This is the Harvard/UNC combo of affirmation action programs. You can read the opinion HERE but—probably due to the number of opinions—the full report is 237 pages long. Lots of opinions—this is America, right? No surprise, of course, that on a case of this importance Roberts wrote the opinion, but it seems notable that, despite some differences of opinion, six justices signed on to Roberts’ opinion:
I have been waiting for someone else to touch on this, and now must assume that my position is so radical that everyone will condemn me. I look on institutions like Harvard as having a sacred trust to preserve the very best in scholarship. Each candidate should be evaluated for their ability to offer exceptional contributions to enrich our patrimony. Nothing else should count. There are countless institutions that can provide a career path and even offer opportunities to those who have been discriminated against. Is there no place for top-level scholarship in this Country?
That is an idealistic view but it is one that they recognized at their founding and promoted. For Harvard, it was "Veritas Christo et Ecclesiae," which means "Truth for Christ and the Church." So, what are the guiding principles of Harvard now? From where do they come?
The SCOTUS is NOT an instrument for solving deep seated political and social problems. Its job is to maintain the Rule of Law, and it is not doing its job. This newest will have zero effect on actual practice, except for window dressing in getting around the decision. The SCOTUS is politicized, as is our entire government until further notice.
I agree that gratitude is the antidote and cynicism is poison but neither the oligarchs nor the mushy middle interest me. Nothing will ever persuade me that those willing to compromise on basic principles deserve consideration. We as individuals have our own responsibility to maintain our integrity and moral fiber. Should our society and our government show any signs of embracing positions that deserve our respect and admiration let us rejoice and show our support. Failing that, as Bastiat said centuries ago, "When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law."
Harvard has an endowment of what? 60 billion? I’d like to see them refuse federal money and then I’d let them admit whoever they want. Same w all the other ‘private’ colleges. Employers can then take their chances with graduates. Caveat emptor. Might level the playing field.
If they take federal money I think they should comply with a federal definition of ‘fairness’. I would hope this definition would include test scores and grades and prohibit some of the work arounds that are apparently in the works.
So they didn't really close off raced-based admissions then. Schools will just find. ways around it and the legal process will start again ad infinitum. Given what the court did on the voting case, I have no confidence that they will ever come to a coherent judicial philosophy.
I’m a dinosaur I’ll admit it. I went to Michigan State in 1975. Qualifications, GPA and SAT and ACT scores. I think I also had to check off white male in some box. I got an “honorary” scholarship, that is no money, because my dad made too much money, probably around $12k.
No sob story essay, no expression of plans to change the world, just my alleged intelligence measures. My minority friends, same story except most were on scholarship. Michigan at the time had a black population of about 12% and strange enough, that was the percentage of black students enrolled (at least in the freshman class). Just how was MSU able to accomplish this without preferential treatment? BTW Bakke was decided when I was a Junior. As one of my professors predicted, it won’t have much of an effect on us.
It's not who takes the test, it's who scores the test.
And, it's not who writes answers to the test questions, it's who writes the test questions. This last is why we have seen so much nonsense the last twenty-five years in early mathematics education, as progressives try to sideline calculating a correct numerical answer, and to prioritize writing a paragraph description of your struggle to find an answer.
Yes, interesting to note the three dissenters of which two of the three are the dimmest on the bench, all want more racism to combat racism. They know they wouldn't be on the bench if not for racism, theirs and their party's addiction to intolerance.
True, but symbolism is very important too. It's like the ruling on abortion. Sure, people can get round it too, but it sends out a powerful message. Oh, and it angers all the right people!
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2023/06/justice_jacksons_emotional_dissent_relied_on_an_objectively_flawed_study.html
Nice comparison of Clarence Thomas' life experience and KBJ's:
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2023/06/dramatic_fault_lines_between_justices_clarence_thomas_and_ketanji_brown_jacksons_affirmative_action_ruling__and_their_lived_experiences_too.html
I have been waiting for someone else to touch on this, and now must assume that my position is so radical that everyone will condemn me. I look on institutions like Harvard as having a sacred trust to preserve the very best in scholarship. Each candidate should be evaluated for their ability to offer exceptional contributions to enrich our patrimony. Nothing else should count. There are countless institutions that can provide a career path and even offer opportunities to those who have been discriminated against. Is there no place for top-level scholarship in this Country?
The Babylon Bee today - Awkward: Supreme Court Rules Against Affirmative Action With Affirmative Action Hire Sitting Right There
Hahhhaaaa. Love it
That is an idealistic view but it is one that they recognized at their founding and promoted. For Harvard, it was "Veritas Christo et Ecclesiae," which means "Truth for Christ and the Church." So, what are the guiding principles of Harvard now? From where do they come?
The SCOTUS is NOT an instrument for solving deep seated political and social problems. Its job is to maintain the Rule of Law, and it is not doing its job. This newest will have zero effect on actual practice, except for window dressing in getting around the decision. The SCOTUS is politicized, as is our entire government until further notice.
I agree that gratitude is the antidote and cynicism is poison but neither the oligarchs nor the mushy middle interest me. Nothing will ever persuade me that those willing to compromise on basic principles deserve consideration. We as individuals have our own responsibility to maintain our integrity and moral fiber. Should our society and our government show any signs of embracing positions that deserve our respect and admiration let us rejoice and show our support. Failing that, as Bastiat said centuries ago, "When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law."
Harvard has an endowment of what? 60 billion? I’d like to see them refuse federal money and then I’d let them admit whoever they want. Same w all the other ‘private’ colleges. Employers can then take their chances with graduates. Caveat emptor. Might level the playing field.
If they take federal money I think they should comply with a federal definition of ‘fairness’. I would hope this definition would include test scores and grades and prohibit some of the work arounds that are apparently in the works.
So they didn't really close off raced-based admissions then. Schools will just find. ways around it and the legal process will start again ad infinitum. Given what the court did on the voting case, I have no confidence that they will ever come to a coherent judicial philosophy.
Hey i just passsed my vehicle emission test today after two previous failures. Was told to grease the guy $200 and I’d be fine. Worked like a charm.
I’m a dinosaur I’ll admit it. I went to Michigan State in 1975. Qualifications, GPA and SAT and ACT scores. I think I also had to check off white male in some box. I got an “honorary” scholarship, that is no money, because my dad made too much money, probably around $12k.
No sob story essay, no expression of plans to change the world, just my alleged intelligence measures. My minority friends, same story except most were on scholarship. Michigan at the time had a black population of about 12% and strange enough, that was the percentage of black students enrolled (at least in the freshman class). Just how was MSU able to accomplish this without preferential treatment? BTW Bakke was decided when I was a Junior. As one of my professors predicted, it won’t have much of an effect on us.
Set minimum scores required, draw names out of a hat using an accounting firm to regulate. Fair and not open to easy rigging.
To riff on Stalin,
It's not who takes the test, it's who scores the test.
And, it's not who writes answers to the test questions, it's who writes the test questions. This last is why we have seen so much nonsense the last twenty-five years in early mathematics education, as progressives try to sideline calculating a correct numerical answer, and to prioritize writing a paragraph description of your struggle to find an answer.
Excellent news! Racism has no place in a modern, democratic society. Of course, the usual suspects voted no.
Yes, interesting to note the three dissenters of which two of the three are the dimmest on the bench, all want more racism to combat racism. They know they wouldn't be on the bench if not for racism, theirs and their party's addiction to intolerance.
and racism will still hold a place in a modern, democratic society. At least for college admission-types, etc, etc.
The more we progress to common sense the more progressives resist progress.
I'm sure they would welcome him with open arms...
True, but symbolism is very important too. It's like the ruling on abortion. Sure, people can get round it too, but it sends out a powerful message. Oh, and it angers all the right people!