Predictions for what happens when the SC bans affirmative action?

[Anonymous]

After Michigan banned affirmative action, Black undergraduate enrollment dropped precipitously — from 7% in 2006 to 4% in 2021.
California banned banned racial preferences in admissions in 1996. By the the fall of 2006, there were just 96 Black freshmen at UCLA, per the New York Times.

Axios

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Would the Supreme Court’s decision impact HS class of 2024? Or would it be the following year? Can Universities change admissions drastically of decision comes as late as July 2023?

I’d expect kids waitlisted this year at schools openly engaging in AA to sue, same with last year and the year before right up to the statute of limitations.

I'm not a lawyer, but I'm sure you're not one either. The schools had a previous Supreme Court decision saying what they were doing was kosher. I don't see how a lawsuit could work retroactively. (Help me out, numerous biglaw partners on this board).

Most likely (how is that for a lawyer answer) it would not at all be something you could sue on for past wrongs. Even 2023-24 admission year probably is immune from suit.

[Anonymous]

https://www.axios.com/2023/02/24/affirmative-action-scotus-college-diversity

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Won't colleges be able to correctly guess race based on name in a very large number of cases?

Sure, but when someone blows the whistle, the settlement would be massive. If they really did it, anyone involved would effectively have lifetime employment because no school could ever risk angering them. There is a reason that most companies aren’t dumb enough to decide to break the law and the implement policies that everyone involved know are illegal

[Anonymous]

Test Optional will cement itself as the norm.

Good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Prediction? Legacy will no longer be a hook. Boost given to students coming from poor families. Admissions based more on merit. IT IS TIME!

Legacy is not being dropped. I agree with people who say that alumni contributions not all that big a deal but it is the idea of dropping legacy that will cause Alumni not to support school. It just will not happen at most places. Notre Dame dropping it? Not on your life. Admissions are based on merit now. I do see a boom for poor whites and poor latinos. Poor AA are always at a disadvantage and this will make it worse. Asians will not get all the slots they think they will.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Won't colleges be able to correctly guess race based on name in a very large number of cases?

Sure, but when someone blows the whistle, the settlement would be massive. If they really did it, anyone involved would effectively have lifetime employment because no school could ever risk angering them. There is a reason that most companies aren’t dumb enough to decide to break the law and the implement policies that everyone involved know are illegal

Unless they are stupid you could never prove it. And even if you did there are no damages.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:After Michigan banned affirmative action, Black undergraduate enrollment dropped precipitously — from 7% in 2006 to 4% in 2021.
California banned banned racial preferences in admissions in 1996. By the the fall of 2006, there were just 96 Black freshmen at UCLA, per the New York Times.

Axios

This is what will happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:After Michigan banned affirmative action, Black undergraduate enrollment dropped precipitously — from 7% in 2006 to 4% in 2021.

California banned banned racial preferences in admissions in 1996. By the the fall of 2006, there were just 96 Black freshmen at UCLA, per the New York Times.

Axios

Yep. Things will certainly change. As they did for those schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Would the Supreme Court’s decision impact HS class of 2024? Or would it be the following year? Can Universities change admissions drastically of decision comes as late as July 2023?

I’d expect kids waitlisted this year at schools openly engaging in AA to sue, same with last year and the year before right up to the statute of limitations.

I'm not a lawyer, but I'm sure you're not one either. The schools had a previous Supreme Court decision saying what they were doing was kosher. I don't see how a lawsuit could work retroactively. (Help me out, numerous biglaw partners on this board).

Most likely (how is that for a lawyer answer) it would not at all be something you could sue on for past wrongs. Even 2023-24 admission year probably is immune from suit.

You could xerox the Harvard suit and file it against every university. This isn’t a new law, it’s a new interpretation of existing law and there are years worth of injured parties still inside of the statute of limitations. The only people barred will be those who have already sued and exhausted appeals

[Anonymous]

The obvious flaw in your post is that you assume the SCt will not uphold aa as it currently exists. One guesses there are 2 votes for doing that (Thomas and Alito), with three votes against (the Dem appointees). I don’t count Roberts as an anti-aa vote despite his previous statements. But even if he did, that leaves the remaining GOP Justices as wildcards. This is gonna go 5-4 either way. But UMC white parents shouldn’t count their decisions before they hatch.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Won't colleges be able to correctly guess race based on name in a very large number of cases?

Sure, but when someone blows the whistle, the settlement would be massive. If they really did it, anyone involved would effectively have lifetime employment because no school could ever risk angering them. There is a reason that most companies aren’t dumb enough to decide to break the law and the implement policies that everyone involved know are illegal

Unless they are stupid you could never prove it. And even if you did there are no damages.

The school has to have someone actually doing it. You can’t decide to target certain zip codes without having someone do the work and without people making decisions knowing those codes are being targeted. No school will take the risk

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Won't colleges be able to correctly guess race based on name in a very large number of cases?

Sure, but when someone blows the whistle, the settlement would be massive. If they really did it, anyone involved would effectively have lifetime employment because no school could ever risk angering them. There is a reason that most companies aren’t dumb enough to decide to break the law and the implement policies that everyone involved know are illegal

Unless they are stupid you could never prove it. And even if you did there are no damages.

You could never prove it if you don't have it in writing.
They simply admit all the qualified Hernandez and Ramirez applicants and decline the Wangs and the Patels.

[Anonymous]

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/26/us/affirmative-action-admissions-supreme-court.html



Affirmative Action Was Banned at Two Top Universities. They Say They Need It.
As a Supreme Court case on college admissions nears, the California and Michigan university systems say their efforts to build diverse classes have hardly worked.

[Anonymous]

Cant they just use other proxies for race, like zip code, being bilingual, etc?