scores. Blacks, by contrast, have the lowest scores and GPAs but the highest admission rates among races. If that is not discrimination, then there is no such thing as discrimination.

How will this be policed and disclosed going forward? Can't Harvard just use some other fig leaf to get to the same result?

Absolutely. If you think diversity at Harvard is fig leaf and Harvard thinks it is important, why do you want to attend? You do not even agree with their educational mission.

The decision has a dumptruck sized loophole written right into it. The court says that: "Nothing prohibits universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected the applicant’s life, so long as that discussion is concretely tied to a quality of character or unique ability that the particular applicant can contribute to the university.” Colleges will just use the applicant essays to do this. That will further privilege wealthy minorities who know how to play this game, and disadvantage poor ones who don't.

It appears elsewhere in the ruling, "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.” I don't think that loophole is that big. " [W]hat can
not be done directly cannot be done indirectly."

Is SCOTUS going to sit in the Harvard admissions office to police whether the admissions office is making the decision based only on race, or instead based on how their race is tried to their character or ability to contribute?

No, but you can bet every bulldozer parent will now litigate every rejection from every elite school.

I wonder if admissions officers can be held personally liable in these cases. Can you imagine how much litigation this decision will result in? Universities are going to have make their decisions and policies "litigation proof". As usual, the only beneficiaries are the lawyers and consultants!

No, the admissions officers cannot be held personally liable. The universities aren't even being held "liable" in the sense of having to pay money damages. They are just being ordered to stop doing what they've been doing.

If someone rejected under a university's new admissions policies is able to prove the new admissions policies continue to discriminate by race, wouldn't the university be held liable? How would this be different than any entity held liable for racial discrimination? It seems the DEI initiatives at companies are now in the crosshairs of this type of litigation as a result of this decision. Why aren't colleges and universities?

There would have to be some statute that allowed money damages. I'm not aware of any such law. If there were, I'm sure the plaintiffs here would have included it as part of their complaint and they didn't.