Should the US Supreme Court end race-based affirmative action in university admissions?

The last time the Supreme Court ruled on the issue they found that considering race as a factor in university admissions passed strict scrutiny (Alito, Thomas, and Roberts dissented). In that case a white female student claimed she had been discriminated against by the University of Texas. Now the court has agreed to hear cases against Harvard and the University of North Carolina which are accused of discriminating against Asian students. Three conservative justices (Trump's appointees) have joined the court since the issue was last ruled on. I think there's a good chance the court will reverse its position.

Is there some kind of educational benefit derived from having more racial diversity on campus which justifies univerisities not being race neutral in their admissions policies?

 

But that would be racist.

 

It's completely and explicitly racist, and frankly shocking that people can support that yet claim to be liberal.

 

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments today.

"Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito both grew noticeably frustrated Monday with Harvard lawyer Seth Waxman during a case on Harvard's affirmative action policy in admissions."
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/affirmative-action-case-justices-alito-roberts-snap-harvard-lawyer

 

It's about time we stopped discriminating, especially at government schools. The attorneys making the case for discrimination did a pretty poor job today. They got stumped with some pretty obvious gotcha questions and had difficulty defending their position without arguing against themselves at points.

Paraphrasing:
Attorney: Race is insignificant to UNC's admissions process.

Alito: Okay, then tell me why UNC would care if we gave a ruling preventing them from using race at all.

Attorney: Well, we need to use race to diversify our campus.

Really bro?

Alito: Let's say two students are in a 100 yard dash race and one student is given an advantage of five yards. Is the other student not disadvantaged?

Attorney: We don't see it that way?

Really??? Cause that's the exact argument the left loves to use to justify discrimination. Asians and whites start ahead in life so we need to give everyone else an advantage over them to make it "fair."

 

Quotamayor was a good argument against affirmative action when she couldn't understand the difference between DE JURE and DE FACTO discrimination. There is no valid argument for affirmative racism theoretically and it is even less justifiable in the real world where all it does is give wealthy black kids who have no business getting into top schools, a huge advantage over far smarter or higher achieving white and Asian kids-who are often less financially fit than the black recipients

 

Its based on category error and basic prejudice, as is all racism. Here, giving rich privileged black kids easier acces to elite schools does absolutely nothing for poor struggling black street kids dodging violence. All it does is give people the impression that something is being done, and that just sweeps the actual problems under the rug and out of sight.

Black kids doing worse that white kids ON AVERAGE means little without further knowledge of who and why. And evening it out doesn't fix anything if all you do is prop up those who don't need it but happen to fit the category.

 

I knew she was the dumbest justice, based on other comments of hers, but oh man, what an embarrassment.

 

quotaMayor might be eclipsed by Biden's affirmative action choice

 

Maybe, although it's true that she can't determine what is or isn't a woman, I suspect that was simply political speech. Sotomayor actually doesn't seem to know the law. On another occasion she made the comment that she didn't understand the difference between State and Federal power.

 

The democratic party and the teacher's unions don't want folks not getting into good schools because they so entirely failed in their mission to educate the students in their care. So, universities that have a vested interest in the teachers unions and supporting them use racist admissions standards to make it look less like abject failure on the part of the teacher's unions and more like a "hurdle" that society put in front of those students instead. So, some, not all, minorities are evaluated less stringently by these universities to make sure that they hit their diversity targets.The scam that keeps on scamming.

 

But the plantation demands that it have access to slaves that are more educated. A Conundrum? For sure.

 

I don't have a very strong opinion on it, but I'll say what I understand to be some arguments for it.

One argument is that ensuring diversity in education reflective of the population is of value in itself. One example of this has been in the military. Historically there were all-white officers supervising disproportionately minority enlisted personnel (being an officer being largely a function of educational background). This led to racial tensions - problems in the military and problems for national security. I think this was brought up at some point during the hearings. Another example: For doctors, who require multiple steps of education, diversity that matches the population they serve helps them to serve that population's needs. Black women do better with black doctors, for example, and there could be a variety of reasons for that: Trust, understanding, whatever it is.

Another argument is that people do not receive the same opportunities, and so some of the potential of those from disadvantaged situations is stifled without something to counteract the disadvantage. For example, schools are funded by local taxes. People tend to segregate by neighborhoods, which puts those in the minority at a disadvantage for funding and educational enrichment. In contrast, people who are immigrants coming here for educational opportunities (usually asians) tend to be among the brightest and most privileged of their cohorts. And so to achieve actual equality of opportunity, some of those early disadvantages in poor neighborhoods that are racially segregated can be offset by things like affirmative action.

I didn't even touch gender and there's more to it. Just wanted to make the thread a bit less one-sided.

 

so why should black kids who go to elite prep schools and make mediocre grades get into top universities ahead of white kids who have much better scores at similar or lower ranked schools. Should a black kid who gets affirmative action into say Phillips Exeter academy or St Albans (two of the finest prep schools in the USA) and then gets affirmative action acceptance into Harvard get into Yale Law with a 3.5 and a 92nd percentile LSAT score ahead of a middle class white kid who say goes to a top public school (like Bronx HS Of Science) who then graduates with a 3.9 and 99th Percentile at say Cornell?

 

That question was loaded, and akin to, “ do you still beat your wife.” Loaded questions deserve nonsensical answers.

 

what question-the thread title?

 

No, the question asked of the new SCOTUS, but thanks for being intentionally obtuse.

 

I had a business for many years and the criteria I used was that I wanted the very best people I could afford. So let's look at a few things that might curtail. 1. Presentation - If I am interviewing the first thing I'm lookig at is the application. Is it filled out and is it complete. If I call and set up an interview does the person have the basic understanding that first apperance counts and did they make an effort to be on time and dress appropriately. 2. Do they have basic communication skills? 3. What is their degree of knowledge of the position being offered. 4. Do they understand that I am the employer and they are the employee and the pay and benifits are what I'm offering.
Take it or leave it. I am not going to handicap my business with someone who has no social skills, no educational skills or communication skills. It amazes me how many kids come into the labor market and do not have the basic skills for success. Should I have to be responsible to re-train the person for the basics in reading, writing and math? Didn't our society just spend thousands for their education? Should the government be permitted to handicap my business by telling me I have to hire someone with less skills based on their color? I believe it's naive, of some, to think that one would not want the best candidate for the position. Perhaps if society is offended by the Asian and other students who are scoring higher on entrance exams that they should look at what is the underlying cause. Could it be these students study harder and put more effort at home. Why would a University not want the brightest and smartest? The way it stands now, any minority, from Harvard or a big college is suspect to bing recieving their sheepskin because they filled a qouta.

 

your posts are the obtuse ones-what was asked the court was legitimate.

 

In what away was the question loaded?

 

Because it was a gotcha question, Mike. You know politics pretty well. It wasn’t a grammar school definition test. No matter how she answered they were going to try and pin her down on some of these tricky trans questions that need to be discussed by adults.

 

That would be an argument against the 2nd point I made, but not the first. The first point was to produce graduate with a similar ethnic mix as the population they serve. That is, the perspective is not just one of individual merit, but the needs of those the individual serves as well.

As for whether it is effective against the 2nd point I made, about their lack of opportunities, probably not because of how affirmative action works. When the applicants are that different, and race is just one of many factors, the more qualified one is going to be accepted because his "points" will be higher. A more likely scenario is two very similar applications with the only significant difference being one is black. In that case, instead of a coin toss or personal whim of an admissions committee, the black person gets it by having that extra "point" from race. The personal whims of the committee will usually favor people like themselves, i.e. not minority.

The reality is that people being accepted into colleges, or at jobs, is not primarily based upon merit anyway once an applicant is deemed qualified unless a holistic point system is used. Without such a system, it becomes primarily based upon the personal feelings of those who make the decisions. Frequently you run into the situation where two people are qualified, and whether they will be "a good fit" would be up to the "feelings" of the committee if there weren't point-based criteria that included things like race.

Whether affirmative action is good will depend on how it's done. I think the prior decisions regarding affirmative action were probably correct.

 

Oh you are talking about the Jackson nomination. I wasn't sure, I thought you might have been talking about Sotomayor. In any case, there is nothing "gotcha" about that question and it was well covered (and mocked) at the time on this forum. The problem is thinking that it's a gotcha question. This would not have been any sort of gotcha question in any time in history until our era.

In any case, I'm quite sure Justice Jackson knows what a woman is, but it's unfortunate that she felt she had to lie under oath about it.

 

the difference between the academic resumes of whites getting into top law schools and colleges and blacks is rather substantial. even at Michigan, no black had a 1400 in a recent class-hundreds of white men with 1400s were turned down,, its not like blacks will have no access to lawyers or doctors-the people who go the the very top schools generally end up being law professors or big bucks corporate attorneys. . not exactly professions that the poor need to serve them

 

Can you source this, please?