SCOTUS: Supreme Court restricts race-based affirmative action in college admissions

Issue before or regarding the Supreme Court of The United States

Welcome to the Precious Metals Bug Forums

Welcome to the PMBug forums - a watering hole for folks interested in gold, silver, precious metals, sound money, investing, market and economic news, central bank monetary policies, politics and more. You can visit the forum page to see the list of forum nodes (categories/rooms) for topics.

Why not register an account and join the discussions? When you register an account and log in, you may enjoy additional benefits including no Google ads, market data/charts, access to trade/barter with the community and much more. Registering an account is free - you have nothing to lose!

searcher

morning
Moderator
Benefactor
Messages
13,466
Reaction score
2,801
Points
238
Affirmative action is out.

Supreme Court restricts race-based affirmative action in college admissions​

The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down admissions programs at Harvard and the University of North Carolina that relied in part on racial considerations, saying they violate the Constitution.

The votes split along ideological grounds, with Chief Justice John G. Roberts writing for the conservative members in the majority, and the liberals dissenting.

“The student must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual—not on the basis of race,” Roberts wrote. “Many universities have for too long done just the opposite. 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.”

More here:

 
Affirmative action is out.
...

Based upon what is written in that report, it's not necessarily out completely. It's going to (now) require some nuance/qualifiers.

...
Roberts said the admissions programs at Harvard and UNC “lack sufficiently focused and measurable objectives warranting the use of race, unavoidably employ race in a negative manner, involve racial stereotyping, and lack meaningful end points.”

But he added that “nothing in this opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise.”
...

They might end up designing complex formulas that weigh (and weight) race in conjunction with other factors like poverty, school system rankings, etc.

Best if they just considered the underlying factors without skin color IMO, but academia isn't interested in a pure meritocracy.
 
Best if they just considered the underlying factors without skin color IMO, but academia isn't interested in a pure meritocracy.
It goes against their equity agenda.


They might end up designing complex formulas that weigh (and weight) race in conjunction with other factors like poverty, school system rankings, etc.
Of course they will do that. What else would those opposed the Constitution and equality do, if not find some way to weasel around limitations to their woke agenda? It's what they do.
 
...
Many have pointed out that doing away with affirmative action programs will just lead elite colleges to embrace other schemes for accomplishing the same goals, such as putting increased emphasis on personal essays as part of the admissions process. Harvard University already seems to imply as much in a statement highlighting the Court stating that schools could still consider "an applicant's discussion of how race affected his or her life." This "loophole will make all the bad aspects of current admissions (the extreme weight given to personal essays) worse, in the sense of more arbitrary and subjective," suggests The Nation's Jeet Heer.
...

 
Normally I avoid posting vids by bigherc but this one made me smile. It's one man's opinion that has some good points without going off the deep end. Click off at the 13:50 sec mark unless you want to listen to a commercial.

 
This is just a joke. Nothing will change. The slimy leftists will simply find a weasel way to work around it. For instance, I'm sure the practice of awarding blacks 230 free SAT points will not change. Nor will the practice of deducting 50 earned SAT points for Asians. https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-adv-asian-race-tutoring-20150222-story.html Both practices are criminal, in my opinion. Leftists, in a severely misguided attempt at "equity" are awarding SAT points to people who simply didn't earn them in an effort to get them into college. Anyone with two firing synapses can see what the result will be. I could get my dog into college if I greased enough palms, but that doesn't mean that it will be able to understand Fluid Dynamics. Or do Integral Calculus. Does anyone actually think that awarding them points that they did not earn will magically make them smarter?
 
Related:

Exclusive: UNC pays anti-affirmative action group $4.8 million after US Supreme Court loss​

January 30, 202412:58 PM EST Updated 18 hours ago

Jan 30 (Reuters) - The University of North Carolina has agreed to pay $4.8 million to cover the fees and expenses of a group founded by affirmative action critic Edward Blum that won a U.S. Supreme Court challenge to the school's consideration of race in student admissions.

The university disclosed, opens new tab those details in response to a public records request by Reuters seeking information on how much it agreed to pay to settle the fee demand by Students for Fair Admissions, a Virginia-based nonprofit organization. Under a federal law called the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Award Act of 1976, courts are authorized to award plaintiffs who prevail in certain civil rights cases reasonable attorneys' fees.

UNC agreed to pay Blum's group $3.9 million to cover its fees and $900,000 for its expenses, according to the university's records request response made on Monday.

More:

 
Back
Top Bottom