Supreme Court kills affirmative action in university admissions

I have never really examined the constitutionality of AA. I simply felt compelled to provide the real argument as opposed to the ignorant argument being perpetuated. It's simply never been an issue on my radar


So you’ve never examined AA through the lens of the constitution.

It’s also not an issue that’s been on your radar so you’ve probably given it little to no attention or investigation.

BUT, you feel confident that you understand the actual argument for AA. So confident that you can easily identify counter-arguments as “ignorant”.

That’s impressive.
 
So you’ve never examined AA through the lens of the constitution.

It’s also not an issue that’s been on your radar so you’ve probably given it little to no attention or investigation.

BUT, you feel confident that you understand the actual argument for AA. So confident that you can easily identify counter-arguments as “ignorant”.

That’s impressive.

I wasn't giving a legal argument and neither were you. I was giving the argument about the purpose behind AA and so were you. Your argument was just ignorant.

It wasn't a legal analysis. I have never felt compelled to perform one on this particular issue.
 
I wasn't giving a legal argument and neither were you. I was giving the argument about the purpose behind AA and so were you. Your argument was just ignorant.

It wasn't a legal analysis. I have never felt compelled to perform one on this particular issue.

I was sharing a quote regarding a talking point that I felt mattered. Nothing more, nothing less.
 
oof - what a bad analogy from the defendant

Waxman admitted that race was decisive "for some highly qualified applicants," just like "being … an oboe player in a year in which the Harvard-Radcliffe Orchestra needs an oboe player."

"We did not fight a civil war about oboe players," Roberts shot back. "We did fight a civil war to eliminate racial discrimination."
It's a bad statement by Roberts as well. The Civil War was in no way about eliminating racial discrimination. You can argue it was about state's rights, and you can argue it was about ending slavery, but in no way was it about ending racial discrimination.
 
Not sure you have a point there or not .... Between the time that the disgrace of Plessy v. Ferguson was overturned by Brown v. Board of Education in 1954, there was a lag time between when the separate but equal philosophy was finally dumped and the Supreme Court's ruling was capably enforced. The country needed AA ... and it's fair to say that Thomas is aware that at some point in his education it was of benefit to him and to other black students as well.
Someone is lacking in reverence for stare decisis…

Do you realize that Plessy had been the law of the land for almost 60 years when it was struck? Decades of Supreme Court precedent, wiped away by the Warren Court in the blink of an eye.

Such extremism.
 
Someone is lacking in reverence for stare decisis…

Do you realize that Plessy had been the law of the land for almost 60 years when it was struck? Decades of Supreme Court precedent, wiped away by the Warren Court in the blink of an eye.

Such extremism.

“Not a normal court”. Is that how you do it?
 
That’s not the argument. The argument is essentially that minorities have historically had less access to a good education from jump because of economic disadvantages. By accepting a greater number of minorities into higher education then the argument is that more minorities will succeed and their offspring will have a level playing field and there will be no need for affirmative action in the future
well except for the Asians who will apparently need their own version of AA after AA denied them access to college.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
Link? Or quotes?

"These classifications rest on incoherent stereotypes. Take the “Asian” category. It sweeps into one pile East Asians (e.g., Chinese, Korean, Japanese) and South Asians (e.g., Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi), even though together they constitute about 60% of the world’s population. . . . This agglomeration of so many peoples paves over countless differences in “language,” “culture,” and historical experience. . . . It does so even though few would suggest that all such persons share “similar backgrounds and similar ideas and experiences.” "

"If anything, attempts to divide us all up into a handful of groups have become only more incoherent with time. American families have become increasingly multicultural, a fact that has led to unseemly disputes about whether someone is really a member of a certain racial or ethnic group. There are decisions denying Hispanic status to someone of Italian-Argentine descent . . . as well as someone with one Mexican grandparent. . . . Yet there are also decisions granting Hispanic status to a Sephardic Jew whose ancestors fled Spain centuries ago . . . and bestowing a “sort of Hispanic” status on a person with one Cuban grandparent."
 
That’s not the argument. The argument is essentially that minorities have historically had less access to a good education from jump because of economic disadvantages. By accepting a greater number of minorities into higher education then the argument is that more minorities will succeed and their offspring will have a level playing field and there will be no need for affirmative action in the future

but the reality is the issue only applies in zero-sum game admissions (ie. the top schools). the bulk of universities and colleges do not have admissions caps and therefore students are not in competition for spots
 
I have never really examined the constitutionality of AA. I simply felt compelled to provide the real argument as opposed to the ignorant argument being perpetuated. It's simply never been an issue on my radar
Aren’t you a civil rights attorney? Apologies if I’ve got that wrong.
 
"These classifications rest on incoherent stereotypes. Take the “Asian” category. It sweeps into one pile East Asians (e.g., Chinese, Korean, Japanese) and South Asians (e.g., Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi), even though together they constitute about 60% of the world’s population. . . . This agglomeration of so many peoples paves over countless differences in “language,” “culture,” and historical experience. . . . It does so even though few would suggest that all such persons share “similar backgrounds and similar ideas and experiences.” "

"If anything, attempts to divide us all up into a handful of groups have become only more incoherent with time. American families have become increasingly multicultural, a fact that has led to unseemly disputes about whether someone is really a member of a certain racial or ethnic group. There are decisions denying Hispanic status to someone of Italian-Argentine descent . . . as well as someone with one Mexican grandparent. . . . Yet there are also decisions granting Hispanic status to a Sephardic Jew whose ancestors fled Spain centuries ago . . . and bestowing a “sort of Hispanic” status on a person with one Cuban grandparent."
Thanks for bringing it over.
Yea, makes no sense…
 
but the reality is the issue only applies in zero-sum game admissions (ie. the top schools). the bulk of universities and colleges do not have admissions caps and therefore students are not in competition for spots

This. This isn’t about providing a quality education to disadvantaged minority students. This is about elite academic institutions desperate need to virtue signal.
 
I have never really examined the constitutionality of AA. I simply felt compelled to provide the real argument as opposed to the ignorant argument being perpetuated. It's simply never been an issue on my radar
Seems to me we have a handful of fundamental yes/no boxes on the flow chart to answer wrt constitutionality. Box 1, do you trust SCOTUS to make a ruling on the issue with correct interpretation of our constitution? Box 2, do you agree with their ruling? Box 3, is the ruling applicable to the issue? Box 4, is the ruling enforceable? Box 5, will you comply (if applicable) voluntarily?

There are a lot of bad takes, I think. The worse the take the more is seems to be promoted on social media. But, it looks like this ruling says using ethnicity as a standard to prioritize one group over another is in violation of the 14th amendment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64

VN Store



Back
Top