Results 1 to 27 of 27

Thread: Court Rules on Racism in College Admissions

  1. #1

    Default Court Rules on Racism in College Admissions

    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/sup...ions-decisions

    The U.S. Supreme Court handed down a major ruling on affirmative action Thursday, rejecting the use of race as a factor in college admissions as a violation of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.

    In a 6-3 decision, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion that, "A benefit to a student who overcame racial discrim*ination, for example, must be tied to that student’s courage and determination."

    "Or a benefit to a student whose herit*age or culture motivated him or her to assume a leadership role or attain a particular goal must be tied to that student’s unique ability to contribute to the university. In other words, the student must be treated based on his or her ex*periences as an individual—not on the basis of race," the opinion reads.

    "Many universities have for too long done just the oppo*site. And in doing so, they have concluded, wrongly, that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned but the color of their skin. Our constitutional history does not tolerate that choice," the opinion states.

    Justice Roberts was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.

    Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote the main dissent, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and in part by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who recused herself from the Harvard case due to her previous role on Harvard's Board of Overseers.

    President Biden is expected to deliver remarks on the decision at 12:30 p.m. on Thursday.

    The justices decided two separate legal challenges over just how Harvard University – a private institution – and the University of North Carolina – a public one – decide who fills their classrooms.

    These prominent schools say their standards have a larger societal goal, one endorsed for decades by the courts: to promote a robust, intellectually diverse campus for future leaders.

    But a coalition of Asian American students says the criteria discriminated with a "racial penalty" – holding them to a selectively higher standard than many Black and Hispanic students.

    Student activist group Students for Fair Admissions brought cases against both Harvard and University of North Carolina. The group initially sued Harvard College in 2014 for violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which "prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in any program or activity that receives Federal funds or other Federal financial assistance."

    The complaint against Harvard alleged that the school's practices penalized Asian American students, and that they failed to employ race-neutral practices. The North Carolina case raised the issue of whether the university could reject the use of non-race-based practices without showing that they would bring down the school's academic quality or negatively impact the benefits gained from campus diversity.

    ****

    Today is a good day! Of course the racists on the left will be upset, but that just makes the day better!

  2. #2
    Let's be honest, Lewk: if the Court ruled the opposite way but it made libs cry, you'd celebrate that decision, too.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  3. #3
    The fuck d'you care, you can't even read
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    12,313
    You could easily do without affirmative action in this form by a more generous approach to scholarships for disadvantaged groups. But that would mean real action in stead of performative action.
    Congratulations America

  5. #5
    Affirmative action should be based on wealth not race. I mean, the white man saving colored people is, well, you know, easily misconstrued as white supremacy (or accurately defined?). The Outlaws season 2 touches on this sensitivity.
    Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
    If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?

  6. #6
    Doing away with this won't change much. Applications will just be weighed based on income or location. It will give generally the same results.
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  7. #7
    Innumerate racists are convinced this will greatly benefit Asian students
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  8. #8
    It will greatly benefit administrators who'll make entire careers out of devising and implementing new systems that accomplish the same objective.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  9. #9
    the Court also ruled that colleges and universities may consider in admissions decisions “an applicant’s discussion of how being a legacy trust fund kid affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise.”
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  10. #10
    To be fair, the existence of legacies and sports scholarships mainly accessible to the rich makes libs cry (except those libs who use those processes to get their own kids into Ivies), which means Lewk has no reason to oppose them.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  11. #11
    So I've read through today's ruling on student loan forgiveness (haven't moved on to the gay discrimination one yet but I suspect that one will be fairly straightforward).

    It's actually kinda amusing, in some ways. I regrettably think the majority is quite right on the merits. It's an overreach by the Executive. If Congress had passed anything supporting it, that would have provided sufficient cover but even if the Act gave justification for such widespread forgiveness (as opposed to forbearance, which is clearly within its terms) the "emergency" is over as far as the Executive is concerned. The administration had a goal and reached for a hammer in roughly the shape it wanted even though Congress did not intend nor would have approved of that use.

    But it shouldn't have mattered. Plaintiffs did not have standing. And the majority is more or less outright lying with their opinion that Missouri, at least, did have standing as Kagan pointed out. The majority's precedent citations do not say what the majority is claiming. But Kagan is engaged in a lot of similar legerdemain when it comes to addressing the merits in her dissent.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  12. #12
    I'm still reading through Creative LLC vs Elenis but it turns out it's not straightforward. Mostly since it looks to me like a case the Court should never have taken up. The majority opinion and the dissenting opinion (which are also full of acrimony for each other, an increasing tendency Roberts REALLY has to step forward and put a stop to as Chief Justice) can't even agree on what the case is about. Because there isn't a conflict or controversy here. It's effectively an advisory opinion, something the Court doesn't get to offer, since the plaintiff thinks the State could use the law to compel them to do something (the State does agree with the plaintiff on that), not because they are being compelled to do anything.

    There's some doctrine of standing about "preenforcment" being invoked that I don't understand to justify considering it and a lot of the case is carried forward because various things were stipulated to by both parties in the original trial; since SCOTUS is acting as an appellate court, it isn't concerned with issues of fact determined at trial.

    It looks to me like both are technically correct in their opinions. Because they're answering different questions since there isn't a concrete cause of action to focus and limit the topic being addressed.

    The dissenting opinion is more limited than the majority opinion though. The majority opinion is carving out an exemption but it's not clear what the boundaries of the exemption would really be. The dissent supports the state compelling action, "expressive speech" int his case but makes it very clear what the limit is, that it cannot compel any specific content whatsoever, merely access to it. It may be there's still some overreach there (really hard to say since this is all effectively hypothetical) but there's probably less overreach than in the majority's carve-out.

    Despite a whole lot of branding, there isn't any religious component to either opinion's arguments or conclusions. This is purely a "free speech" case, not an establishment or free exercise one. But it's also abundantly clear that the entire thing IS about religion in fact because it's clear from how both opinions were written and argued that this would never have been a case and would have been summarily booted and the 10th Circuit's decision confirmed, if the case's framing had been racial. They would not have been entertaining this had it been miscegenation rather than queer.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Doing away with this won't change much. Applications will just be weighed based on income or location. It will give generally the same results.
    Now Asians can sue though, if colleges made the argument in court they needed Affirmative Action in order to help underrepresented minorities to get in and suddenly their numbers don't decline... easy W and hopefully juries can start wrecking those endowments. Your argument here is that schools are so dedicated to racism that they will flout the court order... and you think that's a good thing. Amazing.

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    To be fair, the existence of legacies and sports scholarships mainly accessible to the rich makes libs cry (except those libs who use those processes to get their own kids into Ivies), which means Lewk has no reason to oppose them.
    Legacy admissions are dumb but not unconstitutional. But hey the balls in court of the liberal elites that run colleges... you think they are going to eliminate legacy admissions or nah?

  15. #15
    Yes, the liberal elites known for increasing their own salaries while replacing tenured positions with adjuncts, all while refusing to negotiate with grad student unions. It's almost as if college administrators will pretend to believe just about anything to keep their positions.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    Now Asians can sue though, if colleges made the argument in court they needed Affirmative Action in order to help underrepresented minorities to get in and suddenly their numbers don't decline... easy W and hopefully juries can start wrecking those endowments. Your argument here is that schools are so dedicated to racism that they will flout the court order... and you think that's a good thing. Amazing.
    Do you know what words like "income" and "location" are? Just wondering about the severity of your functional illiteracy.
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  17. #17
    Don't you love how what's important to Lewk isn't that these "Asians" or underprivileged white students get admitted but that they drain the (grotesquely huge) endowments in lieu of to force these schools to focus MORE on fundraising from the established and overwhelmingly white elite and catering to their legacy students to do so.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  18. #18
    From my limited experience, the students who stand to gain the most from decreasing minority enrollment are the B- students from good schools, where they took schoolwork just seriously enough to not finish last in their class.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  19. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    Now Asians can sue though, if colleges made the argument in court they needed Affirmative Action in order to help underrepresented minorities to get in and suddenly their numbers don't decline... easy W and hopefully juries can start wrecking those endowments. Your argument here is that schools are so dedicated to racism that they will flout the court order... and you think that's a good thing. Amazing.
    What legal ground do think any group has that they can force colleges to accept them on only the criteria that favors them? Are you claiming that it's illegal for colleges to be diverse?
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  20. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    Don't you love how what's important to Lewk isn't that these "Asians" or underprivileged white students get admitted but that they drain the (grotesquely huge) endowments in lieu of to force these schools to focus MORE on fundraising from the established and overwhelmingly white elite and catering to their legacy students to do so.
    I dunno, I just figured he actually got a few weird groyper Asian family members or friends a few years ago, when he became more virulently anti-black...

    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    What legal ground do think any group has that they can force colleges to accept them on only the criteria that favors them? Are you claiming that it's illegal for colleges to be diverse?
    It would be very funny if such a lawsuit were brought, as it would show that race is a reliable proxy for socioeconomic disadvantage and marginalization after all
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  21. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    I dunno, I just figured he actually got a few weird groyper Asian family members or friends a few years ago, when he became more virulently anti-black...
    Suggesting that colleges don't be racist is anti-black? Bizarre goal post shifting.

  22. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    Suggesting that colleges don't be racist is anti-black? Bizarre goal post shifting.
    You gotta get a handle on that functional illiteracy mate, it's getting to be a real problem.
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  23. #23
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  24. #24
    https://www.foxnews.com/media/kentan...orns-wsj-op-ed

    Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson made a "mathematically absurd claim" about Black newborns in her dissenting opinion in the affirmative action decision, attorney Ted Frank wrote in a Wednesday Wall Street Journal op-ed.

    Jackson argued in her dissent that diversity "saves lives" and that it was essential for "marginalized communities."

    "It saves lives. For marginalized communities in North Carolina, it is critically important that UNC and other area institutions produce highly educated professionals of color. Research shows that Black physicians are more likely to accurately assess Black patients’ pain tolerance and treat them accordingly (including, for example, prescribing them appropriate amounts of pain medication). For high-risk Black newborns, having a Black physician more than doubles the likelihood that the baby will live, and not die," she wrote.

    LOL what an unserious judge to put her name onto something like that. I'm sure it was her clerks who did the heavy lifting but damn.

  25. #25
    Or maybe attorney Ted Frank didn't do his homework before writing an op-ed for WSJ.

    Data shows that the disparity in health outcomes for black premies (plus black maternal mortality) can improve when there are more black physicians. It's been studied and written about for quite a while, for anyone who cares to learn about our fubar medical industry. Surely you'll do your homework, since you care so much about *all* the preborn/unborn in the post-Dobbs era.


    Moving on...one thing that stood out to me is carve-out exemption for ROTC and military colleges. If racial diversity is considered a national security imperative, especially for officers/leadership, then what makes it less important in civilian life?

  26. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    Or maybe attorney Ted Frank didn't do his homework before writing an op-ed for WSJ.

    Data shows that the disparity in health outcomes for black premies (plus black maternal mortality) can improve when there are more black physicians. It's been studied and written about for quite a while, for anyone who cares to learn about our fubar medical industry. Surely you'll do your homework, since you care so much about *all* the preborn/unborn in the post-Dobbs era.


    Moving on...one thing that stood out to me is carve-out exemption for ROTC and military colleges. If racial diversity is considered a national security imperative, especially for officers/leadership, then what makes it less important in civilian life?
    I'll take it slow. What is the survival rate of black newborns?

    Oh and I agree the carve out for ROTC and military colleges is stupid.

  27. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    I'll take it slow. What is the survival rate of black newborns?
    Lower than the survival rate of white newborns. I can't wait to see your explanation for this.

    Oh and I agree the carve out for ROTC and military colleges is stupid.
    Then you agree that SCOTUS decisions are political?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •