Breaking: SCOTUS ends Affirmative Action in university race-based admissions

[dblack]

SCOTUS basically ruled that Americans should be treated as individuals, not any race, class or ethnicity or group sanctioned by the Federal Government.

Harvard is not the Federal Government.

 

[Leo123]

Apparently you don't know what that phrase means. It's exactly what I'm demanding. AA is the opposite.

Not if by it's application it excludes some. You can call it 'affirmative action' from now until doomsday it's still racial discrimination.

 

[Cougarbear]

Yeah like Master Class Race hustlers.

Biden’s ancestors owned slaves, Trump’s ancestors never owned slaves!

 

[Leo123]

Harvard is not the Federal Government.

Harvard gets federal funding. The big money is in research funding to the tune of 800 million of which Harvard gets 70%.

 

[dudmuck]

Can't you see how ridiculous this is?

 

[BS Filter]

If 10 Asian students and 10 Black students apply to Harvard, is it racist to ensure the same number from each race are admitted, regardless of academic skills?

 

[BS Filter]

AA most certainly IS racist.

 

[MarathonMike]

Harvard gets federal funding. The big money is in research funding to the tune of 800 million of which Harvard gets 70%.

They get millions from the CCP too as do many of the elite Universities.

 

[Esdraelon]

You sound bitter.

Yes, indeed. And it sounds bitter about life in general. As for the ruling, I've already seen some reports of schools simply doing away with ACT/SAT guidelines and using the "personal essay" in judging applicants. Those who want to destroy merit-based success will find a way but hopefully, their enrollments will crash as a result.

 

[dblack]

Not if by it's application it excludes some. You can call it 'affirmative action' from now until doomsday it's still racial discrimination.

Of course it is. I'm not sure what you're getting at.

I'm saying that trying to make unpopular biases against the law is totalitarian, an abuse of government. Affirmative action is wrong. So are all laws that attempt to ban discrimination. The government isn't there to tell us what to think, who to like, who to hate, who to serve.

Unfortunately, despite the headlines, Roberts' Court didn't strike a blow against intrusive government with this decision. It just redirected the intrusion. The Court's decision didn't say that affirmative action was unconstitutional. Instead, bizarrely, it claimed that the colleges violated the 14th Amendment by discriminating. Not that the Congress violated the Constitution by passing AA in the first place, but that the colleges themselves were somehow violating the Constitution.

The Constitution is a set of rules that government must follow. It doesn't apply to anyone else. There's literally no way a private institution, like Harvard, could violate the Constitution. They could break the law, sure, but the Constitution doesn't enter into it.

I'm not sure what Roberts' is up to with this framing. It reminds me of the shenanigans he played with turning the ACA penalty into a tax incentive. He's got something up his sleeve.

 

[DudleySmith]

Yes, indeed. And it sounds bitter about life in general. As for the ruling, I've already seen some reports of schools simply doing away with ACT/SAT guidelines and using the "personal essay" in judging applicants. Those who want to destroy merit-based success will find a way but hopefully, their enrollments will crash as a result.

Harvard and the laughably named 'Ivy League' schools are riding on reputations they had almost a hundred years ago. They're just over-priced social clubs. Many Jr. colleges offer better educations. Get a Harvard catalogue, go through the faculty list and note how many of them come from so-called 'Ivy League schools' themselves. You won't find many at all. Nobel Prize winners don't teach lower level classes, so who cares if an Einstein holds a chair there? The vast majority of students aren't going to ever even see such people, much less be taught by them anyway so why pay $100K/yr for Freshman Composition or Chemistry??? Ridiculous.

 

[DudleySmith]

They get millions from the CCP too as do many of the elite Universities.

They make sure Red China is well represented in the research labs, for sure.

 

[BS Filter]

Biden says "diversity is our strength". Pure bullshit. We have three leftist women on the court, White, Latino and Black, and they're stupid. The Black one can't even define what a woman is. There is no strength in diversity. Whatever happened to intelligence, common sense and love of the truth? Crazy bastards.

 

[Cougarbear]

Harvard is not the Federal Government.

Leo123 said it clearly. Understand now? You don’t get rid of racism by using racism. In this case, against people of color, Asians.

 

[fncceo]

And believe me, EVERY black kid will claim they overcame racism.

If there is no racial identity in the application, anyone could claim to have overcome racism.

I personally would claim that my being a Yiddish-speaking Cherokee Indian was a HUGE handicap to overcome.

 

[Leo123]

Of course it is. I'm not sure what you're getting at.

I'm saying that trying to make unpopular biases against the law is totalitarian, an abuse of government. Affirmative action is wrong. So are all laws that attempt to ban discrimination. The government isn't there to tell us what to think, who to like, who to hate, who to serve.

Unfortunately, despite the headlines, Roberts' Court didn't strike a blow against intrusive government with this decision. It just redirected the intrusion. The Court's decision didn't say that affirmative action was unconstitutional. Instead, bizarrely, it claimed that the colleges violated the 14th Amendment by discriminating. Not that the Congress violated the Constitution by passing AA in the first place, but that the colleges themselves were somehow violating the Constitution.

The Constitution is a set of rules that government must follow. It doesn't apply to anyone else. There's literally no way a private institution, like Harvard, could violate the Constitution. They could break the law, sure, but the Constitution doesn't enter into it.

I'm not sure what Roberts' is up to with this framing. It reminds me of the shenanigans he played with turning the ACA penalty into a tax incentive. He's got something up his sleeve.

Well with the pearl clutching and the shrieks and wails from the MSM as well as Democrats, he probably saved some from heart attacks.

 

[IM2]

Let's see, Whites overtly got Affirmative Action from 1776 until 1965.

189 years.

But 59 years is enough for people of color to catch up. And in that 59 years, the government gave us no land, like the Homestead Act, nor did they enact a series of economic stimulus programs such as the New Deal or Servicemens Readjustment Act that excluded whites and the benefit went only to groups of color.

And no, welfare wasn't it.

Equity. Equality of outcome. Social engineering. We have seen all these terms used by a particular part of the white community pertaining to things that were made to try creating equal oppoetuhity. But in reality America has been socially engineered to create the best equality of outcomes for white people.

 

[IM2]

Leo123 said it clearly. Understand now? You don’t get rid of racism by using racism. In this case, against people of color, Asians.

AA was not racism and you don't fix problems caused by racism by ignoring race in programs made to create the equal opportunity denied by racism. There was no racism practiced against Asians.

Asians are six percent of the American population, but they were 25.9 percent of the students entering Harvard in 2021. That is a full ten percentage points more than African Americans (15.9%) and more than double the percentage of both Hispanics (12.5%) and Native Americans (11%).34 In fact, there were more Asians admitted into Harvard than Hispanics and Native Americans combined.

Admissions Statistics, A Brief Profile of the Admitted Class of 2025, Harvard welcomes students from across the country and all over, Admissions Statistics

 

[toobfreak]

AA was not racism

Idiot, the entire basis of AA WAS BASED ON RACE! So: RACIST.

Very first definition coming up:

Admittedly being prejudiced FOR, discriminating FOR a group of people by a university or the government based solely on heritage / cultural background / skin color is the very DEFINITION of RACISM, no different than being prejudiced AGAINST or discriminating AGAINST someone is!

AA WAS RACIST. It was unconstitutional. It was just as immoral as any other action taken based on race. TWO WRONGS DO NOT MAKE A RIGHT.

End of story.

 

[toobfreak]

What do southern Baptist democrats celebrating the Confederacy (160 years old and no longer even celebrated in vogue to the point of tearing down old commemorative statues and names) have to do with ending nearly a century of Affirmative Action social equity? I mean, if Blacks still need it after all this time, what does that say of the program's efficacy much less that of society? Not to mention what it implies about Blacks?

Hello?