Affirmative Action and the Supreme Court

[Wahoo Redux]

No opinions on Affirmative Action and the pending Supreme Court case yet?

NBC: Supreme Court leans toward ending affirmative action in college admissions

[mahagonny]

Affirmative action was proposed as a remedy; therefore, there should be timeline for when it has had the desired effect and is no longer needed. Or has been tried long enough for it to be determined not to have been the right thing to do. It's racist to treat some groups as though less scholastic success may be expected of them. I expect them to overturn it and I hope they do. I'm pretty sure the main reason Asian students outperform everyone is they study longer each day. That habit should have similar results for anyone of any race. Thinking otherwise would be racist.

[lightning]

Affirmative action was proposed as a remedy; therefore, there should be timeline for when it has had the desired effect and is no longer needed. Or has been tried long enough for it to be determined not to have been the right thing to do. It's racist to treat some groups as though less scholastic success may be expected of them. I expect them to overturn it and I hope they do. I'm pretty sure the main reason Asian students outperform everyone is they study longer each day. That habit should have similar results for anyone of any race. Thinking otherwise would be racist.

That's interesting. I never thought it was racist to expect less of those dumb lacrosse players and even dumber legacy admits that I had to sit next to in school.
I'm sure the legacy admits and dumb lacrosse players and crew members did not think of the lowered expectations for them as racist.

Those Asian students, who study their way to success, who are ticked off that someone stole their spot . . . . there aren't enough hours in the day for them to compensate for the preferential treatment of legacy admits, etc. These poor Asians who get screwed at college admissions, have often been used as reasons for eliminating AA. One day, it will dawn on them, that they have been played like a fiddle.

[mahagonny]

Eh, I think the Asian students can think for themselves.

ETA: If someone wants to argue against legacy admissions or letting in weak students because they're good athletes, I wouldn't argue against it.

That's interesting. I never thought it was racist to expect less of those dumb lacrosse players and even dumber legacy admits that I had to sit next to in school.
I'm sure the legacy admits and dumb lacrosse players and crew members did not think of the lowered expectations for them as racist.

You folks on the left are the ones who want to make everything about race and group identity.

[Sun_Worshiper]

Mahagonny is about to buy real estate in this thread

[Anon1787]

Justice O'Connor's 25 year time limit on AA is almost up and at a minimum SCOTUS should follow that timeline. Even better, SCOTUS should explicitly reject "diversity" (and "equity") as a compelling reason for racial gerrymandering.

That's interesting. I never thought it was racist to expect less of those dumb lacrosse players and even dumber legacy admits that I had to sit next to in school.
I'm sure the legacy admits and dumb lacrosse players and crew members did not think of the lowered expectations for them as racist.

Those Asian students, who study their way to success, who are ticked off that someone stole their spot . . . . there aren't enough hours in the day for them to compensate for the preferential treatment of legacy admits, etc. These poor Asians who get screwed at college admissions, have often been used as reasons for eliminating AA. One day, it will dawn on them, that they have been played like a fiddle.

Which does absolutely nothing to gainsay the fact that it's racist for Harvard to stereotype Asians in order to deny them admission. If a mere microaggression constitutes violence, what sort of reparations do they deserve?

Public universities rarely give preferential treatment to legacies and likewise recruited athletes typically represent only 2-5% (compared to 10-20% at private universities) of the total admitted. E.g., after the people of California voted (twice now) to end affirmative action and despite strong resistance from adminicritters, the proportion of Asian-Americans admitted to CA's most selective public universities has increased significantly. So maybe those Asians (at least those who haven't been post-colonized by baizuo) aren't as clueless as you seem to think.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2019/06/12/varsity-athletes-admissions-enrollment-top-colleges/

[dismalist]

Clearly, using race at all for any decision is forbidden by statute law. We have these Civil Rights Acts and Title this and that. One moron out of nine in Bakke provided a justification for racial criteria, diversity, that everybody now uses. Another moron said in Grutter that racial criteria are fine, so long as they are some of many criteria and they expire in 25 years [just about now].

So, the six conservative [correct] justices can kick out racial preferences on statute law and/or on constitutional law, and kick they will.

Taken by itself, I would prefer a ruling that private colleges can take whomever they please -- jocks, alumni kids, morons -- but that public institutions must admit according to transparent State determined criteria, race not included. I don't like my own preferred alternative all that much because it allows discrimination on the basis of race for private schools. But it could promote a flowering of Historically Black Colleges. I do like this alternative because it would get rid of a lot of the basis for statistical discrimination [no more affirmative action babies].

Perhaps the best outcome would be the Chief Justice's screed: "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race".

[lightning]

Justice O'Connor's 25 year time limit on AA is almost up and at a minimum SCOTUS should follow that timeline. Even better, SCOTUS should explicitly reject "diversity" (and "equity") as a compelling reason for racial gerrymandering.

That's interesting. I never thought it was racist to expect less of those dumb lacrosse players and even dumber legacy admits that I had to sit next to in school.
I'm sure the legacy admits and dumb lacrosse players and crew members did not think of the lowered expectations for them as racist.

Those Asian students, who study their way to success, who are ticked off that someone stole their spot . . . . there aren't enough hours in the day for them to compensate for the preferential treatment of legacy admits, etc. These poor Asians who get screwed at college admissions, have often been used as reasons for eliminating AA. One day, it will dawn on them, that they have been played like a fiddle.

Which does absolutely nothing to gainsay the fact that it's racist for Harvard to stereotype Asians in order to deny them admission. If a mere microaggression constitutes violence, what sort of reparations do they deserve?

Public universities rarely give preferential treatment to legacies and likewise recruited athletes typically represent only 2-5% (compared to 10-20% at private universities) of the total admitted. E.g., after the people of California voted (twice now) to end affirmative action and despite strong resistance from adminicritters, the proportion of Asian-Americans admitted to CA's most selective public universities has increased significantly. So maybe those Asians (at least those who haven't been post-colonized by baizuo) aren't as clueless as you seem to think.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2019/06/12/varsity-athletes-admissions-enrollment-top-colleges/

Harvard's legacy admit rate is friggin' 33%, according to Harvard's own outward-facing publications. Like I said, the poor Asian students are being played like a fiddle. They never stopped to think that those 33% of legacy admissions are the spots that should belong to those that had to "study longer each day."

Nice maneuver to include public universities to lower the general legacy admission rate in this discussion, even though the UNC case should be separated out from this discussion (because it is complicated by the UT Austin precedent & it is in no way anywhere near the high-stakes admissions of Harvard). I'm talking crew and lacrosse, so you knew I meant the Harvard case that the UNC case was tacked onto. No one is paying much attention to public universities, at least for now.

Eh, I think the Asian students can think for themselves.

ETA: If someone wants to argue against legacy admissions or letting in weak students because they're good athletes, I wouldn't argue against it.

That's interesting. I never thought it was racist to expect less of those dumb lacrosse players and even dumber legacy admits that I had to sit next to in school.
I'm sure the legacy admits and dumb lacrosse players and crew members did not think of the lowered expectations for them as racist.

You folks on the left are the ones who want to make everything about race and group identity.

mahagonny, you were the first to use the word "racist" in this thread. As usual, YOU are the one that wants to make everything about race (and probably group identity, too)--it's how you define yourself and everything is through the race lens.

Yes, Asian students can think for themselves. According to an Asian American Voter survey in 2020. 70% of Asians support affirmative action. The Asian student at the center of the supreme court case, comes from that 30%. So it looks like your case study examples to bolster your case are thinking more than you (which is not hard to do--it's like shooting fish in a bucket).

[Anon1787]

Harvard's legacy admit rate is friggin' 33%, according to Harvard's own outward-facing publications. Like I said, the poor Asian students are being played like a fiddle. They never stopped to think that those 33% of legacy admissions are the spots that should belong to those that had to "study longer each day."

Nice maneuver to include public universities to lower the general legacy admission rate in this discussion, even though the UNC case should be separated out from this discussion (because it is complicated by the UT Austin precedent & it is in no way anywhere near the high-stakes admissions of Harvard). I'm talking crew and lacrosse, so you knew I meant the Harvard case that the UNC case was tacked onto. No one is paying much attention to public universities, at least for now.

Preferences for legacies and athletes cannot be challenged as a matter of constitutional law, and the discrimination is more invidious because it is based on race whereas preferences for legacies and athletes is mainly about economics.

I don't know where you get the idea that no one is paying much attention to public universities.

[mahagonny]

mahagonny, you were the first to use the word "racist" in this thread. 

Well, our Diversity, Equity and Inclusion staff (not to mention, I strongly suspect, yours) and our faculty union, both, are telling us that is not enough to avoid being racist. We need to be proactively anti-racist, they decree. And I'm getting this pressure from two schools at once. So I was prompted to share this thought, which, incidentally, has been even better explained by John McWhorter:

It's racist to treat some groups as though less scholastic success may be expected of them.

As usual, YOU are the one that wants to make everything about race (and probably group identity, too)--it's how you define yourself and everything is through the race lens.

You probably assume I am 'white' because you associate my views with that group that you think runs everything and can be implicated in every difficulty in life experienced by any other group, Mighty Whitey. The all-purpose bogeyman. The fact is, my race has not been determined, and will not be, for reasons I won't delve into right now.
ETA: I am more inclined to comment on topics related to race on these boards than in real life.  So your claim is way off base.

Mahagonny is about to buy real estate in this thread

And you have contributed what, so far, in the way of pertinent content?

ETA:

Preferences for legacies and athletes cannot be challenged as a matter of constitutional law, and the discrimination is more invidious because it is based on race whereas preferences for legacies and athletes is mainly about economics.

Let's take a guess: how many among those who ridicule legacy and athletes admissions actually want them continued so they can have their race based admission and wealthy donors too?

[Sun_Worshiper]

Mahagonny is about to buy real estate in this thread

And you have contributed what, so far, in the way of pertinent content?

Unlike some people my whole life doesn't revolve around being an internet warrior.

But, since you asked my opinion, I have always been of the opinion that economic class should be the basis for affirmative action, not race.

[marshwiggle]

But, since you asked my opinion, I have always been of the opinion that economic class should be the basis for affirmative action, not race.

Not to disparage the idea, but how would a person's "economic class" be determined in any reasonably objective and fair manner? (Definitely better than race, but potentially even much harder to qualify).

[dismalist]

But, since you asked my opinion, I have always been of the opinion that economic class should be the basis for affirmative action, not race.

Not to disparage the idea, but how would a person's "economic class" be determined in any reasonably objective and fair manner? (Definitely better than race, but potentially even much harder to qualify).

Family income, adjusted for family size.

[marshwiggle]

But, since you asked my opinion, I have always been of the opinion that economic class should be the basis for affirmative action, not race.

Not to disparage the idea, but how would a person's "economic class" be determined in any reasonably objective and fair manner? (Definitely better than race, but potentially even much harder to qualify).

Family income, adjusted for family size.

But that doesn't take into account things like family wealth. And one of the practices of the rich is to find ways to minimize "income" while amassing all kinds of assets (aka "wealth").

[dismalist]

But, since you asked my opinion, I have always been of the opinion that economic class should be the basis for affirmative action, not race.

Not to disparage the idea, but how would a person's "economic class" be determined in any reasonably objective and fair manner? (Definitely better than race, but potentially even much harder to qualify).

Family income, adjusted for family size.

But that doesn't take into account things like family wealth. And one of the practices of the rich is to find ways to minimize "income" while amassing all kinds of assets (aka "wealth").

OK, do wealth! :-)