US Supreme Court Rules Against Affirmative Action in College Admissions

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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

Sounds like bunch of BS to me

[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.

The lawsuit already works. Asian presence at Harvard has been increasing for the past 2;years, since the lawsuit.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna77923

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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."

There are statutory laws banning racial discrimination. And what are you going on about?? These were specific cases against specific policies. No one was challenging gender consciousness! In any event, in our legal system, racial discrimination is subject to “strict scrutiny” while gender distinctions are subject to less scrutiny (“intermediate scrutiny”) because there are non-superficial differences between men and women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

They always used subjective factors well before this ruling.

[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!

You don’t know what his GPA/test scores were, if he ever even took a standardized test, though probably stellar compared to most kids of all races today. We are failing to acknowledge that the best and brightest don’t all present the same way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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

Caught a typo - should be "billions"

[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.

I don’t think you understand the constitutional arguments here. The constitution prohibits discrimination based on race, it doesn’t prohibit discrimination based on wealth, athletic ability, connections, etc . . .

I don’t agree with the decision but it doesn’t help the cause to be making nonsensical arguments.

If schools eliminate wealth , athletic ability and connections as admissions factors, it wouldn't be discrimination.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And don't get me started on the irony of Justice Thomas' personal narrative arguing against it.

+1

Thomas' wife Ginni Thomas has been very critical of "critical race theory" and the inclusion of using personal narratives so I agree him doing this specifically in this opinion was very ironic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have sat in admissions rooms when decisions are being made.

We can now all sit in that same room, never mention race, never see race box-checks, and practically configure the same class of admittees.

The joke's on y'all.

How? Spill it

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

Sounds like bunch of BS to me

Sounds like Harvard is going to read essays even more closely (checking against names and other background information), and keep doing what it has been doing.

Anyone who is expecting a seismic shift in racial demographics at Harvard will probably be disappointed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

Caught a typo - should be "billions"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Thanks for clarifying. I think Justice Thomas is brilliant and way ahead of his time. Liberals are especially vicious to him because being a black and a conservative challenges their core stereotypes about what black people believe and need. I think history will be kind to him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

Sounds like bunch of BS to me

+1 Absolutely BS!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

Sounds like bunch of BS to me

In other words, they're going to completely ignore the ruling and do everything possible to go around it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

If you zoom out over the last 30-40 years, the racial makeup still skews overwhelmingly white, doesn’t it? Sure, it’s not as white as it used to be, but still pretty white. Besides, you’re thinking primarily kids of first-generation alumni — i.e. the applicants’ parents went but not their grandparents. If you add in all the families where they have 3 or more generations of alumni from the same school, that’s definitely going to swing it really hard toward old-money WASP families.