In a case that involved admissions for Harvard University and the the University of North Carolina, the Supreme Court has disallowed even small consideration of race as a factor in college admissions. It is reported that many other schools have used those two schools' policies as a basis for their own admission policies.

IMO this may not come out in a manner that people expect. For instance, Asian Americans often have higher grades, test scores, etc. when applying to Harvard and other schools, and may possibly greatly benefit from this decision. "Universities have warned that getting rid of affirmative action would significantly impact the diversity of their student bodies, with Harvard arguing in court briefs that taking race out of its admissions process would reduce enrollment of Black students at the school from 14% to 6% of its student body, and Hispanic enrollment from 14% to 9%....the University of Michigan said in a court brief that after it adopted race-neutral policies, its Black population decreased by 44% between 2006 and 2021 as a result, even as Michigan’s population of college-age African Americans increased."

It's also unknow how this will affect the service academies.

I'm looking forward to comments from those who work in higher ed in particular.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2023/06/29/supreme-court-gets-rid-of-affirmative-action-in-college-admissions/?sh=47b294672857



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/29/2023 10:34AM by summer.

If Affirmative Action was genuinely not needed, I would say that's good, but that's living in a Perfect Worrld, not the real one...

That's my thinking. We're not quite there yet.

nt

Let's go with ongoing discrimination against black people and other selected minorities.

Of course the Mormon church, as an example, has always been a stellar example of tolerance and integration of black people. /s

summer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Let's go with ongoing discrimination against black
> people and other selected minorities.

Yep. That's where the Court is. See no evil, hear no evil.

Affirmative Action discriminated against Asians based upon their race. That’s racist.

Racism is racist?

Sometimes you go too far!!!

I'm not sure we are ready for this to be removed because diversity and fair treatment for all is not exactly thriving right now.

Generational wealth and opportunity can be huge advantages when it comes to prep schools and coaching for applications.

I wish they had disallowed admissions departments to have any knowledge of donations and gifts made by anyone the applicant might know. I wish admissions departments could not see names of applicants or know how powerful or rich their family might be. We all can name a few Harvard grads who were solely there because of nepotism, wealth and donations.

If people who like to discriminate (you know what I mean) see college grads lop sided for non-whites, they might get a reality check.

"Hey, you let my father attend and graduate from your school and he was as lousy mormon, a lousy missionary and a lousy EQP and a totally piss-poor student, so I demand you honor his legacy and let ME attend!"

--My TBM daughter

Most of you here are old enough to remember 30 yrs of affirmative action in the workplace college admissions etc.
I think everybody wants fairness but you have to ask yourself how long must it go on? When is it time to stand on your own merits without a crutch?

When there is no longer generational wealth advantage between races, PHIL. When there is no longer discrimination and exclusion running rampant in politics.

BTW, don't be surprised if they tweak gender admission rules either.
I might add that this whole issue is an attack on education in general, and limiting education for minorities specifically. It's no secret what relationship certain political forces might have with wanting undereducated voters.

Remember why affirmative action was put in place in the first place. People are trying to go backwards.

With regard to Affirmative Action, is it a slight deviation or a full-on rout when Affirmative Action becomes the means by which well-off but intellectually challenged White People are given preference over more qualified minority students because otherwise, the shrinking White Majority will suffer?

Phil, I think that's a very good question.

One thing that I can say as an urban teacher (who taught mainly black kids for the majority of my career,) is that black urban kids have to fight about ten times harder for their education than your average white suburban kid. The odds are so stacked against them. I don't know what the statistics are nowadays, but back in the beginning stages of my career, maybe a quarter to a third of any given elementary level class could be expected to graduate from high school, and only one student could be expected to go to college. I helped all of my students to the best of my ability, but I would always look around my class every year, wondering who was "the one." No matter what else was going on, I wanted to be there for that child.

Urban kids have to dodge and resist neighborhood drug dealers, avoid random shootings (my school system had school or neighborhood shootings of our students pretty much every month this year,) endure endless disruptions from multiple family moves, cope with hunger and a lack of medical care, and make it through classrooms that can often range from disruptive to violent. The kids who make it through that gauntlet with excellent grades and test scores are an admirable group, that in my opinion, deserve extra consideration for college admissions. And now that level of consideration may be compromized.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/29/2023 01:19PM by summer.

PHIL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think everybody wants fairness but you have to
> ask yourself how long must it go on? When is it
> time to stand on your own merits without a crutch?

The origin of and reasons for Affirmative Action are rooted in the imperative to create a somewhat more level playing field for Black students after decades of inequality and discrimination. It's inaccurate and even offensive, at least, to label a policy of inclusion a 'crutch'.

PHIL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Most of you here are old enough to remember 30 yrs
> of affirmative action in the workplace college
> admissions etc.
> I think everybody wants fairness but you have to
> ask yourself how long must it go on? When is it
> time to stand on your own merits without a crutch?

The time that affirmative action would no longer be needed will come when the percentage of minorities enrolled in colleges and universities roughly equals (within 2 to 3 percentage points) the percentage of Caucasians attending college.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/29/2023 01:44PM by blindguy.

PHIL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Most of you here are old enough to remember 30 yrs
> of affirmative action in the workplace college
> admissions etc.
> I think everybody wants fairness but you have to
> ask yourself how long must it go on? When is it
> time to stand on your own merits without a crutch?

I used to think this way in my white, male, upper middle class world view. But about 20 years ago I came across someone who totally changed my perspective. She was the mother of my nephew, my brother-in-law's ex-girlfriend. She was born in poor and rural north Florida, grew up bouncing between her drug addicted mother and many different foster homes in rural Florida. Like most everyone in her circle, she dropped out of high school and took jobs at McDonalds, or as a waitress. She struggled to make ends meet and lived a rough existence. Fortunately though she had avoided substance abuse and legal issues. Despite her rough life, she was a good and hard working person. Right after she gave birth to my nephew, my brother-in-law dumped her, she was basically left homeless and penniless. So my wife (we have since divorced) and I let her move in and stay in an extra room we had. I remember talking with her one day about a plan to move forward and I asked her about possibly going back to school and getting her GED and maybe enrolling in a Community College program in the area. Her response to that was "how"? I didn't quite know what she meant, so I asked her some more questions, and soon it became clear to me, she had absolutely no idea about how to handle education. She had heard there was such a thing as a GED, but had no idea even how people got one. In her universe people dropped out of school at 15 or 16, and got jobs as service workers or they became drug addicts, or they were small time criminals. That was all she knew. For her, getting an education was well outside of her world view. To my wife and I, it was obvious that if you want to get a GED, you contact your local school district to see if they can help you find a GED program and go from there. But to her, I may as well have been asking her to drive to Pluto and back tomorrow. That experience was a real eye opener to me and the first time I was able to get a clear view about how our environment shapes how we view and interact with the world, and that the experience can be vastly different for different people. Since then, I have a lot more patience and understanding of the struggles that people might have when they come from broken homes, poor areas, or surrounded by crime and violence. What may seem like a simple matter of standing on ones own merits to me, may seem like the impossible to someone else.

Just as a follow up, the woman in question did get her GED, and got a two year nursing degree from the local community college program, using grants, scholarships, and loans, and has been working as a nurse for almost 15 years now. Other than becoming an extreme right wing Christian nut job (oh the irony...), she has been doing quite well for herself. My old nephew is planning on going to college too.

From the New York Times:

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/29/us/politics/affirmative-action-dissent-sotomayor-jackson.html


"Both Justice Sotomayor and Justice Jackson criticized the majority for making an exception for military academies. Justice Jackson wrote that the majority concluded that “racial diversity in higher education is only worth potentially preserving insofar as it might be needed to prepare Black Americans and other underrepresented minorities for success in the bunker, not the boardroom.”

This is the single most important part of the decision.

The Kangaroos have adopted the view that it not permissible for any college to "discriminate" on the basis of race unless the college is affiliated with the government, in which case such discrimination is perfectly legitimate.

Unaddressed are two implicit questions:

1) Why are virtually identical motivations laudable or damnable depending solely on who runs an educational institution?

2) Where in the constitution does it say the government is exempt from constitutional rules?

The judicial geniuses who comprise the majority have just declared that the parts of the constitution that limit governmental authority--the Bill of Rights and the post-Civil War amendments--do not apply to government.

How fair are legacy admissions I'm wondering.

Or those extended to elite athletes.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/29/2023 01:35PM by Nightingale.

Many people are questioning Harvard's legacy admissions in particular.

As for athletes, schools have to fill sports teams, and then there is Title IX to consider, which ensures in part that women have equal access to school sports teams. I shudder to think what will happen if SCOTUS ever tackles that issue. Back to donut-making, I guess.

Lest we forget -- if you didn't have an "Anglo-Saxon" last name, you didn't get in ether back then,

It's the 21st Century, and people still want to be excusionary and racist -- the notion that everytime a person of colour gets ahead, they are "taking the place" of a deserving White person is racist.


But hey, let just have more demonization and exclusion.

Here is the text of the ruling:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdf

"In a case that involved admissions for Harvard University and the the University of North Carolina, the Supreme Court has disallowed even small consideration of race as a factor in college admissions. It is reported that many other schools have used those two schools' policies as a basis for their own admission policies."

COMMENT: Not true. Although the court rejected systematic, institutional, consideration of race, the court added:

"At the same time, as all parties agree, 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."

It seems to me that this is how it should be. Race is considered in the context of an individual applicant's life experiences, not as a means to rectify historical or current injustices of society at large. On this view, a privileged black applicant would not have a 'systemic' advantage over a disadvantaged white applicant who was otherwise equally qualified.
__________________________________________

"IMO this may not come out in a manner that people expect. For instance, Asian Americans often have higher grades, test scores, etc. when applying to Harvard and other schools, and may possibly greatly benefit from this decision."

COMMENT: But that is the very heart of 'equal protection.' Race per se becomes entirely irrelevant regardless of the effect of such equal protection on admissions statistics. The fact that someone might be concerned about such an outcome arguably displays a prejudicial attitude against Asians.
_______________________________________

"Universities have warned that getting rid of affirmative action would significantly impact the diversity of their student bodies, with Harvard arguing in court briefs that taking race out of its admissions process would reduce enrollment of Black students at the school from 14% to 6% of its student body, and Hispanic enrollment from 14% to 9%....the University of Michigan said in a court brief that after it adopted race-neutral policies, its Black population decreased by 44% between 2006 and 2021 as a result, even as Michigan’s population of college-age African Americans increased."

COMMENT: According to the Court diversity is no longer an adequate justification under the strict scrutiny exceptions of the equal protection clause. But again, racial diversity might indirectly find its way into the admissions outcome through individual consideration of the life experiences of qualified black applicants.
________________________________________

It's also unknow how this will affect the service academies.

COMMENT: I believe they are exempted.
_________________________________________

In any event, I think the SC ruling was correct. As a liberal, I would rather society focus on the social injustices and unjust inequalities that exist within society at large at the root level, which deprive many blacks, and the working poor generally, of reasonable opportunities for an advanced education; for example, due to lack of income, affordable housing, and a stable, supporting family environment. It doesn't help to address such injustices by rewarding those who somehow managed to compete for a place at Harvard, while leaving behind the vast numbers who never had a reasonable opportunity for an advanced education in the first place.

>> "At the same time, as all parties agree, 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."

Henry, I think what they are talking about her is the essay that is often submitted for the more competitive universities. I construe it to say that discussion of race is not prohibited from essays that come as a part of the application package. Forgive me for being a bit cynical when it comes to the current Supreme Court, but I'm skeptical that it means anything more than that.

>>COMMENT: But that is the very heart of 'equal protection.' Race per se becomes entirely irrelevant regardless of the effect of such equal protection on admissions statistics. The fact that someone might be concerned about such an outcome arguably displays a prejudicial attitude against Asians.

I'm simply pointing out that the logical outcome -- that Asians are likely to be admitted to Harvard and other selective schools in large numbers -- may come as a surprise to some.

Will wonders never cease. I find myself largely in agreement with Henry. I'd have to look the decision over in more detail, and don't have time right now, but it looks like there is enough wiggle room that preserve student body diversity.

I am sympathetic to the POV that maintaining diversity should be based on social class and life experiences instead of race.

I spent 3 years each on a university admission committee, on the academic appeals committee, and the readmission committee (I think that was a subcommittee of the appeals committee), so I have seen the system from the inside. It was a state school, so it did not the kinds of applicant numbers (and rejection numbers) of a Harvard, Most students were admitted algorithmically - if they met the standards, they were in. The committee handled the complicated cases - home schooled students, GED, SOTAs (students older than average), students short on particular categories of HS subjects, etc.

Those cases usually got admitted, and if not, we sent them a letter outlining what they could do. By far the most common advice was attend a community college, perhaps with a suggestion of which courses to take if they had a HS deficiency, and reapply after a year or two.

Long story short, I was pretty impressed with the admissions procedures. Less so with the academic appeals (i.e. student-faculty disagreements) which I thought were weighted way too. heavily in favor of the faculty at my school. When I attended university in Canada, the appeals system was much more equitable, but that is another story, not relevant to this thread.


I think student body diversity will survive pretty well when the dust settles.

ETA, with home-schooled students, the admissions committee was not given the name or gender of any of those applicants. All we got was the school district and their transcript, and if the school district was so small that it might be possible to figure out who the student was, all we got was the county they were from.

The admissions committee did not know who the home schooled students were, their academic advisors did not know. Only one person in the registrar's office had any access to that information. The only way anyone else would know is if the student themself told a faculty member they were home schooled.

The privacy rules for academic records are right up there with the privacy rules for medical records. Schools are extraordinarily careful about that. The DoJ will come down on a school like a ton of bricks over infractions.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/29/2023 04:27PM by Brother Of Jerry.

I rarely find myself disagreeing with BoJ. Will wonders never cease?

Besides the apparent grant of affirmative action to military schools who want to use affirmative action, the other gaping hole that the decision creates is over how race may be introduced through the back door: by explaining how race affected the applicant's life.

Is that back door open? Not necessarily, since it will be the courts and ultimately the supreme court that decides in any particular instance. There are many SC precedents that suggest a course that is subsequently held not to exist or are permitted in such extreme conditions that they have virtually no effect. Last year, for example, the court said it was returning the question of abortion to the states--a statement that would appear to imply that national legislation on the topic is impermissible. Yet as we have seen, that obiter dictum has proved meaningless.

The other thing this SC does is to serve as the Attorneys Permanent Employment Act. Dobbs was hedged about by so many hints and ambiguities that states have not known what is permissible and have started all sorts of ancillary cases that are headed to the state and national supreme courts. The affirmative action ruling does the same thing.

How long before someone sues the military academies over their affirmative action policies? Will the court uphold those policies? It hinted that it would, but perhaps not. These rulings are hedged with so many "we're not heartless, really we're not" protestations that few will know what exactly the decision means.

Finally, will not the suggestion that race can still be considered if couched in socio-economic or related terms have the paradoxical effect of making race even MORE prominent in admissions cases? Because now the only way applicants can introduce race is by tying it explicitly to their childhoods, discrimination, etc. Doesn't that increase the incentive for applicants to emphasize how badly racism hurt them and disadvantaged them? Clarence in particular will get the opposite of what he wants.

Or it could turn out that the court didn't mean what it said or that the court construes the clause so narrowly that in practical terms no one can use it. Expect a slew of cases trying to find out what the court intends with these ambiguities.

Ambiguities empower the arbiter. This court loves ambiguities. so much for small government.

Besides the apparent grant of affirmative action to military schools who want to use affirmative action, the other gaping hole that the decision creates is over how race may be introduced through the back door: by explaining how race affected the applicant's life.

Is that back door open? Not necessarily, since it will be the courts and ultimately the supreme court that decides in any particular instance.

COMMENT: No. The SC decision leaves discretion for administrators to consider race on an individual case by case basis. The courts will not as a general rule interfere with this discretion unless it appears on its face to be without *any* legitimate basis. It is much easier to legally attack an established general policy than it is to attack a single act of discretion.
_________________________________________

There are many SC precedents that suggest a course that is subsequently held not to exist or are permitted in such extreme conditions that they have virtually no effect. Last year, for example, the court said it was returning the question of abortion to the states--a statement that would appear to imply that national legislation on the topic is impermissible. Yet as we have seen, that obiter dictum has proved meaningless.

COMMENT: I don't follow this logic. In the abortion context you have states now acting within their SC granted right to prohibit abortion, or otherwise set limited parameters of abortion. Prior to Dobbs, they were inclined to do that very thing, and so not surprisingly after Dobbs they did so. In the affirmative action case, the university administrator will be inclined to act *against* the SC decision and will likely be inclined to exercise their discretion in furtherance of the individual exception. So, the exception will be highly motivated and likely have real effects.
__________________________________________________

The other thing this SC does is to serve as the Attorneys Permanent Employment Act. Dobbs was hedged about by so many hints and ambiguities that states have not known what is permissible and have started all sorts of ancillary cases that are headed to the state and national supreme courts. The affirmative action ruling does the same thing.

COMMENT: As per Dobbs, abortion is a state issue, and has been legislated and adjudicated within states and state constitutions. The ambiguities associated with abortion rights that were previously dealt with by interpretations of Roe are now left to the states to wrestle with. This has nothing to do with the Harvard affirmative action case, where individual rights of equal protection were affirmed by the denial of a legitimate racial category. Here the SC exercised its mandate to interpret the federal Constitution, without passing off the matter to the states.
______________________________________________--

How long before someone sues the military academies over their affirmative action policies? Will the court uphold those policies? It hinted that it would, but perhaps not. These rulings are hedged with so many "we're not heartless, really we're not" protestations that few will know what exactly the decision means.

COMMENT: It means what it says, and administrators will have to frame their admissions policies and procedures accordingly. The fact that it does not resolve every issue related to how race is to be considered on an individual basis, within in a variety of facts and contexts, is not at all surprising.
_____________________________________

Finally, will not the suggestion that race can still be considered if couched in socio-economic or related terms have the paradoxical effect of making race even MORE prominent in admissions cases? Because now the only way applicants can introduce race is by tying it explicitly to their childhoods, discrimination, etc. Doesn't that increase the incentive for applicants to emphasize how badly racism hurt them and disadvantaged them? Clarence in particular will get the opposite of what he wants.

COMMENT: Yes, I definitely think this will be one of the outcomes, making it harder for administrators to sort out the legitimate cases from the fringe, or made-up cases of alleged racial impact. But again, that *does* leave race as an open "wiggle-room" issue.
_______________________________________________

Or it could turn out that the court didn't mean what it said or that the court construes the clause so narrowly that in practical terms no one can use it. Expect a slew of cases trying to find out what the court intends with these ambiguities.

COMMENT: I don't think so. Administrators will have their written guidelines, and admission committees will deal with the borderline cases and make hard individual decisions just as they do now, with race being an individual consideration in the hard cases, rather than a systemic policy to be applied across the board.
_____________________________________

Ambiguities empower the arbiter. This court loves ambiguities. so much for small government.

COMMENT: All legal cases and opinions are geared to the facts and law of specific cases. Appellate opinions (including the SC) establish general principles that are always somewhat ambiguous when applied to another set of facts. That is just how the system works, not something that is 'loved' by, or promoted by, the Courts. Such ambiguities show respect for the nuances of individual cases, and the trial judge's frontline position to adjudicate such cases.

I rarely read your posts.

What I notice here, however, is your restating a position that has been roundly disproved.

"As per Dobbs, abortion is a state issue, and has been legislated and adjudicated within states and state constitutions."

If you care to know the truth, which you frequently do not, you can google "abortion national legislation" and discover dozens of articles showing that both parties have proposed national laws on the topic. Mike Pence, Donald Trump, Ron DeSantis, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris are a small part of that trend. What you cannot find is any indication that the courts, particularly the supreme court, is opposed to any of it. Nor can you find arguments by serious legal scholars saying what you do.

The fact is that obiter dicta are not binding. That you do not understand that doesn't change a thing.

Carry on.

I rarely read your posts.

COMMENT: That is a good policy for you, since you clearly do not understand them, and most often do not understand the issues they address--- as here.

I did not post this response to you in order to initiate a debate with you. I posted it to educate you, and to reaffirm to others that your "facts," and particularly your understanding of legal matters, cannot be trusted.

Henry, I can't recall -- are you a lawyer? -- because I'm going to venture that most of us are reacting to the Supreme Court opinion by simply reading and comprehending it to the best of our ability, as non-lawyers. Hence the discussion.

"Henry, I can't recall -- are you a lawyer? -- because I'm going to venture that most of us are reacting to the Supreme Court opinion by simply reading and comprehending it to the best of our ability, as non-lawyers. Hence the discussion."

COMMENT: Yes. Now retired. But I am not a Constitutional law expert.

The opinion here is very readable, and people (even Constitutional law experts) can disagree as to its legal and logical merits. Discussion is fine, but it seems to me that one should, as you suggest, carefully read the opinion before reacting negatively to it and assuming that because the Court was split along political lines that necessarily the opinion must be right or wrong depending upon where one sits on the political divide. In this case, the liberal "anti-civil rights" and "disastrous" spin on this opinion is ridiculous.

> COMMENT: Yes. Now retired. But I am not a
> Constitutional law expert.

Ya don't say!

Are you? How many years have you been a practicing attorney? Where did YOU get your degree in Constitutional Law? Why would anyone just bow down to your OPINIONS?

That would, and will, be a valid opinion if you could, or will, specify what I got wrong.

Can you do that?

You are just throwing dust up in the air to hide the fact that you cannot back up your claims.

You initially informed us that after Dobbs the Federal government is barred from enacting or enforcing laws one way or the other on abortion. I replied that you cannot back that up with any SC precedent prohibiting federal abortion legislation or any credible constitutional analysis to that effect. You ignored my challenge and tried to change the topic by attacking me personally.

So here it is, proof yet again that you are out of your depth.

1) Do you know the Hyde Amendment of 1980? That was a federal ban on the use of federal funds for any abortion, adopted by Congress and signed into law by the president. It is enforced to this very day.

2) Are you familiar with Gonzales v. Carhart? That was a 2006 SC case in which the sumpremes upheld a national legislative ban on certain abortion procedures. The supreme court explicitly upheld the power of Congress to legislate on the topic. It is still enforced. Importantly, Justices Alito, Roberts, and Thomas were parties to the decision.

3) Are you familiar with Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood? That was a SC decision issued in April 2007 again holding that Congress's ban on partial-birth procedures was constitutional. It is still enforced. Importantly, Justices Alito, Roberts, and Thomas were parties to the decision.

How do you explain the fact that Dobbs did not overrule those federal laws and SC opinions? Because by your standard all of those are unconstitutional--and yet here we are, with the decisions still in effect, still being enforced, and no one making your argument that Dobbs invalidated them.

How do you explain that, Henry? Did the supremes and everyone else FORGET about those national abortion laws and the decisions perpetuating them? Did the Gonzales decisions slip Alito's, Roberts's, and Thomas's minds?

Look Henry, I don't know where you received your legal education, but I don't think it was a great school and I'm confident you attended in the 1960s or perhaps the very early 1970s. You probably took one required course in con law and then disengaged from the topic for the next five decades. For if you had kept up, you would know about the Hyde Amendment and the two Gonzales rulings. You would know that three of today's nine justices decided those cases and that none of them thought Dobbs overruled them.

Yet here you are, telling us that you know better than Alito, Roberts, Thomas and the other supremes. . .



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/30/2023 02:32PM by Lot's Wife.

Henry's gone walkabout.

>> I am sympathetic to the POV that maintaining diversity should be based on social class and life experiences instead of race.

I think I could live with this. I'm just not 100% convinced that this is what the court meant. I wish the justices had been more explicit in saying that.

One area where I am concerned is with admissions policies for our English Language Learners (ELLS.) There are laws in place that provide special consideration for them at the Pre-K to 12 grade levels. I'm not sure what the case is for post-secondary. From what I've observed, while ELLs can be slower to come along academically due to language issues, when they are fully up and running in English (which can take seven years or more,) they are unstoppable. I have no idea how this court decision affects them in particular.

Will wonders never cease. I find myself largely in agreement with Henry.

COMMENT: Well, hopefully with your newfound 'wonderment' you can also see that you can take the idea of 'racial equality' seriously without grossly 'whitewashing' Black history. (Pun intended).

First, not only were the Federally-run institutions spared but so were police academies. As NPR reporter Nina Totenberg noted while reporting on this story, even the members of the "kangaroo court" couldn't stomach the idea of all-white police forces policing all-black neighborhoods. Of course, both exceptions underscore how really effective affirmative action has been which is the reason why many Caucasians want to see it end.

The second point has to do with religious schools such as BYU. One of the things that forced the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints to renounce the policy of not allowing blacks in to the priesthood in 1978 was the threat to BYU. The university had backed an effort by Liberty University to keep its tax exemption, despite the fact that neither school would admit black students. It was after Liberty lost its court case that thee LDS church made its doctrine change concerning allowing blacks in the priesthood.

With the end of affirmative action today, I wonder if Liberty University will try once again to keep black applicants out and still retain its religious tax exemption. Justice Thomas, though he is African-American, clearly favors a separation of the races, even though his wife is white. And, this is what those who, like the late Paul Weirich when he helped to found the conservative think tank the Heritage Foundation, have been really trying to do since the 1970s.

Stay tuned!

"With the end of affirmative action today, I wonder if Liberty University will try once again to keep black applicants out and still retain its religious tax exemption. Justice Thomas, though he is African-American, clearly favors a separation of the races, even though his wife is white. And, this is what those who, like the late Paul Weirich when he helped to found the conservative think tank the Heritage Foundation, have been really trying to do since the 1970."

COMMENT: Absolutely nothing in this opinion supports the idea that a private university can exclude blacks and still retain their tax-exempt status. Moreover, for all his conservative thinking, Justice Thomas does NOT favor, and never has favored, 'separation of races.' His opinions do not suggest any such thing, either explicitly or implicitly.

Finally, calling the SC a "kangaroo court" shows more of your own personal and unbridled passion than it does an understanding of the opinions you are objecting to, and the logic behind such objections. I find that disappointing.

Henry, you will have to forgive women, having lost rights under this court, for being rather sensitive about that. Do let us know when you have lost rights under this court.

All the affirmative action in the world will never work until education is valued in the home. Remember affirmative action in the past also included poor Appalachia white kids and you can see how well that worked.

I'm not sure what you are referring to. Poverty has been a problem in Appalachia for a long time, but I've also known many Appalachian families who migrated to the cities (Baltimore, Pittsburgh, etc.) for work, and who have done quite well.

All the affirmative action in the world will never work until education is valued in the home. Remember affirmative action in the past also included poor Appalachia white kids and you can see how well that worked.

COMMENT: And how does society promote educational equality at the level of the home? First, ensure that people have sufficient income opportunities to have a secure and stable home environment, where parental economic and social pressures do not constantly undermine such environments by creating a continuous cycle of poverty, where education cannot reasonably be valued, and if it is, not reasonably achieved.

It is worth noting that one political faction in American continuously refuses to implement policies and expenditures that are designed to create such equality of opportunity.

Affirmative Action was abolished in CA University admissions in 1995 and its consequences were predictable, a sharp decrease in black/brown/native people and a marked increase in Asians. That’s what will happen nationally too. How to prevent that from happening? If you want to compete, do your homework kids, because Asians are clearly doing theirs, based upon nearly every statistic on the subject.

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2018/10/22/asian-american-admit-sat-scores/



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/30/2023 02:55PM by schrodingerscat.

There are three problems with this decision, one substantive and two procedural. One of the latter is truly revolutionary.

1) Substance. The notion that racism is "past" in the United States, which Roberts pronounced in a case earlier in his SC career, is stratospherically incorrect. That's obvious to most of us.

2) Procedure the first. Once again the Kangaroos reject decades of precedent categorically. That is not how the system is supposed to work; this sort of legislating from the bench has not happened since the 1930s, which was the last time the court went slipped its moorings and floated out to sea. But we've seen that before with this ersatz jurisprudence. We saw it in Dobbs et al., so no one is surprised.

3) Procedure the second. This is the revolutionary bit. Historically the courts, and Congress have limited the ambit of the courts' power through the doctrine of "standing." That doctrine states that parties must have suffered actual harm themselves. You can't--or couldn't--take a case to court if you thought one day you might be harmed by something or you thought someone else had been harmed. In that case the victims had standing but you did not. What this valuably did was to prevent the courts from simply ruling on everything they wanted.

This case overrules the standing requirements. The plaintiffs suffered no harm from what was the Biden policy. Rather, they were suing on behalf of private companies in their states; and they were suing for future harm that those companies might suffer. What this departure does is enable the court to accept any case they want, to issue decisions on policy matters that are not "ripe" in constitutional terms.

The Kangaroos have set themselves up as superior to the co-equal branches of the Executive and the Legislature. Now they can review and overturn any decision by the other branches. The court has established itself as above the constitution, a star chamber able to change national policy any time it wants.

That should scare the hell out of people left and right, for one day the liberals will be in control.

"There are three problems with this decision, one substantive and two procedural. One of the latter is truly revolutionary.

COMMENT: Once again, you get everything wrong.

1) Substance. The notion that racism is "past" in the United States, which Roberts pronounced in a case earlier in his SC career, is stratospherically incorrect. That's obvious to most of us.

COMMENT: That is NOT what Roberts said, but in any event, such a claim has no bearing on the present Opinion. Nobody said that affirmative action should be eliminated because there is no longer any racism.
________________________________________

2) Procedure the first. Once again the Kangaroos reject decades of precedent categorically. That is not how the system is supposed to work; this sort of legislating from the bench has not happened since the 1930s, which was the last time the court went slipped its moorings and floated out to sea. But we've seen that before with this ersatz jurisprudence. We saw it in Dobbs et al., so no one is surprised.

COMMENT: Wrong again. As the Court points out, and discusses in some detail, essentially all of the precedent for affirmative action provides that affirmative action should be temporary. In other words, no precedent established a Constitutional right to affirmative action. The present decision determines (rightly or wrongly) that the time for affirmative action had passed. This may be deemed short-sighted, but it is NOT an abuse of binding precedent. With your logic, the establishment of LBGTQ rights in the Bostock case was an abuse of precedent simply because it represented an expanded view of sex as a protected class. Precedent is naturally fluid--unless it establishes a specific Constitutional right, or protection, that is being overturned. (Dobbs is arguably within this category.)
______________________________________

3) Procedure the second. This is the revolutionary bit. Historically the courts, and Congress have limited the ambit of the courts' power through the doctrine of "standing." That doctrine states that parties must have suffered actual harm themselves. You can't--or couldn't--take a case to court if you thought one day you might be harmed by something or you thought someone else had been harmed. In that case the victims had standing but you did not. What this valuably did was to prevent the courts from simply ruling on everything they wanted.

COMMENT: Wrong again. Standing was addressed specifically by the Court. First it noted that this argument was rejected by all of the lower courts considering standing as an issue in the case. The Court concluded:

"In cases like these, where the plaintiff is an organization, the standing requirements of Article III can be satisfied in two ways. Either the organization can claim that it suffered an injury in its own right or, alternatively, it can assert “standing solely as the representative of its members.” Warth v. Seldin, 422 U. S. 490, 511 (1975). The latter approach is known as representational or organizational standing. Ibid.; Summers, 555 U. S., at 497–498. To invoke it, an organization must demonstrate that “(a) its members would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right; (b) the interests it seeks to protect are germane to the organization’s purpose; and (c) neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested requires the participation of individual members in the lawsuit.” Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Comm’n, 432 U. S. 333, 343 (1977) Respondents do not contest that SFFA satisfies the three part test for organizational standing articulated in Hunt,
and like the courts below, we find no basis in the record to
conclude otherwise."
____________________________________

"This case overrules the standing requirements. The plaintiffs suffered no harm from what was the Biden policy. Rather, they were suing on behalf of private companies in their states; and they were suing for future harm that those companies might suffer. What this departure does is enable the court to accept any case they want, to issue decisions on policy matters that are not "ripe" in constitutional terms.

COMMENT: See above. You absolutely have no idea what you are talking about. (Notice that neither of the dissenting opinions raised this issue.)
_____________________________________

The Kangaroos have set themselves up as superior to the co-equal branches of the Executive and the Legislature. Now they can review and overturn any decision by the other branches. The court has established itself as above the constitution, a star chamber able to change national policy any time it wants.

COMMENT: Absolutely ridiculous!

You have no credibility in commenting on legal issues. NONE! It is obvious that you have not even bothered to read the Opinion you are claiming is in error.

I've worked for 20 years as a VP for enrollment at several institutions (all public). Some thoughts:

First, it only applies to those that use race (something like 15-20% of colleges)...as BoJ noted, usually it's a matter of if the student meets admission requirements and they are in.

Second, those that do use race are getting 60K apps and can't admit everyone...and certainly don't want a supermajority of one homogeneous admitted (I know for example Asian Americans aren't homogeneous, so this is a broadly used word.)

Third, for me the biggest issue is diversity of the student body. Students want to see others that look like them, but equally (I believe) meet others that _aren't_ like them. Better to have representative of the community, state, or country in the student body. Plus prepares the white kid from Iowa that's never engaged with others to do so...and prepare for a workforce that's highly diverse.

Fourth, what are the implications to this ruling? Not just on the 20% of colleges that are using race, perhaps, but other limitations on efforts to seek diversity and affirmative action. Unknown right now but I'm guessing it goes deeper.

This is a great post. I think everything you say is right on the money: not just the factual statements but the nuances and the uncertainties.

Very helpful.

you didn't get in either.

People forget that it wasn't until after WW2 that many immigrant groups were not considered fully "white."


So, once upon a time, back in 1949...

Name ends in -a or -o? No.

Name ends in -stein? Nope, too many of you.

Name starts with Mc? No!

Name ends in -vic, -vitch, -ski or -sky? Nyet!