SCOTUS outlaws race as college admissions factor

[Anonymous]

but accepting the best students are very subjective! I used to be an admissions counselor for a private college. I can tell you that GPA and test score were not always the best indicators of success. A number of my high GPA and test scorers struggled to adjust to the rigorous academic setting. From the data we collected at our institution, the students that did the best, or had the least amount of struggle in their first two years were in the 3.0-3.3 GPA range and average ACT scores. We considered average ACT to be 19-23 score. What we found is that students in the 3.0-3.3 range were involved in multiple school and community activities. They had more perspective and better time management skills.

I will also tell you that we did not make decisions based on race. Of course we had diversity recruitment efforts, but candidates that did not meet the criteria were never considered. We did have discussions about ALL applicants that were on the borderline of our criteria. I actually found myself admitting more poor and rural white students (on that borderline criteria) than people of color. I use to laugh and think "everyone thinks affirmative action only benefits people of color. If folks only knew the reality."

And don't get me started about legacy kids. We even gave them special scholarships. At my institution, 96 percent of legacy admits were not people of color either.

[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

Yes the key is accepting tax money. If a private funded entity should be able to accept or a exclude anybody for any reason.

[Anonymous]

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

Don't quotas limit Asians to 20% currently?

[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:

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.

Well, wasn't it legal until today? Wouldn't this now fall under any statute involving racial discrimination? I imagine there are plenty of such statutes on the books.

[Anonymous]

I have a question.

Why is it that it is assumed that Latinos and Blacks can’t test high in the SATs or APs because they don’t have privilege and that Asian somehow have that privilege? Or is it that we assume that Black people and Hispanic people aren’t smart enough because of their “culture?”

As an Asian person, I babysat my baby sister and practiced the SAT test from books I got from the library. The more I practiced, the better I got. I eventually got a 1500.

My parents didn’t take me to the library. This was the high school library. I did this because I knew the test was important and if I didn’t do well, it would be a metric against me. I stayed up until midnight, when my parents got home to make sure they got home ok. They hated my lack of sleep but I was always worried.

Please explain, how if I could do this, without assistance from my parents, while babysitting my baby sister while my parents worked their second job, (fyi- my HHI at the time was under 50k) living in a one bedroom apartment in Catonsville MD, how I am more privileged.

Not all Asians have private tutors. But the books are available to every kid that wanted them (and there were always several copies around).

And fyi- I worked through college and had a bunch of debt. But it was still worth it.

I am going to argue that isn’t privilege. It’s because we don’t tell them that it’s not just a dream- that it can be reality if they work for it.
I am going to argue that they are not motivated to even to apply because of financial limits that prevent them from dreaming of it. And I think that is the biggest issue at hand.

We have to encourage people to let them know they can do it. We have Pell grants and so many other options in the military and the DOD based on financial need.

I get that systemic racism is part of the privilege I have benefited from. But is the application rates of Hispanics and blacks even representative of the population? Isn’t part of it the fact that we have such a cultural divide that we cannot see that we need to tell them it’s not just possible- but an expectation?

And for the record: I do want Blacks and Hispanics in our colleges. Representation matters but so does acceptance and love and compassion. But I absolutely hate the idea that tests and grades are reflective of privilege. I don’t think that’s the whole story and I think that’s why so many people (60% of Dems) are against affirmative action

[Anonymous]

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

I wonder if the Heritage white families will do a 180 and start crying because they can't get their white kids into elite colleges because of over-achieving asians.

[Anonymous]

What about athletic recruits? Athletics is not considered for admission to Oxford or Cambridge. Why is it considered so important here, beyond showing leadership and teamwork? Shouldn't high school debaters or actors get equal consideration?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have a question.

Why is it that it is assumed that Latinos and Blacks can’t test high in the SATs or APs because they don’t have privilege and that Asian somehow have that privilege? Or is it that we assume that Black people and Hispanic people aren’t smart enough because of their “culture?”

As an Asian person, I babysat my baby sister and practiced the SAT test from books I got from the library. The more I practiced, the better I got. I eventually got a 1500.

My parents didn’t take me to the library. This was the high school library. I did this because I knew the test was important and if I didn’t do well, it would be a metric against me. I stayed up until midnight, when my parents got home to make sure they got home ok. They hated my lack of sleep but I was always worried.

Please explain, how if I could do this, without assistance from my parents, while babysitting my baby sister while my parents worked their second job, (fyi- my HHI at the time was under 50k) living in a one bedroom apartment in Catonsville MD, how I am more privileged.

Not all Asians have private tutors. But the books are available to every kid that wanted them (and there were always several copies around).

And fyi- I worked through college and had a bunch of debt. But it was still worth it.

I am going to argue that isn’t privilege. It’s because we don’t tell them that it’s not just a dream- that it can be reality if they work for it.
I am going to argue that they are not motivated to even to apply because of financial limits that prevent them from dreaming of it. And I think that is the biggest issue at hand.

We have to encourage people to let them know they can do it. We have Pell grants and so many other options in the military and the DOD based on financial need.

I get that systemic racism is part of the privilege I have benefited from. But is the application rates of Hispanics and blacks even representative of the population? Isn’t part of it the fact that we have such a cultural divide that we cannot see that we need to tell them it’s not just possible- but an expectation?

And for the record: I do want Blacks and Hispanics in our colleges. Representation matters but so does acceptance and love and compassion. But I absolutely hate the idea that tests and grades are reflective of privilege. I don’t think that’s the whole story and I think that’s why so many people (60% of Dems) are against affirmative action

Asians have the privilege of having parents who care about their education.

[Anonymous]

Maya Wiley was including low income whites in her talking points today. My eats perked up because I never heard that we were part of AA. Then she said “Appalachians.” OMG. So myopic.

If AA advocates could have figured out how to include low income whites from the beginning this country probably wouldn’t have birthed President Trump.

[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:

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.

Well, wasn't it legal until today? Wouldn't this now fall under any statute involving racial discrimination? I imagine there are plenty of such statutes on the books.

No it wouldn’t. The statute here is Title VI of the Civil Right Act. No money damages available.

[Anonymous]

Asian students have higher average SAT scores than any other group, including whites. A study by Princeton sociologist Thomas Espenshade examined applicants to top colleges from 1997, when the maximum SAT score was 1600 (today it’s 2400). Espenshade found that Asian-Americans needed a 1550 SAT to have an equal chance of getting into an elite college as white students with a 1410 or black students with an 1100.

This research was published in a PUP book called No Longer Separate, Not Yet Equal: Race and Class in Elite College Admission and Campus Life by Thomas J. Espenshade & Alexandria Walton Radford (a free excerpt here: http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/s9072.pdf)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What about athletic recruits? Athletics is not considered for admission to Oxford or Cambridge. Why is it considered so important here, beyond showing leadership and teamwork? Shouldn't high school debaters or actors get equal consideration?

It shouldn't and frankly, I think athletes should be tracked separately - at least the ones bringing in the money. Let them get degrees in sports and get paid for it. I think it's silly to think sports should matter at all to education. One could probably argue that bartenders are equally important to the "college entertainment" and "college experience". I don't expect to preferences given to bartenders any time soon.

[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:

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.

Well, wasn't it legal until today? Wouldn't this now fall under any statute involving racial discrimination? I imagine there are plenty of such statutes on the books.

No it wouldn’t. The statute here is Title VI of the Civil Right Act. No money damages available.

So just criminal liability then? Yeesh, I'd probably be looking for another administrative position if I was an admissions officer right now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What about athletic recruits? Athletics is not considered for admission to Oxford or Cambridge. Why is it considered so important here, beyond showing leadership and teamwork? Shouldn't high school debaters or actors get equal consideration?

Because TV contract and alumni donations are tied to athletics. So, money.

[Anonymous]

Top schools will find a way to have diversity. They have zero interest in being overrun by Asian students who have been drilled in Kumon worksheets and test taking since preschool.

They want creativity.