US Supreme Court Rules Against Affirmative Action in College Admissions

[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!

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.

For those of you who are a bit slow, once again: “Clarence Thomas himself has said that he was the recipient of AA in college/law school admissions.”

What are you trying to argue about here?!?

[Anonymous]

Asian-American students in our community have gained admission to elite schools over the years by presenting extracurriculars tied to their Saturday Schools as markers of "cultural authenticity" or ethnic "color." Being bilingual and functioning as leaders in their Chinese-American neighborhood = URM hook status. I kind of wonder if that will be a good strategy now. Maybe the implications of these lawsuits were not fully considered. Possibly this has all backfired.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Agree. This line in Justice Brown's dissent gave me chills. Her entire dissent was so sharp. Why is it ok to have race-based admission and affirmative action for military schools but not non-military college? Very interesting Roberts carved out that exception explicitly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

think about it. The school, the recommendation letter, the essay.

[Anonymous]

I have some questions:

1. Does this mean the race box goes away?

2. Does this mean the race box goes away immediately or next cycle?

3. Does this mean that colleges can't take an educated guess re: race and use that in consideration (ie, looking at name, zip, clubs, parents HSBCU legacy, etc)?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Asian-American students in our community have gained admission to elite schools over the years by presenting extracurriculars tied to their Saturday Schools as markers of "cultural authenticity" or ethnic "color." Being bilingual and functioning as leaders in their Chinese-American neighborhood = URM hook status. I kind of wonder if that will be a good strategy now. Maybe the implications of these lawsuits were not fully considered. Possibly this has all backfired.

I dont get what you're saying as it's been harder to be admitted to the elite schools as Asian American. I know kids who purposefully left clubs off their application.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Clarence is NONE of those things. History (and the present) will not be kind to him. The AAMHC excluded him from their initial exhibits and he was whining and moaning about it to anyone who would listen.

The vast majority of educated and accomplished Black people regard Clarence with considerable disdain.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have some questions:

1. Does this mean the race box goes away?

2. Does this mean the race box goes away immediately or next cycle?

3. Does this mean that colleges can't take an educated guess re: race and use that in consideration (ie, looking at name, zip, clubs, parents HSBCU legacy, etc)?

This thread is so long and cluttered, it would be worth posting this as a standalone thread.

[Anonymous]

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

I am Asian and totally agree.

But your language like "overrun" shows us how you really feel.

[Anonymous]

I mean, who cares if you can’t go to Harvard, or Yale or whatever? It’s just another label. Lots of people going to these schools who probably don’t deserve to be there. If you even remotely quality to go to Harvard, I think you’ll be just fine wherever you end up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have some questions:

1. Does this mean the race box goes away?

2. Does this mean the race box goes away immediately or next cycle?

3. Does this mean that colleges can't take an educated guess re: race and use that in consideration (ie, looking at name, zip, clubs, parents HSBCU legacy, etc)?

DP. Adding on..

4. If the checkbox does not go away, and a kid lies about their race, would that be grounds for dismissal if later discovered?

[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

True. Isn't summers the same idiot that said women are genetically inferior in certain fields, like mathematics?

Harvard has been running scared for the last few years. In anticipation of their big loss, it's been increasing Asian seats each year.


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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I mean, who cares if you can’t go to Harvard, or Yale or whatever? It’s just another label. Lots of people going to these schools who probably don’t deserve to be there. If you even remotely quality to go to Harvard, I think you’ll be just fine wherever you end up.

Harvard literally admits black folk with SAT scores lower than the typical student at UMBC

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Asian-American students in our community have gained admission to elite schools over the years by presenting extracurriculars tied to their Saturday Schools as markers of "cultural authenticity" or ethnic "color." Being bilingual and functioning as leaders in their Chinese-American neighborhood = URM hook status. I kind of wonder if that will be a good strategy now. Maybe the implications of these lawsuits were not fully considered. Possibly this has all backfired.

I dont get what you're saying as it's been harder to be admitted to the elite schools as Asian American. I know kids who purposefully left clubs off their application.

So they had to go to Swarthmore rather than Harvard?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nothing will change. Listen to a podcast from a few mos back w/ UC Berkeley admissions head who said that they look at other factors that imply race.

Well - you can’t use “other factors” to intentionally reach the same racially discriminatory result. If the Cal admissions head was claiming they use other data as a proxy for race to the same ends that the Court just outlawed, that’s still a violation.

But what if they are NOT using other data as a proxy for race/ethnicity? What if they use that zip code data simply for those ends: geographic diversity? That will still be legal. What if they use first gen data? That will still be legal. What if they try to get students from more rural and urban high schools v suburban high schools? That will still be legal. Or students with economic hardship? That will still be legal.

These are not proxies for race. They are entirely separate considerations and they are not outlawed (in my reading). But if they are please point me to the paragraph in the Opinion that shows otherwise.