SCOTUS Watch Thread

Robbie3000

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
May 20, 2012
Messages
29,650
Reputation
5,241
Daps
130,771
Reppin
NULL

WIA20XX

Superstar
Joined
May 24, 2022
Messages
6,437
Reputation
3,082
Daps
20,380
Most of this debate has been about highly selective colleges - Ivy and State.

I'm curious as to how this affects admissions at lower ranked colleges.
 

Robbie3000

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
May 20, 2012
Messages
29,650
Reputation
5,241
Daps
130,771
Reppin
NULL
White women benefitted the most from it which is already a downfall.

It mostly helped minority children from upper middle class to wealthy families attend college.

Bertrand Cooper had an article about Harvard's Affirmative Action program and how it was the children of wealthy African parents and wealthy that made up the group, even though Harvard had perfect representation across race:

All your crab in a barrel dreams are coming true. Congrats.
 

DrBanneker

Space is the Place
Joined
Jan 23, 2016
Messages
5,705
Reputation
4,596
Daps
19,698
Reppin
Figthing borg at Wolf 359
White women benefitted the most from it which is already a downfall.

It mostly helped minority children from upper middle class to wealthy families attend college.

Bertrand Cooper had an article about Harvard's Affirmative Action program and how it was the children of wealthy African parents and wealthy that made up the group, even though Harvard had perfect representation across race:

A lot of this is factual but a more recent development as far as immigrants are concerned. And AA helped lower income Blacks too. Let's not act like the lower or even middle class has traditionally dominated Ivy League student bodies. Poor and middle class Black folks benefited a lot at good state schools and smaller non-Ivy private schools.
 
Joined
Jun 15, 2018
Messages
3,201
Reputation
580
Daps
14,845
Someone needs to sue for legacy admissions and I am here for the fukkery :ahh:

I’ve thought about that, and don’t think it’s possible for essentially 2 reasons

1) Legacy status doesn’t facially touch a protected class. Race is a protected class, so the consideration of that is how they killed AA. So I’m not sure there’s an actual constitutional violation to allege under the 14th amendment in the same way there is when race is used.

2) make the round about argument, due to past discrimination and longstanding effects of racism. Legacy admission is basically a proxy for race, and that consideration of legacy admissions implicit also considers the now banned use of race. Which runs into problems because there are minority legacy admits. And even I could sell that theory. I don’t know how to get around disparate impact analysis. Which is basically if a policy seems to solely hurt black people, so long as no one is on record saying the n-word and expressly saying we did this to hurt black people, no harm no foul.
 

mastermind

Rest In Power Kobe
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
63,055
Reputation
6,106
Daps
166,731
A lot of this is factual but a more recent development as far as immigrants are concerned. And AA helped lower income Blacks too. Let's not act like the lower or even middle class has traditionally dominated Ivy League student bodies. Poor and middle class Black folks benefited a lot at good state schools and smaller non-Ivy private schools.
I am a lower income child of African immigrants. I am saying it didn’t help some lower income people, but that it didn’t a large enough swath of us. It also mostly benefitted white women, which was not the intended goal of it.

It needed to be improved and worked in to help the right people, but it never did and instead got picked apart over 50 years by the courts.
 

Megadeus

Superstar
Joined
Aug 3, 2015
Messages
6,453
Reputation
1,610
Daps
30,586
Welp there it is. It was all fun and games in 2016 with the contrarians.

The silver lining is whites will now realize how much they were benefitting from affirmative action over Asians.

Yep. I saw this day coming from jump, so I'm mentally prepared... Still kinda sad tho to see yet another can of worms pried open. This is gonna affect academia and the corporate world as a whole in a major way
 
Joined
Jun 15, 2018
Messages
3,201
Reputation
580
Daps
14,845
I am a lower income child of African immigrants. I am saying it didn’t help some lower income people, but that it didn’t a large enough swath of us. It also mostly benefitted white women, which was not the intended goal of it.

It needed to be improved and worked in to help the right people, but it never did and instead got picked apart over 50 years by the courts.

I don’t know if you’re mixing up two arguments. But white women have been the biggest beneficiaries in terms of AA in the work place. I don’t think that holds true for education. And if we get super technical, this decision didn’t bar the use of sex for AA, just race. So white women, under the law can still benefit from it.
 

Bleed The Freak

Superstar
Joined
Dec 9, 2015
Messages
11,791
Reputation
1,344
Daps
43,242
I’ve thought about that, and don’t think it’s possible for essentially 2 reasons

1) Legacy status doesn’t facially touch a protected class. Race is a protected class, so the consideration of that is how they killed AA. So I’m not sure there’s an actual constitutional violation to allege under the 14th amendment in the same way there is when race is used.

2) make the round about argument, due to past discrimination and longstanding effects of racism. Legacy admission is basically a proxy for race, and that consideration of legacy admissions implicit also considers the now banned use of race. Which runs into problems because there are minority legacy admits. And even I could sell that theory. I don’t know how to get around disparate impact analysis. Which is basically if a policy seems to solely hurt black people, so long as no one is on record saying the n-word and expressly saying we did this to hurt black people, no harm no foul.

I think colleges will be shamed or heavily pressured to get rid of this practice. I could see a lot of Blue states putting into their laws to ban this (even though they have some of the worst offenses of it).

I'm sure Connecticut, Massachusetts, California and New Jersey won't exactly get their colleges on support of it. New York too. Gonna be a lot of pushback due to donations.

Colorado already did it.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jun 15, 2018
Messages
3,201
Reputation
580
Daps
14,845
I think colleges will be shamed or heavily pressured to get rid of this practice. I could see a lot of Blue states putting into their laws to ban this (even though they have some of the worst offenses of it).

Colorado already did it.

You got a link to an article about Colorado? I was unaware of that. I wasnt sure a state had the authority to do something like to a private school.
 

mastermind

Rest In Power Kobe
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
63,055
Reputation
6,106
Daps
166,731
I don’t know if you’re mixing up two arguments. But white women have been the biggest beneficiaries in terms of AA in the work place. I don’t think that holds true for education. And if we get super technical, this decision didn’t bar the use of sex for AA, just race. So white women, under the law can still benefit from it.
I know sex wasn't in on the decision.

And sex isn't reported in admissions, but it is a correlation that they have benefitted in the workplace in taking on senior positions and they an uptick in women in college.

My only point is this shyt never worked to help the intended audience as much and our government never went far to remedy it.
 

Voice of Reason

Veteran
Joined
Jan 7, 2016
Messages
44,724
Reputation
476
Daps
126,592
I know sex wasn't in on the decision.

And sex isn't reported in admissions, but it is a correlation that they have benefitted in the workplace in taking on senior positions and they an uptick in women in college.

My only point is this shyt never worked to help the intended audience as much and our government never went far to remedy it.


Yep it didn't help ADOS enough and other demographics came in and benefitted.
 
Top