Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Let me paste the part of the decision that you nincompoops did not read:
"But, despite the dissent’s assertion to the contrary, universities may not simply establish through application essays or other means the regime we hold unlawful today. (A dissent-
ing opinion is generally not the best source of legal advice on how to comply with the majority opinion.) “[W]hat cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly. The Constitution deals with substance, not shadows,” and the prohibition against racial discrimination is “levelled at the thing, not the name""
It would be nice if they struck down geography as a factor, but there is no indication that they will
Anonymous wrote:Let me paste the part of the decision that you nincompoops did not read:
"But, despite the dissent’s assertion to the contrary, universities may not simply establish through application essays or other means the regime we hold unlawful today. (A dissent-
ing opinion is generally not the best source of legal advice on how to comply with the majority opinion.) “[W]hat cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly. The Constitution deals with substance, not shadows,” and the prohibition against racial discrimination is “levelled at the thing, not the name""
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:So, now that the law of the land has changed and SCOTUS clearly said that ANY system that results in a negative admissions impact to a racial group (even if not explicitly) is unconstitutional, and directly stated admissions is a zero sum game and that by definition increasing URM hurt asian applicants, does this open the door for a new TJ lawsuit? I think probably yes
How so? The experience factors are Economically Disadvantaged, English Language Learners, and Special Education. None of those are race based. The geographic distribution is based on the MS a child attends.
Young scholars is partially race based.
NP. I understood that Younger Scholars is explicitly race based although after the complaint about it earlier this year or last year, they've been pretending otherwise.
But TJ isn't Young Scholars. OP may be right about a lawsuit being filed but it would be baseless.
Anonymous wrote:So, now that the law of the land has changed and SCOTUS clearly said that ANY system that results in a negative admissions impact to a racial group (even if not explicitly) is unconstitutional, and directly stated admissions is a zero sum game and that by definition increasing URM hurt asian applicants, does this open the door for a new TJ lawsuit? I think probably yes
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:So, now that the law of the land has changed and SCOTUS clearly said that ANY system that results in a negative admissions impact to a racial group (even if not explicitly) is unconstitutional, and directly stated admissions is a zero sum game and that by definition increasing URM hurt asian applicants, does this open the door for a new TJ lawsuit? I think probably yes
How so? The experience factors are Economically Disadvantaged, English Language Learners, and Special Education. None of those are race based. The geographic distribution is based on the MS a child attends.
Young scholars is partially race based.
NP. I understood that Younger Scholars is explicitly race based although after the complaint about it earlier this year or last year, they've been pretending otherwise.
But TJ isn't Young Scholars. OP may be right about a lawsuit being filed but it would be baseless.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:So, now that the law of the land has changed and SCOTUS clearly said that ANY system that results in a negative admissions impact to a racial group (even if not explicitly) is unconstitutional, and directly stated admissions is a zero sum game and that by definition increasing URM hurt asian applicants, does this open the door for a new TJ lawsuit? I think probably yes
How so? The experience factors are Economically Disadvantaged, English Language Learners, and Special Education. None of those are race based. The geographic distribution is based on the MS a child attends.
Young scholars is partially race based.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:So, now that the law of the land has changed and SCOTUS clearly said that ANY system that results in a negative admissions impact to a racial group (even if not explicitly) is unconstitutional, and directly stated admissions is a zero sum game and that by definition increasing URM hurt asian applicants, does this open the door for a new TJ lawsuit? I think probably yes
How so? The experience factors are Economically Disadvantaged, English Language Learners, and Special Education. None of those are race based. The geographic distribution is based on the MS a child attends.
Anonymous wrote:So, now that the law of the land has changed and SCOTUS clearly said that ANY system that results in a negative admissions impact to a racial group (even if not explicitly) is unconstitutional, and directly stated admissions is a zero sum game and that by definition increasing URM hurt asian applicants, does this open the door for a new TJ lawsuit? I think probably yes