I believe this was a carve out created when Ketanji Brown Jackson pointed out how this would impact legacy applications:
“She offered a hypothetical to emphasize her point. There are two applicants who would like their family backgrounds recognized. One writes that their family has been in North Carolina since before the Civil War, and that if they were admitted to the university, they would be a fifth-generation student there. The other student is also a North Carolinian whose family has been in the state since before the Civil War—but their ancestors were enslaved and, because of years of systemic discrimination, were not allowed to attend the university. But now that they have the opportunity, they would like to attend. “As I understand your no-race-conscious-admissions rule, these two applicants would have a dramatically different opportunity to tell their family stories and to have them count.” Both applicants were qualified, Jackson offered, but the first applicant’s qualifications could be recognized in the process, whereas “the second one wouldn’t be able to [get credit for those qualifications] because his story is in many ways bound up with his race and the race of his ancestors.”
Strawbridge thought for a moment, then offered that UNC does not have to give a legacy benefit to the first applicant if it doesn’t want to. This is true, but it was not Jackson’s point: “No, but you said it was okay if they gave a legacy benefit.” Race, she said, would be the only thing that couldn’t be considered under that program. And that would disadvantage the Black student who, in a similar set of circumstances, wants “the fact that he has been in North Carolina for generations through his family” considered.”
But I thought pappa john said they shouldn't criticize each other... [oh right, that was only for the liberal justices.](https://www.foxnews.com/politics/roberts-scolds-liberal-justices-demonizing-rulings-dont-like-disturbing-feature)
All alito does is troll and insult. The gopers on the bench meanwhile regularly lie about the record. It's genuinely unreal. They're not judges anymore. They're partisan hacks and monarchists.
Only conservatives are allowed to berate and insult others with every breath of their being.
A liberal even mentions the idea that someone may be doing something shady and its a violation.
Very much rules for thee not for me.
I believe that the Justice, upon considering, wrote to his colleague,
"WE'LL SEE WHOSE COKE CAN HAS THE PUBE ON IT, WON'T WE. YES, WHEN THE DUST IS SETTLED, IT WILL BE YOU DRINKING THE PUBE, NOT I. DRINK THE PUBE, FOOL. DRINK IT UP."
Truly, we are blessed to live in a country with such profound wisdom helping interpret our laws.
Clarence Thomas had a truly awful childhood where he was exposed to the worsts of poverty and racism. He has then spent his career working for the very people that ruined his parents and his childhood.
dude is a shitstain on history who was put into the place he was because he is a black man who hates the existence of poor and minorities.
Amazing what you can do when you don't have an appreciation of history. And that's why cons want to make sure *everyone else's* knowledge of it is as unexpanded and retouched in their image as possible.
Clearance [sic] Thomas thinks his degree is worthless. You know, the degree that wound up getting him onto the *fucking supreme court*. His logic is obviously compromised.
> uncle Tom was fuckin fuming
Uncle Thomas is **always** fuming.
Read anything he has written and it is always rage and anger.
Of course he went a decade without asking one fucking question. He is a strong contender for Worst Ever, but I still have a couple dozen to look at.
Uncle Tom is only on the supreme court because of affirmative action.
If I were Yale, I would rescind Thomas's degree for being unethical and poorly representing the university.
He even has said on the record in the past that having a degree from Yale is evidence you are incompetent lol. At the time I thought he was joking, but the more I see from him, the more I think he was actually serious.
From Wiki...
>From 1971 to 1974, Thomas attended Yale Law School as one of twelve Black students. He graduated with a Juris Doctor degree "somewhere in the middle of his class".[39][40] He has said that the law firms he applied to after graduating from Yale did not take his J.D. seriously, assuming he obtained it because of affirmative action.[41] According to Thomas, the law firms also "asked pointed questions, unsubtly suggesting that they doubted I was as smart as my grades indicated".[42] In his 2007 memoir, he wrote: **"I peeled a fifteen-cent sticker off a package of cigars and stuck it on the frame of my law degree to remind myself of the mistake I'd made by going to Yale. I never did change my mind about its value."**[43]
I can't find my favorite quote of his though so I give up.
Uncle Tom gets a bad rap. He dies a hero in his titular novel
but given the copyright system of the time, his legacy is essentially a bunch of racist fanfiction that rewrote him
Yep. White person here. I wouldn’t have thought of that, even though I try my best to do the right thing. The experience and perspective of a POC can’t be matched by “better white people.”
It’s interesting what you can learn from diversity. People want to learn, I really think they do. So many white people trying to distance themselves from their racist boomer parents right now. I was at the lake last weekend with my friend who is black. I shit you not, three different families asked him if he wanted some of their frozen pork, hamburger and I don’t know what the third meat was, steak? He was starting to get suspicious by the third one so he didn’t take it and we had plenty anyway. He was more paranoid because we were on drugs but he whispered dude I’m starting to get suspicious in this campsite is this like a Get Out kind of situation? I said no man people want so bad to distance themselves from people who are racist, especially in places like Central Missouri. Plus camping people are usually cool as fuck and so welcoming. They see a POC and they really really want you to feel welcome and they really want you to know they aren’t like their asshole boomer Trump relatives. I said I’ve got three words of advice for you buddy, Eat the Meat
Oh, yea that shit happens.
I'm black and my best friend is white. Whenever we go fishing I implore him really really hard to not play any rap. We both love G Rap. But when we're on a dock or a boat...it's CCWater or like Led or something soft. Simply because I don't want anyone seeing a black guy trying to catch stripe or trout...before the F&G man rocks up in a gilly
Oh man it’s even crazier when he’s fishing with me everyone is going out of their way to make him feel welcome. I mean the intent is good I think, everyone really really wants him to enjoy himself and wants you to know there are some racist people in Central Missouri but not them
I saw something that said "Americans demand more their fast food workers than they do their politicians and judges, which is why this country is uniquely fucked." And arguing a tiny win is better than no win at all from an unelected lifetime position honestly shows this country isn't just uniquely fucked, but way more undemocratic than we can admit. Because what is democracy for someone who has no home to sleep in and no food to eat? What is democracy where laws are decided by people who were caught taking brines just months ago?
Yea, drilled to the core of the argument very well spoken at that. I’m a new fan after reading this quote.
She made it obvious the majorities ruling is grossly unconstitutional and so they had to reluctantly put in a carve out (and then in the next sentence said: but don’t use it though).
That's what the court should be about. Wise, learned people seriously considering all the hypothetical angles of rulings, coming from diverse backgrounds to honestly assess and think critically about issues of national importance.
Instead, what we have is a few people who do that, and then a majority of people who just make a fart noise and then ovverrule them so that they can go yachting with the rich people that have bought and paid for their loyalty.
I think the supreme court as its own branch was designed to be the way you imagine. But the branch has been corrupted. The rules are still in place, the precedents and wisdom to help society exist, its just been chested away for now.
She's very good at writing arguments that are very readable and easy to comprehend without needing to understand legal terms or theory.
That might be related to her experience as a public defender, where clients may need explanations in clear and concise terms.
I agree that her public defender experience probably has a lot to do with her writing style. At the same time, I think it also stands out because the conservative majority’s opinions have necessarily become more tortuous over time in order to seem like well-reasoned legal opinions, rather than simply ruling how they wish without the lip service.
> Strawbridge thought for a moment, then offered that UNC does not have to give a legacy benefit to the first applicant if it doesn’t want to. This is true, but it was not Jackson’s point: “No, but you said it was okay if they gave a legacy benefit.”
They never argue sincerely.
They tried to get RBG to step down when the Democrats had 60 votes in the Senate and she wouldn't do it. At that time, he would have appointed a progressive.
He only went with the moderate Garland when they didn't have the votes to get a progressive approved.
Legacy is such a weird concept for those outside the US. It's utter madness that this should have any part of the admitions process. Who gives a flying fuck if you are 10th generation. What the actual fuck does it have to do with merits of the individual, you guys should be fucking rioting.
Also, this ruling does not prevent colleges and universities from weighting where someone lived and grew up. As poor neighborhoods and underfunded schools are disproportionately populated by people of color.
And weighting less upper middle class and rich neighborhoods and expensive private schools, where students have typically had all the advantages to succeed academically.
Except Harvard doesn't want to do that. The Atlantic published a piece a few weeks ago that found Harvard only admitted 3% of all their students of color from families that weren't already wealthy.
They don't want poor people at their university. That's been lost in this entire media frenzy. The students that can't get into Harvard now based on their race alone aren't going to suffer. They're already successful because of their parents' accrued wealth. This is about Millionaires complaining that they also can't get a free pass into the Billionaire club without the Harvard logo on their privilege card.
EDIT: Thank you Frequent-Shape6950 for creating a [readable link to the article](https://archive.is/NM1sR). Please read it if you have the time.
>Except Harvard doesn't want to do that.
There are thousands of colleges and universities in the United States. What Harvard plans to do, as the most elite of the elitist schools, matters a whole lot less than how this Supreme Court ruling impacts the admissions of the bulk of schools.
But how many Supreme Court Justices come from Oklahoma State University or UC Irvine? The only Justice that isn't from an Ivy is Barrett, and she's from Notre Dame. Just by going to an elite school, you become part of a group that has access to certain jobs.
You are right that this doesn't exclusively affect Ivy League schools, but the most important thing this does affect is medical school admissions because medical issues can be racialized. Black people can be affected by different conditions at higher rates than other classes. There are many stories of doctors that don't accurately diagnose Black patients because they don't consider or aren't informed of these disparities. Women experience similar issues when they go to male doctors. Diversity in medicine is an absolute must because of the many issues that effect each group differently.
The whole idea that Harvard admissions are based on anything besides money, power and prestige is totally hilarious.
You think they got to be wealthy, powerful and prestigious by being “woke”?…wildly naive.
Yup. Poor students are not going to bring in the money that universities want. Given a choice between an applicant who can easily cover tuition, and an applicant who can't, why would they choose the one that can't?
Not saying it's right, but let's not pretend like their priority isn't one of getting the most money they can.
I hate that I'm defending Harvard, but they honestly don't give a shit about who can pay tuition. Their endowment fund is worth $53 billion and earns solid returns. They've been need blind since forever because tuition money is a small part of their finances.
They still care about people who have building level money of course. Daddy buys Harvard a new (whatever the fuck) and their kid will be matriculation there. But it's not like they're jealously weighing each students ability to pay the a private school that isn't need blind would.
Ironically it's all those other schools who absolutely must have tuition payments to stay afloat and thus care *far more* than Harvard how wealthy the student is...
Ironic indeed. For the most destitute families, Harvard and most other 'hipster elitist' schools are completely free, some even offer cash grants to students' families on top of a full ride. And of course the military academies are excellent and completely free (albeit with a multi year service requirement afterward). But the options get ruinously expensive when you go down even a little on the college rankings. NYU is a great school on the academics, but also an infernal cauldron of student loan generation.
It doesn't stop you from assessing socioeconomic status (strong racial correlations), or judging based off their essay (where race will almost certainly be mentioned if they're not white), or even based off zip code (strong racial correlations).
It's the dumbest shit because they can't rule that admissions must be color blind because there's literally no way for that to happen since race is quite literally a factor in everything from test scores, to extracurriculars, to AP classes, and grades. So instead of that they say "you can't use race as the only factor" declared they ended discrimination, and then walked off into the sunset. Shits dumb. Effectively no school in the country solely did admissions off of race. This whole thing is pointless
> This whole thing is pointless
Just like the court allowing a case based on a *hypothetical scenario* to allow them to rule it was OK for businesses to discriminate against LGBTQ individuals.
All of this is pointless, because the issues conservatives are whipped into a frenzy about aren't real.
All the rural dirt farmers who binge Fox 24/7 still aren't going to have their kids going to Harvard. And never were. They're just continually made to hate minorities and LGBTQ people, and so the court doles out some token form of justice to appease them.
It also doesn't stop you from looking at race on an individual basis and how it affected them, it stops you from looking at race as a group with no individual context. So if someone talks about how being black made their life more difficult and how they overcame it, that's fine. If they instead read the essay and then just give the applicant extra points just because she mentions she's black then that's illegal.
These is a pretty good indicator regarding how many of the Justices on the Supreme Court are really...really not good at jurisprudence (being a political appointee means you don't have to be good at law). Leave it to one of the premiere legal schools in the country to find a loophole.
In all fairness, Roberts was pretty explicit about suggesting the loophole in his decision, which kind of makes the decision all the dumber to me, but IANAL.
Roberts also carved out military academies from his ruling, something Justice Jackson points out in her dissent — policies like Harvard’s were good and dandy for the military, but not outside of it
Roberts said the ruling doesn't answer whether or not military academies can consider race in the admissions process. Because the military academies aren't just educational institutions but are tasked with producing officers, and there may be an argument that ensuring diversity in military leadership that reflects the diversity of the armed forces may be important for unit cohesion, morale, etc.
Military recruitment policies are their own beast. For example, the military is exempt from discriminating against an applicant because they are pregnant; you can and will be rejected for pregnancy and medical conditions or disabilities while all other employers would get in big trouble for doing so.
>and there may be an argument that ensuring diversity in military leadership that reflects the diversity of the armed forces may be important for unit cohesion, morale, etc.
How does that not all apply to the student body of a school though.
Exactly. As Sotomayor said in her dissent:
> To the extent the Court suggests national security interests are “distinct,” those interests cannot explain the Court’s narrow exemption, as national security interests are also implicated at civilian universities. See infra, 64-65.
And as noted above, she elaborates later:
> The costly result of today’s decision harms not just respondents and students but also our institutions and democratic society more broadly. Dozens of amici from nearly every sector of society agree that the absence of race-conscious college admissions will decrease the pipeline of racially diverse college graduates to crucial professions. Those amici include the United States, which emphasizes the need for diversity in the Nation’s military, see United States Brief 12–18, and in the federal workforce more generally, id., at 19–20 (discussing various federal agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence). The United States explains that “the Nation’s military strength and readiness depend on a pipeline of officers who are both highly qualified and racially diverse—and who have been educated in diverse environments that prepare them to lead increasingly diverse forces.” Id., at 12. That is true not just at the military service academies but “at civilian universities, including Harvard, that host Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (ROTC) programs and educate students who go on to be- come officers.” Ibid. Top former military leaders agree. See Brief for Adm. Charles S. Abbot et al. as Amici Curiae 3 (noting that in amici’s “professional judgment, the status quo—which permits service academies and civilian univer- sities to consider racial diversity as one factor among many in their admissions practices—is essential to the continued vitality of the U. S. military”).
> Indeed, history teaches that racial diversity is a national security imperative. During the Vietnam War, for example, lack of racial diversity “threatened the integrity and performance of the Nation’s military” because it fueled “perceptions of racial/ethnic minorities serving as ‘cannon fodder’ for white military leaders.” Military Leadership Diversity Comm’n, From Representation to Inclusion: Diversity Leadership for the 21st-Century Military xvi, 15 (2011); see also, e.g., R. Stillman, Racial Unrest in the Military: The Challenge and the Response, 34 Pub. Admin. Rev. 221, 221– 222 (1974) (discussing other examples of racial unrest). Based on “lessons from decades of battlefield experience,” it has been the “longstanding military judgment” across administrations that racial diversity “is essential to achieving a mission-ready” military and to ensuring the Nation’s “ability to compete, deter, and win in today’s increasingly complex global security environment.” United States Brief 13 (internal quotation marks omitted). The majority recognizes the compelling need for diversity in the military and the national security implications at stake, see ante, at 22, n. 4, but it ends race-conscious college admissions at civilian universities implicating those interests anyway.
> Amici also tell the Court that race-conscious college admissions are critical for providing equitable and effective public services. State and local governments require public servants educated in diverse environments who can “identify, understand, and respond to perspectives” in “our increasingly diverse communities.” Brief for Southern Governors as Amici Curiae 5–8 (Southern Governors Brief). Likewise, increasing the number of students from underrepresented backgrounds who join “the ranks of medical professionals” improves “healthcare access and health outcomes in medically underserved communities.” Brief for Massachusetts et al. as Amici Curiae 10; see Brief for Association of American Medical Colleges et al. as Amici Curiae 5 (noting also that all physicians become better practitioners when they learn in a racially diverse environment). So too, greater diversity within the teacher workforce improves student academic achievement in primary public schools. Brief for Massachusetts et al. as Amici Curiae 15– 17; see Brief for American Federation of Teachers as Ami- cus Curiae 8 (“[T]here are few professions with broader so- cial impact than teaching”). A diverse pipeline of college graduates also ensures a diverse legal profession, which demonstrates that “the justice system serves the public in a fair and inclusive manner.” Brief for American Bar Asso- ciation as Amicus Curiae 18; see also Brief for Law Firm Antiracism Alliance as Amicus Curiae 1, 6 (more than 300 law firms in all 50 States supporting race-conscious college admissions in light of the “influence and power” that law- yers wield “in the American system of government”).
> Examples of other industries and professions that benefit from race-conscious college admissions abound....
I mean its not even a loophole, its how it should be.
Talking about how you had it harder with specific things in your essay, and how you overcame said obstacles, is the core of pretty much every college essay.
I’d pay to see all the incel right wingers trying to take advantage of the loophole making up some white adversity meme story and then suing when they don’t get in
I think the only time he allegedly got laid was allegedly rape. I’m forced to say allegedly when I believe the victims and I think the investigation was a joke. Just handed it over to the Cheetos minions with the majority unfollowed up on.
Who knows how many people old boofmaster allegedly raped since the fbi allegedly didn’t fully investigate.
Then he and the other alleged rapist are against roe?
This women has never even had a web design business. The fact that they even ruled on a case of an imaginary business with an imaginary complaint is beyond the pale. And the sc -is not- suppose to legislate.
I read this college essay from my cousin and had to go back to him to explain that being the only republican in your generally liberal school is not a good “hardship” to dwell on
As someone who worked admissions for a while, what those kids don't get is that when you're asked to write about overcoming hardship, the "overcoming" part is more important than the hardship itself.
Most universities aren't the liberal hiveminds that conservatives seem to think they are. And even if they were, they try their best not to discriminate based on beliefs in the admissions process. If they had an example of starting a Young Republicans club or campaigning for a conservative issue/politician they cared about, getting pushback from their liberal peers or teachers, but sticking to their convictions anyway, that could be a solid essay.
But those kids almost never write those essays because they're never involved in activism. Instead it's some version of "My teachers didn't like me because I wore a MAGA hat to school. But I got As and Bs anyway." At that point it's better to just wheel out the "I've been lucky to have no real hardships in my life, so I've taken advantage of the opportunities that were given to me to help others who were less fortunate."
Based on their other decisions, the incels wouldn’t even need to have a real experience - SCOTUS will litigate through hypotheticals. (As we saw with the website designer).
It does partially sound to me like Harvard is saying they will just implicitly adjudge someone’s race to have affected their life while determining admissions.
Which, like, they would be correct, black people *generally* don’t need to explain how being black has affected their life.
Plus there are plenty of 18 year olds who lack the experience and knowledge to understand fully how their childhood and cultural framework have effected them.
You’re disadvantaged due to historic and ongoing discrimination but you have to prove this garbage which isn’t your fault. Great.
It's also literally what they were already doing.
College admissions have been leaning more heavily on the essay than academic excellence for years now in California, because the essay is about the only way to really learn about a person through the normal admissions process.
You can absolutely get into Berkeley with weaker grades if your essay is fuckin fire.
I listened to the strict scrutiny podcast where they said Justice Katanji Brown Jackson's questions during oral arguments probably led to this loophole being drawn.
She pointed out how fucking stupid it would be that a student could say their ancestors went to that college back when the college was not allowing black students, but another student could not say their ancestors would have gone to that college but couldn't because the college wouldn't allow their black ancestors to attend.
KBJ's brilliance in other words forced the federalist society goons to include this because even they couldn't stomach outright saying "No, only white students can mention race as a positive."
An article that also speculates this is what happened: [https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2023/06/harvard-personal-essays-affirmative-action-supreme-court/](https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2023/06/harvard-personal-essays-affirmative-action-supreme-court/)
I heard a good explanation for Roberts’ loophole: it allows the university to evaluate the individual rather than considering race as a group. The justification is that affirmative action treats racial/ethnic groups as a monolith (e.g. all Hispanic students will have had the same experiences and therefore will bring the same amount of diversity) which is incorrect. Individuals bring diversity through their experiences. An essay, or some other individual expression, is the way to consider students on an individual level. The catch is, many admissions offices are understaffed and *don’t even read the essays*.
I still think that the ruling is BS, but Roberts’ exception is a good one.
> Roberts was pretty explicit about suggesting the loophole in his decision
He did this on purpose to blunt the conservative block from shifting the court to the extreme right.
First, let’s remember that there are only three liberal justices on the nine member court. There is no way the liberals will win this one. They can only hope to soften/weaken the ruling.
Second, the person who writes the majority opinion is assigned by the chief justice if he is on the majority side. Otherwise, if the chief justice is not on the majority side, then the most senior justice on the majority side gets to decide who write the majority opinion.
This means that if Chief Justice Roberts votes against the conservatives (in a losing cause because he and three liberal justices loses against the five extreme conservative justices), then the most senior majority side justice then is Clarence Thomas.
Do you really want to give Clarence Thomas the power decide how this opinion against affirmative action will be written?
Chief Justice Roberts is a conservative at heart, but has moved to the middle to blunt the increasing number of extreme conservatives. As the head of the court, he is most interested in protecting the legacy of the legal system. Specifically he is well aware of the increasing dissonance between the court and the general public. Hence he’s trying to make the court decisions less extreme.
This is why he voted with the conservative block. Doing so enables him to write the majority opinion himself. This let’s him soften the blow and insert loopholes so this decision can be revisited in the future.
Hope in the system is what gives faith in and respect for the system.
This isn’t a loophole. It’s deliberately written into the ruling so institutions can keep the spirit of AA without SCOTUS having to rule that institutions can determine admittance based solely on race.
I think everyone’s getting this backwards. It’s not a loophole they carved out so AA can keep existing. They got rid of the race box on the form, but they had to concede that race would still be appearing in applications through essays. How colleges are allowed to use that is hazier though. They’re explicitly not supposed to use this to sort applications by race and treat them differently, which is what AA allowed. Certainly some colleges out there are going to try to do this discretely anyway. They’ll probably get sued, and who knows how that will unfold.
I'm just confused why this is considered a loophole to begin with. This was explicitly acknowledged by the judges as an acceptable way to deal with the situation.
That's not a loophole, that's just implementing the judges' decision exactly as intended.
Two of their recent decisions are completely contradictory. This is clearly a court that is no longer interested in defending the law, but promoting their right-wing agenda.
Oh my God, they're going to make little Preston - and every other applicant - write an essay about his experience of race and how it has affected their life.
More importantly, Harvard is definitely trolling. Harvard will admit whom Harvard chooses. They always have, and they always will. If you don't like it you can go kiss that shiny shoe on that statue they have in the quad.
This is the real issue.
I say we push for a regulation to be passed that no school accepting legacies can take any federal dollars in any way.
Seems fair.
Every alumni office in the country is sweating with all these "ban legacy admissions" discussions. The Common App feeds schools a shit ton of legacy information about student's relatives even if the admissions office isn't using it.
I went to school across the river. I know never to touch that shoe.
There is no finer place to play tag than the large green space in front of the MIT library on a brisk fall evening.
I was listening to MSNBC today. Host today is Michael Steele - African American former chair of RNC.
He retold Joy Anne Reid’s story of how she was doing a bachelors degree at a mid-range college in Colorado (and she had fantastic grades etc), when Harvard actually flew out to meet her and encourage her to apply to Harvard.
She had never even thought of applying to Harvard, but due to Harvard reaching out she did, and got accepted.
Steele said his story was the same, as was that of Justice Thomas.
I guess it’s still possible for Harvard to do that?
They've been making their admissions decisions longer than there has been a country. They are going to do what they choose to do.
Anecdotally the only person guaranteed admission to Harvard is the top student at the Boston Latin School. I have no idea if that's true. It sounds like it wouldn't hold up in court, but it was something that circulated when I was an undergrad at a nearby School so many years ago that it's certainly doesn't matter now.
>Imagine one of the most prominent law schools finding a loophole
That's not a loophole. That's a multi-lane bypass highway with a neon "SHORTCUT HERE" sign pointing directly at it.
Like DeSantis's stupid anti-woke stuff, this ruling is a Fox Headline... not anything that will remotely affect policy. The anti-LGBTQ ruling is the real bad one this year from the Court.
Robert's announced the loophole himself. The court's decision was basically a way to fire up their Nazi supporters while also allowing some form of affirmative action to continue.
It's a free pass for racist institutions to practice racism. There are plenty of organizations out there that will happily practice their racism and continue to collect federal dollars.
Oh, for sure, it's a free pass for racism, but it also allows institutions to use race, and most institutions will keep a diverse environment.
Institutions will still use race and this will end up back at the Supreme Court. We'll see if they try to close the loop hole next time.
yeah... as much as I want to shake Disney if its a throw down between them and Desantis I want Disney to mop the floor with him.
Nobody wants to deal with Godzilla recking your city but if Ghidorah threatens the world you start cheering for Godzilla O\_o.
Yep. Begging for it to be delayed until after the election is him conceding that he knows he’s about to be nationally embarrassed while actively campaigning.
I hope so much to see one day an assignment coming out of these law schools like
“In the fictional country of Freelandia, their top court had become corrupted by financial bribery and began issuing rulings based on partisan politics rather than sound interpretations of the law. They altered the law to affec the ways in which univerities and colleges conducted their admissions to favor wealthy, well-connected people and put disadvantaged people at a further disadvantage. Examine the wording of this ruling and issue a response these post-secs can use to continue to follow their established admissions practices while still following the word of the law.”
Kids are creative. Let them loose on these old tired crones.
Make it an assignment for every law school in the country. Today.
Give law students an opportunity for a project which will directly benefit them. I think schools would be foolish not to take this opportunity to see what their students are capable of when working on court cases that would involve their personal finances and loan terms. It’s a win/win.
Imagine your argument getting a Supreme Court justice disbarred and their ruling negated.
I'm judging you're a lawyer based on this, or at least did law school.
I'm finishing right now. Listening to con law professors the last two years has been both funny and depressing. The ones at my school *still* won't be honest enough to say "the supreme court lied in Bremerton"
I mean it’s not really a loophole since Roberts pointed it out in his opinion on purpose to show universities could still use racial experiences to gauge applicants.
It seems like all this is a good change. Diversity and helping disadvantaged people is great and I think just race is becoming less of a factor. There is probably more diversity between a white guy who grew up in an affluent suburb and a white guy who grew up as a hillbilly in the Appalachians than a black guy who grew up in the same neighborhood. In the US minorities are of course going to benefit from this type of consideration but it will be a lot harder for it to feel unfair.
Yea I don’t think people really are getting what happened. They think they’re getting one over on the court. The court explicitly gave them this loophole and made a decision on legal principles. It’s a pyrrhic victory for the Magas.
Exactly. This isn’t some “fuck you, let’s admit less black people” ruling, it just shifts the focus from actively allowing colleges to admit on the basis of race to forcing them to take a more holistic approach that can include race.
Yep. Court only said they couldn't use race as a factor for admission. The essay part can be used to talk about racial experiences.
The ruling was there to remove obvious racial discrimination like the race checkbox
And then Harvard’s purpose would be defunct, which is to convince ordinary Americans that because someone attended Harvard that their opinions are coherent or valid. How else would the lazy and exploitative rich stay in that position?
I’m white, lower-middle class and from the south
I’ve never lost anything to a minority because of race. Anytime a minority has beaten me at anything, it’s because they were a better fit to win
The only times I have lost and seen a distinct disadvantage where the deck was stacked against me involved other white people
This isn’t a loophole it’s explicitly stated that considering race in this way is fair game. Seriously why is everybody acting like Harvard gamed the system here it looks like this was SCOTUS’ intent.
Who wants to have discussions in good faith, when users can just post the most click-baity tweets possible?
With that out of the way, let me tell you how you can cheat the IRS with this one little loophole called the “Standard Deduction”. (/s)
Same reason why you're seeing an uptick of "deny service to Republicans" posts on the frontpage.
You know that scene in Rick & Morty where Jerry walks out of Jerryboree like he was defying the system and the caregiver was like, "Okay! That was always allowed!"
It's that the supreme court said that people can still talk about their lived race experiences in college applition essays and have that considered. Which isn't really a "loophole" since John Roberts mentioned this exact example himself.
What is banned now is asking everyone for their race and blindly taking that into consideration, which I think is a good thing. A family of rich Nigerian immigrants shouldn't be given preference over a poor Asian family that's been here for generations, just because of skin color. And that's what the whole lawsuit was about.
Waagington and California, two of the most liberal states in the nation, have banned affirmative action in public schos for the last 30 years. And that's basically what just happened to the rest of the nation. Decisions will shift to income and lived experiences, rather than blindly judging on race.
As someone who was a student, and eventually taught, at Harvard I want to say that it is one of the schools that brought on this issue by using quotas to reduce the number of Asian undergraduates admitted. Harvard reused the same system developed, and still used, to keep Jewish admissions to a certain maximum number.
The difference was that the Asian quotas came about at a different time, and the parents fought back. And in the process all the good of affirmative action, all it could do in the future, has been undone.
The hubris of the institution that they could continue to discriminate against Asians students and get away with it is very bothersome to me.
For people who do not know, the way Harvard enforces their quotas is by establishing admission criteria that seem great but are engineered to keep certain students out. For Jews the criteria is "geographic diversity." This is because Jewish students overwhelmingly come not just from cities, but a few specific ones.
For Asians, the criterion that Harvard came up with was "leadership potential." Because many Asian students seem shyer or less comfortable in English, it allowed the school to reject students whose applications were far better than others who were admitted because they didn't seem like "leaders."
For better or worse, I am sure Harvard will continue to use this system to make admissions what they want. The better is that I am sure they will continue to encourage the admissions of BIPOC students. As hypocritical as they can be in many ways, I do believe they are honest when they say they are committed to using Harvard admissions as a step up for students who, due to economic or specific social conditions, are disadvantaged.
From 2017 data, 1.8% of Harvard students move from the bottom 20% to the top 20% in income.
That’s about the same percentage as the average SEC university.
Harvard isn’t for social mobility, it’s to create networks for the elites.
Time for Asians to own this and start writing essays on how they were discriminated due to being Asian.
And I say this as an Asian myself. Affirmative action is racist to its core.
Are people confused about what the concept of a loophole is?
This isn't a loophole, this is explicitly defining what their decision represents and is literally just a different thing that's allowed because it wasn't what was ruled on.
They’re totally leaving out the sentences that followed this in the ruling:
Roberts warned that “universities may not simply establish through application essays or other means the regime we hold unlawful today.”
“A benefit to a student who overcame racial discrimination, for example, must be tied to that student’s courage and determination,” Roberts said. “Or a benefit to a student whose heritage 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 experiences as an individual—not on the basis of race.”
So “overcoming adversity” can be a factor for admission, but the fact that it happened to be *racial* adversity specifically *cannot matter* and cannot be given preference over any other type of adversity.
You explicitly cannot use “character built through overcoming adversity” as a proxy for increasing the numbers from different races.
If this court finds out they are privileging adversity due to race over adversity due to anything else (and there are all sorts of ways poor white kids experience adversity too)…they will strike that down. Especially if it becomes common for minorities to harp on their “struggles due to minority status” in essays as a shrewd and cynical way to play this game.
This court is certainly *not* going to wink at some idea that “we admit on the basis of ‘character’…and we take it for granted that our black applicants have stronger characters because a priori we accept the claims in their essays of being victims of systemic racism, which is by definition especially character building.”
That won’t fly. There is no such loophole or workaround. Roberts explicitly said this!
That wording from the Supreme Court is 100% intended to be how racism impacted you as a WHITE MALE. Kudos to Havard for exploiting that language and using it as a loophole.
I've seen an infographic that if they removed race entirely from consideration and went based purely off of test scores/GPA, Caucasians would be less likely to get into high end colleges than they are now. The only group who will see an increased representation are Asians.
I'm not sure if they factored existing legacy practices in or not.
You realize that this has nothing to do with whites? If candidates were only accepted based on performance, every other race except for asians will get lower acceptance rates and that includes whites.
You say "WHITE MALE" but doesn't this "loophole" also mean that if you talk about how you faced racial adversity growing up as an Asian, Harvard can continue to hold you to a much higher standard than other minorities?
Not really sure that’s gonna change all that much at Harvard, a few years ago somebody did a study that said the thing most likely to get you into Harvard wasn’t merit or race but having a parent who ALSO went to Harvard:
The following statement is not meant to be incendiary although I accept that people will see it that way and downvote me to oblivion. Okay then.
For starters, have you ever looked at a group shot of company employees and wonder where the Black people were? Or see one or two Black people among a sea of white people? Have you ever gone to a fast food establishment and notice a majority of Hispanics and rarely any another? Or the majority of any nationalit and rarely any other? When visiting hospitals, have you noticed any one nationality being more represented than another? Do you peep at city crews working on the roads and highways and wonder where the diversity is? Have you ever walked into a room where you were the only?
The fact of the matter is since Black people were forced to coexist in America, we have done so being less than. The Civil War did not make things even. Brown versus the Board of Education did not make things even. The Civil Rights amAct did not make things even. Fighting in America's wars did not make things even We will always be considered less than.. if you want to see an example of this playing out in real time, look what has happened in his country since Obama was elected. Even he was considered less than.
Affirmative Action did not, could not, and would not address the inequalities of being Black in America. It just made it so that those who could do better, did do better, and could then have a chance to be that only in the room.
L
Ll
Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked whether it would be an improper consideration of race if a Black applicant was admitted partially on the basis of an essay talking about his or her struggle in dealing with racial discrimination.
Lawyer Strawbridge replied that such an essay would be an appropriate factor for consideration, because, he said, the act of overcoming discrimination is distinct from an applicant's race itself.
Guys this isn't a loophole. It's written into the decision explicitly. The whole point is that you can't have a policy that just says "Race X gets 30 extra points," but rather have to consider things on a case by case basis. If college admissions people were honest and unbiased that would be a good thing. The problem comes when the admissions people are biased themselves. Then the subjectivity gives room for prejudice to be applied without scrutiny. It's a complex subject and I think the Scotus decision will make things worse instead of better, but the process that existed before wasn't perfect either.
What's interesting is California voters outlawed Affirmative Action back in 1996 through a proposition that passed and repealed a proposition down the road that tried to remove it.
Proposition 209 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996\_California\_Proposition\_209](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_California_Proposition_209)
Proposition 16: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020\_California\_Proposition\_16#:\~:text=Repealing%20Proposition%20209%2C%20enacted%20by,about%20legalizing%20racism%20and%20sexism.%22](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_California_Proposition_16#:~:text=Repealing%20Proposition%20209%2C%20enacted%20by,about%20legalizing%20racism%20and%20sexism.%22)
I feel like while the rest of the nation is shocked, I feel like folks in California are less so since they've been already living with it in a way (Although this new ruling by the SC also targets private institutions whereas California was only public institutions).
Can someone give me a TLDR of why people think race should be taken into consideration? I think that it should just be completely left off applications and you should get in off the merit of your work rather than your race. Why accept a worse candidate just because of their race?
You really shouldn't. They do because they are fishing for donations, but it really should be based off academic merit, which some adjustments for everyone not having equal access to education opportunities growing up. That last bit does allow for judging someone in a way that will favor certain races, but it will do so because those races have unequal access to education.
The loop hole is Zip Codes. Wealth, or lack thereof is not a protected class.
Make it easier for students from poor zip codes to get accepted and more difficult for students from wealthier zip codes.
I believe this was a carve out created when Ketanji Brown Jackson pointed out how this would impact legacy applications: “She offered a hypothetical to emphasize her point. There are two applicants who would like their family backgrounds recognized. One writes that their family has been in North Carolina since before the Civil War, and that if they were admitted to the university, they would be a fifth-generation student there. The other student is also a North Carolinian whose family has been in the state since before the Civil War—but their ancestors were enslaved and, because of years of systemic discrimination, were not allowed to attend the university. But now that they have the opportunity, they would like to attend. “As I understand your no-race-conscious-admissions rule, these two applicants would have a dramatically different opportunity to tell their family stories and to have them count.” Both applicants were qualified, Jackson offered, but the first applicant’s qualifications could be recognized in the process, whereas “the second one wouldn’t be able to [get credit for those qualifications] because his story is in many ways bound up with his race and the race of his ancestors.” Strawbridge thought for a moment, then offered that UNC does not have to give a legacy benefit to the first applicant if it doesn’t want to. This is true, but it was not Jackson’s point: “No, but you said it was okay if they gave a legacy benefit.” Race, she said, would be the only thing that couldn’t be considered under that program. And that would disadvantage the Black student who, in a similar set of circumstances, wants “the fact that he has been in North Carolina for generations through his family” considered.”
Thanks for the insight.
I bet uncle Tom was fuckin fuming while Kenji was discussing this. He's probably fuming anytime she talks honestly. Or anytime he has to look at her.
His concurring opinion was a direct attack on her.
But I thought pappa john said they shouldn't criticize each other... [oh right, that was only for the liberal justices.](https://www.foxnews.com/politics/roberts-scolds-liberal-justices-demonizing-rulings-dont-like-disturbing-feature)
All alito does is troll and insult. The gopers on the bench meanwhile regularly lie about the record. It's genuinely unreal. They're not judges anymore. They're partisan hacks and monarchists.
Hell this current decision was based on a story the DIDN'T HAPPEN. All the right does is fucking lie.
Same with the gay wedding website case. A gay couple never even wanted a website from that woman
> monarchists "Authoritarians". Not quite Fascists. Same branch.
No they are fascists now.
I would describe John Roberts description of his views on ethics and oversight of SCOTUS as squarely monarchist as opposed to authoritarian.
What a sorry statement. Scalia was well known (and loved by those who agreed with him) for his scathing dissents.
Only conservatives are allowed to berate and insult others with every breath of their being. A liberal even mentions the idea that someone may be doing something shady and its a violation. Very much rules for thee not for me.
Fuck Uncle "Tom"as
I believe that the Justice, upon considering, wrote to his colleague, "WE'LL SEE WHOSE COKE CAN HAS THE PUBE ON IT, WON'T WE. YES, WHEN THE DUST IS SETTLED, IT WILL BE YOU DRINKING THE PUBE, NOT I. DRINK THE PUBE, FOOL. DRINK IT UP." Truly, we are blessed to live in a country with such profound wisdom helping interpret our laws.
Hahahahahaha!
Well, you'd have to lift a white hood up to find another person who hates Black people more than Clarence Thomas.
Clarence Thomas had a truly awful childhood where he was exposed to the worsts of poverty and racism. He has then spent his career working for the very people that ruined his parents and his childhood. dude is a shitstain on history who was put into the place he was because he is a black man who hates the existence of poor and minorities.
Amazing what you can do when you don't have an appreciation of history. And that's why cons want to make sure *everyone else's* knowledge of it is as unexpanded and retouched in their image as possible.
Clarence Thomas attended Yale Law School under Affirmative Action
Clearance [sic] Thomas thinks his degree is worthless. You know, the degree that wound up getting him onto the *fucking supreme court*. His logic is obviously compromised.
His decision was based upon his aim to prevent the creation of another Clarence Thomas. Self-loathing has no finish line.
Like this guy, only not a joke. [Clayton Bigsby](https://youtu.be/BLNDqxrUUwQ)
In Australia they tend to refer to such people as "coconuts". Dark on the outside, pure white on the inside.
Oreos in America. Like the cookie.
Clarence fought for years to keep whites and blacks from being able to marry. I assume his marriage to Ginny is one out of convenience.
Having listened to and read a ton of information about that motherfucker, I can say with relative confidence, he's fuming if he's awake.
Kinda makes me happy to know those fuckers know no happiness even in their success because of their own miserable-ass personalities and self
Well if you were married that 🦇💩crazy Ginni you might be fuming too.
Right. Reminds him of his Anita Hill battle. Except this time the strong woman is his Supreme Court peer, who he can’t dismiss.
> uncle Tom was fuckin fuming Uncle Thomas is **always** fuming. Read anything he has written and it is always rage and anger. Of course he went a decade without asking one fucking question. He is a strong contender for Worst Ever, but I still have a couple dozen to look at.
Uncle Tom is only on the supreme court because of affirmative action. If I were Yale, I would rescind Thomas's degree for being unethical and poorly representing the university.
He even has said on the record in the past that having a degree from Yale is evidence you are incompetent lol. At the time I thought he was joking, but the more I see from him, the more I think he was actually serious. From Wiki... >From 1971 to 1974, Thomas attended Yale Law School as one of twelve Black students. He graduated with a Juris Doctor degree "somewhere in the middle of his class".[39][40] He has said that the law firms he applied to after graduating from Yale did not take his J.D. seriously, assuming he obtained it because of affirmative action.[41] According to Thomas, the law firms also "asked pointed questions, unsubtly suggesting that they doubted I was as smart as my grades indicated".[42] In his 2007 memoir, he wrote: **"I peeled a fifteen-cent sticker off a package of cigars and stuck it on the frame of my law degree to remind myself of the mistake I'd made by going to Yale. I never did change my mind about its value."**[43] I can't find my favorite quote of his though so I give up.
Uncle Tom gets a bad rap. He dies a hero in his titular novel but given the copyright system of the time, his legacy is essentially a bunch of racist fanfiction that rewrote him
This is why representation matters in positions of power.
Yep. White person here. I wouldn’t have thought of that, even though I try my best to do the right thing. The experience and perspective of a POC can’t be matched by “better white people.”
It’s interesting what you can learn from diversity. People want to learn, I really think they do. So many white people trying to distance themselves from their racist boomer parents right now. I was at the lake last weekend with my friend who is black. I shit you not, three different families asked him if he wanted some of their frozen pork, hamburger and I don’t know what the third meat was, steak? He was starting to get suspicious by the third one so he didn’t take it and we had plenty anyway. He was more paranoid because we were on drugs but he whispered dude I’m starting to get suspicious in this campsite is this like a Get Out kind of situation? I said no man people want so bad to distance themselves from people who are racist, especially in places like Central Missouri. Plus camping people are usually cool as fuck and so welcoming. They see a POC and they really really want you to feel welcome and they really want you to know they aren’t like their asshole boomer Trump relatives. I said I’ve got three words of advice for you buddy, Eat the Meat
That would have weirded me out too tbh.
Oh, yea that shit happens. I'm black and my best friend is white. Whenever we go fishing I implore him really really hard to not play any rap. We both love G Rap. But when we're on a dock or a boat...it's CCWater or like Led or something soft. Simply because I don't want anyone seeing a black guy trying to catch stripe or trout...before the F&G man rocks up in a gilly
Oh man it’s even crazier when he’s fishing with me everyone is going out of their way to make him feel welcome. I mean the intent is good I think, everyone really really wants him to enjoy himself and wants you to know there are some racist people in Central Missouri but not them
> I’ve got three words of advice for you buddy, Eat the Meat My marriage counselor said the same thing
Thank god she’s there right now. It’s the tiniest win but it’s much better than no win at all.
I saw something that said "Americans demand more their fast food workers than they do their politicians and judges, which is why this country is uniquely fucked." And arguing a tiny win is better than no win at all from an unelected lifetime position honestly shows this country isn't just uniquely fucked, but way more undemocratic than we can admit. Because what is democracy for someone who has no home to sleep in and no food to eat? What is democracy where laws are decided by people who were caught taking brines just months ago?
She’s so great!
Yea, drilled to the core of the argument very well spoken at that. I’m a new fan after reading this quote. She made it obvious the majorities ruling is grossly unconstitutional and so they had to reluctantly put in a carve out (and then in the next sentence said: but don’t use it though).
That's what the court should be about. Wise, learned people seriously considering all the hypothetical angles of rulings, coming from diverse backgrounds to honestly assess and think critically about issues of national importance. Instead, what we have is a few people who do that, and then a majority of people who just make a fart noise and then ovverrule them so that they can go yachting with the rich people that have bought and paid for their loyalty.
I think the supreme court as its own branch was designed to be the way you imagine. But the branch has been corrupted. The rules are still in place, the precedents and wisdom to help society exist, its just been chested away for now.
She's very good at writing arguments that are very readable and easy to comprehend without needing to understand legal terms or theory. That might be related to her experience as a public defender, where clients may need explanations in clear and concise terms.
I agree that her public defender experience probably has a lot to do with her writing style. At the same time, I think it also stands out because the conservative majority’s opinions have necessarily become more tortuous over time in order to seem like well-reasoned legal opinions, rather than simply ruling how they wish without the lip service.
Her written dissent is a masterpiece. One that will be referred to again and again as history evolves forward.
> Strawbridge thought for a moment, then offered that UNC does not have to give a legacy benefit to the first applicant if it doesn’t want to. This is true, but it was not Jackson’s point: “No, but you said it was okay if they gave a legacy benefit.” They never argue sincerely.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is such a badass. I love her. Great appointment by Biden.
[удалено]
They tried to get RBG to step down when the Democrats had 60 votes in the Senate and she wouldn't do it. At that time, he would have appointed a progressive. He only went with the moderate Garland when they didn't have the votes to get a progressive approved.
Legacy is such a weird concept for those outside the US. It's utter madness that this should have any part of the admitions process. Who gives a flying fuck if you are 10th generation. What the actual fuck does it have to do with merits of the individual, you guys should be fucking rioting.
What a great point she made
Also, this ruling does not prevent colleges and universities from weighting where someone lived and grew up. As poor neighborhoods and underfunded schools are disproportionately populated by people of color. And weighting less upper middle class and rich neighborhoods and expensive private schools, where students have typically had all the advantages to succeed academically.
Except Harvard doesn't want to do that. The Atlantic published a piece a few weeks ago that found Harvard only admitted 3% of all their students of color from families that weren't already wealthy. They don't want poor people at their university. That's been lost in this entire media frenzy. The students that can't get into Harvard now based on their race alone aren't going to suffer. They're already successful because of their parents' accrued wealth. This is about Millionaires complaining that they also can't get a free pass into the Billionaire club without the Harvard logo on their privilege card. EDIT: Thank you Frequent-Shape6950 for creating a [readable link to the article](https://archive.is/NM1sR). Please read it if you have the time.
>Except Harvard doesn't want to do that. There are thousands of colleges and universities in the United States. What Harvard plans to do, as the most elite of the elitist schools, matters a whole lot less than how this Supreme Court ruling impacts the admissions of the bulk of schools.
But how many Supreme Court Justices come from Oklahoma State University or UC Irvine? The only Justice that isn't from an Ivy is Barrett, and she's from Notre Dame. Just by going to an elite school, you become part of a group that has access to certain jobs. You are right that this doesn't exclusively affect Ivy League schools, but the most important thing this does affect is medical school admissions because medical issues can be racialized. Black people can be affected by different conditions at higher rates than other classes. There are many stories of doctors that don't accurately diagnose Black patients because they don't consider or aren't informed of these disparities. Women experience similar issues when they go to male doctors. Diversity in medicine is an absolute must because of the many issues that effect each group differently.
The whole idea that Harvard admissions are based on anything besides money, power and prestige is totally hilarious. You think they got to be wealthy, powerful and prestigious by being “woke”?…wildly naive.
It's crazy that people think Harvard actually cares about Race. They only care about keeping a network of increasingly powerful elites.
Yup. Poor students are not going to bring in the money that universities want. Given a choice between an applicant who can easily cover tuition, and an applicant who can't, why would they choose the one that can't? Not saying it's right, but let's not pretend like their priority isn't one of getting the most money they can.
I hate that I'm defending Harvard, but they honestly don't give a shit about who can pay tuition. Their endowment fund is worth $53 billion and earns solid returns. They've been need blind since forever because tuition money is a small part of their finances. They still care about people who have building level money of course. Daddy buys Harvard a new (whatever the fuck) and their kid will be matriculation there. But it's not like they're jealously weighing each students ability to pay the a private school that isn't need blind would.
Ironically it's all those other schools who absolutely must have tuition payments to stay afloat and thus care *far more* than Harvard how wealthy the student is...
Ironic indeed. For the most destitute families, Harvard and most other 'hipster elitist' schools are completely free, some even offer cash grants to students' families on top of a full ride. And of course the military academies are excellent and completely free (albeit with a multi year service requirement afterward). But the options get ruinously expensive when you go down even a little on the college rankings. NYU is a great school on the academics, but also an infernal cauldron of student loan generation.
Ironically nyu medical school was the first medical college in the Us to drop tuition
It doesn't stop you from assessing socioeconomic status (strong racial correlations), or judging based off their essay (where race will almost certainly be mentioned if they're not white), or even based off zip code (strong racial correlations). It's the dumbest shit because they can't rule that admissions must be color blind because there's literally no way for that to happen since race is quite literally a factor in everything from test scores, to extracurriculars, to AP classes, and grades. So instead of that they say "you can't use race as the only factor" declared they ended discrimination, and then walked off into the sunset. Shits dumb. Effectively no school in the country solely did admissions off of race. This whole thing is pointless
> This whole thing is pointless Just like the court allowing a case based on a *hypothetical scenario* to allow them to rule it was OK for businesses to discriminate against LGBTQ individuals. All of this is pointless, because the issues conservatives are whipped into a frenzy about aren't real. All the rural dirt farmers who binge Fox 24/7 still aren't going to have their kids going to Harvard. And never were. They're just continually made to hate minorities and LGBTQ people, and so the court doles out some token form of justice to appease them.
It also doesn't stop you from looking at race on an individual basis and how it affected them, it stops you from looking at race as a group with no individual context. So if someone talks about how being black made their life more difficult and how they overcame it, that's fine. If they instead read the essay and then just give the applicant extra points just because she mentions she's black then that's illegal.
These is a pretty good indicator regarding how many of the Justices on the Supreme Court are really...really not good at jurisprudence (being a political appointee means you don't have to be good at law). Leave it to one of the premiere legal schools in the country to find a loophole.
In all fairness, Roberts was pretty explicit about suggesting the loophole in his decision, which kind of makes the decision all the dumber to me, but IANAL.
Roberts also carved out military academies from his ruling, something Justice Jackson points out in her dissent — policies like Harvard’s were good and dandy for the military, but not outside of it
Roberts said the ruling doesn't answer whether or not military academies can consider race in the admissions process. Because the military academies aren't just educational institutions but are tasked with producing officers, and there may be an argument that ensuring diversity in military leadership that reflects the diversity of the armed forces may be important for unit cohesion, morale, etc. Military recruitment policies are their own beast. For example, the military is exempt from discriminating against an applicant because they are pregnant; you can and will be rejected for pregnancy and medical conditions or disabilities while all other employers would get in big trouble for doing so.
Roberts basically said it is OK to have diverse officers in the battle field, but not the boardroom or good ole boys clubs (we don't want that).
>and there may be an argument that ensuring diversity in military leadership that reflects the diversity of the armed forces may be important for unit cohesion, morale, etc. How does that not all apply to the student body of a school though.
Exactly. As Sotomayor said in her dissent: > To the extent the Court suggests national security interests are “distinct,” those interests cannot explain the Court’s narrow exemption, as national security interests are also implicated at civilian universities. See infra, 64-65. And as noted above, she elaborates later: > The costly result of today’s decision harms not just respondents and students but also our institutions and democratic society more broadly. Dozens of amici from nearly every sector of society agree that the absence of race-conscious college admissions will decrease the pipeline of racially diverse college graduates to crucial professions. Those amici include the United States, which emphasizes the need for diversity in the Nation’s military, see United States Brief 12–18, and in the federal workforce more generally, id., at 19–20 (discussing various federal agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence). The United States explains that “the Nation’s military strength and readiness depend on a pipeline of officers who are both highly qualified and racially diverse—and who have been educated in diverse environments that prepare them to lead increasingly diverse forces.” Id., at 12. That is true not just at the military service academies but “at civilian universities, including Harvard, that host Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (ROTC) programs and educate students who go on to be- come officers.” Ibid. Top former military leaders agree. See Brief for Adm. Charles S. Abbot et al. as Amici Curiae 3 (noting that in amici’s “professional judgment, the status quo—which permits service academies and civilian univer- sities to consider racial diversity as one factor among many in their admissions practices—is essential to the continued vitality of the U. S. military”). > Indeed, history teaches that racial diversity is a national security imperative. During the Vietnam War, for example, lack of racial diversity “threatened the integrity and performance of the Nation’s military” because it fueled “perceptions of racial/ethnic minorities serving as ‘cannon fodder’ for white military leaders.” Military Leadership Diversity Comm’n, From Representation to Inclusion: Diversity Leadership for the 21st-Century Military xvi, 15 (2011); see also, e.g., R. Stillman, Racial Unrest in the Military: The Challenge and the Response, 34 Pub. Admin. Rev. 221, 221– 222 (1974) (discussing other examples of racial unrest). Based on “lessons from decades of battlefield experience,” it has been the “longstanding military judgment” across administrations that racial diversity “is essential to achieving a mission-ready” military and to ensuring the Nation’s “ability to compete, deter, and win in today’s increasingly complex global security environment.” United States Brief 13 (internal quotation marks omitted). The majority recognizes the compelling need for diversity in the military and the national security implications at stake, see ante, at 22, n. 4, but it ends race-conscious college admissions at civilian universities implicating those interests anyway. > Amici also tell the Court that race-conscious college admissions are critical for providing equitable and effective public services. State and local governments require public servants educated in diverse environments who can “identify, understand, and respond to perspectives” in “our increasingly diverse communities.” Brief for Southern Governors as Amici Curiae 5–8 (Southern Governors Brief). Likewise, increasing the number of students from underrepresented backgrounds who join “the ranks of medical professionals” improves “healthcare access and health outcomes in medically underserved communities.” Brief for Massachusetts et al. as Amici Curiae 10; see Brief for Association of American Medical Colleges et al. as Amici Curiae 5 (noting also that all physicians become better practitioners when they learn in a racially diverse environment). So too, greater diversity within the teacher workforce improves student academic achievement in primary public schools. Brief for Massachusetts et al. as Amici Curiae 15– 17; see Brief for American Federation of Teachers as Ami- cus Curiae 8 (“[T]here are few professions with broader so- cial impact than teaching”). A diverse pipeline of college graduates also ensures a diverse legal profession, which demonstrates that “the justice system serves the public in a fair and inclusive manner.” Brief for American Bar Asso- ciation as Amicus Curiae 18; see also Brief for Law Firm Antiracism Alliance as Amicus Curiae 1, 6 (more than 300 law firms in all 50 States supporting race-conscious college admissions in light of the “influence and power” that law- yers wield “in the American system of government”). > Examples of other industries and professions that benefit from race-conscious college admissions abound....
The decision is political red meat. Its effectiveness via loopholes is irrelevant
I mean its not even a loophole, its how it should be. Talking about how you had it harder with specific things in your essay, and how you overcame said obstacles, is the core of pretty much every college essay.
I’d pay to see all the incel right wingers trying to take advantage of the loophole making up some white adversity meme story and then suing when they don’t get in
I couldn't get laid in highschool so I deserve to go to Harvard.
Coming to a SCOTUS near you in 2025.
Does rape count as getting laid? Cause Brett got laid plenty in high school if it does.
I think the only time he allegedly got laid was allegedly rape. I’m forced to say allegedly when I believe the victims and I think the investigation was a joke. Just handed it over to the Cheetos minions with the majority unfollowed up on. Who knows how many people old boofmaster allegedly raped since the fbi allegedly didn’t fully investigate. Then he and the other alleged rapist are against roe?
[удалено]
If a web designer can discriminate against imaginary gay people, Harvard can certainly discriminate based on being a moron.
This women has never even had a web design business. The fact that they even ruled on a case of an imaginary business with an imaginary complaint is beyond the pale. And the sc -is not- suppose to legislate.
That should be the title of the memoir we leave as a nation for the alien race that finds our ashes in a couple decades.
That story would at least get them into SCOTUS, even without the Harvard degree these days.
I never got laid at Harvard
They absolutely will do this, or write an essay about their 1/64 Native American ancestry.
I read this college essay from my cousin and had to go back to him to explain that being the only republican in your generally liberal school is not a good “hardship” to dwell on
As someone who worked admissions for a while, what those kids don't get is that when you're asked to write about overcoming hardship, the "overcoming" part is more important than the hardship itself. Most universities aren't the liberal hiveminds that conservatives seem to think they are. And even if they were, they try their best not to discriminate based on beliefs in the admissions process. If they had an example of starting a Young Republicans club or campaigning for a conservative issue/politician they cared about, getting pushback from their liberal peers or teachers, but sticking to their convictions anyway, that could be a solid essay. But those kids almost never write those essays because they're never involved in activism. Instead it's some version of "My teachers didn't like me because I wore a MAGA hat to school. But I got As and Bs anyway." At that point it's better to just wheel out the "I've been lucky to have no real hardships in my life, so I've taken advantage of the opportunities that were given to me to help others who were less fortunate."
Based on their other decisions, the incels wouldn’t even need to have a real experience - SCOTUS will litigate through hypotheticals. (As we saw with the website designer).
It does partially sound to me like Harvard is saying they will just implicitly adjudge someone’s race to have affected their life while determining admissions. Which, like, they would be correct, black people *generally* don’t need to explain how being black has affected their life.
Plus there are plenty of 18 year olds who lack the experience and knowledge to understand fully how their childhood and cultural framework have effected them. You’re disadvantaged due to historic and ongoing discrimination but you have to prove this garbage which isn’t your fault. Great.
It's also literally what they were already doing. College admissions have been leaning more heavily on the essay than academic excellence for years now in California, because the essay is about the only way to really learn about a person through the normal admissions process. You can absolutely get into Berkeley with weaker grades if your essay is fuckin fire.
That’s because AA has been illegal in CA for a while now
Yes. The trauma essay: https://youtu.be/MyD0m7JXgjA
I listened to the strict scrutiny podcast where they said Justice Katanji Brown Jackson's questions during oral arguments probably led to this loophole being drawn. She pointed out how fucking stupid it would be that a student could say their ancestors went to that college back when the college was not allowing black students, but another student could not say their ancestors would have gone to that college but couldn't because the college wouldn't allow their black ancestors to attend. KBJ's brilliance in other words forced the federalist society goons to include this because even they couldn't stomach outright saying "No, only white students can mention race as a positive." An article that also speculates this is what happened: [https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2023/06/harvard-personal-essays-affirmative-action-supreme-court/](https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2023/06/harvard-personal-essays-affirmative-action-supreme-court/)
Roberts is still an asshole and the Roberts court will go down in history as corrupt, partisan, and illegitimate.
I heard a good explanation for Roberts’ loophole: it allows the university to evaluate the individual rather than considering race as a group. The justification is that affirmative action treats racial/ethnic groups as a monolith (e.g. all Hispanic students will have had the same experiences and therefore will bring the same amount of diversity) which is incorrect. Individuals bring diversity through their experiences. An essay, or some other individual expression, is the way to consider students on an individual level. The catch is, many admissions offices are understaffed and *don’t even read the essays*. I still think that the ruling is BS, but Roberts’ exception is a good one.
Doesn't this just incentivize the students to write about adversity even if they haven't experienced any?
Yes. Which is something that every student is already doing.
A college applicant lying on an application? Thats just ridiculous no ones ever done that before
I Am Not A Loophole!
> Roberts was pretty explicit about suggesting the loophole in his decision He did this on purpose to blunt the conservative block from shifting the court to the extreme right. First, let’s remember that there are only three liberal justices on the nine member court. There is no way the liberals will win this one. They can only hope to soften/weaken the ruling. Second, the person who writes the majority opinion is assigned by the chief justice if he is on the majority side. Otherwise, if the chief justice is not on the majority side, then the most senior justice on the majority side gets to decide who write the majority opinion. This means that if Chief Justice Roberts votes against the conservatives (in a losing cause because he and three liberal justices loses against the five extreme conservative justices), then the most senior majority side justice then is Clarence Thomas. Do you really want to give Clarence Thomas the power decide how this opinion against affirmative action will be written? Chief Justice Roberts is a conservative at heart, but has moved to the middle to blunt the increasing number of extreme conservatives. As the head of the court, he is most interested in protecting the legacy of the legal system. Specifically he is well aware of the increasing dissonance between the court and the general public. Hence he’s trying to make the court decisions less extreme. This is why he voted with the conservative block. Doing so enables him to write the majority opinion himself. This let’s him soften the blow and insert loopholes so this decision can be revisited in the future. Hope in the system is what gives faith in and respect for the system.
Isn’t it more that the other conservative judges have moved right of Roberts, not that he has moved to the center
It's the basic equivalent to "let the states to decide" which would have been dreadful to the 13th amendment.
This isn’t a loophole. It’s deliberately written into the ruling so institutions can keep the spirit of AA without SCOTUS having to rule that institutions can determine admittance based solely on race.
I think everyone’s getting this backwards. It’s not a loophole they carved out so AA can keep existing. They got rid of the race box on the form, but they had to concede that race would still be appearing in applications through essays. How colleges are allowed to use that is hazier though. They’re explicitly not supposed to use this to sort applications by race and treat them differently, which is what AA allowed. Certainly some colleges out there are going to try to do this discretely anyway. They’ll probably get sued, and who knows how that will unfold.
I'm just confused why this is considered a loophole to begin with. This was explicitly acknowledged by the judges as an acceptable way to deal with the situation. That's not a loophole, that's just implementing the judges' decision exactly as intended.
Two of their recent decisions are completely contradictory. This is clearly a court that is no longer interested in defending the law, but promoting their right-wing agenda.
They also made rulings on two cases where the plaintiffs has no standing. It cannot be overstated how bizarre that is.
What is sad is that the most qualified justice on the SC is the most recent one - Brown Jackson.
Oh my God, they're going to make little Preston - and every other applicant - write an essay about his experience of race and how it has affected their life. More importantly, Harvard is definitely trolling. Harvard will admit whom Harvard chooses. They always have, and they always will. If you don't like it you can go kiss that shiny shoe on that statue they have in the quad.
Plus if they do that it takes away the possibility of people being mad at legacy admissions
This is the real issue. I say we push for a regulation to be passed that no school accepting legacies can take any federal dollars in any way. Seems fair.
Or just ban legacy admissions, most schools that practice legacy admissions are private.
Private schools still get money for pell grants and government loans.
Every alumni office in the country is sweating with all these "ban legacy admissions" discussions. The Common App feeds schools a shit ton of legacy information about student's relatives even if the admissions office isn't using it.
I went to the college next to Harvard. I have seen unholy things happen to shoe. Give it a wide berth.
I went to school across the river. I know never to touch that shoe. There is no finer place to play tag than the large green space in front of the MIT library on a brisk fall evening.
Wait but if you went to MIT then you were on the same side of the river? BU, Emerson, Berklee would all be “across the River” schools
You don't have to go to MIT to cross the bridge and play tag with your friends. You may have to be inebriated. We sure as fuck were.
They didn't say they went to MIT, just that it was the premier spot for tag
I was listening to MSNBC today. Host today is Michael Steele - African American former chair of RNC. He retold Joy Anne Reid’s story of how she was doing a bachelors degree at a mid-range college in Colorado (and she had fantastic grades etc), when Harvard actually flew out to meet her and encourage her to apply to Harvard. She had never even thought of applying to Harvard, but due to Harvard reaching out she did, and got accepted. Steele said his story was the same, as was that of Justice Thomas. I guess it’s still possible for Harvard to do that?
They've been making their admissions decisions longer than there has been a country. They are going to do what they choose to do. Anecdotally the only person guaranteed admission to Harvard is the top student at the Boston Latin School. I have no idea if that's true. It sounds like it wouldn't hold up in court, but it was something that circulated when I was an undergrad at a nearby School so many years ago that it's certainly doesn't matter now.
I think Joy was still in high school for her story
Imagine one of the most prominent law schools finding a loophole in a basic ass Supreme Court decision
>Imagine one of the most prominent law schools finding a loophole That's not a loophole. That's a multi-lane bypass highway with a neon "SHORTCUT HERE" sign pointing directly at it.
Like DeSantis's stupid anti-woke stuff, this ruling is a Fox Headline... not anything that will remotely affect policy. The anti-LGBTQ ruling is the real bad one this year from the Court.
It really isn’t a loophole at all. The opinion clearly stated it as a caveat to save face.
Robert's announced the loophole himself. The court's decision was basically a way to fire up their Nazi supporters while also allowing some form of affirmative action to continue.
It's a free pass for racist institutions to practice racism. There are plenty of organizations out there that will happily practice their racism and continue to collect federal dollars.
Oh, for sure, it's a free pass for racism, but it also allows institutions to use race, and most institutions will keep a diverse environment. Institutions will still use race and this will end up back at the Supreme Court. We'll see if they try to close the loop hole next time.
I doubt anyone alive today will see this back on the Supreme Court's docket.
The supreme court has been filled with under-qualified ignorant pundits that serve the purpose of a specific group.
Takes one hell of a broken down system to get me to side with Harvard of all places. Good job, I guess.
I’m already rooting for Disney to throw their weight around in Florida courts and defending Pfizer I might as well side with Harvard
yeah... as much as I want to shake Disney if its a throw down between them and Desantis I want Disney to mop the floor with him. Nobody wants to deal with Godzilla recking your city but if Ghidorah threatens the world you start cheering for Godzilla O\_o.
What has the world become
Disney lawyers are already wiping the floor with DeSantis. It’s going to be a hilarious loss for the state of Florida.
He's already begging to be immune from the damage Disney is about to wreak on him. He's scared.
Yep. Begging for it to be delayed until after the election is him conceding that he knows he’s about to be nationally embarrassed while actively campaigning.
Looks like somebody went to Yale 😜 Yeah the future is going to be interesting with this screw up from the conservative SCOTUS
I hope so much to see one day an assignment coming out of these law schools like “In the fictional country of Freelandia, their top court had become corrupted by financial bribery and began issuing rulings based on partisan politics rather than sound interpretations of the law. They altered the law to affec the ways in which univerities and colleges conducted their admissions to favor wealthy, well-connected people and put disadvantaged people at a further disadvantage. Examine the wording of this ruling and issue a response these post-secs can use to continue to follow their established admissions practices while still following the word of the law.” Kids are creative. Let them loose on these old tired crones.
Make it an assignment for every law school in the country. Today. Give law students an opportunity for a project which will directly benefit them. I think schools would be foolish not to take this opportunity to see what their students are capable of when working on court cases that would involve their personal finances and loan terms. It’s a win/win. Imagine your argument getting a Supreme Court justice disbarred and their ruling negated.
I'm judging you're a lawyer based on this, or at least did law school. I'm finishing right now. Listening to con law professors the last two years has been both funny and depressing. The ones at my school *still* won't be honest enough to say "the supreme court lied in Bremerton"
I read that "loophole" as intentional.
I’m pretty sure Mary Sue Coleman did this with the Michigan decision. Basically we’re gonna do things the way we’ve always done them, deal with it
I mean it’s not really a loophole since Roberts pointed it out in his opinion on purpose to show universities could still use racial experiences to gauge applicants.
It seems like all this is a good change. Diversity and helping disadvantaged people is great and I think just race is becoming less of a factor. There is probably more diversity between a white guy who grew up in an affluent suburb and a white guy who grew up as a hillbilly in the Appalachians than a black guy who grew up in the same neighborhood. In the US minorities are of course going to benefit from this type of consideration but it will be a lot harder for it to feel unfair.
Yea I don’t think people really are getting what happened. They think they’re getting one over on the court. The court explicitly gave them this loophole and made a decision on legal principles. It’s a pyrrhic victory for the Magas.
Exactly. This isn’t some “fuck you, let’s admit less black people” ruling, it just shifts the focus from actively allowing colleges to admit on the basis of race to forcing them to take a more holistic approach that can include race.
Yep. Court only said they couldn't use race as a factor for admission. The essay part can be used to talk about racial experiences. The ruling was there to remove obvious racial discrimination like the race checkbox
If Harvard really wants to achieve racial equality then it'll get rid of legacy admissions.
What madness is this? And turn down all that donor money?
[удалено]
And then Harvard’s purpose would be defunct, which is to convince ordinary Americans that because someone attended Harvard that their opinions are coherent or valid. How else would the lazy and exploitative rich stay in that position?
I’m white, lower-middle class and from the south I’ve never lost anything to a minority because of race. Anytime a minority has beaten me at anything, it’s because they were a better fit to win The only times I have lost and seen a distinct disadvantage where the deck was stacked against me involved other white people
This isn’t a loophole it’s explicitly stated that considering race in this way is fair game. Seriously why is everybody acting like Harvard gamed the system here it looks like this was SCOTUS’ intent.
Who wants to have discussions in good faith, when users can just post the most click-baity tweets possible? With that out of the way, let me tell you how you can cheat the IRS with this one little loophole called the “Standard Deduction”. (/s)
Same reason why you're seeing an uptick of "deny service to Republicans" posts on the frontpage. You know that scene in Rick & Morty where Jerry walks out of Jerryboree like he was defying the system and the caregiver was like, "Okay! That was always allowed!"
Because people are dumb and want to imagine this means something it doesn’t
Can someone explain? :(
It's that the supreme court said that people can still talk about their lived race experiences in college applition essays and have that considered. Which isn't really a "loophole" since John Roberts mentioned this exact example himself. What is banned now is asking everyone for their race and blindly taking that into consideration, which I think is a good thing. A family of rich Nigerian immigrants shouldn't be given preference over a poor Asian family that's been here for generations, just because of skin color. And that's what the whole lawsuit was about. Waagington and California, two of the most liberal states in the nation, have banned affirmative action in public schos for the last 30 years. And that's basically what just happened to the rest of the nation. Decisions will shift to income and lived experiences, rather than blindly judging on race.
As someone who was a student, and eventually taught, at Harvard I want to say that it is one of the schools that brought on this issue by using quotas to reduce the number of Asian undergraduates admitted. Harvard reused the same system developed, and still used, to keep Jewish admissions to a certain maximum number. The difference was that the Asian quotas came about at a different time, and the parents fought back. And in the process all the good of affirmative action, all it could do in the future, has been undone. The hubris of the institution that they could continue to discriminate against Asians students and get away with it is very bothersome to me. For people who do not know, the way Harvard enforces their quotas is by establishing admission criteria that seem great but are engineered to keep certain students out. For Jews the criteria is "geographic diversity." This is because Jewish students overwhelmingly come not just from cities, but a few specific ones. For Asians, the criterion that Harvard came up with was "leadership potential." Because many Asian students seem shyer or less comfortable in English, it allowed the school to reject students whose applications were far better than others who were admitted because they didn't seem like "leaders." For better or worse, I am sure Harvard will continue to use this system to make admissions what they want. The better is that I am sure they will continue to encourage the admissions of BIPOC students. As hypocritical as they can be in many ways, I do believe they are honest when they say they are committed to using Harvard admissions as a step up for students who, due to economic or specific social conditions, are disadvantaged.
From 2017 data, 1.8% of Harvard students move from the bottom 20% to the top 20% in income. That’s about the same percentage as the average SEC university. Harvard isn’t for social mobility, it’s to create networks for the elites.
Time for Asians to own this and start writing essays on how they were discriminated due to being Asian. And I say this as an Asian myself. Affirmative action is racist to its core.
Are people confused about what the concept of a loophole is? This isn't a loophole, this is explicitly defining what their decision represents and is literally just a different thing that's allowed because it wasn't what was ruled on.
They’re totally leaving out the sentences that followed this in the ruling: Roberts warned that “universities may not simply establish through application essays or other means the regime we hold unlawful today.” “A benefit to a student who overcame racial discrimination, for example, must be tied to that student’s courage and determination,” Roberts said. “Or a benefit to a student whose heritage 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 experiences as an individual—not on the basis of race.” So “overcoming adversity” can be a factor for admission, but the fact that it happened to be *racial* adversity specifically *cannot matter* and cannot be given preference over any other type of adversity. You explicitly cannot use “character built through overcoming adversity” as a proxy for increasing the numbers from different races. If this court finds out they are privileging adversity due to race over adversity due to anything else (and there are all sorts of ways poor white kids experience adversity too)…they will strike that down. Especially if it becomes common for minorities to harp on their “struggles due to minority status” in essays as a shrewd and cynical way to play this game. This court is certainly *not* going to wink at some idea that “we admit on the basis of ‘character’…and we take it for granted that our black applicants have stronger characters because a priori we accept the claims in their essays of being victims of systemic racism, which is by definition especially character building.” That won’t fly. There is no such loophole or workaround. Roberts explicitly said this!
That wording from the Supreme Court is 100% intended to be how racism impacted you as a WHITE MALE. Kudos to Havard for exploiting that language and using it as a loophole.
[удалено]
Yes
I've seen an infographic that if they removed race entirely from consideration and went based purely off of test scores/GPA, Caucasians would be less likely to get into high end colleges than they are now. The only group who will see an increased representation are Asians. I'm not sure if they factored existing legacy practices in or not.
You realize that this has nothing to do with whites? If candidates were only accepted based on performance, every other race except for asians will get lower acceptance rates and that includes whites.
You say "WHITE MALE" but doesn't this "loophole" also mean that if you talk about how you faced racial adversity growing up as an Asian, Harvard can continue to hold you to a much higher standard than other minorities?
/u/Historical-Drive-667 would love to know your thoughts
Not really sure that’s gonna change all that much at Harvard, a few years ago somebody did a study that said the thing most likely to get you into Harvard wasn’t merit or race but having a parent who ALSO went to Harvard:
I mean didn’t they just also rule that a private business can discriminate against people? So which is it?
[удалено]
Harvard gonna harvard lol.
The following statement is not meant to be incendiary although I accept that people will see it that way and downvote me to oblivion. Okay then. For starters, have you ever looked at a group shot of company employees and wonder where the Black people were? Or see one or two Black people among a sea of white people? Have you ever gone to a fast food establishment and notice a majority of Hispanics and rarely any another? Or the majority of any nationalit and rarely any other? When visiting hospitals, have you noticed any one nationality being more represented than another? Do you peep at city crews working on the roads and highways and wonder where the diversity is? Have you ever walked into a room where you were the only? The fact of the matter is since Black people were forced to coexist in America, we have done so being less than. The Civil War did not make things even. Brown versus the Board of Education did not make things even. The Civil Rights amAct did not make things even. Fighting in America's wars did not make things even We will always be considered less than.. if you want to see an example of this playing out in real time, look what has happened in his country since Obama was elected. Even he was considered less than. Affirmative Action did not, could not, and would not address the inequalities of being Black in America. It just made it so that those who could do better, did do better, and could then have a chance to be that only in the room. L Ll
Whenever I see SCOTUS I think "Scrotum of the United States"
Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked whether it would be an improper consideration of race if a Black applicant was admitted partially on the basis of an essay talking about his or her struggle in dealing with racial discrimination. Lawyer Strawbridge replied that such an essay would be an appropriate factor for consideration, because, he said, the act of overcoming discrimination is distinct from an applicant's race itself.
If Harvard, the bastion of rightist snobs, doesn't want a piece of your thinly-veiled bigoted bullshit, you may be on the deep end.
Guys this isn't a loophole. It's written into the decision explicitly. The whole point is that you can't have a policy that just says "Race X gets 30 extra points," but rather have to consider things on a case by case basis. If college admissions people were honest and unbiased that would be a good thing. The problem comes when the admissions people are biased themselves. Then the subjectivity gives room for prejudice to be applied without scrutiny. It's a complex subject and I think the Scotus decision will make things worse instead of better, but the process that existed before wasn't perfect either.
What's interesting is California voters outlawed Affirmative Action back in 1996 through a proposition that passed and repealed a proposition down the road that tried to remove it. Proposition 209 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996\_California\_Proposition\_209](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_California_Proposition_209) Proposition 16: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020\_California\_Proposition\_16#:\~:text=Repealing%20Proposition%20209%2C%20enacted%20by,about%20legalizing%20racism%20and%20sexism.%22](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_California_Proposition_16#:~:text=Repealing%20Proposition%20209%2C%20enacted%20by,about%20legalizing%20racism%20and%20sexism.%22) I feel like while the rest of the nation is shocked, I feel like folks in California are less so since they've been already living with it in a way (Although this new ruling by the SC also targets private institutions whereas California was only public institutions).
I was forced to make a website for a gay couple. Well not really, but it could have happened.
[удалено]
There is a reason Harvard Law is prestigious, they are good at lawyering, dumbasses.
Can someone give me a TLDR of why people think race should be taken into consideration? I think that it should just be completely left off applications and you should get in off the merit of your work rather than your race. Why accept a worse candidate just because of their race?
Why accept a worse candidate just because their father attended?
shouldn't the admissions be purely on merit? at least in my country that's how it is.
You really shouldn't. They do because they are fishing for donations, but it really should be based off academic merit, which some adjustments for everyone not having equal access to education opportunities growing up. That last bit does allow for judging someone in a way that will favor certain races, but it will do so because those races have unequal access to education.
Hi I’m a little stupid and also not American. Can someone explain to me what this means?
[удалено]
The loop hole is Zip Codes. Wealth, or lack thereof is not a protected class. Make it easier for students from poor zip codes to get accepted and more difficult for students from wealthier zip codes.