Don't see it as being such a needle mover as overturning Dobbs was / is, but it does feel a bit racist writ large & could be used as a supplemental motivator for young B / B voters.
US Politics
- Thread starter Nick 0208 Ldn
- Start date
Pence definitely suckling from the blunted teat...
Brown-Jackson’s opinion was savage towards Thomas’ concurrence. She pretty clearly, and rightly, hates him.
Good decision by SCOTUS. The policy in and of itself was and is discriminatory and therefore unconstitutional.
Especially as racism is now a thing of the past in the US
Yes - lots of white text.
Equality is about equal outcomes and not simply treating everyone exactly the same. Treat the privileged the same as everyone else and, funnily enough, that privilege remans.
Racism will only cease to exist when we no longer treat any person differently based on the color of their skin.
Seems pretty basic to me
Seems pretty basic to me
Watched a few snippets ofnthis last night. Looks well worth the time investment...
Of course it was a good decision, but at this time of division, anything a conservative SCOTUS decides would make liberals bitch and moan.
Getting to Harvard, MIT etc should completely be a meritocratic decision, and not based on the skin of your color.
Ad aired in 1980 by the losing candidate at the time, Jesse Helms. A bit germane to the AA issue, the extreme right like Thomas has long held the dissolution of the policy & other quota-based practices.
Helms ended up winning by some measure to this ad...
Helms ended up winning by some measure to this ad...
For me is pretty basic that any collective, being race, women, disabled, sexual preference, low income, etc that had been and still being negatively discriminated for those reasons, those negative discriminations needs to be compensated by positive discrimination.
And you can see that everywhere with rent distribuition, grants, food stamps (economic positive discrimination), maternay leave and gender violence punishment (women positive discrimination), wheel chair accessability dissability wellfare, and again etc
Why race that comes from the burden of their work ancestry being rob of any income to pass to the next generation due to slavery and instead going towards their masters, the ones that suffered redlining having unfair investment interest compared to exact economic lvl white counterparts, the ones that were denied superior studies till not that many decades ago, the ones that were not allowed to buy properties in determined neigbourhoods, the ones that got the worse schools funding wen segregated, the ones that were not allowed to prosper to the point that they were killed like in tulsa, the ones that everytime they go outside the have the looming presence of a "bad apple cop", the ones that they are not hired, but not officially because you know it is illegal but suffer it anyway. Why if they had to suffer all this negative discrimination for generations not allowing to pile up the wealth that whites had been allowed to capitalize for 300 years and they still suffer for a matter of purely race. Why is not possible to positively discriminate to recover a bit of the lost terrain?
Pretty basic my ass. You are obliviosly priviledged
do you even know what you’re talking about? half the students are legacy admits.And that is even more wrong than being admitted because of the color of your skin. Also, I believe the number if far lower (Ivy is at 15%, right?)
no, you’re wrong again. it’s almost 50% at harvard and that isn’t including donors and special recommendations.
I said for Ivy league in general, it might be different to some universities.
And I said that I am completely against it too. The main difference though is that is not unconstitutional, private companies sell stuff to their highest bidders. On the other hand, if you racially discriminate, which is what the universities were doing, then it is good that they are not allowed to do this anymore, and is fundamentally unconstitutional. I am a bit surprised (not really, whom I am kidding here) that liberals would like racial discrimination to continue.
I think the solution is: do this in individual manner for student, without considering the race. Students that come from poorer families (or not functional families), or bad schools, who have shined academically might get places in top schools even if their credentials were not as good as some other students who had a headstart (private instructors, private top high school etc). Yep, someone who just got bronze in Math Olympics but came from a poor school might get accepted instead of some multi-millionaire who got prepared for top schools since he was 2 and got silver in Math Olympics. But it should not be race related. Believe it or not, there are black people who come from rich (or upper middle families), and believe it or not there are Chinese-born Americans or Indians who do not come from rich families. They should not be discriminated against just because there are many other Chinese-born Americans or Indians who have good credentials too.
Make it a meritocratic system, and use the 'extra' factor in individual basis (which is what many universities have recently started to do anyway). Do not racially discriminate.
So yes, I think it was one of the very few good decisions that this terrible court has done.
Of all the privileged entrants into Ivy league - legacy/donor/race based I think it was vital that the Supreme Court dealt with black privilege first. As the group most overrepresented among America's elite it's only fair that they be the first to open the door for others.
yeah, so this is a dogshit argument from someone who has no clue what they’re talking about. if you take a look at the number of black, indigenous, and poc students across ivy leagues it has been falling for the last few decades and now it is about to get even worse. your argument about mEriToCracY doesn’t exist in reality when the same universities admit such high % of legacy admits. if we are to talk seriously about students getting admitted on merit then the first thing to do is get rid of legacy admissions but nobody is talking about that. instead we are stuck with folks like you who bitch and moan about racial discrimination when the numbers clearly tell a different story altogether.
Again, I am against legacy admissions, but I don’t see how they are unconstitutional (at least in private institutions). If you think that accepting someone might in turn benefit the school (for example by their father giving 20m to university), I think it is completely unfair on the other students and bad thing to do, but completely legal.
If however you racially discriminate against certain groups (mostly Asian Americans), then that is unconstitutional. I thought that all racism is wrong, but apparently, racism is fine as long as it is towards certain groups.
you’re wrong again. because the majority of asian americans support affirmative action. just stop making such blatantly disingenuous arguments and instead educate yourself on these laws, their origins, and how they came into existence in the first place.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-...ive-action-here-s-why-misconceptions-n1247806
Have you ever informed yourself about affirmative action before this current crop of right wing loons or did you just start a couple of years ago?
I mean we could get rid of it if we undid 400 years of history. But with history being what it is, with stuff like the urban renewal act forming the cities we have today, I don't see any alternative.
You are wrong followed by unbacked statement is your favorite form of debate, I know.
The case was opened because of some Asian Americans sued Harvard. In the previous case, there was a finding that showed that with the same CV, if an Asian American has 25% chance of being accepted to Harvard, if they were white, the chances were around 40%, Hispanic the chances were over 70%, and if Black, over 90%. That is not cool. There were also data showing that Asian Americans despite doing best in technical examination, tend to do worst in personal examination (when quantities such as how likeable they are are measured), thus have the worst acceptance percentage rate. On the other hand, Afro Americans, do worst in technical examination, but do best in personal examination.
This is a zero sum game. If you positively discriminate for one group, you are negatively discriminating against at least another group. Discriminating based on race is called racism. That is unconstitutional, which is also what the Supreme Court ruled.
Do it in personal level. Academically very good students that come from poor regions/schools/families get a bonus compared to those who come from really top schools rich families. Yes, it is harder to academically shine if come from a bad school compared to a top one. Yes, most of those students might come from traditionally discriminated groups (Blacks and Hispanics), and I am fine with them being positively discriminating, I think it is just and fair. But explicitly discriminating in race IMO is neither just, non legally correct.
So should prisons send away prisoners if there's already too many of that race there!? Basically any over representation in prisons is proof in and of itself that the system that decides who becomes a prisoner is racist...
But race is precisely the criteria the state used to discriminate and bring about these differences in the first place. No one started with a clean slate.
I am assuming everyone happy with this decision wants Title IX to fall as as well. Right?
ummm I literally posted links and article conveying my point. while you have posted feck all to back your argument? are you asian american? I am guessing not. then I suggest actually opening one of the links I posted to know how they feel about affirmative action.
It's a good debate imo, an actual one that has pros and cons on both sides. For me it comes down to what role you view higher education having in your society.
If higher education is designed to take the most qualified and provide them with the training they need to become the highest contributors in their fields, then you shouldn't have any discrimination in the admissions process. And make no mistake - the current system has massive faults, between student-athletes, legacy and yes, the affirmative action initiatives.
If you believe instead that higher education should be some kind of tool of potential wealth-redistribution as a way of addressing historic inequalities, then obviously you have to support affirmative action.
Personally, I think the latter problem needs addressing in a much, MUCH better way than private universities, which really aren't a mechamism to make any wholesale change.
For university admissions, schools will need to decide between having a school body that is broadly representative of the country they operate (which would require racial profiling and admissions) or a meritocratic body based simply on who is best at whatever entrance process there is. The latter would also be problematic - as others have pointed because asian-Americans (and non-American asians) absolutely crush high school and the entrance exam process, the body would skew hugely towards them. The only way you can argue against that is then trying to de-prioritise those exams in some way, and focus more on softer, harder to measure metrics.
The real scandal here is simply that the large Ivys could afford to double or triple their student bodies with no problem - therefore offering that education to a lot more kids of all races - but choose not to and instead just grow endowments and pay fund-rasiers, sorry Deans, massive salaries.
If higher education is designed to take the most qualified and provide them with the training they need to become the highest contributors in their fields, then you shouldn't have any discrimination in the admissions process. And make no mistake - the current system has massive faults, between student-athletes, legacy and yes, the affirmative action initiatives.
If you believe instead that higher education should be some kind of tool of potential wealth-redistribution as a way of addressing historic inequalities, then obviously you have to support affirmative action.
Personally, I think the latter problem needs addressing in a much, MUCH better way than private universities, which really aren't a mechamism to make any wholesale change.
For university admissions, schools will need to decide between having a school body that is broadly representative of the country they operate (which would require racial profiling and admissions) or a meritocratic body based simply on who is best at whatever entrance process there is. The latter would also be problematic - as others have pointed because asian-Americans (and non-American asians) absolutely crush high school and the entrance exam process, the body would skew hugely towards them. The only way you can argue against that is then trying to de-prioritise those exams in some way, and focus more on softer, harder to measure metrics.
The real scandal here is simply that the large Ivys could afford to double or triple their student bodies with no problem - therefore offering that education to a lot more kids of all races - but choose not to and instead just grow endowments and pay fund-rasiers, sorry Deans, massive salaries.
Not sure why the best of all Ivys - Penn (slightly biased) - is excluded here. 8% African American - also 8% from contiental Africa. Only 31% white - interestingly Asian is at 27%.
For context, Asians are 6% of the US population, whites 60%.
Why see this admission as a singular event though when everything that led up to it is handled and managed by the same state that makes the laws about it? It would be fair to simply have a meritocratic process if the process up to that point had been meritocratic and fair... Or one could wash ones hands of it if it was outside of ones control. But neither is the case.
For those championing this as being the only constitutionally acceptable outcome, I strong recommend give the Strict Scrutiny podcast a listen. They walk through the opinion, and the dissents, to discuss how bananas the ruling was.
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/strict-scrutiny/id1469168641?i=1000618813554
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/strict-scrutiny/id1469168641?i=1000618813554
So never then, gotcha
Good post. I also struggle somewhat to engage on the merit of the debate. Because while I believe that it is imperative that educational opportunity be widespread and afforded to minorities even if that means essentially certain forms of affirmative action, holy shit do I not care about elite college admittance. Exactly as you point out, them largely increasing their sizes would be a much greater benefit to all people of all races. Focusing on the affirmative action policies of elite universities just seems to me to be absolutely the wrong way to address any sort of inequalities/injustices.
On the case itself, I think where I land is that I don't agree that the favoring of one group in the case of college admittance constitutes "be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination" of another group or person not admitted. That's sort of my layman intuition, that college admittance processes aren't similar to access to a government agency or program, that are otherwise available to all people.
SCOTUS has also just killed the Biden student loan relief plan.
Today in SCOTUS: It IS NOT constitutional for schools to use a protected class (race) as a component in college admissions (except service academies because its only ok for the military to foster representative populations....).
Also Today in SCOTUS: It IS constitutional for a business to discriminate against a protected class (sexual preference)
Also Today in SCOTUS: It IS constitutional for a business to discriminate against a protected class (sexual preference)