Supreme Court rejects affirmative action at colleges, says schools can’t consider race in admission

Today's message from upper admins at the Univ of Minnesota:

As you may know, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled today on two cases regarding college admissions. The decisions limit the ability of colleges and universities that receive federal funding to consider an applicant’s race or ethnicity in decision-making for admission.

We remain steadfast in our commitments to our educational mission of inclusion and access, to remove barriers to higher education for underrepresented populations, and to ensure that all members of our community have equitable access to the University and its resources.

A working group led by the Provost’s Office, in close consultation with the Office of the General Counsel (OGC), has been preparing for this decision for many months. That group will ensure that our processes in undergraduate, graduate, and professional education are compliant with the new state of the law, and that we continue to live out our values of inclusion and access.

We will continue our recruiting efforts that have yielded increased diversity in our entering classes. We remain committed to diversity, equity, inclusion, and justice on all our campuses.

 

K

 

One of the dissents (cant find now) pointed out that race is still a permissible factor for suspicion for traffic stops

 

That was Sotomayor. One of her better points, IMO:

Tellingly, in sharp contrast with today’s decision, the Court has allowed the use of race when that use burdens minority populations. In United States v. Brignoni-Ponce,422 U. S. 873 (1975), for example, the Court held that it is unconstitutional for border patrol agents to rely on a person’s skin color as “a single factor” to justify a traffic stop based on reasonable suspicion, but it remarked that “Mexican appearance” could be “a relevant factor” out of many to justify such a stop “at the border and its functional equivalents.” Id., at 884–887; see also id., at 882 (recognizing that “the border” includes entire metropolitan areas such as San Diego, El Paso, and the South Texas Rio Grande Valley). The Court thus facilitated racial profiling of Latinos as a law enforcement tool and did not adopt a race-blind rule. The Court later extended this reasoning to border patrol agents selectively referring motorists for secondary inspection at a checkpoint, concluding that “even if it be assumed that such referrals are made largely on the basis of apparent Mexican ancestry, [there is] no constitutional violation.” United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U. S. 543, 562–563 (1976) (footnote omitted).

The result of today’s decision is that a person’s skin color may play a role in assessing individualized suspicion, but it cannot play a role in assessing that person’s individualized contributions to a diverse learning environment. That indefensible reading of the Constitution is not grounded in law and subverts the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection.

***

In the end, when the Court speaks of a “colorblind” Constitution, it cannot really mean it, for it is faced with a body of law that recognizes that race-conscious measures are permissible under the Equal Protection Clause. Instead, what the Court actually lands on is an understanding of the Constitution that is “colorblind” sometimes, when the Court so chooses. Behind those choices lie the Court’s own value judgments about what type of interests are sufficiently compelling to justify race-conscious measures.​

 

Thanks - knew I had seen it. And it is a good point. Hard to refute

 

I'm curious what you think the promise of affirmative action is and what is the cost.

 

No. But life is not fair. Legacy admissions benefit the school because it assures a generational continuation of financial donations.

Athletic recruits benefit the school in obvious ways.

Affirmative action, in theory, benefits the student, not necessarily the school (albeit of course it does through diversity).

 

I mean, if this is all true, the thing that benefits the student should be the one we like most right? Do I care if Harvard has a good crew team or a long line of related rich donors?

 

The benefit to the student is that he/she gets the spot instead of someone else. Why should we like that?

 

No of course not. Most students are likely admitted without consideration to race.

 

How so? That is no guarantee.

 

The school is the one limiting spots, they don't have to do that. Certainly shouldnt blame the students, they didnt create the problem.

 

The trial court concluded that “race is a determinative tip for” a significant percentage “of all admitted African American and Hispanic applicants.” So it does/did have a real impact.

The question is more whether using race in the admissions process is legally justifiable, not whether it was occurring.

 

A lot of people are now going to have to come up with new excuses as to why they weren't accepted by the university or professional school of their choice.

 

So would it be fair to say then that most are denied without consideration to race as well?

 

My predictions is people will see minorities on campus and argue schools are still secretly doing wokeist affirmative action

 

The problem is that their endowments are just too small. If they can just get a few more hedge fund manager building names, they could provide more opportunity. They are just severely underresourced. (I can't believe that we are "defending" these schools)

 

Like I said earlier, if you believe in equality, you shouldnt believe in Harvard as an institution. Maybe a more diverse ruling class from many backgrounds is preferable to a wealthy white one, but its still a ruling class. The big pharma exec who denies your healthcare coverage can feel your pain more ably, that's the promise of diversity in elite college admissions.

 

Yes, there are students who would have made it in if it weren’t for their race. However, most who didn’t make it in wouldn’t have regardless of their race.

 

Amen. But they are gateways, no doubt about it. Much of the problem wouldn't exist if they weren't.

Even if we did, the ruling class will always come up with a winnowing structure. It used to be a four year degree. Then we instituted the G.I. Bill, and a lot of previously "unworthy" individuals got four year degrees and suddenly it wasn't so special. Add to that federal help in financing higher education.

Hence more advanced degrees, more selectivity at very elite institutions.

No matter how much we try to flatten opportunities. those on top figure out a way to define the qualifications to exclude the hoi polloi. And a lot of them will vote for elite privilege to maintain their arbitrarily constrained but still above others place.