Affirmative action admission policies used by universities to ostensibly improve diversity are expected to be struck down in Supreme Court cases due to be heard this week.
Oral arguments will be heard on Monday over whether Harvard and the University of North Carolina discriminated against white and Asian applicants during their admissions processes.
The Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 [conservative] majority, is expected to quash these policies, many of which were introduced decades ago.
Its newest justice Ketanji Brown Jackson - the first black female justice, and one of the court's three liberals - will recuse herself from hearing this case.
She did so because she sits on Harvard's overseers governing board, having previously attended the college as an undergraduate and a law student. …”
No decision until late Spring. Asians were certainly targeted for reduced admissions due to their test scores and grades. If it is overturned I wonder how they will monitor admissions committees who are some of the most biased people in the world. I guess we will exclude legacy admissions and those with athletic ability.
Posts: 17699 | Location: Stuck at home | Registered: January 02, 2015
Location of the applicant’s home has been used in other schools in order to continue racist preferences when the actual race of applicants has been taken off the table by judges. So, an address in the hood = +10 points, address in Chinatown = -10 points!
Posts: 1245 | Location: NE Indiana | Registered: January 20, 2011
Ending this bullshit isn't far enough. They should go back and retract the degrees from those who got in based on AA because they never should've been accepted to the school. Give the degree back and all the earnings you made from a degree program you never should've been enrolled in.
Isn't that a "fair" form of reparation the left is so enamored with?
As for Jackson, I doubt she would've gotten into Harvard if it weren't for AA so she shouldn't even have a JD and therefore shouldn't be on the SCOTUS.
Originally posted by ZSMICHAEL: Asians were certainly targeted for reduced admissions due to their test scores and grades. If it is overturned I wonder how they will monitor admissions committees who are some of the most biased people in the world.
The "official" reason many Asian applicants are penalized is that they rate poorly on personality and likeability. If you want to remove affirmative action, then you're going to have to remove nearly every subjective component of the holistic admissions process.
Originally posted by wishfull thinker: There are many destructive policies afloat but this one is certainly among the worst.
In general I agree but OTOH, I started my own company due in large part to refusing to get involved with affirmative action (legalized discrimination against white and Asian males) and that worked out very well for me, so I've got mixed feelings.
AA is a tool to fix when an organization has been actively discriminating against a group. But it has been decades since I heard of a case where a court used it to end a clearly discriminatory work force.
I would love to have one of the justices ask the lawyers for the Universities if those institutions were actively discriminating against non-white males when the AA admission policy was adopted, and is there a fear the universities will return to the discriminating policies if the Court strikes down these AA policies.
Lord, your ocean is so very large and my divos are so very f****d-up Dirt Sailors Unite!
Posts: 25075 | Location: NoVa | Registered: May 06, 2003
Maybe if everyone was judged by the content of their character...
Posts: 9530 | Location: Somewhere looking for ammo that nobody has at a place I haven't been to for a pistol I couldn't live without... | Registered: December 02, 2014
Thomas has long been implacably opposed to any affirmative action.
Among other things, he believes no "beneficiary" of affirmative action is taken seriously while the policies are in existence. It is, in other words, a one-way ticket to token status.
The fish is mute, expressionless. The fish doesn't think because the fish knows everything.
Posts: 53411 | Location: Texas | Registered: February 10, 2004
Originally posted by Edmond: As for Jackson, I doubt she would've gotten into Harvard if it weren't for AA so she shouldn't even have a JD and therefore shouldn't be on the SCOTUS.
Well, we know she wouldn't have made it there on the merits as a biology student either.
Posts: 3817 | Location: Cave Creek, AZ | Registered: October 24, 2005
Originally posted by davidjinks: What ever happened to: if you’ve got the qualifications and the drive, we want you?
It is far from that simple, which is a big part of why affirmative action in admissions is so contentious.
Good colleges get MANY more qualified applicants than they have spots for.
E.g. last year Harvard got more than 60,000 applications and admitted fewer than 2,000. For every kid that got in, there were thirty more that didn’t. I’m sure there are a few duds in there, but most of the applicants are qualified and would do fine if admitted.
Posts: 6320 | Location: CA | Registered: January 24, 2011
Originally posted by ZSMICHAEL: If it is overturned I wonder how they will monitor admissions committees who are some of the most biased people in the world.
In the airline industry, about 30 years ago, there was a court case that led to overt industry wide discrimination against white males.
Discrimination was easily proven by comparing objective qualifications of applicants vs hired. The same would be easy to do in college admissions, and if they continued to discriminate against particular groups they would have to argue that those groups as a whole have bad subjective attributes.
Iow, their position would be flipped. Instead of claiming diversity adds to an applicant's score, they would have to argue that certain races as a whole have deficient attributes.
Posts: 9851 | Location: On the mountain off the grid | Registered: February 25, 2002
