Forum Index
»
College and University Discussion
US Supreme Court Rules Against Affirmative Action in College Admissions
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Asian Americans can criticize any parts of the systems in this country whether it's health care system, education system, etc. |
Anonymous
x100000 SHHHHHH....don't tell...... Dumbasses. |
Anonymous
It is just sad that a race of people has this one meaningless thing affect your character the way this thread is evolving. Most students don't even apply and when a lot that do get declined they walk away and are happy that they did get accepted to Duke, Yale, MIT, etc. To be so angry that luck was not on your side. To put all of this pressure on your kids. I understand wanting rules and cut-offs, but with this there are none. It's a lottery. i am Black and I am so so glad this has changed. Nothing is going to change and then everyone can go back to realizing that the school will still decline 96% of applicants. Harvard wants a diverse school. Having 8000 students of the same race, over-achievement spirit, anti-black prejidice, etc is not what Harvard wants or what they will end up being. They will still have students that are athletes, a range of GPAs, a range of Scores, various races, etc. They have a consistent 98% graduation rate and has the US all worked up. They must be doing something great already. |
Anonymous
Unless doing those things does violate a law, like discrimination laws, which those practices can do if the "racially neutral" practice has a disparate impact on a group based on race (or other protected category). So if using legacy means you create an underrepresented minority, or if recruiting for a sport means you disadvantage a minority race, you better make sure that the justifying value of your legacy and athletic recruiting goal is “sufficiently measurable to permit judicial [review]." In disparate impact cases, you have to offer a justification that is legitimate, integral to the recipient’s institutional mission, and important. Even if you have a legitimate, important goal that is integral to the institutional mission, the discriminatory policy or practice must also bear a demonstrable relationship to that goal, and that there are no alternative practices that may be comparably effective with less disparate impact. And, as in this 14th A case, all of this must be capable of judicial review. How are you going to measure "future loyalty" of a class you admit today? How can a court review "loyalty" if it says it can't review "leadership"? How do you measure the value to the university of a sailing, hockey, or rowing team that allows a court to decide if that serves an interest compelling enough to justify a discriminatory impact? Hasn't the merit of admitting non-revenue sports been justified in terms of traits or feelings like pride and school spirit, and of course the "leadership" qualities sports are said to instill, which the Court says it can't measure or review. How about the seemingly data driven SAT scores -- how would you prove that using SATs over 1500 (random example), which has a disparate impact on minority groups, serves a compelling interest of the university? What is that compelling interest and how do you measure it or review whether or not the SAT cut off achieves it? Don't say things like, "training future leaders," "promoting a robust marketplace of ideas," or "preparing engaged and productive citizens." Those aren't measurable to this Court. What measurable outcome is the university getting from the higher SAT scorers that it can't get from including lower SAT scorers? Can they prove it with hard data correlating SAT scores to the goal? Don't use job acquisition or or salary (if that would even work), since the Court already says it can't review the goal of "preparing engaged and productive citizens," which would be measured by things like job acquisition and salary, or donation history or volunteer or public service hours, etc. Lots of data available for that mission goal, but it is not "measurable" to this Court. Would any admissions criteria that has a disparate impact hold up now that the very mission statement of most universities has been held not to be "“sufficiently measurable to permit judicial [review]”? |
Anonymous
| Different perspectives. Liberals see AA as remedying past discrimination against Blacks. But Asian-Americans see AA as preferential treatment based on race—in the most egregious case, descendants of Nazi war criminals receive preferential treatment over Asian-Americans. |
Anonymous
And paid more |
Anonymous
Nazi war criminals from Latin American countries such as Argentina. |
Anonymous
NP with >5 supplemental essays... it only takes one 
|
Anonymous
Can you imagine going to another country and being so down on it, basically everything about it, especially how stupid and inferior their people are, and thinking that you are superior to them, but that you need preference in their education system? Now I've read everything! |
Anonymous
It’s really sad. Kids shouldn’t have to expose their pain in an essay. |
Anonymous
+1 How much for those tests? Hope it was worth it! Cheater gonna cheat. |
Anonymous
...and for what? It doesn't take that. As you can probably tell.... Harvard doesn't only care about scores and working hard. If you want Harvard, figure out that you are going at it the wrong way. |
Anonymous
Looks like you are new to this. Welcome. This fact was revealed during the case. It was part of the reasons for the case because this is a clear indication of Asian kids discriminated. They didn't just score well on GPA and Test as you can see. 
|
Anonymous
+1 Yeah, but now the U.S. knows how Asians feel about the U.S., so that is not in the Asians favor. They screwed themselves. |
Anonymous
I don't see how you say Hitler in Chinese? |