Thanks @New York Times Podcasts for posting this video about affirmative action / supreme court. Here are the viewpoints expressed by Supreme Court justices regarding affirmative action. 1) This case is about a group called Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) who sued Harvard College and the University of North Carolina (UNC). They said that these schools were not fair in their admissions process because they were using race as a factor, which they believed was against the law. The law they referred to is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment*. 2) The Equal Protection Clause is a part of the Fourteenth Amendment that says that every person should be treated equally by the law, no matter their race, color, or nationality. The SFFA believed that by considering race in admissions, Harvard and UNC were not treating all applicants equally. 3) The Court looked at the history of the Fourteenth Amendment and how it has been used in the past. They also looked at how other cases involving race and college admissions were handled. They found that while diversity in a student body can be a good thing, it must be handled in a way that treats all applicants fairly and equally. 4) The Court also looked at the idea of "strict scrutiny*". This is a way for the courts to look at laws to see if they are fair and necessary. If a law or policy is found to be unfair or unnecessary, it may not pass strict scrutiny and could be considered unconstitutional. 5) The Court found that the admissions systems at Harvard and UNC did not pass strict scrutiny. They said that the schools' use of race in admissions was not clear or specific enough, and it resulted in fewer admissions for certain racial groups. They also said that the schools' use of race in admissions seemed to stereotype certain racial groups, which is not allowed. 6) The Court also said that the schools' admissions systems did not have a clear end point. This means that there was no clear plan for when the schools would stop using race as a factor in admissions. This was another reason why the Court said the schools' admissions systems were not fair. 7) The Court decided that the admissions systems at Harvard and UNC were not fair and did not follow the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. They said that the schools' use of race in admissions was not clear, specific, or fair enough to be allowed. 8) However, the Court also said that schools can consider how race has affected an applicant's life. They can look at how an applicant's experiences with their race have shaped them and what they can bring to the school because of those experiences. 9) In the end, the Court decided that the admissions systems at Harvard and UNC were not fair and did not follow the law. They said that the schools' use of race in admissions was not allowed because it was not clear, specific, or fair enough. 10) So, the Court decided that the SFFA was right. They said that Harvard and UNC were not treating all applicants equally in their admissions process, which is against the law. They said that the schools needed to change their admissions systems to be fair to all applicants, no matter their race. *The Equal Protection Clause is a part of the Fourteenth Amendment that says that every person should be treated equally by the law, no matter their race, color, or nationality. *Strict scrutiny is a way for the courts to look at laws to see if they are fair and necessary. If a law or policy is found to be unfair or unnecessary, it may not pass strict scrutiny and could be considered unconstitutional.
Wealth based Affirmative Action has been going on long before race based affirmative action. The main points mentioned here were also exposed in the SFFA v Harvard lawsuit, especially in the briefs and testimony of economist Peter Arcidiacono. However, mainstream media has been presenting wealth based affirmative action as a new discovery arising from “new” research or “new” analysis, when in fact they chose to ignore this for many, many years, instead focusing on race. The Harvard lawsuit exposed where the real tip of the scale is placed - for the very wealthy, and not black kids, especially poor black kids (since Harvard prefers rich black kids to poor black kids). The NYT is only now reporting affirmative action for the very wealthy only after race based affirmative was outlawed. I promise you, if Harvard had prevailed, we would be hearing none of this.
It can't be said too often: the real prejudice our culture isn't race based it's socioeconomic. There are one set of rules for the rich and another for the not rich. Does race have a role in this? Yes but if we eliminate the unearned privileges given to those who have been lucky enough to be born into wealth we will see that it also will eliminate much of the racial disparities caused by a lack of wealth as well. The wealthy want us to be focused on race because they know that if we really want equality we need to look beyond race and focus on fixing the tool most used against racial minorities: the denial of wealth and the opportunities and upward mobility that wealth provides.
Race based affirmative action provided cover for wealth based affirmative action. It was almost a social contract. Now that race based affirmative action is gone, the social contract has been broken and wealth based affirmative action will be targeted.
Legacy, Sports programs and endowment certainly play part of the equation. States and Federal Government doesn't support schools the way they used to. Sad that so many don't even bother with the admissions process or applying thinking they have Zero chance at any higher ed education. A High school often has thousands of students🤓
listening to this is hard. because there is no constitutional basis to challenge these legacy admission with due process. What legal standing does lawyers have to challenge private schools, challenge polished applications and essays, or challenge athletes admissions given that the kids who are privileged enough to do this and they are also excellent students. even the merely affluent are getting the short end of the stick. huuhuuuu
The psychopathic 1% would only become more powerful as they would now realise how to manipulate those (the majority of humanity) who have a conscience. They may learn what passes for morality, but they can never apply it to their own behaviour. Moral behaviour is an alien concept to them.
Thanks @New York Times Podcasts for posting this video about affirmative action / supreme court. Here are the viewpoints expressed by Supreme Court justices regarding affirmative action.
1) This case is about a group called Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) who sued Harvard College and the University of North Carolina (UNC). They said that these schools were not fair in their admissions process because they were using race as a factor, which they believed was against the law. The law they referred to is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment*.
2) The Equal Protection Clause is a part of the Fourteenth Amendment that says that every person should be treated equally by the law, no matter their race, color, or nationality. The SFFA believed that by considering race in admissions, Harvard and UNC were not treating all applicants equally.
3) The Court looked at the history of the Fourteenth Amendment and how it has been used in the past. They also looked at how other cases involving race and college admissions were handled. They found that while diversity in a student body can be a good thing, it must be handled in a way that treats all applicants fairly and equally.
4) The Court also looked at the idea of "strict scrutiny*". This is a way for the courts to look at laws to see if they are fair and necessary. If a law or policy is found to be unfair or unnecessary, it may not pass strict scrutiny and could be considered unconstitutional.
5) The Court found that the admissions systems at Harvard and UNC did not pass strict scrutiny. They said that the schools' use of race in admissions was not clear or specific enough, and it resulted in fewer admissions for certain racial groups. They also said that the schools' use of race in admissions seemed to stereotype certain racial groups, which is not allowed.
6) The Court also said that the schools' admissions systems did not have a clear end point. This means that there was no clear plan for when the schools would stop using race as a factor in admissions. This was another reason why the Court said the schools' admissions systems were not fair.
7) The Court decided that the admissions systems at Harvard and UNC were not fair and did not follow the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. They said that the schools' use of race in admissions was not clear, specific, or fair enough to be allowed.
8) However, the Court also said that schools can consider how race has affected an applicant's life. They can look at how an applicant's experiences with their race have shaped them and what they can bring to the school because of those experiences.
9) In the end, the Court decided that the admissions systems at Harvard and UNC were not fair and did not follow the law. They said that the schools' use of race in admissions was not allowed because it was not clear, specific, or fair enough.
10) So, the Court decided that the SFFA was right. They said that Harvard and UNC were not treating all applicants equally in their admissions process, which is against the law. They said that the schools needed to change their admissions systems to be fair to all applicants, no matter their race.
*The Equal Protection Clause is a part of the Fourteenth Amendment that says that every person should be treated equally by the law, no matter their race, color, or nationality.
*Strict scrutiny is a way for the courts to look at laws to see if they are fair and necessary. If a law or policy is found to be unfair or unnecessary, it may not pass strict scrutiny and could be considered unconstitutional.
Wealth based Affirmative Action has been going on long before race based affirmative action. The main points mentioned here were also exposed in the SFFA v Harvard lawsuit, especially in the briefs and testimony of economist Peter Arcidiacono. However, mainstream media has been presenting wealth based affirmative action as a new discovery arising from “new” research or “new” analysis, when in fact they chose to ignore this for many, many years, instead focusing on race. The Harvard lawsuit exposed where the real tip of the scale is placed - for the very wealthy, and not black kids, especially poor black kids (since Harvard prefers rich black kids to poor black kids). The NYT is only now reporting affirmative action for the very wealthy only after race based affirmative was outlawed. I promise you, if Harvard had prevailed, we would be hearing none of this.
It can't be said too often: the real prejudice our culture isn't race based it's socioeconomic. There are one set of rules for the rich and another for the not rich. Does race have a role in this? Yes but if we eliminate the unearned privileges given to those who have been lucky enough to be born into wealth we will see that it also will eliminate much of the racial disparities caused by a lack of wealth as well. The wealthy want us to be focused on race because they know that if we really want equality we need to look beyond race and focus on fixing the tool most used against racial minorities: the denial of wealth and the opportunities and upward mobility that wealth provides.
Race based affirmative action provided cover for wealth based affirmative action.
It was almost a social contract.
Now that race based affirmative action is gone, the social contract has been broken and wealth based affirmative action will be targeted.
All I hear is envy and resentment !
Legacy, Sports programs and endowment certainly play part of the equation. States and Federal Government doesn't support schools the way they used to.
Sad that so many don't even bother with the admissions process or applying thinking they have Zero chance at any higher ed education. A High school often has thousands of students🤓
Or ignore the problem at ivy League colleges and make the 2-4 tier colleges much better focus money in those directions
Asian Americans should have their own version of HBCU'S. Blacks have over 100 HBCU's yet cry Victimhood.😂
listening to this is hard. because there is no constitutional basis to challenge these legacy admission with due process. What legal standing does lawyers have to challenge private schools, challenge polished applications and essays, or challenge athletes admissions given that the kids who are privileged enough to do this and they are also excellent students. even the merely affluent are getting the short end of the stick. huuhuuuu
Maybe we get the 1% some affirmative action in learning and applying morals and ethics.
The psychopathic 1% would only become more powerful as they would now realise how to manipulate those (the majority of humanity) who have a conscience. They may learn what passes for morality, but they can never apply it to their own behaviour. Moral behaviour is an alien concept to them.
Sortition, and kick out non-performers
Hmmm hmm HMMMM… hmm