Post SCOTUS Ruling: Let the Essays Begin

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It will result in lots of trauma essays and I’m a good ally essays.

My African American DS refuses to write a trauma essay in response to this type of question. Although he has been profiled by police and in stores, he is upper middle class and doesn't think it is appropriate to construct an essay around racial identity/ trauma or else you are low-income, something significant happened that negatively impacted his life, discrimination in an educational setting, attend an under-resourced school. etc.

This. The people most concerned about someone signaling their race via essays and getting some advantage are probably the ones that are the least concerned about actual racism AND are the most likely to bend the rules when it suits them. Like the PP my kid isn’t writing about something they don’t feel significantly impacted their lives. My older kid didn’t in their essays two years ago, my youngest isn’t this upcoming year, I didn’t either when I applied in the 90’s. It’s like the “how did COVID impact your life” optional prompt - the majority of people didn’t use it and you would assume the people that did were significantly impacted.

In a sense it doesn’t matter what SCOTUS ruled, what colleges will or won’t do, how many URMS do or do not write about racial identity or trauma because if there is even one URM (before, during and after affirmative action) it will be assumed that they “took” someone’s place. The reasons said out loud to justify that feeling may be change through the years but the underlying reason stays the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The essays will be annoying even for URMs, being asked by colleges to "sell trauma," as a recent article on this discussed.

What about the National Recognition Programs for URMs from College Board? They expanded during COVID, including not only the top 10% of PSAT scorers per group by state, but also those with a 3 on two AP exams, not a very high bar. Back door?

“Back door” expressly forbidden by scotus.

Correct. Most people never read the ruling. The papers like to quote the Roberts passage, but he also warned against using it as a backdoor. The court couldn't (as it never would have wanted to) rule that colleges couldn't tell kids what to talk about in the essays. But schools will need to tread carefully because as long as someone can show a pattern of admitting one race at a lower standard measured by grades and scores, they open themselves up to lawsuits.

Don't worry: the top colleges have excellent lawyers. They have been preparing for this ruling.

You are kidding, right? Most 'excellent lawyers' even at top companies don't litigate. They outsource that to expensive firms. Been there, done that. Never understood why we were paying the big bucks for someone to write contracts while outsourcing all the real, difficult work to an outside firm. But, I digress.

The college lawyers are not litigating. They are crafting the language to avoid litigation from the losers in the zero-sum admissions game.

You do realize that you can't avoid being sued by clever wordsmithery, right? All 'they' need is one sympathetic judge.

Obviously. One can get sued for just about anything. The post was countering the "litigation " point. The aggrieved will litigate. Colleges will have to defend.

An essay prompt like the one from Sarah Lawrence will likely pass muster.

Lawyer here: I doubt that. This question has zero finesse and pretty much explicitly does what Roberts cautioned against: using the essay as an end run around the decision. This is a “screw you Supreme Court, we are still doing racial balancing and you can’t stop us” kind of prompt. They are making their resistance to the ruling obvious and risk getting smacked down to make a point. Good lawyering would be to draft a facially neutral prompt about “adversity overcome” and note many examples of such adversity, which can include racial discrimination, poverty, personal loss, etc., which everyone will know, wink wink, nudge nudge, is the race essay. That’s where the top schools will land, I would expect.

Agree. This is SL giving SCOTUS the middle finger. I can see someone writing a satiric essay using this prompt and getting lots of style points for their application.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The essays will be annoying even for URMs, being asked by colleges to "sell trauma," as a recent article on this discussed.

What about the National Recognition Programs for URMs from College Board? They expanded during COVID, including not only the top 10% of PSAT scorers per group by state, but also those with a 3 on two AP exams, not a very high bar. Back door?

“Back door” expressly forbidden by scotus.

NP. URMs with high stats, however common or uncommon, are also likely to have this award. Will colleges be so afraid of litigation that they would reject a high scoring URM because this award is on the app but no trauma essay?

Reject them from having the award? Obviously not. Be unable to use the award as a pretextual basis to favor a certain race? That’s the actual problem. The pretext.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every school with pretextual processes is going to get sued. The right wing is ramping up to build the infrastructure to take them to the mat.

So? They’re all going to get sued no matter what they do.

They are going to get their hands tied tighter and tighter.

I’m disgusted by open confessions of trying to avoid following the law as it has been laid out and I think they’re going to regret the choices they made in the “f*ck around” stage of this conflict when they get to the “find out” stage.

There is literally no factor an admissions office can consider that does not have a disparate impact on one group or another.

Every single person rejected from any college can sue.

It does not matter what the college uses to make the decision.

Pure SAT? Disparate impact against whites.

Pure GPA? Disparate impact against Asians.

Athletics, legacy, donations? Disparate impact against non-whites.

Ability to pay? Disparate impact against blacks and Hispanics.

Use any factor except pure 100% lottery and you will be sued.

Most of those who sue are whiners and wouldn't have gotten accepted anyways. It's very easy to scapegoat and find blame.

Harvard’s admissions process boiled down to “Asians have unlikeable personalities.” It’s the most racist thing I’ve ever seen an institution do in my lifetime.

It’s not scapegoating at all. If any institution had a process like that that downgraded black applicants across the board for personality we would all flip out. Because it’s just shockingly unthinkably racist.

That is bogus. A gross exaggeration at best. How can they have such a high percentage of Asian students if they think Asians are "unlikeable?" Could it be that some parents push their kids so hard that they are so full of technical accomplishments, they have not developed as well in other ways? And, that culture (not race) may possibly play some role in this?

Where have you been? That was one of the foundational findings during the discovery process. And just because there are 'enough' Asians at Harvard, does not mean that Harvard didn't discriminate against them. That's like saying, I have one Black kid in college, what are they complaining about. And no, I don't give a rat's ass about there being more Asian kids as a % of the student population relative to the general population. That SHOULD NOT matter. There's no law that says it should.

Tge whole scotus decision is bogus. Most in education lamented this decision. But, sure, some AOs may have been biased with the likeability aspect. That doesn't mean the institution is anti-Asian, especially against a group already well over represented at that institution. The URMs that get accused of "taking" spots are under represented at these institutions. That whole notion of taking spots and the supposition of "less qualified" just smack of bitter Bettyism. But the right wing lobbyists capitalized on that bitterness and entitlement with this case. This "win" "against" racism just further entrenches racism.

Well yes an industry that was just bench slapped by SCOTUS for racist practices will holler.

Under and overrepresentation doesn’t necessarily matter. No one thinks the NBA is overrepresented by black men because they’re racist against Asians.

The problem is that schools wanted to balance race and had to adjust the admissions criteria to make sure to tamp down the number of Asians. Kind of like if the NBA told teams to make sure underrepresented races had more spots on the teams.

[Anonymous]

As a 48yr old professional, I'd find this prompt hard to answer. I could bullshit it for sure, but what is the point here other than just reacting to the SC decision.

Is this the very best question to ask kids who are requesting to join your academic community?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every school with pretextual processes is going to get sued. The right wing is ramping up to build the infrastructure to take them to the mat.

So? They’re all going to get sued no matter what they do.

They are going to get their hands tied tighter and tighter.

I’m disgusted by open confessions of trying to avoid following the law as it has been laid out and I think they’re going to regret the choices they made in the “f*ck around” stage of this conflict when they get to the “find out” stage.

There is literally no factor an admissions office can consider that does not have a disparate impact on one group or another.

Every single person rejected from any college can sue.

It does not matter what the college uses to make the decision.

Pure SAT? Disparate impact against whites.

Pure GPA? Disparate impact against Asians.

Athletics, legacy, donations? Disparate impact against non-whites.

Ability to pay? Disparate impact against blacks and Hispanics.

Use any factor except pure 100% lottery and you will be sued.

No matter what the admissions criteria will be, someone will be aggrieved by the outcome. And at top schools, 95% of applicants will be aggrieved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It will result in lots of trauma essays and I’m a good ally essays.

My African American DS refuses to write a trauma essay in response to this type of question. Although he has been profiled by police and in stores, he is upper middle class and doesn't think it is appropriate to construct an essay around racial identity/ trauma or else you are low-income, something significant happened that negatively impacted his life, discrimination in an educational setting, attend an under-resourced school. etc.

This. The people most concerned about someone signaling their race via essays and getting some advantage are probably the ones that are the least concerned about actual racism AND are the most likely to bend the rules when it suits them. Like the PP my kid isn’t writing about something they don’t feel significantly impacted their lives. My older kid didn’t in their essays two years ago, my youngest isn’t this upcoming year, I didn’t either when I applied in the 90’s. It’s like the “how did COVID impact your life” optional prompt - the majority of people didn’t use it and you would assume the people that did were significantly impacted.

In a sense it doesn’t matter what SCOTUS ruled, what colleges will or won’t do, how many URMS do or do not write about racial identity or trauma because if there is even one URM (before, during and after affirmative action) it will be assumed that they “took” someone’s place. The reasons said out loud to justify that feeling may be change through the years but the underlying reason stays the same.

Many URMs ARE significantly impacted and should be free to write about it. Racial identity and/or inspiration is certainly fair game, and lord knows there's ample trauma to write about. Good essay writers know how to weave an authentic narrative. Otherwise, don't apply to top colleges.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every school with pretextual processes is going to get sued. The right wing is ramping up to build the infrastructure to take them to the mat.

So? They’re all going to get sued no matter what they do.

They are going to get their hands tied tighter and tighter.

I’m disgusted by open confessions of trying to avoid following the law as it has been laid out and I think they’re going to regret the choices they made in the “f*ck around” stage of this conflict when they get to the “find out” stage.

There is literally no factor an admissions office can consider that does not have a disparate impact on one group or another.

Every single person rejected from any college can sue.

It does not matter what the college uses to make the decision.

Pure SAT? Disparate impact against whites.

Pure GPA? Disparate impact against Asians.

Athletics, legacy, donations? Disparate impact against non-whites.

Ability to pay? Disparate impact against blacks and Hispanics.

Use any factor except pure 100% lottery and you will be sued.

Most of those who sue are whiners and wouldn't have gotten accepted anyways. It's very easy to scapegoat and find blame.

Harvard’s admissions process boiled down to “Asians have unlikeable personalities.” It’s the most racist thing I’ve ever seen an institution do in my lifetime.

It’s not scapegoating at all. If any institution had a process like that that downgraded black applicants across the board for personality we would all flip out. Because it’s just shockingly unthinkably racist.

That is bogus. A gross exaggeration at best. How can they have such a high percentage of Asian students if they think Asians are "unlikeable?" Could it be that some parents push their kids so hard that they are so full of technical accomplishments, they have not developed as well in other ways? And, that culture (not race) may possibly play some role in this?

Where have you been? That was one of the foundational findings during the discovery process. And just because there are 'enough' Asians at Harvard, does not mean that Harvard didn't discriminate against them. That's like saying, I have one Black kid in college, what are they complaining about. And no, I don't give a rat's ass about there being more Asian kids as a % of the student population relative to the general population. That SHOULD NOT matter. There's no law that says it should.

Tge whole scotus decision is bogus. Most in education lamented this decision. But, sure, some AOs may have been biased with the likeability aspect. That doesn't mean the institution is anti-Asian, especially against a group already well over represented at that institution. The URMs that get accused of "taking" spots are under represented at these institutions. That whole notion of taking spots and the supposition of "less qualified" just smack of bitter Bettyism. But the right wing lobbyists capitalized on that bitterness and entitlement with this case. This "win" "against" racism just further entrenches racism.

Well yes an industry that was just bench slapped by SCOTUS for racist practices will holler.

Under and overrepresentation doesn’t necessarily matter. No one thinks the NBA is overrepresented by black men because they’re racist against Asians.

The problem is that schools wanted to balance race and had to adjust the admissions criteria to make sure to tamp down the number of Asians. Kind of like if the NBA told teams to make sure underrepresented races had more spots on the teams.

I chuckle every time I see this NBA talking point trotted out again (and again and again and again). The posters who think this is a great analogy can’t seem to understand why it simply isn’t and that it doesn’t make the point they think it makes.

But it does make for a good laugh each time it shows up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As a 48yr old professional, I'd find this prompt hard to answer. I could bullshit it for sure, but what is the point here other than just reacting to the SC decision.

Is this the very best question to ask kids who are requesting to join your academic community?

Why not? It's a relevant issue.

You should see the University of Chicago prompts. Talk about extraneous...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The essays will be annoying even for URMs, being asked by colleges to "sell trauma," as a recent article on this discussed.

What about the National Recognition Programs for URMs from College Board? They expanded during COVID, including not only the top 10% of PSAT scorers per group by state, but also those with a 3 on two AP exams, not a very high bar. Back door?

“Back door” expressly forbidden by scotus.

NP. URMs with high stats, however common or uncommon, are also likely to have this award. Will colleges be so afraid of litigation that they would reject a high scoring URM because this award is on the app but no trauma essay?

DP. There are going to be some applicants as you describe, URMs with high stats and the award, no trauma essay, no economic disadvantage. With high stats, wouldn't admission be easy to defend as long as the applicant's race is not an explicit basis? Holistic admission, essay reading in particular, is ultimately subjective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every school with pretextual processes is going to get sued. The right wing is ramping up to build the infrastructure to take them to the mat.

So? They’re all going to get sued no matter what they do.

They are going to get their hands tied tighter and tighter.

I’m disgusted by open confessions of trying to avoid following the law as it has been laid out and I think they’re going to regret the choices they made in the “f*ck around” stage of this conflict when they get to the “find out” stage.

There is literally no factor an admissions office can consider that does not have a disparate impact on one group or another.

Every single person rejected from any college can sue.

It does not matter what the college uses to make the decision.

Pure SAT? Disparate impact against whites.

Pure GPA? Disparate impact against Asians.

Athletics, legacy, donations? Disparate impact against non-whites.

Ability to pay? Disparate impact against blacks and Hispanics.

Use any factor except pure 100% lottery and you will be sued.

Most of those who sue are whiners and wouldn't have gotten accepted anyways. It's very easy to scapegoat and find blame.

Harvard’s admissions process boiled down to “Asians have unlikeable personalities.” It’s the most racist thing I’ve ever seen an institution do in my lifetime.

It’s not scapegoating at all. If any institution had a process like that that downgraded black applicants across the board for personality we would all flip out. Because it’s just shockingly unthinkably racist.

That is bogus. A gross exaggeration at best. How can they have such a high percentage of Asian students if they think Asians are "unlikeable?" Could it be that some parents push their kids so hard that they are so full of technical accomplishments, they have not developed as well in other ways? And, that culture (not race) may possibly play some role in this?

Where have you been? That was one of the foundational findings during the discovery process. And just because there are 'enough' Asians at Harvard, does not mean that Harvard didn't discriminate against them. That's like saying, I have one Black kid in college, what are they complaining about. And no, I don't give a rat's ass about there being more Asian kids as a % of the student population relative to the general population. That SHOULD NOT matter. There's no law that says it should.

Tge whole scotus decision is bogus. Most in education lamented this decision. But, sure, some AOs may have been biased with the likeability aspect. That doesn't mean the institution is anti-Asian, especially against a group already well over represented at that institution. The URMs that get accused of "taking" spots are under represented at these institutions. That whole notion of taking spots and the supposition of "less qualified" just smack of bitter Bettyism. But the right wing lobbyists capitalized on that bitterness and entitlement with this case. This "win" "against" racism just further entrenches racism.

Well yes an industry that was just bench slapped by SCOTUS for racist practices will holler.

Under and overrepresentation doesn’t necessarily matter. No one thinks the NBA is overrepresented by black men because they’re racist against Asians.

The problem is that schools wanted to balance race and had to adjust the admissions criteria to make sure to tamp down the number of Asians. Kind of like if the NBA told teams to make sure underrepresented races had more spots on the teams.

I chuckle every time I see this NBA talking point trotted out again (and again and again and again). The posters who think this is a great analogy can’t seem to understand why it simply isn’t and that it doesn’t make the point they think it makes.

But it does make for a good laugh each time it shows up.

Same here. But, more of a groan than a chuckle. Those posters are so determined to gain an advantage for their kid under the guises of pseudo antiracism and "meritocracy. " They will throw anything to the wall to make it stick.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a 48yr old professional, I'd find this prompt hard to answer. I could bullshit it for sure, but what is the point here other than just reacting to the SC decision.

Is this the very best question to ask kids who are requesting to join your academic community?

Why not? It's a relevant issue.

You should see the University of Chicago prompts. Talk about extraneous...

DP. The UChicago prompts are not extraneous. In UChicago's perspective, the supplement is an essential demonstration of how the applicant thinks. UChicago is (trying to) foster a unique culture. Whether or not UChicago succeeds in this is another matter, but it has long been clear that the uncommon essay is the key to admission there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every school with pretextual processes is going to get sued. The right wing is ramping up to build the infrastructure to take them to the mat.

So? They’re all going to get sued no matter what they do.

They are going to get their hands tied tighter and tighter.

I’m disgusted by open confessions of trying to avoid following the law as it has been laid out and I think they’re going to regret the choices they made in the “f*ck around” stage of this conflict when they get to the “find out” stage.

There is literally no factor an admissions office can consider that does not have a disparate impact on one group or another.

Every single person rejected from any college can sue.

It does not matter what the college uses to make the decision.

Pure SAT? Disparate impact against whites.

Pure GPA? Disparate impact against Asians.

Athletics, legacy, donations? Disparate impact against non-whites.

Ability to pay? Disparate impact against blacks and Hispanics.

Use any factor except pure 100% lottery and you will be sued.

Most of those who sue are whiners and wouldn't have gotten accepted anyways. It's very easy to scapegoat and find blame.

Harvard’s admissions process boiled down to “Asians have unlikeable personalities.” It’s the most racist thing I’ve ever seen an institution do in my lifetime.

It’s not scapegoating at all. If any institution had a process like that that downgraded black applicants across the board for personality we would all flip out. Because it’s just shockingly unthinkably racist.

That is bogus. A gross exaggeration at best. How can they have such a high percentage of Asian students if they think Asians are "unlikeable?" Could it be that some parents push their kids so hard that they are so full of technical accomplishments, they have not developed as well in other ways? And, that culture (not race) may possibly play some role in this?

Where have you been? That was one of the foundational findings during the discovery process. And just because there are 'enough' Asians at Harvard, does not mean that Harvard didn't discriminate against them. That's like saying, I have one Black kid in college, what are they complaining about. And no, I don't give a rat's ass about there being more Asian kids as a % of the student population relative to the general population. That SHOULD NOT matter. There's no law that says it should.

Tge whole scotus decision is bogus. Most in education lamented this decision. But, sure, some AOs may have been biased with the likeability aspect. That doesn't mean the institution is anti-Asian, especially against a group already well over represented at that institution. The URMs that get accused of "taking" spots are under represented at these institutions. That whole notion of taking spots and the supposition of "less qualified" just smack of bitter Bettyism. But the right wing lobbyists capitalized on that bitterness and entitlement with this case. This "win" "against" racism just further entrenches racism.

Wonder how they missed you for the Supreme Court nomination!

Seriously though, the SC did find systemic bias, not just onsies twosies where a couple rougue/racist AOs did something nasty. The whole f'ing system is nasty.

If everyone is serious about this, why not a law that mandates that
- 5% of all seats at all institutions be set aside for Blacks descended from slaves and Native Americans (at least 50%) both with a means test,
- another 3% for kids based on SES and
- another 2-3% for donors (larger the donation, the higher your priority).
- Foreigners no more than 5% of the total unless the school has not been able to fill their seats in the past 3 years. This will automatically push foreigners to lower ranked schools. They can take it or leave it.
- colleges should not be allowed to accumulate more than 5X annual tuition in endowments. The rest should be used to subsidize tuition across the board.
- tuition rate increases should be frozen and be more than the increase in CPI.
That's it! Screw athletic recruits, legacy and all other nonsense. Open the remaining 90% to open competition. Time for educational institutions to focus on education and not turn into an extended county fair. And yes, congress can do this and should especially since these cartels don't pay any taxes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The essays will be annoying even for URMs, being asked by colleges to "sell trauma," as a recent article on this discussed.

What about the National Recognition Programs for URMs from College Board? They expanded during COVID, including not only the top 10% of PSAT scorers per group by state, but also those with a 3 on two AP exams, not a very high bar. Back door?

“Back door” expressly forbidden by scotus.

NP. URMs with high stats, however common or uncommon, are also likely to have this award. Will colleges be so afraid of litigation that they would reject a high scoring URM because this award is on the app but no trauma essay?

DP. There are going to be some applicants as you describe, URMs with high stats and the award, no trauma essay, no economic disadvantage. With high stats, wouldn't admission be easy to defend as long as the applicant's race is not an explicit basis? Holistic admission, essay reading in particular, is ultimately subjective.

No. Asians will sue, saying the school admitted 70% of Blacks with high stats but only 20% of Asians with the same high stats (or whatever the actual numbers are). And since the actual numbers aren’t public, schools who turn away even one Asian student and admit even one Black, white, or Hispanic student are going to get sued. Maybe they won’t win, but I keep poring over the opinions and I can’t say for sure that they’ll lose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every school with pretextual processes is going to get sued. The right wing is ramping up to build the infrastructure to take them to the mat.

So? They’re all going to get sued no matter what they do.

They are going to get their hands tied tighter and tighter.

I’m disgusted by open confessions of trying to avoid following the law as it has been laid out and I think they’re going to regret the choices they made in the “f*ck around” stage of this conflict when they get to the “find out” stage.

There is literally no factor an admissions office can consider that does not have a disparate impact on one group or another.

Every single person rejected from any college can sue.

It does not matter what the college uses to make the decision.

Pure SAT? Disparate impact against whites.

Pure GPA? Disparate impact against Asians.

Athletics, legacy, donations? Disparate impact against non-whites.

Ability to pay? Disparate impact against blacks and Hispanics.

Use any factor except pure 100% lottery and you will be sued.

Most of those who sue are whiners and wouldn't have gotten accepted anyways. It's very easy to scapegoat and find blame.

Harvard’s admissions process boiled down to “Asians have unlikeable personalities.” It’s the most racist thing I’ve ever seen an institution do in my lifetime.

It’s not scapegoating at all. If any institution had a process like that that downgraded black applicants across the board for personality we would all flip out. Because it’s just shockingly unthinkably racist.

That is bogus. A gross exaggeration at best. How can they have such a high percentage of Asian students if they think Asians are "unlikeable?" Could it be that some parents push their kids so hard that they are so full of technical accomplishments, they have not developed as well in other ways? And, that culture (not race) may possibly play some role in this?

Where have you been? That was one of the foundational findings during the discovery process. And just because there are 'enough' Asians at Harvard, does not mean that Harvard didn't discriminate against them. That's like saying, I have one Black kid in college, what are they complaining about. And no, I don't give a rat's ass about there being more Asian kids as a % of the student population relative to the general population. That SHOULD NOT matter. There's no law that says it should.

Tge whole scotus decision is bogus. Most in education lamented this decision. But, sure, some AOs may have been biased with the likeability aspect. That doesn't mean the institution is anti-Asian, especially against a group already well over represented at that institution. The URMs that get accused of "taking" spots are under represented at these institutions. That whole notion of taking spots and the supposition of "less qualified" just smack of bitter Bettyism. But the right wing lobbyists capitalized on that bitterness and entitlement with this case. This "win" "against" racism just further entrenches racism.

Wonder how they missed you for the Supreme Court nomination!

Seriously though, the SC did find systemic bias, not just onsies twosies where a couple rougue/racist AOs did something nasty. The whole f'ing system is nasty.

If everyone is serious about this, why not a law that mandates that
- 5% of all seats at all institutions be set aside for Blacks descended from slaves and Native Americans (at least 50%) both with a means test,
- another 3% for kids based on SES and
- another 2-3% for donors (larger the donation, the higher your priority).
- Foreigners no more than 5% of the total unless the school has not been able to fill their seats in the past 3 years. This will automatically push foreigners to lower ranked schools. They can take it or leave it.
- colleges should not be allowed to accumulate more than 5X annual tuition in endowments. The rest should be used to subsidize tuition across the board.
- tuition rate increases should be frozen and be more than the increase in CPI.
That's it! Screw athletic recruits, legacy and all other nonsense. Open the remaining 90% to open competition. Time for educational institutions to focus on education and not turn into an extended county fair. And yes, congress can do this and should especially since these cartels don't pay any taxes.

Your theory here is that the party that elected Tommy Tuberville is going to outlaw college football.

Ok.