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

Supreme Court Ends the Last Vestige of ‘Systemic Racism’ in America › American Greatness

On Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court issued the greatest majority opinion ever written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts. That one-time Obamacare savior, who in 2012 rewrote the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate as a “tax” in order to salvage President Barack Obama’s signature domestic policy, this time penned a landmark ruling abolishing something the Left has been clamoring to abolish ever since the 2020 death of George Floyd and the subsequent “Great Awokening” that rocked the republic: “systemic racism” in America.

Oh, that wasn’t the way Thursday’s huge news was framed by MSNBC talking heads and New York Times editorialists? Curious, that.

It is true that the corporate media headlines emanating from Thursday’s consolidated opinion in this term’s twin affirmative action cases, Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) v. Harvard College and SFFA v. University of North Carolina, would have you believe that the Court did something closely approximating the opposite of ending so-called “systemic racism” in America. Those wokesters, “identity politics” enthusiasts, Ibram X. Kendi-esque “anti-racism” proponents, Al Sharpton-style race hustlers, and the addlebrained president of the United States himself would all instead have us believe that a far-right, reactionary cabal of jurisprudential troglodytes on the High Court “set us back” on the issue of race. According to this popular narrative, the SFFA opinion is positively nightmarish; John Roberts might as well be a reincarnation of Roger Taney.

 

L-O-L, now you're quoting the opinions of a far-right freak like Josh Hammer.
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-only-path-forward-is-national-conservatism/
American national conservatism prioritizes the national interest and sovereign independence of the American nation-state on the world stage, and the common good of the American polity on the home front. In the case of the latter, as a matter of both domestic politics and constitutional jurisprudence, the common good must prevail when it conflicts with either radical conceptions of individual autonomy inconsistent with traditional American customs and substantive human flourishing on the one hand, such as the transgender phenomenon, or poisonous multiculturalism threatening to further divide an already-divided people on the other hand, such as critical race theory. Absolutist constitutional claims, such as the notion that the First Amendment purportedly “protects” critical race theory indoctrination in the classroom, must be flatly rejected.
----------------------------------------
Your friend Josh called multiculturalism* "poisonous," argued for restricting individual freedom when it is inconsistent with "traditional" American customs (i.e., stripping gay people of their rights), and rejecting free speech when it promotes ideas he dislikes. You sure you want to trumpet the opinions of this bigoted fascist?

* - The APA Dictionary of Psychology defines "multiculturalism" two ways: (1) "the quality or condition of a society in which different ethnic and cultural groups have equal status and access to power but each maintains its own identity, characteristics, and mores," or (2) "the promotion or celebration of cultural diversity within a society."

Do you consider multiculturalism to be "poisonous," Stude? If not, I recommend not hitching your wagon (particularly on race) to the opinions of a white nationalist like Josh Hammer.

 

Joy Reid claims Harvard admitted her because of affirmative action and nobody was shocked – Twitchy

Joy Reid claims Harvard admitted her because of affirmative action and nobody was shocked

In the wake of the Supreme Court ruling forbidding racial preference in college admission, many pundits have waxed poetic for and against this decision. Not to be left out of the conversation, Joy Ann Reid chose to add her two cents.


Not that any person listening to her was shocked, but Reid confirmed she only got into Harvard because of racial quotas or affirmative action.

 

Except we don't give everybody equal opportunity. It's not even close. The original point of affirmative action was to strive for equal opportunity. It's laughable to claim that getting rid of affirmative action is about making people more equal. What it's really about is white people protecting their privileged place in society.

As for who gets to decide, the people certainly could have in the past. The people of California outlawed affirmative action in college admissions. Every other state had the power to do the same. The status quo before this decision was to let the people decide. Now, Republican SCOTUS ruled it is unconstitutional (with some Roberts equivocations), removing the power of the people to make their own calls on that.

 

Love this.

I was admitted into a small, competitive undergrad program and it definitely was as a result of a combination of Affirmative Action and an adversity consideration similar to the one outlined in the quoted post.

There is no way I would have been admitted otherwise because Dade County Public Schools and the schools I attended in particular (critically depressed low income districts) lacked the actual tools for me to learn the technical training that had typically been the bedrock or SAT equivalent of an entrance qualification, which is exactly how the Ivy’s and some others have been broadening the scope of their student bodies.

At the program that admitted me due to the broadening of their entrance requirements and a decided mandate to expand the program to underrepresented groups, my name is now on the wall and I am if not the, certainly one of the three most noted graduates (and a leader in my field at large).

I would not have been admitted without affirmative action. Period.

The reason for the technical lack as a college applicant I mentioned is complicated and has been repeatedly mentioned by other posters throughout the thread this weekend. You simply can’t discuss affirmative action or institutional bias and race based disadvantages and not take a serious and deep look at the long term policy phases through this country’s history. A hundred year’s ago my father’s father had no protections or equal opportunity under the law. HIS father’s father may have been a slave? Or the child of someone who at some point had been enslaved.

Where is a foundation expected to be built in that bloodline, particularly when the lack of government Federal Protections pre-1965 and the directly ANTAGONISTIC state and local governments (given the concentration of African Americans in the south), how is my father’s father expected to build any foundation for me to thrive in this country?

THIS is the achievement handicap affirmative action (but not solely affirmative action) is meant to fulfill.

And if you think a single generation operating outside the most ACUTE threats of discrimination is enough to make up for the decades and century+ of consistent harassment and disadvantages… I can’t help you see this clearly.

 

That's one of the most interesting aspects of this opinion, and I think it deserves more discussion. Is the rationale that diversity is a laudable goal for military officers but not for society as a whole? Because I can't see any real justification for not applying it to the military academies.

Imagine telling a Black person that the 14th Amendment finally means something now that it prevents this country from doing anything to make up for the fact that their ancestors were enslaved and then treated as third-class citizens for the majority of this country's history, all with the Constitution's blessing. That's without even getting into all the discrimination that it tolerates today. "Sorry, Black people, the Constitution allows for this country to harm just you, but it doesn't allow for it to help just you."

 

I have read that only about 10 percent of black students admitted at the top schools are native african american as in descendants of former enslaved people. African students or immigrants from afira and carribean islands are the 90%. So if AA was a form of redress for slavery and Jim Crow laws it was reaching very few people. For example Barack Obama. His wife Michelle is the person it was supposed to benefit.

 

1. The Supreme Court didn't allow it to be a form of redress after California v. Bakke. That case was wrongly decided and sent us down this pathway. SCOTUS said it was acceptable for it to be used to further diversity.
2. Discrimination isn't a relic of history. It is still happening today. It happened during Obama's lifetime.
3. Barack Obama is a descendent of an enslaved man.
4. I agree that elite universities were failing in lifting up the people who deserved and needed it the most. As I said in this thread, if there is one positive that could come out of this horrendous and disingenuous decision, it's forcing universities to use socioeconomic status as a proxy to get a diverse class. That'll be progress. That of course won't make it less of a bad decision, but at least it won't be all bad.

 

Why there won't be a backlash against the Supreme Court this time | CNN Politics

 

Why did they cut off her statement? She then said she did not go to a feeder school and she grew up in a small town in Colorado. She had good grades and SAT scores, but a Harvard recruiter came to her school looking for her profile. That is what she meant by affirmative action is why she got into Harvard.

 

I’ve told you this before and I’ll say it again…absolutely love your story and it’s easy to see through your writing you are an amazing person and story. I appreciate you sharing your background even if I don’t completely agree with you on the topic.
I was an educator and I am only one guy.
My experience was this: anyone who showed even an inkling of desire to receive more education could get it. The teachers and the entire counselor dept pulled strings, made calls, wrote letters to assist those students.
But It’s hard to help those who don’t want it.
I know other counselors who say their schools did the same and we all have multiple stories of helping blacks get into top Florida universities. We basically served as parents as many students didn’t grow up in an environment where education was valued.
Point is people aren’t trying to stop blacks from receiving education. They’re doing quite the opposite.

 

Yeah, apparently the purpose of that post was to make fun of Reid - a Harvard grad with an accomplished career - without actually understanding what she said.

Here's her piece for anyone who's interested.

I got into Harvard because of affirmative action. Some of my classmates got in for their wealth.

 

I think every student, regardless of color/ethnicity, has to meet the same standards, it's just that minorities are just that, a minority of the incoming applications. So they tried to make the acceptance class more balanced. I say just make it a first come first served basis for acceptance. You have a date to start taking applications, and the first x number of applicants that meet the criteria are the ones accepted. It could be 90% minority or not. Early birds get the worm.

 

Jesus dude. Utterly gross.

 

I know, she's always been that way

 

Finally something we agree on. You can’t. You haven’t offered anything on the subject except feelz. At the end of the day people like you have a religious dedication to keeping the scale tilted. Keep on tilting.

 

Seek help.

 

lol, Wow you guys/gals are extra sensitive today.

 

You dont feel slightly disingenuous propagating such a slanted piece of misinformation?