US Supreme Court Rules Against Affirmative Action in College Admissions

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel very emotional today even though I knew this was coming. I am asian and my child is asian and white, and yet I still felt overcome with sadness when I heard the opinion today. In particular, Chief Justice Roberts carving out an exception to allow affirmative action for military academies only and Justice Brown's dissent calling out the hypocrisy of the majority opinion wanting people of color to be recruited in "the bunkers but not the board room" was especially strong. And don't get me started on the irony of Justice Thomas' personal narrative arguing against it.

I’m so sick of this argument - suggesting Justice Thomas would not have succeeded without admissions standards being lowered to let him in to school. THIS IS THE STIGMA. What were his scores? Does anyone even know? His position is not ironic. Yours is.

Agree. So presumptuous and entitled. Fact is you don’t know the tests scores of the vast majority. Get over yourself.

[Anonymous]

Asians shouldn’t get too excited. The good private schools will still do what they want to do. They don’t want to be overrun with too many Asian students. They’ll find a way to get around that hassle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
What made Blacks have more barrier than Asians?????????????????

If you have to ask that question, then you really need some American history lessons. Go read some books on Black history. Look at how the jail system was created to house Black males. Look at the 0% proficiency in math and science in Baltimore schools. Look at my parents and everyone in their generation who were denied housing, jobs, credit and in many cases dignity. Look at the Lynch papers - look at the people in charge through the years to followed very specific requirements to ensure Black people did not advance. And then look at Black immigrants from anywhere in the World and how they come here and excel. Being born Black in American is more than a barrier. The Black person has to shift their entire life trajectory to overcome systems put in place to keep them down. Asians and immigrants have created their own systems to ensure they can "beat the system" in place. These same systems are not possible for many in the Black community who are struggling with systems that keep them down. You really need to read more about history.

Sounds like mostly their own fault.  
Most of the Asian countries were ruins 50 years ago from war and stuff.  
Immigrants came from there with huge language and cultural barriers.

Slavery vastly is different than war. In slavery, you have to convince a group of people that they are in fact not people at all but are property. The psychological warfare over hundreds of years that includes splitting up and selling family members is nothing like war. The fact that you made these comments shows that you are completely unaware. It is disgusting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now let’s eliminate preferences for Athletics, Legacy, Development, Faculty and Staff Children, Children of prominent people. If any of these is used in admissions, it will be in violation of the constitution in terms of equal treatment for all. If Harvard will want to discriminate applicants based on whether or not they fall in one or more of these categories, then stop allocating State and Federal funding for research to Harvard.

Can anyone explain why these are equated to AA? I just don't understand any relationship between these metrics and AA. Certainly with sports...if you are going to field a football team then you need students who can play football, no?

Regarding legacy, I could actually see legacy becoming more important. If Harvard has spent the last 40 years building racially-diverse classes, then they have racially-diverse legacies. Nothing stops Harvard from confirming an alum is from a specific minority group, yet doing nothing to investigate the applicant.

It just seems like a huge logical jump to put these other groups in the same category.

You're a congenitally dishonest and I suspect that you know it. Every time the issue of legacy admissions and it's potential demise comes up, people like you get uncontrollably jittery. The legacy pool at Harvard and all other Ivies is overwhelmingly white and it's not even close. So, your made up argument of diverse pool of legacy is just that—rubbish.

Unlike football which actually is a mammoth source of cash for division 1 schools, most of the sports ( lacrosse, rowing, water polo, fencing to name a few) in ivy schools bring zero economic windfall to these schools but they are the doors through which far more white students get in than through their 'merit'.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Roberts' majority opinion excludes the military academies. Go Army! Go Navy!

"The United States as amicus curiae contends that race-based admissions programs further compelling interests at our Nation’s military
academies. No military academy is a party to these cases, however, and none of the courts below addressed the propriety of race-based admissions systems in that context. This opinion also does not address the issue, in light of the potentially distinct interests that military academies may present."

Did anyone ask for that?

What are the distinct military interests? Preferring to kill certain races in war?

I mean, that's a possible interpretation, isn't it? I posted that bit of the opinion earlier in this thread and no one seemed to take issue with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Asians shouldn’t get too excited. The good private schools will still do what they want to do. They don’t want to be overrun with too many Asian students. They’ll find a way to get around that hassle.

At which point there will be another lawsuit so no worries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not exactly, the court ruling doesn't shoot down that colleges cannot be influenced by the impact that race has had on an individual. Therefore, if in an essay a student can explain how racism has shaped their access, experiences, motivations, admissions officers can take that into account. Likewise if a LoR letter highlights how a student has experienced racism yet prevailed etc. that can also be used.
I've seen some college admissions officers say that this decision will likely expand admissions based on the experiences of racism resulting in an even more diverse campus. I think this will open up some of the diversity issues within the Asian American and Hispanic groups in the US too--they can make a case through essays about their experiences of racism. This may give the colleges even more leeway to create diverse classes. I guess we'll see. My guess is that large public school systems that don't use essays signficantly in admissions might become less diverse, but elite private schools might become even more diverse.

(OP here): I agree with the above post.

The decision means that race can still be used as a subjective factor in considering an individual's application for admission, but race cannot b used as an objective factor.

I don't think subjective/objective are the right words. The court did not invalidate considering race in the context of an individual's specific application and the applicant's qualities, so long as it is not making stereotypical generalizations about the individual based solely on their race. It's discussion of an individual applicant's race wasn't about objective/subjective; rather about generalized/stereotyped/assumed versus specific/individualized/expressed.

Please reread what you just wrote. Essentially you state that subjective/objective are not the right words, but then you assert that subjective versus objective situations can be considered.

In short, race can still be used in a subjective manner regarding college admissions, but not as an objective factor (as in no special pile for applications by students of a certain race).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not exactly, the court ruling doesn't shoot down that colleges cannot be influenced by the impact that race has had on an individual. Therefore, if in an essay a student can explain how racism has shaped their access, experiences, motivations, admissions officers can take that into account. Likewise if a LoR letter highlights how a student has experienced racism yet prevailed etc. that can also be used.
I've seen some college admissions officers say that this decision will likely expand admissions based on the experiences of racism resulting in an even more diverse campus. I think this will open up some of the diversity issues within the Asian American and Hispanic groups in the US too--they can make a case through essays about their experiences of racism. This may give the colleges even more leeway to create diverse classes. I guess we'll see. My guess is that large public school systems that don't use essays signficantly in admissions might become less diverse, but elite private schools might become even more diverse.

Racial discrimination is one of the social hardships among many.
Asian students experiene that too.

If the school systematically give more points to Blacks studetns racial discrimination harship, say hello to flood of lawsuits.

Nope, because the new criteria is the subjective experience of racism and how it has challenged access to academics (that the student has still succeeded against). It's a lot harder to make a case that Asian Americans experience similar levels and types of racism that challenge their academic pursuits. This decision just made it a lot harder for lawsuits against race-based admissions IMO because it relies on an interpretation of the 14th amendment to be about racism rather than race.

First, AOs gave higher points to Asiasn on pretty much everything including ECs, leadership, etc. I'm sure higher points on essays.
It was at the committee level that created racist category and gave negative points to Asians.
What will the committee tell the under paid AOs now? You better be very careful.

Second, it would be equally hard to make a case for the middle class and above Blacks whining about hardship from anything including racism.
Good luck finding lots of qualified students from the hood.
I can see the graduation rate and overall quality of schools gradually going down.

Sadly, this is not true. My tween recognized racism while we're were at our vacation home which is in a MAGA area. I was a part of a lawsuit based on unfair financial discrimination only because I am Black. My brother and husband have been pulled over and harassed for driving expensive vehicles. We have plenty of experiences to share and write about and our essay coaches will make sure they are well written.

People need to learn the value of hard work, not the art of asking for handouts. When the gravy train comes to end, as it has today, how will these people survive? They will fall flat on their faces. They never learned self discipline, hard work, resilience...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel very emotional today even though I knew this was coming. I am asian and my child is asian and white, and yet I still felt overcome with sadness when I heard the opinion today. In particular, Chief Justice Roberts carving out an exception to allow affirmative action for military academies only and Justice Brown's dissent calling out the hypocrisy of the majority opinion wanting people of color to be recruited in "the bunkers but not the board room" was especially strong. And don't get me started on the irony of Justice Thomas' personal narrative arguing against it.

I’m so sick of this argument - suggesting Justice Thomas would not have succeeded without admissions standards being lowered to let him in to school. THIS IS THE STIGMA. What were his scores? Does anyone even know? His position is not ironic. Yours is.

Agree. So presumptuous and entitled. Fact is you don’t know the tests scores of the vast majority. Get over yourself.

Clarence Thomas himself has said that he was the recipient of AA in college/law school admissions. Some of you are really ignorant. Read FIRST before posting!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Footnote #22 of the majority opinion authored by Chief Justice Roberts notes that this ruling does NOT apply to the US military academies.

The rationale for affirmative action in military academies is not solely educational diversity like it is at Harvard/UNC. It’s discipline, morale, and command issues. Nothing is to stop someone from bringing another lawsuit to fully examine whatever special issues the military presents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Note that the Supreme Court did not ban gender consciousness in college admissions. Nor did it ban legacy consciousness, wealth consciousness, geographic consciousness, or athletic consciousness. Race, and only race, is the thing the conservatives don’t want colleges and universities to look at. Because race is the card white people use that never gets declined. It is their most powerful characteristic, the one through which all else is possible.

White males continue to have a preference in admissions as colleges seek to balance the gender scale.

No, it’s because we have laws prohibiting racial discrimination.

The 14th Amendment, i.e. the Equal Protection Clause, does not mention RACE or GENDER. But you people won't to prohibit consideration of RACE but continue to recognize GENDER (and benefit from thereof) in college admissions policies.

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Asians shouldn’t get too excited. The good private schools will still do what they want to do. They don’t want to be overrun with too many Asian students. They’ll find a way to get around that hassle.

It's false. This idea that there's a cabal against Asian students is laughable and it shows that folks like you aren't as smart as you've convinced yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Roberts: "nothing in this opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant's discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise."

This plus test optional will keep things basically the same for top colleges.

I wouldn't be surprised if some of the top colleges went test blind in the future.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel very emotional today even though I knew this was coming. I am asian and my child is asian and white, and yet I still felt overcome with sadness when I heard the opinion today. In particular, Chief Justice Roberts carving out an exception to allow affirmative action for military academies only and Justice Brown's dissent calling out the hypocrisy of the majority opinion wanting people of color to be recruited in "the bunkers but not the board room" was especially strong. And don't get me started on the irony of Justice Thomas' personal narrative arguing against it.

I’m so sick of this argument - suggesting Justice Thomas would not have succeeded without admissions standards being lowered to let him in to school. THIS IS THE STIGMA. What were his scores? Does anyone even know? His position is not ironic. Yours is.

Agree. So presumptuous and entitled. Fact is you don’t know the tests scores of the vast majority. Get over yourself.

Clarence Thomas himself has said that he was the recipient of AA in college/law school admissions. Some of you are really ignorant. Read FIRST before posting!

And how exactly would that make his position “ironic.” This is such a dumb take. If a white person argues against white supremacy, no one says, “it’s so ironic that you criticize white supremacy when you benefited!”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Footnote #22 of the majority opinion authored by Chief Justice Roberts notes that this ruling does NOT apply to the US military academies.

The rationale for affirmative action in military academies is not solely educational diversity like it is at Harvard/UNC. It’s discipline, morale, and command issues. Nothing is to stop someone from bringing another lawsuit to fully examine whatever special issues the military presents.

And in some instances the military needs individuals who look like the enemy and have fluency in certain languages and are familiar with a particular culture.