Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So gender and national origin can still be considered? Women born in Africa get to be considered for that reason?

Majority of college students are women. If anything men should be given the advantage at this point in time if you are aiming for diversity.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No more fake white “Latinos” whose European ancestors moved to South America getting admissions preferences over other similarly white students.

💯

No one games the system more than latinos!

Yet they have the lowest percentage of college degrees. The data don’t support your feelings.

DP. It’s because so many can’t get one despite AA.
But many of those who can are using the loophole. Technically it’s “mestizo” who rightfully get AA.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'm one of those Democrats who is happy to see this ruling. I'd rather see affirmative action on the basis of socioeconomic status rather than race. It would probably get you to the same conclusion rather than giving preferential treatment to UMC and UC POCs.

It doesn't get you there. California has already proven that. As a black woman, I am devasted. How do you eliminate affirmative action when merit is not real. You have many black and latino students graduated from substandard schools and white kids going to high school with golf courses. SAT scores are based on income, not intelligence.

We haven't even come to terms with race in this country.

And you apparently haven't come to terms with class. There are a TON of poor and lower income whites in this country. You really need to get out more.

Umm, are they poor because they are white??

Anonymous wrote:So gender and national origin can still be considered? Women born in Africa get to be considered for that reason?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'm one of those Democrats who is happy to see this ruling. I'd rather see affirmative action on the basis of socioeconomic status rather than race. It would probably get you to the same conclusion rather than giving preferential treatment to UMC and UC POCs.

It doesn't get you there. California has already proven that. As a black woman, I am devasted. How do you eliminate affirmative action when merit is not real. You have many black and latino students graduated from substandard schools and white kids going to high school with golf courses. SAT scores are based on income, not intelligence.

We haven't even come to terms with race in this country.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I work for a company that hires undergrads from top universities. I can tell you, anonymously, the Asian kids are head and shoulders above everyone. It’s not even close.

Also, if you hire one Indian, he will bring other Indians onboard and they in turn will hire and promote only Indians.

Before you know it your company will become all Indian. That’s what happened to Silicon Valley and everyone knows it.

Anonymous wrote:All of you who think this issue was about Asians are strongly mistaken. Presenting Asians as the purported "victims" of AA college admissions policies was a smokescreen to divert attention from the real intended beneficiaries of doing away with AA: WHITES. Asians think Blacks and Hispanics are taking away their slots in the most selective colleges? While admission rates for Asians may go up slightly, a higher proportion of those "extra" slots will be going to whites.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."

The 14th Amendment was not enforced by the Supreme Court for 90 years, and now it is being interpreted for the opposite purpose as its intent. It was meant to remedy the legacy of discrimination, but now it has been interpreted as protection for maintaining the discriminatory effect of that legacy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."

The 14th Amendment was not enforced by the Supreme Court for 90 years, and now it is being interpreted for the opposite purpose as its intent. It was meant to remedy the legacy of discrimination, but now it has been interpreted as protection for maintaining the discriminatory effect of that legacy.

Anonymous wrote:"No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All of you who think this issue was about Asians are strongly mistaken. Presenting Asians as the purported "victims" of AA college admissions policies was a smokescreen to divert attention from the real intended beneficiaries of doing away with AA: WHITES. Asians think Blacks and Hispanics are taking away their slots in the most selective colleges? While admission rates for Asians may go up slightly, a higher proportion of those "extra" slots will be going to whites.

Nope. Nice try at deflection by trying to bring in whites.

It has to do with Asians being held to higher standard than everyone else and having racial stereotypes used to character assassinate them for rejection.

No, seriously. Do you know the history of this case and who is behind it? I didn't until I did a bit of research on the backstory. The answer is: Edward Blum and the organization he created--Students for Fair Admissions (based in Arlington, VA BTW). I know this is a long read and most won't bother to read it, but it's worth knowing how this case started. (The comments in square brackets are mine).

"Blum is not a lawyer, but he has a long history of crafting legal attacks on civil rights. After losing a congressional election in the early 1990s, Blum, who is white, challenged the Texas redistricting process as discriminating in favor of African American and Latinx voters. While his success in that case, Bush v. Vera, was limited to particular districts, among his other challenges to the voting rights, Blum was behind Shelby v. Holder. That case gutted important protections in the Voting Rights Act with drastic effects for voters of color. His attacks on laws and policies designed to promote the equality of people of color are not limited to voting rights. Blum also crafted the unsuccessful challenge to race-conscious college admissions programs in Fisher v. University of Texas. [FYI Fisher v. UT was brought by a white female--Abigail Fisher--who sued UT when she was not admitted, "claiming that the University of Texas' use of race as a consideration in admission decisions was in violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment." [Even among those students, Fisher did not particularly stand out. Court records show her grade point average (3.59) and SAT scores (1180 out of 1600) were good but not great for the highly selective flagship university. The school's rejection rate that year for the remaining 841 openings was higher than the turn-down rate for students trying to get into Harvard. As a result, university officials claim in court filings that even if Fisher received points for her race and every other personal achievement factor, the letter she received in the mail still would have said no. It's true that the university, for whatever reason, offered provisional admission to some students with lower test scores and grades than Fisher. Five of those students were black or Latino. Forty-two were white. Neither Fisher nor Blum mentioned those 42 applicants in interviews. Nor did they acknowledge the 168 black and Latino students with grades as good as or better than Fisher's who were also denied entry into the university that year. Also left unsaid is the fact that Fisher turned down a standard UT offer under which she could have gone to the university her sophomore year if she earned a 3.2 GPA at another Texas university school in her freshman year."] (https://www.propublica.org/article/a-colorblind-constitution-what-abigail-fishers-affirmative-action-case-is-r#:~:text=Even%20among%20those%20students%2C%20Fisher,the%20highly%20selective%20flagship%20university.)

Failing in Fisher, Blum baldly strategized that he “needed Asian plaintiffs.” He formed Students for Fair Admissions as a vehicle to file litigation. The organization’s leadership consists solely of Mr. Blum, Abigail Fisher, and Richard Fisher, her father. [Since this was written, it looks like Blum has added three Asian board members]. Through Students for Fair Admissions, Blum recruited “members” and filed his challenge to college admissions against Harvard and the University of North Carolina with a twist. This time, Blum claims that the consideration of race discriminates against Asian Americans."

So when Bum failed to achieve his goal by helping a white student bring a case, he moved on to Asian Americans. This was never about concern for discrimination against Asian Americans--they were just a vehicle to a larger end.

Anonymous wrote:

Maybe we could focus on test scores if everybody didn't get an A in every class.

My DS has had his first year at a 'good' American high school. The standards are shockingly low. No essays at all in his junior year. Work that's not turned in gets a 50% grade. Sloppily written multiple choice questions. Kids basically just have to turn up to get an A. Why aren't we challenging our students?

- immigrant mom, not from an Asian country

Anonymous wrote:I work for a company that hires undergrads from top universities. I can tell you, anonymously, the Asian kids are head and shoulders above everyone. It’s not even close.

Anonymous wrote:"No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."