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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Harvard is going to lose. Deservedly so. Amazing how many Asian kids over the years just didn’t have that winsome personality score that other applicants had. Truly a mystery wrapped inside a racist enigma.

Raced based admissions is a joke on every level. Go look up the highest achieving races in America and see what you find. They ain’t white. Trying to frame race based admissions being overturned as the white man keeping people down is ludicrous and an insult to the intelligence of anyone with functional brain cells.

Harvard didn’t screw over Asian kids so that more people from Compton could be admitted. If anyone thinks that for real, I am surprised they can tie their own shoelaces. It was and will be forever a way to protect the admits they wanted to admit. Hint: Not kids from Compton.

A system that treats an Appalachian white kid as privileged and a Nigerian mineral heir as oppressed is absurd and evil. If Harvard or any of these other ridiculous preening universities truly cared, they would pour hundreds of millions into k-12 schooling for economically disadvantaged kids across the country. But they don’t and they won’t.

Harvard is only one school - with a 3% acceptance rate.

There will still be a heck of a lot of Asian Americans rejected.

In other words, despite your babbling, your kid isn't getting in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So if a kid mentions their race or references it in an essay, what is the "fair admission" guy saying? That AOs can't use the essay?

That was one of the questions asked by (I think) Justice Jackson. There was no direct answer.

Eventually agreed that it is probably ok in that context, since an Asian student could also reference in their essay eg. discrimination that they may also have faced growing up.

I heard Jackson ask whether if you have 2 kids, one whose family has lived in NC for 5 generations and gone to UNC for 5 generations, and one whose family has lived in NC for 5 generations and could not go to UNC for 5 generations because of slavery, could they each say it was important to them to go to UNC for those reasons and could UNC consider each of those stories as factors and the plaintiffs' lawyer basically said UNC could consider the first and not the second (though he did say UNC could refuse to consider the first, and could consider first gen or low SES students).

It sounds so stpuid a kid born in 2023 is affected by the slavery of his/her slave ancestors.

Yes, stupid and very sad that this is true.

How is the kid affected by slavery today?

I wrote quite a bit about the impacts of slavery that are still very much with us — and I erased it all. Instead, I’ll flip it.

If your parents or grandparents or great great grandparents came to this country in search of a better life — and actually found one, how does this affect kids in your family today?

Except just one generation ago, first gen meant absolutely nothing in admissions.

You reap what you sow.

In fact, it was something to hide.

The whole system is a mess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So if a kid mentions their race or references it in an essay, what is the "fair admission" guy saying? That AOs can't use the essay?

That was one of the questions asked by (I think) Justice Jackson. There was no direct answer.

Eventually agreed that it is probably ok in that context, since an Asian student could also reference in their essay eg. discrimination that they may also have faced growing up.

I heard Jackson ask whether if you have 2 kids, one whose family has lived in NC for 5 generations and gone to UNC for 5 generations, and one whose family has lived in NC for 5 generations and could not go to UNC for 5 generations because of slavery, could they each say it was important to them to go to UNC for those reasons and could UNC consider each of those stories as factors and the plaintiffs' lawyer basically said UNC could consider the first and not the second (though he did say UNC could refuse to consider the first, and could consider first gen or low SES students).

It sounds so stpuid a kid born in 2023 is affected by the slavery of his/her slave ancestors.

Yes, stupid and very sad that this is true.

How is the kid affected by slavery today?

I wrote quite a bit about the impacts of slavery that are still very much with us — and I erased it all. Instead, I’ll flip it.

If your parents or grandparents or great great grandparents came to this country in search of a better life — and actually found one, how does this affect kids in your family today?

Do you think Blacks in the US today would have been better if their ancestors stayed in somewhere Africa so they are in Africa today?

Unlikely but choice matters. I wonder if we asked today, many from African countries would volunteer to come here as slaves.

Your ignorance is showing.

I bet you don't know a single African. They have pride. They don't come here to slave. That's why they outperform native born whites and blacks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So if a kid mentions their race or references it in an essay, what is the "fair admission" guy saying? That AOs can't use the essay?

That was one of the questions asked by (I think) Justice Jackson. There was no direct answer.

Eventually agreed that it is probably ok in that context, since an Asian student could also reference in their essay eg. discrimination that they may also have faced growing up.

I heard Jackson ask whether if you have 2 kids, one whose family has lived in NC for 5 generations and gone to UNC for 5 generations, and one whose family has lived in NC for 5 generations and could not go to UNC for 5 generations because of slavery, could they each say it was important to them to go to UNC for those reasons and could UNC consider each of those stories as factors and the plaintiffs' lawyer basically said UNC could consider the first and not the second (though he did say UNC could refuse to consider the first, and could consider first gen or low SES students).

It sounds so stpuid a kid born in 2023 is affected by the slavery of his/her slave ancestors.

Yes, stupid and very sad that this is true.

How is the kid affected by slavery today?

I wrote quite a bit about the impacts of slavery that are still very much with us — and I erased it all. Instead, I’ll flip it.

If your parents or grandparents or great great grandparents came to this country in search of a better life — and actually found one, how does this affect kids in your family today?

Do you think Blacks in the US today would have been better if their ancestors stayed in somewhere Africa so they are in Africa today?

Unlikely but choice matters. I wonder if we asked today, many from African countries would volunteer to come here as slaves.

Your ignorance is showing.

I bet you don't know a single African. They have pride. They don't come here to slave. That's why they outperform native born whites and blacks.

But they still get plus points for being Black?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why can’t they just put on the application “were your ancestors even enslaved in the United States”

how would they confirm that?

[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:So if a kid mentions their race or references it in an essay, what is the "fair admission" guy saying? That AOs can't use the essay?

That was one of the questions asked by (I think) Justice Jackson. There was no direct answer.

Eventually agreed that it is probably ok in that context, since an Asian student could also reference in their essay eg. discrimination that they may also have faced growing up.

I heard Jackson ask whether if you have 2 kids, one whose family has lived in NC for 5 generations and gone to UNC for 5 generations, and one whose family has lived in NC for 5 generations and could not go to UNC for 5 generations because of slavery, could they each say it was important to them to go to UNC for those reasons and could UNC consider each of those stories as factors and the plaintiffs' lawyer basically said UNC could consider the first and not the second (though he did say UNC could refuse to consider the first, and could consider first gen or low SES students).

It sounds so stpuid a kid born in 2023 is affected by the slavery of his/her slave ancestors.

Yes, stupid and very sad that this is true.

How is the kid affected by slavery today?

I wrote quite a bit about the impacts of slavery that are still very much with us — and I erased it all. Instead, I’ll flip it.

If your parents or grandparents or great great grandparents came to this country in search of a better life — and actually found one, how does this affect kids in your family today?

Do you think Blacks in the US today would have been better if their ancestors stayed in somewhere Africa so they are in Africa today?

Unlikely but choice matters. I wonder if we asked today, many from African countries would volunteer to come here as slaves.

Your ignorance is showing.

I bet you don't know a single African. They have pride. They don't come here to slave. That's why they outperform native born whites and blacks.

But they still get plus points for being Black?

And they should. Do you think the racist cop pulling them over for no reason or shooting them stops to ask if they were born in the US or Africa? How about the rednecks shooting them when they go out for a jog? Do you think they care if the person is African or American born? How about the store security guard following them around? Does the guard do a passport check?

Just a few examples of how it’s different for black folks.

[Anonymous]

Have any of you heard the arguments by the two sides?
I thought Waxman, the Harvard lawyer was combative, weaved and dodged on several questions and at one time had to be told to keep quiet and let the Justices ask their question!!!

Basically both Harvard and UBC couldn't answer five basic questions satisfactorily

1) Give a clear succinct definition of Diversity, explain tangible benefits to the university community of pursuing it and how they measure it

2) How and when will they know when they can stop using race conscious admissions to achieve diversity and his long they think it will take

3) If Diversity is that important, why aren't Harvard and UNC ready to use race neutral options while sacrificing other factors like academic achievement, scores, SES etc to fill their class. Clearly they can do it, they just don't want to, given the trade-offs they will need to make

4) Harvard could not explain the blatant disparity in the personality scores, even after repeatedly being questioned on it

5) If they admit they are making progress( both Harvard Ave UNC admitted this) then why is their process essentially the same as it was when Bakke was decided ( Basically, why aren't race conscious admissions becoming less and less important). Waxman, really stumbled on this question.

Given all that and the hard push back from the conservative justices, I don't think Harvard and UNC will prevail here.

Maybe Roberts will try for a compromise

[Anonymous]

Judge: Define diversity
Lawyer for NC: We define Diversity as a diverse...... LOL.
Judge: How to you achieve diversity without looking at numbers?
Lawyer for NC: We don't have quotas.
Judge: let me ask again, how to you know you have achieved diversity without keeping an eye on the numbers?
Lawyer: We do individual Holistic review .... LOL

That was Brutal. I felt bad for him

[Anonymous]

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?

Somethings happening with the SAT that there are that many perfect scores. There used to be that many scoring over 700.

I’m not sure what time periods your comparing, but one issue is that more people are deliberately prepared for the SATs, and more people are spending more time — both in and outside of school — preparing for them. Many years ago, outside perhaps some of prep-schools, most students just took the tests one time, with zero specific preparation. The thought, then, was that the SATs reflected ability more than the predictable results of a decade or more of coaching.

tldr: more kids being coached means more kids with higher—and even perfect — scores.

The tests have been recentered using a much larger population of test-takers. Average scores are significantly higher because of this.

But perfect 800 scores?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Harvard didn’t screw over Asian kids so that more people from Compton could be admitted. If anyone thinks that for real, I am surprised they can tie their own shoelaces. It was and will be forever a way to protect the admits they wanted to admit. Hint: Not kids from Compton.

Compton isn't as black as you think it is.

[Anonymous]

Some of the justices were saying race isn't important to admissions, and that eliminating race from admissions would have a severe impact on blacks and hispanics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Have any of you heard the arguments by the two sides?
I thought Waxman, the Harvard lawyer was combative, weaved and dodged on several questions and at one time had to be told to keep quiet and let the Justices ask their question!!!

Basically both Harvard and UBC couldn't answer five basic questions satisfactorily

1) Give a clear succinct definition of Diversity, explain tangible benefits to the university community of pursuing it and how they measure it

2) How and when will they know when they can stop using race conscious admissions to achieve diversity and his long they think it will take

3) If Diversity is that important, why aren't Harvard and UNC ready to use race neutral options while sacrificing other factors like academic achievement, scores, SES etc to fill their class. Clearly they can do it, they just don't want to, given the trade-offs they will need to make

4) Harvard could not explain the blatant disparity in the personality scores, even after repeatedly being questioned on it

5) If they admit they are making progress( both Harvard Ave UNC admitted this) then why is their process essentially the same as it was when Bakke was decided ( Basically, why aren't race conscious admissions becoming less and less important). Waxman, really stumbled on this question.

Given all that and the hard push back from the conservative justices, I don't think Harvard and UNC will prevail here.

Maybe Roberts will try for a compromise

I don't even agree with his views but counsel for FAIR (Patrick Strawbridge) was phenomenal. His rebuttal at the end was like a master class in getting clear succinct points across in a persuasive way. Whether it's good policy or accurate or not, just a very straightforward and credible message.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Have any of you heard the arguments by the two sides?
I thought Waxman, the Harvard lawyer was combative, weaved and dodged on several questions and at one time had to be told to keep quiet and let the Justices ask their question!!!

Basically both Harvard and UBC couldn't answer five basic questions satisfactorily

1) Give a clear succinct definition of Diversity, explain tangible benefits to the university community of pursuing it and how they measure it

2) How and when will they know when they can stop using race conscious admissions to achieve diversity and his long they think it will take

3) If Diversity is that important, why aren't Harvard and UNC ready to use race neutral options while sacrificing other factors like academic achievement, scores, SES etc to fill their class. Clearly they can do it, they just don't want to, given the trade-offs they will need to make

4) Harvard could not explain the blatant disparity in the personality scores, even after repeatedly being questioned on it

5) If they admit they are making progress( both Harvard Ave UNC admitted this) then why is their process essentially the same as it was when Bakke was decided ( Basically, why aren't race conscious admissions becoming less and less important). Waxman, really stumbled on this question.

Given all that and the hard push back from the conservative justices, I don't think Harvard and UNC will prevail here.

Maybe Roberts will try for a compromise

Where can I find audio of the oral argument? Supreme Ct website says it's available same day ilbut I don't see a link. Your post makes me want to listen to it!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why can’t they just put on the application “were your ancestors even enslaved in the United States”

how would they confirm that?

You don’t think people can trace their family back to becoming free?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So if a kid mentions their race or references it in an essay, what is the "fair admission" guy saying? That AOs can't use the essay?

That was one of the questions asked by (I think) Justice Jackson. There was no direct answer.

Eventually agreed that it is probably ok in that context, since an Asian student could also reference in their essay eg. discrimination that they may also have faced growing up.

I heard Jackson ask whether if you have 2 kids, one whose family has lived in NC for 5 generations and gone to UNC for 5 generations, and one whose family has lived in NC for 5 generations and could not go to UNC for 5 generations because of slavery, could they each say it was important to them to go to UNC for those reasons and could UNC consider each of those stories as factors and the plaintiffs' lawyer basically said UNC could consider the first and not the second (though he did say UNC could refuse to consider the first, and could consider first gen or low SES students).

It sounds so stpuid a kid born in 2023 is affected by the slavery of his/her slave ancestors.

Yes, stupid and very sad that this is true.

How is the kid affected by slavery today?

I wrote quite a bit about the impacts of slavery that are still very much with us — and I erased it all. Instead, I’ll flip it.

If your parents or grandparents or great great grandparents came to this country in search of a better life — and actually found one, how does this affect kids in your family today?

Do you think Blacks in the US today would have been better if their ancestors stayed in somewhere Africa so they are in Africa today?

Unlikely but choice matters. I wonder if we asked today, many from African countries would volunteer to come here as slaves.

Your ignorance is showing.

I bet you don't know a single African. They have pride. They don't come here to slave. That's why they outperform native born whites and blacks.

I'm not talking about pride or lack of it. Everyone in underdeveloped countries doesn't have similar abilities or options, desperation is real.