Race in college admissions is back in front of the Supreme Court Oral Argument on Oct. 31 (Monday)

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Higher education shoud be mainly for acedemic merit and must be color blind.

"Of 35,000 applicants competing for 1,600 spots in the class of 2019, 2,700 had perfect verbal SAT scores; 3,400 had perfect math SAT scores; more than 8,000 had perfect GPAs."

From the facts in the actual case. Now what?

But that are the scores of the applicants. What are the verbal SAT, math SAT, and GPA of the admitted students?

Why does that matter. Harvard would not be able to fill its seats based merely on a formula on "objective" scores like SAT scores or GPA. If they only considered perfect GPA or perfect SAT scores or whatever, they would still have to choose between applicants to fill their class. And they, as a private institution, should be able to decide that these scores are not what they are looking for in a student body. They have determined that their formula for selecting Harvard students tries to suss out potential to make an impact in some way or the other. They may be wrong. And if they are wrong, their brand value will go down. Let the market determine if their strategy is successful or not.

It matters because Harvard admitted students with very low scores in the name of R

Why can't Harvard admit students who have low test scores or no test scores at all?

They can as long as they don't discriminate against race

And the courts have found that they do not.

Sorry we have Supreme Court going on right now.
It's called 'Supreme' for a reason.

Yes, they are deciding whether or not to change decided precedent. That means these schools followed the law as it was, which is what the lower courts found. But now, this new Supreme Court may decided to change the established law (even though they aren't supposed to do that). I would not anticipate a retroactive application of it if they do change the law though.

Nope, they don't change the law.
Law makers change the law.

Yes, they do. When the overturn settled precedent, they are changing the law.

No, they can overturn precedent because it violates Constitution.
It's not making law.

And when that happens and there are no people of certain races admitted to elite colleges, then they sue, and win, (because that is absolute proof of systemic societal racism) what happens then?

No it's not absolute proof of systemic societal racism.

NBA has only 0.4% of Asians.
Is that absolute proof of systemic societal racism?

The NBA argument? Really? That's all you got?

Dumbest argument ever.

Try again.

I'm interested. Why NBA shouldn't be diverse to reflect population?

No, you are humping a strawman which is entirely irrelevant for reasons you absolutely know, and I won't engage to allow you to gish gallop past the relevant point. Stop being pathetic. Try yet again.

Nope, PP has a very relevant point. Why is there a severe lack of diversity in a billion dollar industry like the NBA? Hardly any Hispanics, Asians, etc. Why is the NBA exempt from diversity that reflects the country?


Oh that's right, because the NBA only wants the best players based on their merits regardless of their race. Funny how that works in a billion dollars sports industry, yet we don't apply the same logic at universities.

Sigh. Go ahead, join in on the stupid.

There have been many instances of racism in employment in professional sports throughout history. Maybe you've heard of Jackie Robinson?

Stupid, stupid argument. Please don't make this point where people know who you are. I tell you this for your own good.

Yes racism is bad.
Also it's not absolute proof of systemic societal racism just because a certain race is severely underrepresented.

Is a diverse class important? That is subjective. In Harvard's view, it is valuable. It is not against the law to believe this is an important attribute of a class. If they need to change their criteria to achieve that, ok.

You think the highest test scores are the most valuable criteria but that is also subjective.

I think GPA + Test scores + ECs + Awards + Speical talents + etc. are all good.
I think racism is bad, so change criteria in a manner not discriminate againt race.

Test scores have context. Is a prepped and propped up perfect score as impressive as a decent score from a disadvantaged student?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Explain why Asians have to score higher than everyone else on the MCAT and have to have significantly higher GPAs than certain groups in order to get into medical school:



It is literally using race to hold people to different standards. Which is racism.

There is not one school in the country that is saying Asians must have higher scores and GPAs in order to be admitted. Because that WOULD be racism. You're just making that assumption based on others with lower numbers being admitted. But the reason they're admitted is because they offer something else the college values, not because they're not Asian.

They don't have to say, but the numbers clearly show that their actual actions are stating otherwise. Asians have to score higher on the MCAT and have a significantly higher GPA. It is clearly based on their race.

So you think entire teams of admissions officers, plus all the other officials who are aware of their policies, are in on a secret plot to deny admission to Asians? And not one member of those teams has the integrity to come forth and speak the truth, which would lead to a very quick loss in court? If so, you're worse than QAnon.

They are. You are not allowed to speak out against the diversity machine. We're so progressive that we've become racist. Why don't you look into why Asians have been denied at top universities. Soft reasons for why Asians have been denied by admissions officers at Harvard were due to 'personality scores' based on perceptions that an Asian student would probably 'study too much and not do well with team work' or that an Asian student basically had 'no sense of humor'. Basically, Asian students being denied because they were perceived as 'not being able to keep it real'. I mean what kind of BS nonsense is that, other than stereotyping Asian students based on their race. Yes, there is absolutely systemic racism at universities because university admins have no spine to stand up to the diversity and social justice warriors. Diversity doesn't really mean diversity....it only means apply exceptions to the rule for a very, very select group while discriminating against others.

You're swimming in QAnon waters with your conspiracy theory. No one has created a personality test to target a specific population.

Wrong:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/15/us/harvard-asian-enrollment-applicants.html

Next you'll try to tell me NYTs is a QAnon source.

Nothing in that article says that the personality test was created to exclude Asian applicants. That's your assumption. It would be ludicrous for anyone to create such a test for such a purpose. Almost every admission officer would refuse to use it, and they would be publicizing the blatant racism inherent in such a practice. On any measure, some group is going to score lowest. That doesn't mean they're being deliberately discriminated against.

You can try to explain away all you want, but no one believes your trash. Harvard *consistently* gave Asians lower 'personality scores' compared to all other racial groups. Of course they'll never admit that it is designed to weed out Asians because they can't do it based on test scores since Asians do far better. They had to come up with other BS ways to cut them out based on soft ideas like their perceived personality. The personality scores strongly correlate with race, which just goes to show you how racist it is. Imagine giving a black student negative personality scores because of a perception that they may 'disrupt the class' or 'be a trouble maker'. How racist would that be? That's the same type of discrimination Asian students have had to eat because of their race.

Absolutely, this is very shameful and Harvard has not apologized. Alum interviewers who actually met the applicants gave them personality scores on par with everyone else. The admissions office personnel gave Asians lower personality scores, which fit into racist tropes about Asians lacking in personality etc. It was absolutely to round out what they wanted in terms of diversity.

I'm not opposed to affirmative action or diversity actually. But Harvard's approach was really gross and it only came out because of discovery in this case (when all those applicant files were turned over).

- Asian Harvard alum

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Explain why Asians have to score higher than everyone else on the MCAT and have to have significantly higher GPAs than certain groups in order to get into medical school:



It is literally using race to hold people to different standards. Which is racism.

There is not one school in the country that is saying Asians must have higher scores and GPAs in order to be admitted. Because that WOULD be racism. You're just making that assumption based on others with lower numbers being admitted. But the reason they're admitted is because they offer something else the college values, not because they're not Asian.

If the thing that they offer is diversity, then the higher scoring students are being denied admission based on race. If this case goes the way people expect it to, those scores will either turn into acceptances next year or very expensive settlements

Agree with you on what the Supreme Court will do, but not on the consequences. All these schools will go test optional (conveniently many are already there with Covid) and then the disparate racial standards will never be so clear and quantifiable again. No more lawsuits.

PP posted MCAT scores. Medical schools will not go test optional. Some will stop trying to achieve a diverse class. Those that don't will start getting sued.

Nah. There's lots of ways to achieve racial diversity besides the approach that we're currently using. If you create a point system for admission that makes MCAT 20% and GPA 20% and "soft" qualities 60% you can pretty easily engineer a system that gets you the results you want. You can select for race in lots of ways that don't specify race as long as you get granular enough. You can select on zip code. You can select on extracurricular activities. You can select for particular types of leadership roles in particular groups. You can require every student do a face to face interview or Zoom interview, and make that 60% of the admission criteria.

I think people really overestimating how easy it is to do this proxy selection by race. Within many majority-Black zipcodes, top performers will be Asian or White. Within majority-Black schools, same. You pretty much have to select on race-specific ECs in a transparent way to nail it down. Doing by interviews? I guess, but that's pretty transparent too. Institutions will try this with starry-eyed ML people but it will fall apart almost immediately.

What is a top performer? When you factor in socio economic criteria, you may find some students impress by punching above their weight in spite of disadvantages.

I think many Asians have disadvangages by being minority of minorities and having cultural and language barriers

Absolutely. There are certainly asian students matching to elite colleges in programs like questbridge.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Higher education shoud be mainly for acedemic merit and must be color blind.

"Of 35,000 applicants competing for 1,600 spots in the class of 2019, 2,700 had perfect verbal SAT scores; 3,400 had perfect math SAT scores; more than 8,000 had perfect GPAs."

From the facts in the actual case. Now what?

But that are the scores of the applicants. What are the verbal SAT, math SAT, and GPA of the admitted students?

Why does that matter. Harvard would not be able to fill its seats based merely on a formula on "objective" scores like SAT scores or GPA. If they only considered perfect GPA or perfect SAT scores or whatever, they would still have to choose between applicants to fill their class. And they, as a private institution, should be able to decide that these scores are not what they are looking for in a student body. They have determined that their formula for selecting Harvard students tries to suss out potential to make an impact in some way or the other. They may be wrong. And if they are wrong, their brand value will go down. Let the market determine if their strategy is successful or not.

It matters because Harvard admitted students with very low scores in the name of R

Why can't Harvard admit students who have low test scores or no test scores at all?

They can as long as they don't discriminate against race

And the courts have found that they do not.

Sorry we have Supreme Court going on right now.
It's called 'Supreme' for a reason.

Yes, they are deciding whether or not to change decided precedent. That means these schools followed the law as it was, which is what the lower courts found. But now, this new Supreme Court may decided to change the established law (even though they aren't supposed to do that). I would not anticipate a retroactive application of it if they do change the law though.

Nope, they don't change the law.
Law makers change the law.

Yes, they do. When the overturn settled precedent, they are changing the law.

No, they can overturn precedent because it violates Constitution.
It's not making law.

And when that happens and there are no people of certain races admitted to elite colleges, then they sue, and win, (because that is absolute proof of systemic societal racism) what happens then?

No it's not absolute proof of systemic societal racism.

NBA has only 0.4% of Asians.
Is that absolute proof of systemic societal racism?

The NBA argument? Really? That's all you got?

Dumbest argument ever.

Try again.

I'm interested. Why NBA shouldn't be diverse to reflect population?

No, you are humping a strawman which is entirely irrelevant for reasons you absolutely know, and I won't engage to allow you to gish gallop past the relevant point. Stop being pathetic. Try yet again.

Nope, PP has a very relevant point. Why is there a severe lack of diversity in a billion dollar industry like the NBA? Hardly any Hispanics, Asians, etc. Why is the NBA exempt from diversity that reflects the country?


Oh that's right, because the NBA only wants the best players based on their merits regardless of their race. Funny how that works in a billion dollars sports industry, yet we don't apply the same logic at universities.

Sigh. Go ahead, join in on the stupid.

There have been many instances of racism in employment in professional sports throughout history. Maybe you've heard of Jackie Robinson?

Stupid, stupid argument. Please don't make this point where people know who you are. I tell you this for your own good.

Yes racism is bad.
Also it's not absolute proof of systemic societal racism just because a certain race is severely underrepresented.

Is a diverse class important? That is subjective. In Harvard's view, it is valuable. It is not against the law to believe this is an important attribute of a class. If they need to change their criteria to achieve that, ok.

You think the highest test scores are the most valuable criteria but that is also subjective.

Agreed. They will find another way to get the diversity they seek.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Higher education shoud be mainly for acedemic merit and must be color blind.

"Of 35,000 applicants competing for 1,600 spots in the class of 2019, 2,700 had perfect verbal SAT scores; 3,400 had perfect math SAT scores; more than 8,000 had perfect GPAs."

From the facts in the actual case. Now what?

But that are the scores of the applicants. What are the verbal SAT, math SAT, and GPA of the admitted students?

Why does that matter. Harvard would not be able to fill its seats based merely on a formula on "objective" scores like SAT scores or GPA. If they only considered perfect GPA or perfect SAT scores or whatever, they would still have to choose between applicants to fill their class. And they, as a private institution, should be able to decide that these scores are not what they are looking for in a student body. They have determined that their formula for selecting Harvard students tries to suss out potential to make an impact in some way or the other. They may be wrong. And if they are wrong, their brand value will go down. Let the market determine if their strategy is successful or not.

It matters because Harvard admitted students with very low scores in the name of R

Why can't Harvard admit students who have low test scores or no test scores at all?

They can as long as they don't discriminate against race

And the courts have found that they do not.

Sorry we have Supreme Court going on right now.
It's called 'Supreme' for a reason.

Yes, they are deciding whether or not to change decided precedent. That means these schools followed the law as it was, which is what the lower courts found. But now, this new Supreme Court may decided to change the established law (even though they aren't supposed to do that). I would not anticipate a retroactive application of it if they do change the law though.

Nope, they don't change the law.
Law makers change the law.

Yes, they do. When the overturn settled precedent, they are changing the law.

No, they can overturn precedent because it violates Constitution.
It's not making law.

And when that happens and there are no people of certain races admitted to elite colleges, then they sue, and win, (because that is absolute proof of systemic societal racism) what happens then?

No it's not absolute proof of systemic societal racism.

NBA has only 0.4% of Asians.
Is that absolute proof of systemic societal racism?

The NBA argument? Really? That's all you got?

Dumbest argument ever.

Try again.

I'm interested. Why NBA shouldn't be diverse to reflect population?

No, you are humping a strawman which is entirely irrelevant for reasons you absolutely know, and I won't engage to allow you to gish gallop past the relevant point. Stop being pathetic. Try yet again.

Nope, PP has a very relevant point. Why is there a severe lack of diversity in a billion dollar industry like the NBA? Hardly any Hispanics, Asians, etc. Why is the NBA exempt from diversity that reflects the country?


Oh that's right, because the NBA only wants the best players based on their merits regardless of their race. Funny how that works in a billion dollars sports industry, yet we don't apply the same logic at universities.

Sigh. Go ahead, join in on the stupid.

There have been many instances of racism in employment in professional sports throughout history. Maybe you've heard of Jackie Robinson?

Stupid, stupid argument. Please don't make this point where people know who you are. I tell you this for your own good.

Yes racism is bad.
Also it's not absolute proof of systemic societal racism just because a certain race is severely underrepresented.

Is a diverse class important? That is subjective. In Harvard's view, it is valuable. It is not against the law to believe this is an important attribute of a class. If they need to change their criteria to achieve that, ok.

You think the highest test scores are the most valuable criteria but that is also subjective.

I think GPA + Test scores + ECs + Awards + Speical talents + etc. are all good.
I think racism is bad, so change criteria in a manner not discriminate againt race.

Test scores have context. Is a prepped and propped up perfect score as impressive as a decent score from a disadvantaged student?

Go to the source of the problem.
Help and support the disadvantaged students to achieve high scores instead of punishing other hard working students with assumptions and bias.
We have tons of free and cheap resources for one way.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Higher education shoud be mainly for acedemic merit and must be color blind.

"Of 35,000 applicants competing for 1,600 spots in the class of 2019, 2,700 had perfect verbal SAT scores; 3,400 had perfect math SAT scores; more than 8,000 had perfect GPAs."

From the facts in the actual case. Now what?

But that are the scores of the applicants. What are the verbal SAT, math SAT, and GPA of the admitted students?

Why does that matter. Harvard would not be able to fill its seats based merely on a formula on "objective" scores like SAT scores or GPA. If they only considered perfect GPA or perfect SAT scores or whatever, they would still have to choose between applicants to fill their class. And they, as a private institution, should be able to decide that these scores are not what they are looking for in a student body. They have determined that their formula for selecting Harvard students tries to suss out potential to make an impact in some way or the other. They may be wrong. And if they are wrong, their brand value will go down. Let the market determine if their strategy is successful or not.

It matters because Harvard admitted students with very low scores in the name of R

Why can't Harvard admit students who have low test scores or no test scores at all?

They can as long as they don't discriminate against race

And the courts have found that they do not.

Sorry we have Supreme Court going on right now.
It's called 'Supreme' for a reason.

Yes, they are deciding whether or not to change decided precedent. That means these schools followed the law as it was, which is what the lower courts found. But now, this new Supreme Court may decided to change the established law (even though they aren't supposed to do that). I would not anticipate a retroactive application of it if they do change the law though.

Nope, they don't change the law.
Law makers change the law.

Yes, they do. When the overturn settled precedent, they are changing the law.

No, they can overturn precedent because it violates Constitution.
It's not making law.

And when that happens and there are no people of certain races admitted to elite colleges, then they sue, and win, (because that is absolute proof of systemic societal racism) what happens then?

No it's not absolute proof of systemic societal racism.

NBA has only 0.4% of Asians.
Is that absolute proof of systemic societal racism?

The NBA argument? Really? That's all you got?

Dumbest argument ever.

Try again.

I'm interested. Why NBA shouldn't be diverse to reflect population?

No, you are humping a strawman which is entirely irrelevant for reasons you absolutely know, and I won't engage to allow you to gish gallop past the relevant point. Stop being pathetic. Try yet again.

Nope, PP has a very relevant point. Why is there a severe lack of diversity in a billion dollar industry like the NBA? Hardly any Hispanics, Asians, etc. Why is the NBA exempt from diversity that reflects the country?


Oh that's right, because the NBA only wants the best players based on their merits regardless of their race. Funny how that works in a billion dollars sports industry, yet we don't apply the same logic at universities.

Sigh. Go ahead, join in on the stupid.

There have been many instances of racism in employment in professional sports throughout history. Maybe you've heard of Jackie Robinson?

Stupid, stupid argument. Please don't make this point where people know who you are. I tell you this for your own good.

Yes racism is bad.
Also it's not absolute proof of systemic societal racism just because a certain race is severely underrepresented.

Doubling down on the stupid.

If it is "not absolute proof of systemic societal racism just because a certain race is severely underrepresented", then you can't claim any race is discriminated against in college admissions, ever.

Now I don't think that your statement is true, and I bet you don't either.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Higher education shoud be mainly for acedemic merit and must be color blind.

"Of 35,000 applicants competing for 1,600 spots in the class of 2019, 2,700 had perfect verbal SAT scores; 3,400 had perfect math SAT scores; more than 8,000 had perfect GPAs."

From the facts in the actual case. Now what?

But that are the scores of the applicants. What are the verbal SAT, math SAT, and GPA of the admitted students?

Why does that matter. Harvard would not be able to fill its seats based merely on a formula on "objective" scores like SAT scores or GPA. If they only considered perfect GPA or perfect SAT scores or whatever, they would still have to choose between applicants to fill their class. And they, as a private institution, should be able to decide that these scores are not what they are looking for in a student body. They have determined that their formula for selecting Harvard students tries to suss out potential to make an impact in some way or the other. They may be wrong. And if they are wrong, their brand value will go down. Let the market determine if their strategy is successful or not.

It matters because Harvard admitted students with very low scores in the name of R

Why can't Harvard admit students who have low test scores or no test scores at all?

They can as long as they don't discriminate against race

And the courts have found that they do not.

Sorry we have Supreme Court going on right now.
It's called 'Supreme' for a reason.

Yes, they are deciding whether or not to change decided precedent. That means these schools followed the law as it was, which is what the lower courts found. But now, this new Supreme Court may decided to change the established law (even though they aren't supposed to do that). I would not anticipate a retroactive application of it if they do change the law though.

Nope, they don't change the law.
Law makers change the law.

Yes, they do. When the overturn settled precedent, they are changing the law.

No, they can overturn precedent because it violates Constitution.
It's not making law.

And when that happens and there are no people of certain races admitted to elite colleges, then they sue, and win, (because that is absolute proof of systemic societal racism) what happens then?

No it's not absolute proof of systemic societal racism.

NBA has only 0.4% of Asians.
Is that absolute proof of systemic societal racism?

The NBA argument? Really? That's all you got?

Dumbest argument ever.

Try again.

I'm interested. Why NBA shouldn't be diverse to reflect population?

No, you are humping a strawman which is entirely irrelevant for reasons you absolutely know, and I won't engage to allow you to gish gallop past the relevant point. Stop being pathetic. Try yet again.

Nope, PP has a very relevant point. Why is there a severe lack of diversity in a billion dollar industry like the NBA? Hardly any Hispanics, Asians, etc. Why is the NBA exempt from diversity that reflects the country?


Oh that's right, because the NBA only wants the best players based on their merits regardless of their race. Funny how that works in a billion dollars sports industry, yet we don't apply the same logic at universities.

Sigh. Go ahead, join in on the stupid.

There have been many instances of racism in employment in professional sports throughout history. Maybe you've heard of Jackie Robinson?

Stupid, stupid argument. Please don't make this point where people know who you are. I tell you this for your own good.

Yes racism is bad.
Also it's not absolute proof of systemic societal racism just because a certain race is severely underrepresented.

Doubling down on the stupid.

If it is "not absolute proof of systemic societal racism just because a certain race is severely underrepresented", then you can't claim any race is discriminated against in college admissions, ever.

Now I don't think that your statement is true, and I bet you don't either.

Duh
Hardvard is accused not because Asian is severely underrepresented.
IHarvard is accused becasue it is believed that it actually practiced racial discrimination with personality score manipulation.
Duh

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Higher education shoud be mainly for acedemic merit and must be color blind.

"Of 35,000 applicants competing for 1,600 spots in the class of 2019, 2,700 had perfect verbal SAT scores; 3,400 had perfect math SAT scores; more than 8,000 had perfect GPAs."

From the facts in the actual case. Now what?

But that are the scores of the applicants. What are the verbal SAT, math SAT, and GPA of the admitted students?

Why does that matter. Harvard would not be able to fill its seats based merely on a formula on "objective" scores like SAT scores or GPA. If they only considered perfect GPA or perfect SAT scores or whatever, they would still have to choose between applicants to fill their class. And they, as a private institution, should be able to decide that these scores are not what they are looking for in a student body. They have determined that their formula for selecting Harvard students tries to suss out potential to make an impact in some way or the other. They may be wrong. And if they are wrong, their brand value will go down. Let the market determine if their strategy is successful or not.

It matters because Harvard admitted students with very low scores in the name of R

Why can't Harvard admit students who have low test scores or no test scores at all?

They can as long as they don't discriminate against race

And the courts have found that they do not.

Sorry we have Supreme Court going on right now.
It's called 'Supreme' for a reason.

Yes, they are deciding whether or not to change decided precedent. That means these schools followed the law as it was, which is what the lower courts found. But now, this new Supreme Court may decided to change the established law (even though they aren't supposed to do that). I would not anticipate a retroactive application of it if they do change the law though.

Nope, they don't change the law.
Law makers change the law.

Yes, they do. When the overturn settled precedent, they are changing the law.

No, they can overturn precedent because it violates Constitution.
It's not making law.

And when that happens and there are no people of certain races admitted to elite colleges, then they sue, and win, (because that is absolute proof of systemic societal racism) what happens then?

No it's not absolute proof of systemic societal racism.

NBA has only 0.4% of Asians.
Is that absolute proof of systemic societal racism?

The NBA argument? Really? That's all you got?

Dumbest argument ever.

Try again.

I'm interested. Why NBA shouldn't be diverse to reflect population?

No, you are humping a strawman which is entirely irrelevant for reasons you absolutely know, and I won't engage to allow you to gish gallop past the relevant point. Stop being pathetic. Try yet again.

Nope, PP has a very relevant point. Why is there a severe lack of diversity in a billion dollar industry like the NBA? Hardly any Hispanics, Asians, etc. Why is the NBA exempt from diversity that reflects the country?


Oh that's right, because the NBA only wants the best players based on their merits regardless of their race. Funny how that works in a billion dollars sports industry, yet we don't apply the same logic at universities.

Sigh. Go ahead, join in on the stupid.

There have been many instances of racism in employment in professional sports throughout history. Maybe you've heard of Jackie Robinson?

Stupid, stupid argument. Please don't make this point where people know who you are. I tell you this for your own good.

Yes racism is bad.
Also it's not absolute proof of systemic societal racism just because a certain race is severely underrepresented.

Doubling down on the stupid.

If it is "not absolute proof of systemic societal racism just because a certain race is severely underrepresented", then you can't claim any race is discriminated against in college admissions, ever.

Now I don't think that your statement is true, and I bet you don't either.

It's all about using the proper definition of representation. Black and hispanic students are OVER-represented relative to the proportion of QUALIFIED applicants to any university.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Higher education shoud be mainly for acedemic merit and must be color blind.

"Of 35,000 applicants competing for 1,600 spots in the class of 2019, 2,700 had perfect verbal SAT scores; 3,400 had perfect math SAT scores; more than 8,000 had perfect GPAs."

From the facts in the actual case. Now what?

But that are the scores of the applicants. What are the verbal SAT, math SAT, and GPA of the admitted students?

Why does that matter. Harvard would not be able to fill its seats based merely on a formula on "objective" scores like SAT scores or GPA. If they only considered perfect GPA or perfect SAT scores or whatever, they would still have to choose between applicants to fill their class. And they, as a private institution, should be able to decide that these scores are not what they are looking for in a student body. They have determined that their formula for selecting Harvard students tries to suss out potential to make an impact in some way or the other. They may be wrong. And if they are wrong, their brand value will go down. Let the market determine if their strategy is successful or not.

It matters because Harvard admitted students with very low scores in the name of R

Why can't Harvard admit students who have low test scores or no test scores at all?

They can as long as they don't discriminate against race

And the courts have found that they do not.

Sorry we have Supreme Court going on right now.
It's called 'Supreme' for a reason.

Yes, they are deciding whether or not to change decided precedent. That means these schools followed the law as it was, which is what the lower courts found. But now, this new Supreme Court may decided to change the established law (even though they aren't supposed to do that). I would not anticipate a retroactive application of it if they do change the law though.

Nope, they don't change the law.
Law makers change the law.

Yes, they do. When the overturn settled precedent, they are changing the law.

No, they can overturn precedent because it violates Constitution.
It's not making law.

And when that happens and there are no people of certain races admitted to elite colleges, then they sue, and win, (because that is absolute proof of systemic societal racism) what happens then?

No it's not absolute proof of systemic societal racism.

NBA has only 0.4% of Asians.
Is that absolute proof of systemic societal racism?

The NBA argument? Really? That's all you got?

Dumbest argument ever.

Try again.

I'm interested. Why NBA shouldn't be diverse to reflect population?

No, you are humping a strawman which is entirely irrelevant for reasons you absolutely know, and I won't engage to allow you to gish gallop past the relevant point. Stop being pathetic. Try yet again.

Nope, PP has a very relevant point. Why is there a severe lack of diversity in a billion dollar industry like the NBA? Hardly any Hispanics, Asians, etc. Why is the NBA exempt from diversity that reflects the country?


Oh that's right, because the NBA only wants the best players based on their merits regardless of their race. Funny how that works in a billion dollars sports industry, yet we don't apply the same logic at universities.

Sigh. Go ahead, join in on the stupid.

There have been many instances of racism in employment in professional sports throughout history. Maybe you've heard of Jackie Robinson?

Stupid, stupid argument. Please don't make this point where people know who you are. I tell you this for your own good.

Yes racism is bad.
Also it's not absolute proof of systemic societal racism just because a certain race is severely underrepresented.

Is a diverse class important? That is subjective. In Harvard's view, it is valuable. It is not against the law to believe this is an important attribute of a class. If they need to change their criteria to achieve that, ok.

You think the highest test scores are the most valuable criteria but that is also subjective.

Agreed. They will find another way to get the diversity they seek.

Better not be racial profiling and discrimination way

[Anonymous]

I am 100% down with dismantling AA. The sad thing is that legacy preferences will remain.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Higher education shoud be mainly for acedemic merit and must be color blind.

"Of 35,000 applicants competing for 1,600 spots in the class of 2019, 2,700 had perfect verbal SAT scores; 3,400 had perfect math SAT scores; more than 8,000 had perfect GPAs."

From the facts in the actual case. Now what?

But that are the scores of the applicants. What are the verbal SAT, math SAT, and GPA of the admitted students?

Why does that matter. Harvard would not be able to fill its seats based merely on a formula on "objective" scores like SAT scores or GPA. If they only considered perfect GPA or perfect SAT scores or whatever, they would still have to choose between applicants to fill their class. And they, as a private institution, should be able to decide that these scores are not what they are looking for in a student body. They have determined that their formula for selecting Harvard students tries to suss out potential to make an impact in some way or the other. They may be wrong. And if they are wrong, their brand value will go down. Let the market determine if their strategy is successful or not.

It matters because Harvard admitted students with very low scores in the name of R

Why can't Harvard admit students who have low test scores or no test scores at all?

They can as long as they don't discriminate against race

And the courts have found that they do not.

Sorry we have Supreme Court going on right now.
It's called 'Supreme' for a reason.

Yes, they are deciding whether or not to change decided precedent. That means these schools followed the law as it was, which is what the lower courts found. But now, this new Supreme Court may decided to change the established law (even though they aren't supposed to do that). I would not anticipate a retroactive application of it if they do change the law though.

Nope, they don't change the law.
Law makers change the law.

Yes, they do. When the overturn settled precedent, they are changing the law.

No, they can overturn precedent because it violates Constitution.
It's not making law.

And when that happens and there are no people of certain races admitted to elite colleges, then they sue, and win, (because that is absolute proof of systemic societal racism) what happens then?

No it's not absolute proof of systemic societal racism.

NBA has only 0.4% of Asians.
Is that absolute proof of systemic societal racism?

The NBA argument? Really? That's all you got?

Dumbest argument ever.

Try again.

I'm interested. Why NBA shouldn't be diverse to reflect population?

No, you are humping a strawman which is entirely irrelevant for reasons you absolutely know, and I won't engage to allow you to gish gallop past the relevant point. Stop being pathetic. Try yet again.

Nope, PP has a very relevant point. Why is there a severe lack of diversity in a billion dollar industry like the NBA? Hardly any Hispanics, Asians, etc. Why is the NBA exempt from diversity that reflects the country?


Oh that's right, because the NBA only wants the best players based on their merits regardless of their race. Funny how that works in a billion dollars sports industry, yet we don't apply the same logic at universities.

Sigh. Go ahead, join in on the stupid.

There have been many instances of racism in employment in professional sports throughout history. Maybe you've heard of Jackie Robinson?

Stupid, stupid argument. Please don't make this point where people know who you are. I tell you this for your own good.

Yes racism is bad.
Also it's not absolute proof of systemic societal racism just because a certain race is severely underrepresented.

Doubling down on the stupid.

If it is "not absolute proof of systemic societal racism just because a certain race is severely underrepresented", then you can't claim any race is discriminated against in college admissions, ever.

Now I don't think that your statement is true, and I bet you don't either.

Duh
Hardvard is accused not because Asian is severely underrepresented.
IHarvard is accused becasue it is believed that it actually practiced racial discrimination with personality score manipulation.
Duh

But Asians are over-represented already? See? If they score manipulated they would be under-represented!

You can't have it both ways. Don't be a hypocrite. It was racial data that got the lawsuit and discovery to occur. Without it that would never have occurred. You know this.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Higher education shoud be mainly for acedemic merit and must be color blind.

"Of 35,000 applicants competing for 1,600 spots in the class of 2019, 2,700 had perfect verbal SAT scores; 3,400 had perfect math SAT scores; more than 8,000 had perfect GPAs."

From the facts in the actual case. Now what?

But that are the scores of the applicants. What are the verbal SAT, math SAT, and GPA of the admitted students?

Why does that matter. Harvard would not be able to fill its seats based merely on a formula on "objective" scores like SAT scores or GPA. If they only considered perfect GPA or perfect SAT scores or whatever, they would still have to choose between applicants to fill their class. And they, as a private institution, should be able to decide that these scores are not what they are looking for in a student body. They have determined that their formula for selecting Harvard students tries to suss out potential to make an impact in some way or the other. They may be wrong. And if they are wrong, their brand value will go down. Let the market determine if their strategy is successful or not.

It matters because Harvard admitted students with very low scores in the name of R

Why can't Harvard admit students who have low test scores or no test scores at all?

They can as long as they don't discriminate against race

And the courts have found that they do not.

Sorry we have Supreme Court going on right now.
It's called 'Supreme' for a reason.

Yes, they are deciding whether or not to change decided precedent. That means these schools followed the law as it was, which is what the lower courts found. But now, this new Supreme Court may decided to change the established law (even though they aren't supposed to do that). I would not anticipate a retroactive application of it if they do change the law though.

Nope, they don't change the law.
Law makers change the law.

Yes, they do. When the overturn settled precedent, they are changing the law.

No, they can overturn precedent because it violates Constitution.
It's not making law.

And when that happens and there are no people of certain races admitted to elite colleges, then they sue, and win, (because that is absolute proof of systemic societal racism) what happens then?

No it's not absolute proof of systemic societal racism.

NBA has only 0.4% of Asians.
Is that absolute proof of systemic societal racism?

The NBA argument? Really? That's all you got?

Dumbest argument ever.

Try again.

I'm interested. Why NBA shouldn't be diverse to reflect population?

No, you are humping a strawman which is entirely irrelevant for reasons you absolutely know, and I won't engage to allow you to gish gallop past the relevant point. Stop being pathetic. Try yet again.

Nope, PP has a very relevant point. Why is there a severe lack of diversity in a billion dollar industry like the NBA? Hardly any Hispanics, Asians, etc. Why is the NBA exempt from diversity that reflects the country?


Oh that's right, because the NBA only wants the best players based on their merits regardless of their race. Funny how that works in a billion dollars sports industry, yet we don't apply the same logic at universities.

Sigh. Go ahead, join in on the stupid.

There have been many instances of racism in employment in professional sports throughout history. Maybe you've heard of Jackie Robinson?

Stupid, stupid argument. Please don't make this point where people know who you are. I tell you this for your own good.

Yes racism is bad.
Also it's not absolute proof of systemic societal racism just because a certain race is severely underrepresented.

Is a diverse class important? That is subjective. In Harvard's view, it is valuable. It is not against the law to believe this is an important attribute of a class. If they need to change their criteria to achieve that, ok.

You think the highest test scores are the most valuable criteria but that is also subjective.

Agreed. They will find another way to get the diversity they seek.

Maybe they will find a work around for their racist agenda. Kind of like how California (not very successfully) uses location as a proxy for race. These people are ideological and will never question what they are 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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Higher education shoud be mainly for acedemic merit and must be color blind.

"Of 35,000 applicants competing for 1,600 spots in the class of 2019, 2,700 had perfect verbal SAT scores; 3,400 had perfect math SAT scores; more than 8,000 had perfect GPAs."

From the facts in the actual case. Now what?

But that are the scores of the applicants. What are the verbal SAT, math SAT, and GPA of the admitted students?

Why does that matter. Harvard would not be able to fill its seats based merely on a formula on "objective" scores like SAT scores or GPA. If they only considered perfect GPA or perfect SAT scores or whatever, they would still have to choose between applicants to fill their class. And they, as a private institution, should be able to decide that these scores are not what they are looking for in a student body. They have determined that their formula for selecting Harvard students tries to suss out potential to make an impact in some way or the other. They may be wrong. And if they are wrong, their brand value will go down. Let the market determine if their strategy is successful or not.

It matters because Harvard admitted students with very low scores in the name of R

Why can't Harvard admit students who have low test scores or no test scores at all?

They can as long as they don't discriminate against race

And the courts have found that they do not.

Sorry we have Supreme Court going on right now.
It's called 'Supreme' for a reason.

Yes, they are deciding whether or not to change decided precedent. That means these schools followed the law as it was, which is what the lower courts found. But now, this new Supreme Court may decided to change the established law (even though they aren't supposed to do that). I would not anticipate a retroactive application of it if they do change the law though.

Nope, they don't change the law.
Law makers change the law.

Yes, they do. When the overturn settled precedent, they are changing the law.

No, they can overturn precedent because it violates Constitution.
It's not making law.

And when that happens and there are no people of certain races admitted to elite colleges, then they sue, and win, (because that is absolute proof of systemic societal racism) what happens then?

No it's not absolute proof of systemic societal racism.

NBA has only 0.4% of Asians.
Is that absolute proof of systemic societal racism?

The NBA argument? Really? That's all you got?

Dumbest argument ever.

Try again.

I'm interested. Why NBA shouldn't be diverse to reflect population?

No, you are humping a strawman which is entirely irrelevant for reasons you absolutely know, and I won't engage to allow you to gish gallop past the relevant point. Stop being pathetic. Try yet again.

Nope, PP has a very relevant point. Why is there a severe lack of diversity in a billion dollar industry like the NBA? Hardly any Hispanics, Asians, etc. Why is the NBA exempt from diversity that reflects the country?


Oh that's right, because the NBA only wants the best players based on their merits regardless of their race. Funny how that works in a billion dollars sports industry, yet we don't apply the same logic at universities.

Sigh. Go ahead, join in on the stupid.

There have been many instances of racism in employment in professional sports throughout history. Maybe you've heard of Jackie Robinson?

Stupid, stupid argument. Please don't make this point where people know who you are. I tell you this for your own good.

Yes racism is bad.
Also it's not absolute proof of systemic societal racism just because a certain race is severely underrepresented.

Doubling down on the stupid.

If it is "not absolute proof of systemic societal racism just because a certain race is severely underrepresented", then you can't claim any race is discriminated against in college admissions, ever.

Now I don't think that your statement is true, and I bet you don't either.

It's all about using the proper definition of representation. Black and hispanic students are OVER-represented relative to the proportion of QUALIFIED applicants to any university.

Thanks for putting your tell in ALL CAPS - that you think that you get to decide what QUALIFIED is.

Do you get to tell Goldman Sachs who is qualified for who they hire? Or Apple? Or your local grocer? Why not?

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Higher education shoud be mainly for acedemic merit and must be color blind.

"Of 35,000 applicants competing for 1,600 spots in the class of 2019, 2,700 had perfect verbal SAT scores; 3,400 had perfect math SAT scores; more than 8,000 had perfect GPAs."

From the facts in the actual case. Now what?

But that are the scores of the applicants. What are the verbal SAT, math SAT, and GPA of the admitted students?

Why does that matter. Harvard would not be able to fill its seats based merely on a formula on "objective" scores like SAT scores or GPA. If they only considered perfect GPA or perfect SAT scores or whatever, they would still have to choose between applicants to fill their class. And they, as a private institution, should be able to decide that these scores are not what they are looking for in a student body. They have determined that their formula for selecting Harvard students tries to suss out potential to make an impact in some way or the other. They may be wrong. And if they are wrong, their brand value will go down. Let the market determine if their strategy is successful or not.

It matters because Harvard admitted students with very low scores in the name of R

Why can't Harvard admit students who have low test scores or no test scores at all?

They can as long as they don't discriminate against race

And the courts have found that they do not.

Sorry we have Supreme Court going on right now.
It's called 'Supreme' for a reason.

Yes, they are deciding whether or not to change decided precedent. That means these schools followed the law as it was, which is what the lower courts found. But now, this new Supreme Court may decided to change the established law (even though they aren't supposed to do that). I would not anticipate a retroactive application of it if they do change the law though.

Nope, they don't change the law.
Law makers change the law.

Yes, they do. When the overturn settled precedent, they are changing the law.

No, they can overturn precedent because it violates Constitution.
It's not making law.

And when that happens and there are no people of certain races admitted to elite colleges, then they sue, and win, (because that is absolute proof of systemic societal racism) what happens then?

No it's not absolute proof of systemic societal racism.

NBA has only 0.4% of Asians.
Is that absolute proof of systemic societal racism?

The NBA argument? Really? That's all you got?

Dumbest argument ever.

Try again.

I'm interested. Why NBA shouldn't be diverse to reflect population?

No, you are humping a strawman which is entirely irrelevant for reasons you absolutely know, and I won't engage to allow you to gish gallop past the relevant point. Stop being pathetic. Try yet again.

Nope, PP has a very relevant point. Why is there a severe lack of diversity in a billion dollar industry like the NBA? Hardly any Hispanics, Asians, etc. Why is the NBA exempt from diversity that reflects the country?


Oh that's right, because the NBA only wants the best players based on their merits regardless of their race. Funny how that works in a billion dollars sports industry, yet we don't apply the same logic at universities.

Sigh. Go ahead, join in on the stupid.

There have been many instances of racism in employment in professional sports throughout history. Maybe you've heard of Jackie Robinson?

Stupid, stupid argument. Please don't make this point where people know who you are. I tell you this for your own good.

Yes racism is bad.
Also it's not absolute proof of systemic societal racism just because a certain race is severely underrepresented.

Is a diverse class important? That is subjective. In Harvard's view, it is valuable. It is not against the law to believe this is an important attribute of a class. If they need to change their criteria to achieve that, ok.

You think the highest test scores are the most valuable criteria but that is also subjective.

Agreed. They will find another way to get the diversity they seek.

They better find a way to be more careful or they'll just lose the next lawsuit too,

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Higher education shoud be mainly for acedemic merit and must be color blind.

"Of 35,000 applicants competing for 1,600 spots in the class of 2019, 2,700 had perfect verbal SAT scores; 3,400 had perfect math SAT scores; more than 8,000 had perfect GPAs."

From the facts in the actual case. Now what?

But that are the scores of the applicants. What are the verbal SAT, math SAT, and GPA of the admitted students?

Why does that matter. Harvard would not be able to fill its seats based merely on a formula on "objective" scores like SAT scores or GPA. If they only considered perfect GPA or perfect SAT scores or whatever, they would still have to choose between applicants to fill their class. And they, as a private institution, should be able to decide that these scores are not what they are looking for in a student body. They have determined that their formula for selecting Harvard students tries to suss out potential to make an impact in some way or the other. They may be wrong. And if they are wrong, their brand value will go down. Let the market determine if their strategy is successful or not.

It matters because Harvard admitted students with very low scores in the name of R

Why can't Harvard admit students who have low test scores or no test scores at all?

They can as long as they don't discriminate against race

And the courts have found that they do not.

Sorry we have Supreme Court going on right now.
It's called 'Supreme' for a reason.

Yes, they are deciding whether or not to change decided precedent. That means these schools followed the law as it was, which is what the lower courts found. But now, this new Supreme Court may decided to change the established law (even though they aren't supposed to do that). I would not anticipate a retroactive application of it if they do change the law though.

Nope, they don't change the law.
Law makers change the law.

Yes, they do. When the overturn settled precedent, they are changing the law.

No, they can overturn precedent because it violates Constitution.
It's not making law.

And when that happens and there are no people of certain races admitted to elite colleges, then they sue, and win, (because that is absolute proof of systemic societal racism) what happens then?

No it's not absolute proof of systemic societal racism.

NBA has only 0.4% of Asians.
Is that absolute proof of systemic societal racism?

The NBA argument? Really? That's all you got?

Dumbest argument ever.

Try again.

I'm interested. Why NBA shouldn't be diverse to reflect population?

No, you are humping a strawman which is entirely irrelevant for reasons you absolutely know, and I won't engage to allow you to gish gallop past the relevant point. Stop being pathetic. Try yet again.

Nope, PP has a very relevant point. Why is there a severe lack of diversity in a billion dollar industry like the NBA? Hardly any Hispanics, Asians, etc. Why is the NBA exempt from diversity that reflects the country?


Oh that's right, because the NBA only wants the best players based on their merits regardless of their race. Funny how that works in a billion dollars sports industry, yet we don't apply the same logic at universities.

Sigh. Go ahead, join in on the stupid.

There have been many instances of racism in employment in professional sports throughout history. Maybe you've heard of Jackie Robinson?

Stupid, stupid argument. Please don't make this point where people know who you are. I tell you this for your own good.

Yes racism is bad.
Also it's not absolute proof of systemic societal racism just because a certain race is severely underrepresented.

Doubling down on the stupid.

If it is "not absolute proof of systemic societal racism just because a certain race is severely underrepresented", then you can't claim any race is discriminated against in college admissions, ever.

Now I don't think that your statement is true, and I bet you don't either.

It's all about using the proper definition of representation. Black and hispanic students are OVER-represented relative to the proportion of QUALIFIED applicants to any university.

Thanks for putting your tell in ALL CAPS - that you think that you get to decide what QUALIFIED is.

Do you get to tell Goldman Sachs who is qualified for who they hire? Or Apple? Or your local grocer? Why not?

We do get to tell employers that they are not allowed to discriminate on the basis of race