Supreme Court guts affirmative action in college admissions

I think that is an argument that you seem to be having yourself! The argument that is taking place, is that affirmative action was a racist ruling, that schools would validate entry based upon your skin color. It wasn't because of "blacks" were less qualified, taking spots, but it was the case with Harvard, that Asians were being discriminated against.

 

When an institution puts a number on how many X they need to fulfil an arbitrary 'quota', they are in fact discriminating. I don't think it's the matter of 'qualified', or that anyone thinks that a Black person was any less qualified. It's that the school entrance personal would make a selection of the candidates while thinking 'we need three more people of X attributes' which effective discriminates against those who do not have those attributes.

 

Well f'ing duh! The whole thing this case is about is to guarantee race will not play a factor in admissions.

 

It's Orwellian-some are more equal than others

 

Not a surprise from the same group that made corporations people and unlimited money in elections.

 

The two schools in the case don't have quotas so your point doesn't matter.

 

Race has and will always be a factor. All things being equal, the white gets in. For those that want to point out that there has been no difference in admissions to schools that have gotten rid of affirmative action, the same information you base that on will also show that minorities don't bother to apply......because they won't get in.

 

You realize this case was about an asian student that very thing happened too right?

 

Only because they've been told that over and over by the useful race-whores who derive their livings by doing so.

 

The Civil Rights Act that says this?

"No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."

This isn't "dismantling" the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it enforces it properly. Facts matter.

 

It's not about advantage. It's about upholding the CRA of 1964.

 

I think you are splitting hairs, by you can have your fun. The statement speaks for itself. Thirty percent failed a basic test in reading and writing,

This does not speak well for college graduates who can't pass a basic test for reading and writing. If you can't do that, how can you really be called "a college graduate?"

You would have done well to have let the sleeping dogs lie.

 

race-whores?

 

SCOTUS RULES ON AFFIRMATIVE ACTION. From the summary:

CURRENT POLICY VIOLATES THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE, to no one's surprise, they obviously do.

'Because Harvard’s and UNC’s admissions programs lack sufficiently focused and measurable objectives warranting the use of race, unavoidably employ race in a negative manner, involve racial stereotyping, and lack meaningful endpoints, those admissions programs cannot be reconciled with the guarantees of the Equal Protection Clause.'

CHARACTER, NOT SKIN COLOR

'At the same time, nothing prohibits universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected the applicant’s life, so long as that discussion is concretely tied to a quality of character or unique ability that the particular applicant can contribute to the university. Many universities have for too long wrongly concluded that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned, but the color of their skin. This Nation’s constitutional history does not tolerate that choice. Pp. 39–40.'

OBVIOUSLY

 

I really don't think you personally voted for the person you "liked". I know I didn't.
The choice in 2016 was for a person who was qualified for the job and one who was not.

 

Those do not violate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

 

Affirmative action exists because racism DID exist. It still does in some places.

But the question is now: Is the level racial equality that we currently live in because we are more racially harmonious, or because Affirmative active helps make it that way ?

 

BASIC reading test what test CAN they read and if they can't pass a basic how could they possibly have graduated elemntary school let alone a college?

 

If it is a false flag then what is your worry here they can gqin entrance on their own merit not color of their skin.

 

Agreed. One place where it still exists is against Asians in college admissions. We need to have institutionalized racism against Asians because we had institutionalized racism against Black Americans in the past? That makes no sense. Racism is racism. People who support racism are called what?

 

I think affirmative action helped in some capacity, while also hindered in others... I also think racism WAS a large problem and somewhat still is. I also feel that many of the major Universities, even under Affirmative action, are still under represented by minority groups. I think this is a product not of discrimination, as minority groups tend to get vastly better financial aid over their Caucasian counter parts, but a lack of interest in further education.

Colorado has a 4.7% black population, however, it's main state college only has a .017% representation in the University.

 

There's no law against that. Sounds like you should write your Congressmen. Also, these legacy and donor families are the people who finance the scholarships and grants awarded to low income students. If you get rid of that you get rid of funding that helps diversify the campus.

 

What is the diversity lawsuit against Harvard?

On the whole, Harvard gave Asian American applicants higher academic and extracurricular ratings but lower “personal ratings” than they gave white applicants. The plaintiff, Students for Fair Admissions, alleged that Harvard used the personal ratings to depress Asian American admissions and effect an unspoken quota.Mar 23, 2023

 

Sure, but there are private clubs and you can say that only those with long hair can join. Same with a private college. If someone wants to start a private school and make it criteria based and not academic based, then good for them. Let the market decide if they want to attend but no taxpayer funded handouts to the school or students.

 

Why not?