[removed]

I haven't heard one person who really knows about the case who doesn't think SCOTUS is going to rule against Harvard and probably squash affirmative action entirely. So yeah, this rings true to me.

Yeah - I was pretty surprised that there could be this much certainty in any court ruling this controversial, but it seems that the stance of each supreme court justice is well understood.

I’m not surprised—Edward Blum also helped spearhead (along with others) Shelby County v. Holder in 2013 after not winning in 2009 for some utility district IIRC. He’s behind “Students for Fair Admissions.” He lost in 2016 in Abigail Fisher v. UT Austin IIRC, so 7 years later he’s trying again with Harvard and a FAR more conservative court, even when Scalia was still alive.

Oh interesting, I didn't know that.

[removed]

When are they expected to rule on this case?

Collegeboard says it's expected by June 2023.

[deleted]

Good, then perhaps they can get rid of their own diversity hires

[removed]

[deleted]

Instead of affirmative action based on race, why don’t they create a system that gives chances to individuals who grew up in school districts that receive minimal funding. Those that deserve help will receive it, regardless of race

Someday perhaps we can judge people by the content of their character and not the color of their skin.

Jesus Christ, I gotta get outta here

[deleted]

I don't like this SCOTUS and can definitely accept that we have race based inequality in our country. However, I will say I won't be sad to see affirmative action practices struck down. I think its an inadequate way to address systemic inequalities.

Because most school districts receive similar funding in the US.

I did not know that. Still does not mean all school districts are created equally though. There are definitely some where the students are not offered the same quality of education

Pulling folks with dark skins back up after racists pushed them down is bad now. Ok got it.

I don’t think that’s true - lots of funding is based on local taxes and those don’t bring in the same revenue everywhere

Offset by state and federal funding. See here.

> on average, poor students attend schools that are at least as well-funded as their more advantaged peers.

[removed]

That article also says that there are big differences in funding across states

Gender based affirmative action has long been accepted and practiced. The female Supreme Court Justice, Amy Berrett, was nominated by Trump because of her gender. to replace Justice Ginsburg. Now imagine the same Justice, to rule against race based affirmative action.

I was mostly alluding to that as the only possible reason Clarence Thomas would make the court. Sadly it wasn't affirmative action, but rather corruption that got him a seat.

Colleges already do that.

The oral argument already happened. It's usually pretty clear how most of the justices are going to vote based on the questions they ask, not to mention their past decisions/writings on the topic.

And for this particular issue, the last time affirmative action was in front of the court it was 4-3 to uphold it. All three dissenting votes are still on the court, while three of the four from the majority have left. Add in Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett who weren't on the court at the time, and it's pretty likely at least two of them will vote to strike down AA.

> Those that deserve help will receive it, regardless of race

That's why they don't do it.

Fair, there's variance, but I don't see what this has to do with outcomes of students.

Utah has high test scores, and low funding. DC the exact opposite.

Lower income districts receive MORE funding... throwing money at schools doesn't fix bad/absent parenting.

Of course, the supreme court is not based in law anymore its based in the feelings of the right

The question I ask as a Canadian where human rights are protected by law.

Why doesn't the US have that too?

We are very far from perfect and we have many years to go still . . . But on the whole, we don't take kindly to racism. We have come a long way from being the tormentors of the indigenous we were.

There are more potential outcomes than these...a lot of times a ruling will chip away at one aspect or just be somewhere in the middle (like when they approved affirmative action, they included a 25 year sunset after which they posited it wouldn't be needed anymore.... it wasn't a flat blanket approval), so the use of an either/or model is overly simple.

To be fair fellow Canadian, Canadian universities do something similar, especially at law and med schools. Black & Indigenous students have lower GPA and LSAT/MCAT requirements for admission. Technically, that does mean that somebody of a different race can be passed over for a seat even if they have a stronger application since there are limited seats. Not commenting on whether that's right or wrong, just pointing it out.

And the US does protect many human rights by law, which is why their Supreme Court will probably rule against Harvard.

Understand now. Thank you. I used to follow the issues but Trump kinda ruined politics for me. Too much trolling.

I'll look into this story.

>Someday perhaps we can judge people by the content of their character and not the color of their skin.

That's not going to happen in the near future.

In America, that's never been the case.

>Black & Indigenous students have lower GPA and LSAT/MCAT requirements for admission. Technically, that does mean that somebody of a different race can be passed over for a seat even if they have a stronger application since there are limited seats

Source? I'm not Canadian but I had no idea that Canada had a similar system.

You can find the info on some of the requirements pages of law/med schools. Most have separate "Black Student" and "Indigenous Student" streams. Some schools outright list the less rigorous standards.

Here are the requirements for Queens Law. General students need at least a 3.7 GPA, Black students need a 3.5.

Not saying that that's wrong, I agree with the idea that a meritocracy is only fair when everyone starts at the same place. But racial discrimination does get icky.

I prefer the way some other schools in Canada do it, by looking at economic factors instead. Instead of asking "are you race X", they ask "Have you ever been to a food bank, are your parents unemployed, etc".

That's so icky to me.

Is this not illegal in Canada as well then?

And to have it so brazenly on a site is beyond outrageous.

At least schools in the US try and pretend that they don't use it often (not saying it's acceptable but it's outrageous to me either way).

>I prefer the way some other schools in Canada do it, by looking at economic factors instead. Instead of asking "are you race X", they ask "Have you ever been to a good bank, are your parents unemployed, etc".

I have no problem with this.

That's how the UK does it at the moment.

Well it might be unconstitutional. Race is a protected class and racial discrimination is explicitly forbidden in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

>Everyone is equal and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination, especially discrimination based on race, national or ethic origin, color, religion, sex, age, or mental or physical disability. This right does not preclude laws designed to ameliorate disadvantageous conditions that exist because of these factors.

I suppose where it gets messy is that these schools aren't penalizing a specific race like Harvard is, they're boosting 2 other races. Now that last part in the Charter

>This right does not preclude laws designed to ameliorate disadvantageous conditions that exist because of these factors.

might make it legal. The government can make laws to help/protect a race that is affected by discrimination. Can universities make policies that do the same? A court would have to decide, and I don't think anyone has taken these schools to court over this yet.

But I'm not a lawyer, so take that all with a grain of salt.

supreme court coming in clutch for my college apps lmao.

[removed]