Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why can’t they just put on the application “were your ancestors even enslaved in the United States”

Because racial quotas in college admission have nothing to do with slavery.

This shows you don't understand the issue at all. It's not reparations, and it is not affirmative action.

It has to do with colleges wanting a representative balance in races to achieve their mission. If they can't then they can't get the students they want, for the same reason non AA people don't choose to attend excellent HBC schools. And in colleges where Asians are URM applicants, they get the same benefit from the policy, which is again proof it isn't racist.

These are facts.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Higher education shoud be mainly for acedemic merit and must be color blind.

"Of 35,000 applicants competing for 1,600 spots in the class of 2019, 2,700 had perfect verbal SAT scores; 3,400 had perfect math SAT scores; more than 8,000 had perfect GPAs."

From the facts in the actual case. Now what?

Somethings happening with the SAT that there are that many perfect scores. There used to be that many scoring over 700.

I’m not sure what time periods your comparing, but one issue is that more people are deliberately prepared for the SATs, and more people are spending more time — both in and outside of school — preparing for them. Many years ago, outside perhaps some of prep-schools, most students just took the tests one time, with zero specific preparation. The thought, then, was that the SATs reflected ability more than the predictable results of a decade or more of coaching.

tldr: more kids being coached means more kids with higher—and even perfect — scores.

When and where was this?

It was true for me and my friends in suburban DC in the 80s.

Anonymous wrote:Results from Michigan SATs in 2022. 25% of Asians scored 1400-1600, 0% from blacks. Once Harvard and Ivies take top scoring black students, there are much lower scores for the 2nd tier of colleges.

https://i0.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2022/10/Michigan-SAT-1.png?ssl=1

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Higher education shoud be mainly for acedemic merit and must be color blind.

"Of 35,000 applicants competing for 1,600 spots in the class of 2019, 2,700 had perfect verbal SAT scores; 3,400 had perfect math SAT scores; more than 8,000 had perfect GPAs."

From the facts in the actual case. Now what?

But that are the scores of the applicants. What are the verbal SAT, math SAT, and GPA of the admitted students?

Why does that matter. Harvard would not be able to fill its seats based merely on a formula on "objective" scores like SAT scores or GPA. If they only considered perfect GPA or perfect SAT scores or whatever, they would still have to choose between applicants to fill their class. And they, as a private institution, should be able to decide that these scores are not what they are looking for in a student body. They have determined that their formula for selecting Harvard students tries to suss out potential to make an impact in some way or the other. They may be wrong. And if they are wrong, their brand value will go down. Let the market determine if their strategy is successful or not.

It matters because Harvard admitted students with very low scores in the name of R

Why can't Harvard admit students who have low test scores or no test scores at all?

They can as long as they don't discriminate against race

And the courts have found that they do not.

Sorry we have Supreme Court going on right now.
It's called 'Supreme' for a reason.

Yes, they are deciding whether or not to change decided precedent. That means these schools followed the law as it was, which is what the lower courts found. But now, this new Supreme Court may decided to change the established law (even though they aren't supposed to do that). I would not anticipate a retroactive application of it if they do change the law though.

Nope, they don't change the law.
Law makers change the law.

Yes, they do. When the overturn settled precedent, they are changing the law.

No, they can overturn precedent because it violates Constitution.
It's not making law.

And when that happens and there are no people of certain races admitted to elite colleges, then they sue, and win, (because that is absolute proof of systemic societal racism) what happens then?

No it's not absolute proof of systemic societal racism.

NBA has only 0.4% of Asians.
Is that absolute proof of systemic societal racism?

The NBA argument? Really? That's all you got?

Dumbest argument ever.

Try again.

I'm interested. Why NBA shouldn't be diverse to reflect population?

No, you are humping a strawman which is entirely irrelevant for reasons you absolutely know, and I won't engage to allow you to gish gallop past the relevant point. Stop being pathetic. Try yet again.

Nope, PP has a very relevant point. Why is there a severe lack of diversity in a billion dollar industry like the NBA? Hardly any Hispanics, Asians, etc. Why is the NBA exempt from diversity that reflects the country?


Oh that's right, because the NBA only wants the best players based on their merits regardless of their race. Funny how that works in a billion dollars sports industry, yet we don't apply the same logic at universities.

Sigh. Go ahead, join in on the stupid.

There have been many instances of racism in employment in professional sports throughout history. Maybe you've heard of Jackie Robinson?

Stupid, stupid argument. Please don't make this point where people know who you are. I tell you this for your own good.

Yes racism is bad.
Also it's not absolute proof of systemic societal racism just because a certain race is severely underrepresented.

Is a diverse class important? That is subjective. In Harvard's view, it is valuable. It is not against the law to believe this is an important attribute of a class. If they need to change their criteria to achieve that, ok.

You think the highest test scores are the most valuable criteria but that is also subjective.

Agreed. They will find another way to get the diversity they seek.

They better find a way to be more careful or they'll just lose the next lawsuit too,

Diversity is not against the law

Using race in admissions is about to be

NP Yes, it looks that way. Colleges can look to the states that have already made it illegal. The UCs found a way to diversity students when their numbers dropped due to the new law of not allowing race based admissions. Colleges already have a successful blueprint to use and keep things legal. Everybody wins.

Non-asian minorities are very underrepresented at top UC schools in comparison to the population of California. Black students are also underrepresented at top UC schools compared to similar institutions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have any of you heard the arguments by the two sides?
I thought Waxman, the Harvard lawyer was combative, weaved and dodged on several questions and at one time had to be told to keep quiet and let the Justices ask their question!!!

Basically both Harvard and UBC couldn't answer five basic questions satisfactorily

1) Give a clear succinct definition of Diversity, explain tangible benefits to the university community of pursuing it and how they measure it

2) How and when will they know when they can stop using race conscious admissions to achieve diversity and his long they think it will take

3) If Diversity is that important, why aren't Harvard and UNC ready to use race neutral options while sacrificing other factors like academic achievement, scores, SES etc to fill their class. Clearly they can do it, they just don't want to, given the trade-offs they will need to make

4) Harvard could not explain the blatant disparity in the personality scores, even after repeatedly being questioned on it

5) If they admit they are making progress( both Harvard Ave UNC admitted this) then why is their process essentially the same as it was when Bakke was decided ( Basically, why aren't race conscious admissions becoming less and less important). Waxman, really stumbled on this question.

Given all that and the hard push back from the conservative justices, I don't think Harvard and UNC will prevail here.

Maybe Roberts will try for a compromise

Where can I find audio of the oral argument? Supreme Ct website says it's available same day ilbut I don't see a link. Your post makes me want to listen to it!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Higher education shoud be mainly for acedemic merit and must be color blind.

"Of 35,000 applicants competing for 1,600 spots in the class of 2019, 2,700 had perfect verbal SAT scores; 3,400 had perfect math SAT scores; more than 8,000 had perfect GPAs."

From the facts in the actual case. Now what?

Somethings happening with the SAT that there are that many perfect scores. There used to be that many scoring over 700.

I’m not sure what time periods your comparing, but one issue is that more people are deliberately prepared for the SATs, and more people are spending more time — both in and outside of school — preparing for them. Many years ago, outside perhaps some of prep-schools, most students just took the tests one time, with zero specific preparation. The thought, then, was that the SATs reflected ability more than the predictable results of a decade or more of coaching.

tldr: more kids being coached means more kids with higher—and even perfect — scores.

When and where was this?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So if a kid mentions their race or references it in an essay, what is the "fair admission" guy saying? That AOs can't use the essay?

That was one of the questions asked by (I think) Justice Jackson. There was no direct answer.

Eventually agreed that it is probably ok in that context, since an Asian student could also reference in their essay eg. discrimination that they may also have faced growing up.

I heard Jackson ask whether if you have 2 kids, one whose family has lived in NC for 5 generations and gone to UNC for 5 generations, and one whose family has lived in NC for 5 generations and could not go to UNC for 5 generations because of slavery, could they each say it was important to them to go to UNC for those reasons and could UNC consider each of those stories as factors and the plaintiffs' lawyer basically said UNC could consider the first and not the second (though he did say UNC could refuse to consider the first, and could consider first gen or low SES students).

It sounds so stpuid a kid born in 2023 is affected by the slavery of his/her slave ancestors.

Yes, stupid and very sad that this is true.

How is the kid affected by slavery today?

I wrote quite a bit about the impacts of slavery that are still very much with us — and I erased it all. Instead, I’ll flip it.

If your parents or grandparents or great great grandparents came to this country in search of a better life — and actually found one, how does this affect kids in your family today?

Do you think Blacks in the US today would have been better if their ancestors stayed in somewhere Africa so they are in Africa today?

Unlikely but choice matters. I wonder if we asked today, many from African countries would volunteer to come here as slaves.

Your ignorance is showing.

I bet you don't know a single African. They have pride. They don't come here to slave. That's why they outperform native born whites and blacks.

But they still get plus points for being Black?

And they should. Do you think the racist cop pulling them over for no reason or shooting them stops to ask if they were born in the US or Africa? How about the rednecks shooting them when they go out for a jog? Do you think they care if the person is African or American born? How about the store security guard following them around? Does the guard do a passport check?

Just a few examples of how it’s different for black folks.

Anonymous wrote:Harvard is going to lose. Deservedly so. Amazing how many Asian kids over the years just didn’t have that winsome personality score that other applicants had. Truly a mystery wrapped inside a racist enigma.

Raced based admissions is a joke on every level. Go look up the highest achieving races in America and see what you find. They ain’t white. Trying to frame race based admissions being overturned as the white man keeping people down is ludicrous and an insult to the intelligence of anyone with functional brain cells.

Harvard didn’t screw over Asian kids so that more people from Compton could be admitted. If anyone thinks that for real, I am surprised they can tie their own shoelaces. It was and will be forever a way to protect the admits they wanted to admit. Hint: Not kids from Compton.

A system that treats an Appalachian white kid as privileged and a Nigerian mineral heir as oppressed is absurd and evil. If Harvard or any of these other ridiculous preening universities truly cared, they would pour hundreds of millions into k-12 schooling for economically disadvantaged kids across the country. But they don’t and they won’t.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have any of you heard the arguments by the two sides?
I thought Waxman, the Harvard lawyer was combative, weaved and dodged on several questions and at one time had to be told to keep quiet and let the Justices ask their question!!!

Basically both Harvard and UBC couldn't answer five basic questions satisfactorily

1) Give a clear succinct definition of Diversity, explain tangible benefits to the university community of pursuing it and how they measure it

2) How and when will they know when they can stop using race conscious admissions to achieve diversity and his long they think it will take

3) If Diversity is that important, why aren't Harvard and UNC ready to use race neutral options while sacrificing other factors like academic achievement, scores, SES etc to fill their class. Clearly they can do it, they just don't want to, given the trade-offs they will need to make

4) Harvard could not explain the blatant disparity in the personality scores, even after repeatedly being questioned on it

5) If they admit they are making progress( both Harvard Ave UNC admitted this) then why is their process essentially the same as it was when Bakke was decided ( Basically, why aren't race conscious admissions becoming less and less important). Waxman, really stumbled on this question.

Given all that and the hard push back from the conservative justices, I don't think Harvard and UNC will prevail here.

Maybe Roberts will try for a compromise

4…. Why should they explain disparity in personality scores?

Anonymous wrote:Why can’t they just put on the application “were your ancestors even enslaved in the United States”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Higher education shoud be mainly for acedemic merit and must be color blind.

"Of 35,000 applicants competing for 1,600 spots in the class of 2019, 2,700 had perfect verbal SAT scores; 3,400 had perfect math SAT scores; more than 8,000 had perfect GPAs."

From the facts in the actual case. Now what?

Somethings happening with the SAT that there are that many perfect scores. There used to be that many scoring over 700.

I’m not sure what time periods your comparing, but one issue is that more people are deliberately prepared for the SATs, and more people are spending more time — both in and outside of school — preparing for them. Many years ago, outside perhaps some of prep-schools, most students just took the tests one time, with zero specific preparation. The thought, then, was that the SATs reflected ability more than the predictable results of a decade or more of coaching.

tldr: more kids being coached means more kids with higher—and even perfect — scores.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why can’t they just put on the application “were your ancestors even enslaved in the United States”

how would they confirm that?

You don’t think people can trace their family back to becoming free?

Anonymous wrote:Have any of you heard the arguments by the two sides?
I thought Waxman, the Harvard lawyer was combative, weaved and dodged on several questions and at one time had to be told to keep quiet and let the Justices ask their question!!!

Basically both Harvard and UBC couldn't answer five basic questions satisfactorily

1) Give a clear succinct definition of Diversity, explain tangible benefits to the university community of pursuing it and how they measure it

2) How and when will they know when they can stop using race conscious admissions to achieve diversity and his long they think it will take

3) If Diversity is that important, why aren't Harvard and UNC ready to use race neutral options while sacrificing other factors like academic achievement, scores, SES etc to fill their class. Clearly they can do it, they just don't want to, given the trade-offs they will need to make

4) Harvard could not explain the blatant disparity in the personality scores, even after repeatedly being questioned on it

5) If they admit they are making progress( both Harvard Ave UNC admitted this) then why is their process essentially the same as it was when Bakke was decided ( Basically, why aren't race conscious admissions becoming less and less important). Waxman, really stumbled on this question.

Given all that and the hard push back from the conservative justices, I don't think Harvard and UNC will prevail here.

Maybe Roberts will try for a compromise