SCOTUS to take up AA cases for Harvard/UNC

[lfromnj]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/supreme-court-will-consider-challenge-to-affirmative-action-in-college-admissions/ar-AAT5ILI?ocid=BingNewsSearch

This should be interesting, will likely hear a lot of screeching about precedent despite the fact we are basically 19/25 years through anyway from the previous controlling opinion.

[Torie]

How clear is the evidence that the schools have a quota for Asians limiting their numbers in the same way that the Ivies had for Jews back in the day?

[I’m not Stu]

The decision will obviously be 6-3 along party lines. Nothing surprising here.

[Vosem]

How clear is the evidence that the schools have a quota for Asians limiting their numbers in the same way that the Ivies had for Jews back in the day?

Basically undeniable.

https://twitter.com/hsu_steve/status/1485650631423627264

[brucejoel99]

I mean, yeah, that tracks: for a majority that's already hell-bent on bending over backwards to overturn Roe/Casey & resurrect nondelegation, finding grounds to overturn Grutter so that they get to speed up its approximately-25-year sunset clause on affirmative action that swing-vote O'Connor informally advocated for in dicta are frankly the easiest of their concerns.

[David Hume]

How clear is the evidence that the schools have a quota for Asians limiting their numbers in the same way that the Ivies had for Jews back in the day?

Not much. I heard they did not use quota, which is unconstitutional. Instead, they rate Asians with low scores in "personal quality" to control their percentage.

[Skill and Chance]

I mean, yeah, that tracks: for a majority that's already hell-bent on bending over backwards to overturn Roe/Casey & resurrect nondelegation, finding grounds to overturn Grutter so that they get to speed up its approximately-25-year sunset clause on affirmative action that swing-vote O'Connor informally advocated for in dicta are frankly the easiest of their concerns.

This is a very one-sided issue in polling, and increasingly so with time.  Ending affirmative action is basically the conservative version of gay marriage in the 2010's. There's nothing to lose here.  An affirmative action ballot measure just failed overwhelmingly in California.  Public opinion is clearly on their side. 

[brucejoel99]

I mean, yeah, that tracks: for a majority that's already hell-bent on bending over backwards to overturn Roe/Casey & resurrect nondelegation, finding grounds to overturn Grutter so that they get to speed up its approximately-25-year sunset clause on affirmative action that swing-vote O'Connor informally advocated for in dicta are frankly the easiest of their concerns.

This is a very one-sided issue in polling, and increasingly so with time.  Ending affirmative action is basically the conservative version of gay marriage in the 2010's. There's nothing to lose here.  An affirmative action ballot measure just failed overwhelmingly in California.  Public opinion is clearly on their side.

Not to mention, just because SFFA v. Harvard & UNC mean the end of Bakke & Grutter as good law, they don't mean that the war fought over affirmative action will end anytime soon: colleges will inevitably devise new admissions process methods that'll inevitably be subject to litigation of some sort, as they've already begun doing by decreasing the importance of standardized testing & making GPA reporting & essays optional. Said revised methods will make it harder for such plaintiffs as SFFA to prove discrimination, which is perhaps the foresight-based intent of the revised methods.

[StateBoiler]

How clear is the evidence that the schools have a quota for Asians limiting their numbers in the same way that the Ivies had for Jews back in the day?

Not much. I heard they did not use quota, which is unconstitutional. Instead, they rate Asians with low scores in "personal quality" to control their percentage.

That sounds racist.

[StateBoiler]

...colleges will inevitably devise new admissions process methods that'll inevitably be subject to litigation of some sort, as they've already begun doing by decreasing the importance of standardized testing & making GPA reporting & essays optional.

So how are they comparing prospective students to one another in admissions?

[Donerail]

...colleges will inevitably devise new admissions process methods that'll inevitably be subject to litigation of some sort, as they've already begun doing by decreasing the importance of standardized testing & making GPA reporting & essays optional.

So how are they comparing prospective students to one another in admissions?

In vague and subjective ways that would be more difficult to demonstrate in litigation. Which, after all, is the point.

[David Hume]

How clear is the evidence that the schools have a quota for Asians limiting their numbers in the same way that the Ivies had for Jews back in the day?

Not much. I heard they did not use quota, which is unconstitutional. Instead, they rate Asians with low scores in "personal quality" to control their percentage.

That sounds racist.

It is racist by definition, but probably for "good purpose" to some Dems.

[StateBoiler]

How clear is the evidence that the schools have a quota for Asians limiting their numbers in the same way that the Ivies had for Jews back in the day?

Not much. I heard they did not use quota, which is unconstitutional. Instead, they rate Asians with low scores in "personal quality" to control their percentage.

That sounds racist.

It is racist by definition, but probably for "good purpose" to some Dems.

This is why I can't take people that advance certain causes seriously is because they're hypocrites. When they choose to become ideologically consistent or choose to be honest about what they are doing and the motives, then I'll listen to them talk.

[politicallefty]

I've long believed affirmative action violates the Equal Protection Clause. That doesn't mean I don't believe racism is nonexistent or that systemic racism isn't still a major problem. I think affirmative action is the result of laziness on the part of the political branches. School funding schemes across the country routinely favour suburbs that are mostly white, while minority-dominated schools in the cities are routinely underfunded and neglected. I admit that oversimplifies the issue, but it notes one of the biggest problems.

I think one of the above posts got it right. It's not an issue most Americans care about strongly, but one that has drifted rightward. Almost all conservatives are against it, but it's a position that has pulled in a lot of liberals as well (including myself). Even as California has moved significantly to the left since 1996, the effort to reestablish affirmative action went down in a worse defeat in 2020 than the original initiative that banned it.

With that said, some of the measures used to counteract racism probably aren't working as intended. I'm not sure holistic admissions are working as intended. Those measures largely include extracurriculars, athletics, community service, and so on. Those largely benefit affluence, particularly affluent whites. The ultimate problem really is that the root of the issue is not being tackled. While it is up to the courts to determine that which violates the Constitution, the remedy must ultimately be determined by the political branches.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

There are many schools on line many Athletes are going to school online so Affirmative Action done it's job anyways