Harvard’s loss was Boston College’s gain

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This should not come as a surprise to anyone. The lawyer behind the attacks on Affirmative Action, Edward Blum, is a white man who was trying to use the case to further his racist (anti-brown people) views, and he was using the Asian American plaintiffs as a pawn. His ultimate goal is to bring down Affirmative Action in the workplace so that white males can get an even more leg-up in life. If you thought he cared about Asian Americans, you were incredibly naive.

- Asian American parent

So you were cool with overt racial discrimination directed at your kids?

What is it that makes him anti-brown, other than being against pro-brown racism?
Ed Blum is at it again, this time he is going after legacy admissions.

https://www.wsj.com/us-news/education/legacy-college-admissions-preferences-backlash-772c88be

If you are genuinely asking, I am pro affirmative action, yes. Having a diverse student population makes the learning environment richer for all of our kids.

Ed Blum's racist/white supremacist views are well-known - before he pursued the SFFA case with Asian American plaintiffs, he tried to bring cases against universities on behalf of white students on a "reverse discrimination" argument and lost those cases.

For everyone here who is saying that Asian Americans are overrepresented at top colleges compared to the U.S. population, you are not considering how the acceptances compare to the number of applications received from various racial groups at these schools. The Harvard evidence shows that they receive so many applicants from Asian Americans, the schools need to engage in subtle racism - e.g., giving Asian Americans a lower score on personality, character, etc. - in order to justify keeping out a lot of very qualified students.

The Harvard evidence shows no such thing. Harvard was found not to have discriminated against Asians, the finding was held up on appeal, and it wasn't argued as part of the Supreme Court review.

DP
Harvard admitted to discriminating it was part of their holistic process, the trial court found that their discrimination was within constitutionally permitted bounds of Gratz and Grutter.
The question before the court was whether it was constitutionally permissible discrimination, not whether or not there was any discrimination.

They did not. They actually argued that the seeming discrimination shown by Arcidiacono's model didn't exist because the model didn't adequately cover all of the admissions factors. The rebuttal by Card was a far better analysis and demonstrated convincingly that there was no discrimination. You are correct in that they also argued that if there was any inadvertent discrimination it was within the bounds of Grutter. The finding was for Harvard on every single point.

The question before the court was that any preference involving race violated the equal protection clause. SFFA didn't care about Asians at all, they actually first tried to find white plaintiffs but couldn't. They didn't care about winning against Harvard either. The entire point was to create a vehicle which would survive long enough to get the equal protection argument in front of the Supreme Court.

I'm not sure professor Card even believed his own argument.
He certainly hasn't been willing to defend them publicly despite being invited to discuss his conclusions.
Arcidiacono on the other hand seems to be willing to answer questions about his analysis.


It was not a difficult analysis, the discrimination was extremely obvious.

Card is a Titan in the field, he wouldn’t have done the work if he wasn’t confident in the results. He has both the John Bates Clark and the Nobel prize, the two highest awards in his field. Arcidiacono is an excellent economist but he is also much more of an ideologue. I like the focus of much of his work but his SFFA work wasn’t particularly compelling. Arcidiacono had to make some contorted arguments and exclusions to make his numbers work and it wasn’t hard for Card to build a more complex model which disproved Arcidiacono’s efforts. This shouldn’t be surprising since he had access to far more data, just like the Harvard AO did.

SFFA didn’t win on the merits, they won because they had the right bench. Once the court composition changes a vehicle will be found to get back in front of the court and SFFA v Harvard will be overturned.

The Supreme court will never go back. It will never say it is ok to discriminate on the basis of race under the 14th amendment. It's a one way ratchet.

Card is a great economist but he does not appear to believe his own arguments in this case. He is doing the best he can for a principle he believes in.
His argument required giving full weight to the personal rating to make the Harvard admissions make sense.
Arcidiacono excluded athletes legacy and children of faculty from his analysis, Card took exception to that for some reason.

The District Court ruling found in favor of Harvard, and noted that while the process was not perfect, it did not unlawfully discriminate against Asian American. Not that it didn't discriminate, that it didn't unlawfully discriminate. The question for SCOTUS was if Harvard's discrimination was actually lawful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m pretty sure the percentage of Asian students at top 20 universities is above 25 percent at each and every single one of them. So I’m not sure what the problem is. Asian Americans are about 7 percent of the population so they are very well represented at the most selective schools.

The issue is entitlement with a Hint of racial superiority complex. they don’t believe it possible that another person from another race could be successful academically in a legitimate matter.

I think the problem is that we keep these statistically improbable distributions of race and SAT scores at these highly selective schools without any good explanation for the disparity except that the admissions committees seem to not like our personality.

Asians are literally 40% of the students at these top schools. I don’t know how they keep complaining

To spin up votes.

In February?

The faux outrage machine never sleeps.

Ignore it at your peril. This is how you lose to Youngkin

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harvard discriminated in the basis of skin color, as did all other universities prior to SFFA.

It is really rather sad and pathetic to watch you keep attempting to refute a known and acknowledged fact.

Facts are friendly…the decision is what it is and Harvard was found not to have discriminated against Asian applicants. The final ruling by the Supreme didn’t change that and I really don’t care if that makes you butthurt.

The trial court found that harvard did not illegally discriminate. The supreme court found that it was illegal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m pretty sure the percentage of Asian students at top 20 universities is above 25 percent at each and every single one of them. So I’m not sure what the problem is. Asian Americans are about 7 percent of the population so they are very well represented at the most selective schools.

The issue is entitlement with a Hint of racial superiority complex. they don’t believe it possible that another person from another race could be successful academically in a legitimate matter.

I think the problem is that we keep these statistically improbable distributions of race and SAT scores at these highly selective schools without any good explanation for the disparity except that the admissions committees seem to not like our personality.

Asians are literally 40% of the students at these top schools. I don’t know how they keep complaining

How do you benefit if some unrelated member of your race gets into your dream school? How are you harmed if your your dream school imposes higher standards on you than anyone else because of the color of your skin?

After Jackie Robinson broke the color line, the black talent started to overwhelm the white league and many teams started to get "too many" black players. So there was an uinofficial rule that you could only have 5 black players on the field. So if a black pitcher went in, a black outfielder would have to come out. The best black player not in the majors was better than the worst white players by a fair margin.

There was a time when there were almost no black quarterbacks and people were justifiably salty about it despite the fact that most nfl players were black. The argument was that black players lacked leadership and other personal qualities that were important to being a quarterback. Nowadays this sounds crazy and one day your position will too.

So you are saying, you will be okay if top colleges are 80%+ Asian? Or 100% if that’s possible.

Can you see the difference between NFL and a college’s mission?

I don't think I care about the race at all.
I think this focus on racial balancing is a sickness with you people.

+1
Admissions should be based on merit and the content of a child’s application, rather than on the color of their skin.

Are you in 2020 or something? Admissions is currently done by merit.

There is "massive resistance"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This should not come as a surprise to anyone. The lawyer behind the attacks on Affirmative Action, Edward Blum, is a white man who was trying to use the case to further his racist (anti-brown people) views, and he was using the Asian American plaintiffs as a pawn. His ultimate goal is to bring down Affirmative Action in the workplace so that white males can get an even more leg-up in life. If you thought he cared about Asian Americans, you were incredibly naive.

- Asian American parent

So you were cool with overt racial discrimination directed at your kids?

What is it that makes him anti-brown, other than being against pro-brown racism?
Ed Blum is at it again, this time he is going after legacy admissions.

https://www.wsj.com/us-news/education/legacy-college-admissions-preferences-backlash-772c88be

If you are genuinely asking, I am pro affirmative action, yes. Having a diverse student population makes the learning environment richer for all of our kids.

Ed Blum's racist/white supremacist views are well-known - before he pursued the SFFA case with Asian American plaintiffs, he tried to bring cases against universities on behalf of white students on a "reverse discrimination" argument and lost those cases.

For everyone here who is saying that Asian Americans are overrepresented at top colleges compared to the U.S. population, you are not considering how the acceptances compare to the number of applications received from various racial groups at these schools. The Harvard evidence shows that they receive so many applicants from Asian Americans, the schools need to engage in subtle racism - e.g., giving Asian Americans a lower score on personality, character, etc. - in order to justify keeping out a lot of very qualified students.

The Harvard evidence shows no such thing. Harvard was found not to have discriminated against Asians, the finding was held up on appeal, and it wasn't argued as part of the Supreme Court review.

DP
Harvard admitted to discriminating it was part of their holistic process, the trial court found that their discrimination was within constitutionally permitted bounds of Gratz and Grutter.
The question before the court was whether it was constitutionally permissible discrimination, not whether or not there was any discrimination.

They did not. They actually argued that the seeming discrimination shown by Arcidiacono's model didn't exist because the model didn't adequately cover all of the admissions factors. The rebuttal by Card was a far better analysis and demonstrated convincingly that there was no discrimination. You are correct in that they also argued that if there was any inadvertent discrimination it was within the bounds of Grutter. The finding was for Harvard on every single point.

The question before the court was that any preference involving race violated the equal protection clause. SFFA didn't care about Asians at all, they actually first tried to find white plaintiffs but couldn't. They didn't care about winning against Harvard either. The entire point was to create a vehicle which would survive long enough to get the equal protection argument in front of the Supreme Court.

I'm not sure professor Card even believed his own argument.
He certainly hasn't been willing to defend them publicly despite being invited to discuss his conclusions.
Arcidiacono on the other hand seems to be willing to answer questions about his analysis.


It was not a difficult analysis, the discrimination was extremely obvious.

Card is a Titan in the field, he wouldn’t have done the work if he wasn’t confident in the results. He has both the John Bates Clark and the Nobel prize, the two highest awards in his field. Arcidiacono is an excellent economist but he is also much more of an ideologue. I like the focus of much of his work but his SFFA work wasn’t particularly compelling. Arcidiacono had to make some contorted arguments and exclusions to make his numbers work and it wasn’t hard for Card to build a more complex model which disproved Arcidiacono’s efforts. This shouldn’t be surprising since he had access to far more data, just like the Harvard AO did.

SFFA didn’t win on the merits, they won because they had the right bench. Once the court composition changes a vehicle will be found to get back in front of the court and SFFA v Harvard will be overturned.

DP.

“Once the court composition changes”? You mean decades from now?

Not to mention the fact that even with a more moderate composition, SCOTUS had begun choking on affirmative action. Sandra Day barely eked out 5 votes in Grutter in 2003.

Race-based admission/hiring is not coming back any time soon, if ever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UMD, for one, is simply ignoring the S.Ct.,s order in SFFA and continuing its race-conscious admissions policies.

They will continue to break the law until someone or some group files a civil lawsuit against them.

UMD is not alone in ignoring Supreme Court precedent. That is the reason you are not seeing major increases in Asian student percentages.

And for its part, Harvard is eagerly seeking “work arounds” such as its reliance on Quest Bridge applicants, admitting based on FARMs and FGLI status (which are allowed as proxies for skin color).

Why the desire to attend these institutions that clearly value diversity when you clearly do not? That seems like a bad fit.

Say what you really mean, PP.

“Valuing diversity” is simply code for racist bigotry against Asian applicants.

That’s what you want? More racism?

TBH, the PP you responded to is obviously a Democrat, and it was the democrats who bitterly fought against racial integration.

+1

The KKK was founded by democrats.

Yeah, and Republicans used to be anti-Nazi. Now they are the openly, eagerly racist party, and even loopy Laura Loomer says the GOP has a Nazi problem. But of course PPs know and embrace this change, which i why they are rather pathetically trying to claim otherwise.

Please, PPs, find a new trick. The David Duke “no, you’re a racist for mentioning racism” trope is not fooling anyone.

[Anonymous]

“Harvard won SFFA” ROTFL

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This should not come as a surprise to anyone. The lawyer behind the attacks on Affirmative Action, Edward Blum, is a white man who was trying to use the case to further his racist (anti-brown people) views, and he was using the Asian American plaintiffs as a pawn. His ultimate goal is to bring down Affirmative Action in the workplace so that white males can get an even more leg-up in life. If you thought he cared about Asian Americans, you were incredibly naive.

- Asian American parent

So you were cool with overt racial discrimination directed at your kids?

What is it that makes him anti-brown, other than being against pro-brown racism?
Ed Blum is at it again, this time he is going after legacy admissions.

https://www.wsj.com/us-news/education/legacy-college-admissions-preferences-backlash-772c88be

If you are genuinely asking, I am pro affirmative action, yes. Having a diverse student population makes the learning environment richer for all of our kids.

Ed Blum's racist/white supremacist views are well-known - before he pursued the SFFA case with Asian American plaintiffs, he tried to bring cases against universities on behalf of white students on a "reverse discrimination" argument and lost those cases.

For everyone here who is saying that Asian Americans are overrepresented at top colleges compared to the U.S. population, you are not considering how the acceptances compare to the number of applications received from various racial groups at these schools. The Harvard evidence shows that they receive so many applicants from Asian Americans, the schools need to engage in subtle racism - e.g., giving Asian Americans a lower score on personality, character, etc. - in order to justify keeping out a lot of very qualified students.

The Harvard evidence shows no such thing. Harvard was found not to have discriminated against Asians, the finding was held up on appeal, and it wasn't argued as part of the Supreme Court review.

DP
Harvard admitted to discriminating it was part of their holistic process, the trial court found that their discrimination was within constitutionally permitted bounds of Gratz and Grutter.
The question before the court was whether it was constitutionally permissible discrimination, not whether or not there was any discrimination.

They did not. They actually argued that the seeming discrimination shown by Arcidiacono's model didn't exist because the model didn't adequately cover all of the admissions factors. The rebuttal by Card was a far better analysis and demonstrated convincingly that there was no discrimination. You are correct in that they also argued that if there was any inadvertent discrimination it was within the bounds of Grutter. The finding was for Harvard on every single point.

The question before the court was that any preference involving race violated the equal protection clause. SFFA didn't care about Asians at all, they actually first tried to find white plaintiffs but couldn't. They didn't care about winning against Harvard either. The entire point was to create a vehicle which would survive long enough to get the equal protection argument in front of the Supreme Court.

I'm not sure professor Card even believed his own argument.
He certainly hasn't been willing to defend them publicly despite being invited to discuss his conclusions.
Arcidiacono on the other hand seems to be willing to answer questions about his analysis.


It was not a difficult analysis, the discrimination was extremely obvious.

Card is a Titan in the field, he wouldn’t have done the work if he wasn’t confident in the results. He has both the John Bates Clark and the Nobel prize, the two highest awards in his field. Arcidiacono is an excellent economist but he is also much more of an ideologue. I like the focus of much of his work but his SFFA work wasn’t particularly compelling. Arcidiacono had to make some contorted arguments and exclusions to make his numbers work and it wasn’t hard for Card to build a more complex model which disproved Arcidiacono’s efforts. This shouldn’t be surprising since he had access to far more data, just like the Harvard AO did.

SFFA didn’t win on the merits, they won because they had the right bench. Once the court composition changes a vehicle will be found to get back in front of the court and SFFA v Harvard will be overturned.

DP.

[b]“Once the court composition changes”? You mean decades from now?

Not to mention the fact that even with a more moderate composition, SCOTUS had begun choking on affirmative action. Sandra Day barely eked out 5 votes in Grutter in 2003.

Race-based admission/hiring is not coming back any time soon, if ever.

Education lawyer here. This is correct. Harvard’s two recent district court wins against DOJ civil rights will eventually also be reversed, in no large part because the judge should have recused herself

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This should not come as a surprise to anyone. The lawyer behind the attacks on Affirmative Action, Edward Blum, is a white man who was trying to use the case to further his racist (anti-brown people) views, and he was using the Asian American plaintiffs as a pawn. His ultimate goal is to bring down Affirmative Action in the workplace so that white males can get an even more leg-up in life. If you thought he cared about Asian Americans, you were incredibly naive.

- Asian American parent

So you were cool with overt racial discrimination directed at your kids?

What is it that makes him anti-brown, other than being against pro-brown racism?
Ed Blum is at it again, this time he is going after legacy admissions.

https://www.wsj.com/us-news/education/legacy-college-admissions-preferences-backlash-772c88be

If you are genuinely asking, I am pro affirmative action, yes. Having a diverse student population makes the learning environment richer for all of our kids.

Ed Blum's racist/white supremacist views are well-known - before he pursued the SFFA case with Asian American plaintiffs, he tried to bring cases against universities on behalf of white students on a "reverse discrimination" argument and lost those cases.

For everyone here who is saying that Asian Americans are overrepresented at top colleges compared to the U.S. population, you are not considering how the acceptances compare to the number of applications received from various racial groups at these schools. The Harvard evidence shows that they receive so many applicants from Asian Americans, the schools need to engage in subtle racism - e.g., giving Asian Americans a lower score on personality, character, etc. - in order to justify keeping out a lot of very qualified students.

The Harvard evidence shows no such thing. Harvard was found not to have discriminated against Asians, the finding was held up on appeal, and it wasn't argued as part of the Supreme Court review.

DP
Harvard admitted to discriminating it was part of their holistic process, the trial court found that their discrimination was within constitutionally permitted bounds of Gratz and Grutter.
The question before the court was whether it was constitutionally permissible discrimination, not whether or not there was any discrimination.

They did not. They actually argued that the seeming discrimination shown by Arcidiacono's model didn't exist because the model didn't adequately cover all of the admissions factors. The rebuttal by Card was a far better analysis and demonstrated convincingly that there was no discrimination. You are correct in that they also argued that if there was any inadvertent discrimination it was within the bounds of Grutter. The finding was for Harvard on every single point.

The question before the court was that any preference involving race violated the equal protection clause. SFFA didn't care about Asians at all, they actually first tried to find white plaintiffs but couldn't. They didn't care about winning against Harvard either. The entire point was to create a vehicle which would survive long enough to get the equal protection argument in front of the Supreme Court.

I'm not sure professor Card even believed his own argument.
He certainly hasn't been willing to defend them publicly despite being invited to discuss his conclusions.
Arcidiacono on the other hand seems to be willing to answer questions about his analysis.


It was not a difficult analysis, the discrimination was extremely obvious.

Card is a Titan in the field, he wouldn’t have done the work if he wasn’t confident in the results. He has both the John Bates Clark and the Nobel prize, the two highest awards in his field. Arcidiacono is an excellent economist but he is also much more of an ideologue. I like the focus of much of his work but his SFFA work wasn’t particularly compelling. Arcidiacono had to make some contorted arguments and exclusions to make his numbers work and it wasn’t hard for Card to build a more complex model which disproved Arcidiacono’s efforts. This shouldn’t be surprising since he had access to far more data, just like the Harvard AO did.

SFFA didn’t win on the merits, they won because they had the right bench. Once the court composition changes a vehicle will be found to get back in front of the court and SFFA v Harvard will be overturned.

The Supreme court will never go back. It will never say it is ok to discriminate on the basis of race under the 14th amendment. It's a one way ratchet.

Card is a great economist but he does not appear to believe his own arguments in this case. He is doing the best he can for a principle he believes in.
His argument required giving full weight to the personal rating to make the Harvard admissions make sense.
Arcidiacono excluded athletes legacy and children of faculty from his analysis, Card took exception to that for some reason.

The District Court ruling found in favor of Harvard, and noted that while the process was not perfect, it did not unlawfully discriminate against Asian American. Not that it didn't discriminate, that it didn't unlawfully discriminate. The question for SCOTUS was if Harvard's discrimination was actually lawful.

Thank-you for a reasonable response. Not sure that I completely agree with you but it is a real discussion. I do think that it will be revisited, as I believe that many decisions by this court will be revisited. Not necessarily because I agree that they should be revisited but rather because I think that the current court is not seen as legitimate by too much of the population which is pretty damning when the person typing this is a 35+ year member of the republican party. I agree that they will never come out and say that discrimination is legal either but they will find that adjustments are once again ok. Public schools in particular with the right court will likely carry the day if they take an approach with a well defined goal of composition being similar to population.

Roberts left the door open with the ability to discuss how race affected one's life and I think that both TX and CA would win if their state-wide representation policies were challenged.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This should not come as a surprise to anyone. The lawyer behind the attacks on Affirmative Action, Edward Blum, is a white man who was trying to use the case to further his racist (anti-brown people) views, and he was using the Asian American plaintiffs as a pawn. His ultimate goal is to bring down Affirmative Action in the workplace so that white males can get an even more leg-up in life. If you thought he cared about Asian Americans, you were incredibly naive.

- Asian American parent

So you were cool with overt racial discrimination directed at your kids?

What is it that makes him anti-brown, other than being against pro-brown racism?
Ed Blum is at it again, this time he is going after legacy admissions.

https://www.wsj.com/us-news/education/legacy-college-admissions-preferences-backlash-772c88be

If you are genuinely asking, I am pro affirmative action, yes. Having a diverse student population makes the learning environment richer for all of our kids.

Ed Blum's racist/white supremacist views are well-known - before he pursued the SFFA case with Asian American plaintiffs, he tried to bring cases against universities on behalf of white students on a "reverse discrimination" argument and lost those cases.

For everyone here who is saying that Asian Americans are overrepresented at top colleges compared to the U.S. population, you are not considering how the acceptances compare to the number of applications received from various racial groups at these schools. The Harvard evidence shows that they receive so many applicants from Asian Americans, the schools need to engage in subtle racism - e.g., giving Asian Americans a lower score on personality, character, etc. - in order to justify keeping out a lot of very qualified students.

The Harvard evidence shows no such thing. Harvard was found not to have discriminated against Asians, the finding was held up on appeal, and it wasn't argued as part of the Supreme Court review.

DP
Harvard admitted to discriminating it was part of their holistic process, the trial court found that their discrimination was within constitutionally permitted bounds of Gratz and Grutter.
The question before the court was whether it was constitutionally permissible discrimination, not whether or not there was any discrimination.

They did not. They actually argued that the seeming discrimination shown by Arcidiacono's model didn't exist because the model didn't adequately cover all of the admissions factors. The rebuttal by Card was a far better analysis and demonstrated convincingly that there was no discrimination. You are correct in that they also argued that if there was any inadvertent discrimination it was within the bounds of Grutter. The finding was for Harvard on every single point.

The question before the court was that any preference involving race violated the equal protection clause. SFFA didn't care about Asians at all, they actually first tried to find white plaintiffs but couldn't. They didn't care about winning against Harvard either. The entire point was to create a vehicle which would survive long enough to get the equal protection argument in front of the Supreme Court.

I'm not sure professor Card even believed his own argument.
He certainly hasn't been willing to defend them publicly despite being invited to discuss his conclusions.
Arcidiacono on the other hand seems to be willing to answer questions about his analysis.


It was not a difficult analysis, the discrimination was extremely obvious.

Card is a Titan in the field, he wouldn’t have done the work if he wasn’t confident in the results. He has both the John Bates Clark and the Nobel prize, the two highest awards in his field. Arcidiacono is an excellent economist but he is also much more of an ideologue. I like the focus of much of his work but his SFFA work wasn’t particularly compelling. Arcidiacono had to make some contorted arguments and exclusions to make his numbers work and it wasn’t hard for Card to build a more complex model which disproved Arcidiacono’s efforts. This shouldn’t be surprising since he had access to far more data, just like the Harvard AO did.

SFFA didn’t win on the merits, they won because they had the right bench. Once the court composition changes a vehicle will be found to get back in front of the court and SFFA v Harvard will be overturned.

DP.

“Once the court composition changes”? You mean decades from now?

Not to mention the fact that even with a more moderate composition, SCOTUS had begun choking on affirmative action. Sandra Day barely eked out 5 votes in Grutter in 2003.

Race-based admission/hiring is not coming back any time soon, if ever.

Yea, it could be a decade or even longer but I do not think that it is decided. I'm also not saying that I agree but rather that we haven't seen the end of it. Could also happen sooner due to the behavior of the current administration making an even larger segment of the population question the legitamacy of the court. I don't think that the democrats will hesitate on packing the court if they get all three branches again.