Why?

Nothing about this ruling says Harvard has to keep using the same metrics that Asians have tended to outperform in (SATs, AP/IB, GPA).

Colleges that this will affect have been prepping for this for years because they don’t want to get sued constantly. SAT/ACT is being phased out, more interviews, more essays, less hard numbers.

Asians DID get shafted by the system, but this won’t fix it.

You should look at how the UC Systems have dealt with this, to see this is definitely not the case.

Even after AA was declared unconstitutional at the state level, the UC systems tweeked the metrics to get the quotas they want (or at least can live with, they probably still have more Asians than they want). This includes dropping SAT/ACT as a consideration and weighing geography within the state in choosing students.

Interestingly there are so few black students trying to get into the UC system** that despite pretty much every black person meeting the minimum qualifications who applies getting in the black %'s are still extremely low. The main result of AA in the UC system is to discriminate against Asians a lot, whites moderately, in favor of Hispanic kids.

** California has a relatively small black population compared to most high population states, and the UC system actually suffers from the small number of black college aspirants choosing more prestigious colleges, such as Stanford and the Ivy's, who are competing for the same students.

I actually stand corrected. I knew that the UC System took an additional hard turn progressive left after the Floyd riots, but I didn't realize how far the Overton window had shifted. Despite whites making up around 34% of the California population, white students only account for 20% of incoming UC students. Pretty stark discrepancy.

From a sociological perspective it will actually be interesting to see the downstream consequences of the taxpayer funded state school system actively discriminating so aggressively against the upper-middle class white/Asian communities that once made up the majority of their students. For example, many of the high priced California suburbs operate around the following model:

* Pay extremely high prices (at least for what you are getting, eg. 1M+ for 3 bed 2 bath 1400 sq ft.) to buy a house in a suburb with a good school system

* Children go to school, study very hard, take a bunch of AP classes, get good grades, good SAT/ACT scores

* Get admitted into partially subsidized good state school.

* After graduation, use education to get good job and eventually settle in suburb with good school system.

* Rinse, repeat

--Now that the UC system has decided to do away with the third *, it will be interesting to see the long term effects of breaking the chain. Will Californians be as willing to settle in expensive suburbs in good school districts knowing there is no benefit down the line towards their getting into a good state school? If they aren't, does this cause the suburban real estate market to collapse, which would have a lot of downstream effects? Hard to tell. Will be interesting to see how this plays out.

--As a personal aside, me and my wife are both products of the UC System. I don't picture any of my kids going to a UC. Demographically, they dont seem like the kind of students the UC systems are looking for, and truthfully the UC systems, although partially subsidized, are expensive enough they could probably get more bang for their buck going a different route. Me and my wife both spent a lot of time and money on education, and although we ended up being more or less successful, it took so long to get there and so much debt was accrued It seems like we are just going to be playing catch-up the next 20 years. Who knows what will happen, but for my kids I am going to stress the importance of financial independence and owning a home ASAP (which I will help them do), rather than spending a lot of time and money on education, causing them to be renters and go into debt and banks getting most of the benefit of their hard work.

You can spin my position in your head however you want. It is time to move on from AA. That is my opinion and also that of the supreme court. There are zero racist thoughts that go into this opinion.

No, actually I have no idea what you are referring to, but I am curious.
They're like what? And who are those people?

so be it. let it not be written by man - the instruction - for he knew what was in man.

So do we have a name for this newly created group? Black kids who appear to be smarter than about 93% of white people but not 97%. Kids who now have to be satisfied with places like Penn State, Michigan, or Univ of Toronto where they will run circles around most of their classmates.

These kids will score very high on their personal statements and still go to the Ivy of their choice.

I know. And in fact, the supreme Court even offered suggestions as to how to get around their own ruling. An anti affirmative action law is actually only slightly necessary because some black kids were barely harmed by their skin color and they shouldn't, get the same boost as those who were. My actual post was not serious and was just meant to tweak those who think that graduating typical colleges makes you smart.

Ayo Sklansky put the french flag on the 2p2 banner, you don't want to be late on the revolution bandwagon.

Apparently you missed some parts. If AA is racist and you agree with the SC then you've called yourself a racist

no, you can read my posts. I never called myself a racist. youre just going to have to be racist all by yourself

Do you want to count the military academies individually or cheat and bundle them into a single racist opinion?

How Clarence Thomas ‘pulled the ladder up behind him’ on affirmative action

Never heard anybody on this forum suggest that. The contrapositive is sort of maybe correct in spirit.

I don't see how anyone can know if this is true.

Like Barack Obama, Clarence Thomas is black and went to an elite school. Doesn't matter if they graduated with honors, went on to teach at an elite law school or have demonstrated over and over again that the average Harvard/Yale law school student is not in their universe. Luckily if you're white and went to a good school you get to be judged on your own merit and not assumed to be affirmative action because of Jared Kushner or Trump.

Everyone involved says it is true, including Thomas himself. I knew because I heard an interview on NPR a few weeks ago with his biographer. You guys might want to look into it yourself instead of assuming racism in others for stating what is well known.

https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-...policy-1810180

If he's calling himself unqualified--how can anything he says be taken seriously? Wouldn't the true believer play have been to not accept the nom or quit in protest?

I was concluding stupidity, not assuming racism. And how would Thomas know he got in only because he as black? Someone who rose to his level was probably not some typical Yale law bro.

There obviously was an affirmative action policy in place at the time he was admitted. And it's obviously possible that he benefitted from the policy.

But I don't know how we, or even he, can be certain whether he would have been admitted to Yale Law School in a but-for world where there was no such policy.

He was a very good undergraduate student. It isn't immediately obvious to me that he would have been denied admission in that but-for world.

Assuming stupidity because a person knows what happened better than you do is a pretty stupid thing to do.

But you go ahead and trust your own beliefs over what every person involved states actually happened.

Personally I'll trust Thomas and his biographer.

In the NPR interview his biographer said he was also admitted to Holy Cross college under an affirmative action program or something similar, but I couldn't find a link specifically about that.

BTW, do you think it is likely that he would have been nominated to the Supreme Court if he were white?

Again... didn't assume stupidity. Concluded it based on the level of your posts.

"Admitted while a program is in place" does not mean "admitted because of the program."

As I'm sure you realize, if you are a black student and you are admitted to a school that has an affirmative action program, the school doesn't tell you what impact, if any, the program had on your individual admission decision.

I'm not sure why this is hard for you to grasp.

I expect that diversity was one of the factors that George H.W. Bush considered when evaluating whether to nominate Clarence Thomas to the SCOTUS. Minorities and women tend to be very popular in the establishment wing of the GOP if they are sufficiently conservative like Thomas. People like Clarence Thomas and Elizabeth Dole help the GOP promote the idea that the party isn't just a bunch of old, angry white guys.