US Supreme Court Rules Against Affirmative Action in College Admissions

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So now we have one essay topic for all the URMs.

Harship from the racism LMFAO

AOs will get sick and tired of reading about it LMAO

Everyone will be writing about this: black, white, Asian.

I'm glad I don't have an applicant for a few years so I can see how this works out.

In 23-24 I bet 95% of applicants of any color write about racial hardship.

Yeah . I can't wait to see what white people write about racial hardship.

The college has no way of knowing that they are white. They can write whatever they want and become whomever they want in their essays.

And what will they do when the rest of their application (name, neighborhood, school, ECs, etc) directly contradict their essays? Denied, based on fraud.

Well today, if a man feels like woman, they are woman.
Anything wrong with feeling like a Black today? I like rap music and basketball.

You actaully get a bonus points for being a LGBTQ

Source?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.





Blaming slavery well into the 21st century.
I can't really buy that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

"There's no cabal against Asian students" says the person openly espousing racist anti-Asian views.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Am I the only one here seeing the benefit of having more URM medical doctors in our society? For years, mostly white, male doctors have learned how diseases affect white males. More diverse groups of physicians, researchers have discovered how patients of color are affected by certain ailments. I am not saying that white male doctors have not done research on the health of URMs. The same probably happens in other areas of research. I am not an expert on any of this, just commenting on a few articles I have read throughout the years.

DH is a specialized physician. The hospital has been saying for years how they HAVE to hire a black physician in his department. They have yet to hire one. There are so few residents and fellows who graduate a black physician in this field.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No, it will vastly different.

[Anonymous]

Everyone seems to believe they are more entitled and more deserving than anyone else, they are more unique, harder working, faced more hardships etc. What a mess the US has become. Recognizing and valuing diversity is our weakness, rather than becoming an actual united country, we are a bunch of babies fighting over who deserves what.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Am I the only one here seeing the benefit of having more URM medical doctors in our society? For years, mostly white, male doctors have learned how diseases affect white males. More diverse groups of physicians, researchers have discovered how patients of color are affected by certain ailments. I am not saying that white male doctors have not done research on the health of URMs. The same probably happens in other areas of research. I am not an expert on any of this, just commenting on a few articles I have read throughout the years.

DH is a specialized physician. The hospital has been saying for years how they HAVE to hire a black physician in his department. They have yet to hire one. There are so few residents and fellows who graduate a black physician in this field.

But the woke don't care about that. They only care whether a black or brown is hired even if less qualified

[Anonymous]

Here is Harvard’s response- in case it hasn’t yet been posted (didn’t read the entire thread)

Dear Members of the Harvard Community,

Today, the Supreme Court delivered its decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College. The Court held that Harvard College’s admissions system does not comply with the principles of the equal protection clause embodied in Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. The Court also ruled that colleges and universities may consider in admissions decisions “an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise.” We will certainly comply with the Court’s decision.

We write today to reaffirm the fundamental principle that deep and transformative teaching, learning, and research depend upon a community comprising people of many backgrounds, perspectives, and lived experiences. That principle is as true and important today as it was yesterday. So too are the abiding values that have enabled us—and every great educational institution—to pursue the high calling of educating creative thinkers and bold leaders, of deepening human knowledge, and of promoting progress, justice, and human flourishing.
We affirm that:
Because the teaching, learning, research, and creativity that bring progress and change require debate and disagreement, diversity and difference are essential to academic excellence.
To prepare leaders for a complex world, Harvard must admit and educate a student body whose members reflect, and have lived, multiple facets of human experience. No part of what makes us who we are could ever be irrelevant.
Harvard must always be a place of opportunity, a place whose doors remain open to those to whom they had long been closed, a place where many will have the chance to live dreams their parents or grandparents could not have dreamed.
For almost a decade, Harvard has vigorously defended an admissions system that, as two federal courts ruled, fully complied with longstanding precedent. In the weeks and months ahead, drawing on the talent and expertise of our Harvard community, we will determine how to preserve, consistent with the Court’s new precedent, our essential values.

The heart of our extraordinary institution is its people. Harvard will continue to be a vibrant community whose members come from all walks of life, all over the world. To our students, faculty, staff, researchers, and alumni—past, present, and future—who call Harvard your home, please know that you are, and always will be, Harvard. Your remarkable contributions to our community and the world drive Harvard’s distinction. Nothing today has changed that.

Sincerely,

Lawrence S. Bacow
President, Harvard University

[Anonymous]

So, there can never be an objective standard for admissions. There is always subjective judgment applied because there are limited spots. Someone is always left out.
It seems that this decision will allow for more hidden discrimination, not eliminate it, because admissions will be able to use subjective factors to make decisions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous[b wrote:]Praise the Lord!!!

[/b]

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Blaming slavery well into the 21st century.
I can't really buy that.


Thanks non-Black person for your irrelevant opinion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Am I the only one here seeing the benefit of having more URM medical doctors in our society? For years, mostly white, male doctors have learned how diseases affect white males. More diverse groups of physicians, researchers have discovered how patients of color are affected by certain ailments. I am not saying that white male doctors have not done research on the health of URMs. The same probably happens in other areas of research. I am not an expert on any of this, just commenting on a few articles I have read throughout the years.

DH is a specialized physician. The hospital has been saying for years how they HAVE to hire a black physician in his department. They have yet to hire one. There are so few residents and fellows who graduate a black physician in this field.

But the woke don't care about that. They only care whether a black or brown is hired even if less qualified

Maybe the patients care about having a physician who speaks their language and understands their cultural traditions, and yes, that could be a person of any race.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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!”

I’m the person you’re responding to (different than the other posters in this thread). I was responding to the person who talked about lower standards and Thomas’s success. I absolutely believe that his “success” is based on lowered standards that were used to advance conservatives’ political agenda. His time at the EEOC and the bench prove that. He’s incompetent. Argue with yourself.

Examples of two brilliant and highly capable Justices, beneficiaries of AA or not: Justices Marshall and Brown Jackson.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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'.

Wow dude...calm down. Again, how can the legacy pool be any different than the %ages of the school for the last 30-40 years. You still didn't answer the question of why you think there is a direct connection between the AA decision and eliminating any of this. You just went postal about how you think it is wrong...that wasn't my point.

NONE of my Asian Ivy league grad friends want to get rid of legacy status. It is a theoretical argument until it isn't. Basically, nobody that has legacy status wants to get rid of legacy status. NONE. If your kid gets into Harvard, you won't want it removed either.

Regarding athletics...if you are going to have a sports team, then you are going to need athletes to play on that team. What are you proposing? No more athletic teams? Just accept whomever and then hope enough kids are able to field a reasonably competitive lacrosse team?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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!”

Merriam-Webster has, as one of its definitions of irony: “incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result”. What people generally expect is for someone who benefited from a program to be favorable toward that program (e.g. Sotomayor’s view of AA), but Thomas had the opposite reaction, making his experience ironic. Doesn’t mean it’s good or bad, just ironic.