Affirmative Action at the Supreme Court: Post-Decision Analysis of SFFA v. Harvard/UNC
Vložit
- čas přidán 28. 06. 2023
- The Manhattan Institute hosted virtual event covering the Supreme Court’s upcoming blockbuster decision in two cases that challenge the use of racial preferences in higher-education admissions. A group called Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) sued Harvard University and the University of North Carolina-the nation’s oldest private and public universities, respectively-over their affirmative action policies, which the group contends are unconstitutional because they discriminate against Asian Americans. The challengers argue that the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI-the federal law that forbids race discrimination by private educational institutions that receive federal funding-require a race-neutral approach to accepting potential students.
In the 1978 Regents of the University of California v. Bakke case, the Supreme Court turned back a constitutional challenge to the use of race in admissions, allowing race to be considered as one of many factors. In 2003, the Court in Grutter v. Bollinger again narrowly upheld race-conscious admission practices, provided that they are “narrowly tailored” to further student-body diversity. The Court noted, however, that public universities' use of such admissions policies "must be limited in time."
Our virtual post-decision analysis on SFFA v. Harvard and SFFA v. UNC, featuring Gail Heriot, MI book fellow, member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, and University Professor at the San Diego School of Law; and Wai Wah Chin, MI adjunct fellow and founding president of the Chinese American Citizens Alliance of Greater New York. The event will be moderated by Ilya Shapiro, MI senior fellow and director of constitutional studies. Ed Blum, founder of SFFA and architect behind this litigation, was unable to attend. - Zábava
I’m all for getting rid of legacy students that doesn’t make the grade too.
So is everyone except legacy families
There is no major legacy tip for unqualified students like there is for unqualified black. My children, between my ex and I, have legacy at MIT, Cornell Engineering, Columbia, UChicago and UCLA. You know my children, 18 & 21, are both going to Tier 2 and Tier 3 schools. What legacy tip??
I would like to point out that legacy students bring something that everyone overlooks. We've all heard of the big donations that come with them. We forget that they bring useful human connections. Imagine a legacy admission and a purely merit admission as roommates in the dorm. The merit student from a poor background has the chance to meet the parents, perhaps even the friends of the parents. The poor kid needs better connections.
@@joanhuffman2166You are assuming legacy kids will share their connections with poor, PoC students - that’s highly unlikely.
@@jssenguyen3277White Guilt is enough.
a great day for America; Martin Luther King Jr. dream has come true; I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
Good satire.
Thanks for the discussion ☺️👍🇺🇸
I love listening to a variety of American thoughts, opinions - love our country, its Citizens and People. Have a good day! 🗽
I don’t understand how the “character” and “unique ability” exception in this decision doesn’t just throw the door wide open for racial preferences like “diversity” did. Admissions offices will simply find the blacks experienced adversity that give them unique abilities, insights, contributions to make, etc.
Precisely. It won’t change a thing..
But the black panels and anchors on MSM are calling SCOTUS racists, claiming there will be less black students, certainly this hurts black privilege.
Well think of the kids in 10 -15 years raised by the maga cult with a life of alternative facts and all the books they were banned from. This could be their only chance at a college admission.
Well if someone can sue the university and prove via discovery that they are rating equivalent “experiences” of Black applicants or something differently than others than they’ll win and the university will lose.
If they want to have a diverse campus. There are plenty of states that want to exclude Black students in higher education.
Word.
How come no one is talking about reaching down to Asian kids and helping them to get into the NBA and NFL etc… ? There are tons of Asian kids who want to be part of these organizations and they r also at disadvantage cuz of hundred of years not having the opp of sport education? I'd like to see more diversity in Hollywood, Music and Sports.
No one complains about lack of color and diversity and affirmative action in sports. Once there was a color barrier in sports and Jackie Robinson showed the whites that he was better. So why can’t blacks and other minorities show the white majority that they can get higher scores in academics? Why this double standard?
Maybe because white woke people keep telling them they can't do it without the help of white woke people.
The point being that if it was a serious attempt to redress historic discrimination in education (which historically is in secondary education), then that would mean looking at whether that inequality exists. But the Supreme Court has never been interested in this going all the way back to Brown Vs Board of education. AA in college admissions is explicitly designed to ignore the fact that the civil rights movement and previous cases like Brown vs Board were all about secondary education. Which proves the precedent for actual proof of discrimination and inequality in the American education system. So the first question would have to be does inequality still exist in American Education (obviously yes) and then after that is "Affirmative Action" in universities a way to address that inequality and finally if it is agreed that it is a way to address inequality THEN you would have the ability to debate whether that trumps the 14th Amendment and laws against discrimination. But they skipped the first 2 parts because all of these policies are voluntary policies promoted by institutions of their own accord and not due to any specific laws or policies implemented by the government to address historic discrimination. Because there is no such law or policy that actually exists and voluntary measures do not have the same weight as actual laws or official government policy (such as funding secondary education equally and fairly). Which means that this is nothing but a voluntary remedial measure designed to specifically IGNORE the actual ongoing discrimination in secondary education by promoting symbolic and token measures that totally do not address the actual historic discrimination in education that still exists.
Just go to any inner city school district and look at those schools then go to the suburban or white schools and compare. It is obvious that the discrimination still exists and this obsession over "AA" in universities has been a farce for the last 50 years. And the biggest way this is a farce is because it now creates this narrative that somehow Asians or women in college are being discriminated against, which ignores all historical facts. As if all the black people on TV and out in the streets in the 1950s were NOT being subject to discrimination when they needed the national guard to escort them to high school. How many Asians or Women were in university in the 1950s, when you didn't need a college degree for a "good job"? How many women and Asians attend college today? Obviously the numbers of these different groups in university have greatly increased DIRECTLY DUE to the civil rights movement itself. But what has been ignored and deliberately ignored is whether the historic inequality as seen in the little rock 9 has been addressed. Has that inequality been addressed? Of course not. And to even promote this nonsense that the fight against discrimination is about Asians or women ignoring Little Rock 9 and Brown vs Board is simple outright racism in its own way and this is from so called liberals no less. But this whole farcical comedy assumes that all children in America have access to an equal playing field by obsessing over college entrance which was never a focus of civil rights in the first place. Firstly because the secondary system in America has only existed since the mid 1800s and primarily first started with elementary school. And by the 1940s barely half of Americans even graduated high school. So all this talk about college as the basis of success in America is Bull crap. Because most of the historic discrimination in America had to do with basic human rights and basic human labor and basic education, not "college degrees". But these so called liberals will sit here and tell you that it is perfectly fine for blacks to go to sub standard schools as if that is normal and justified and not due historic discrimination. Moving the goal posts to act like somehow black people in America didn't get ahead because they just didn't work hard enough to get college degrees. Please. These people are sickening especially when they then try and throw Asians in the discussion when Asians didn't exist in America at these universities in the 1940s and 1950s like they do today. They couldn't come here then. Lets not even talk about international student visas that didn't even exist in the 1940s and 1950s and primarily also benefit Asians. But these liberals are more worried about pandering to them than they are to actually addressing the historic discrimination against black people.
Japanese concentration camps in the USA during WWII?
And almost all school principals in Hawaii got Japanese surnames?
@@siewheilou399 The Japanese are irrelevant to this discussion but since you brought them up lets go there. During WW II only 120,000 Japanese were in the USA. Many of them were there because during the previous 50 years before the war, Japan and the West had good relations. In fact, they were the most advanced Asian country of their time and there was a lot of educational and knowledge exchanges going on between Japan and America. And all of that educational know how and adoption of western technology helped build up Japan prior to WW II. But the flow of Japanese and Asians stopped due to the immigration act of 1924 which limited immigration from Asia.
Outside of Japan, most Asian countries were nowhere near as advanced as they are today. Taiwan ROC didn't exist until 1945. China was still mostly agricultural and so was Korea. In India secondary education standards were still developing and IIT didn't exist.
In the USA most Universities outside of HBCUs were white and most immigrants came from Europe. Because that is what the country wanted the makeup of the population to be. So Asians were not here in large enough numbers to be relevant to the discussion. And the reason whites were getting ahead is because of the overt policies of the government based on race. So merit never had anything to do with success in this country.
All of the advances for Asians in the USA came about directly because of the struggle and sacrifice of black Americans in the Civil Rights era. And all the large numbers of Asians in America came in after that because of the immigration act of 1965. All of that is tied to the rise of the high tech economy that didn't exist in 1950. And that includes the rise of Asian Americans on campuses, the rise of Asians in America on student visas, the rise of Asian workers in America due to work visas. None of that existed in 1950.
@@dnifty1
Japanese practically dominated the education sector in Hawaii. And certainly the number of Japanese was already large enough to put them into concentration camps.
@@siewheilou399 Again, the point was that there weren't large numbers of Asians in America in the 1940s trying to get into university compared to today. Those that were here and in university were mostly Japanese. Outside of that, most other Asian groups were not educated enough in their home countries or not able to come here even if they were. Asians in that time frame, outside of Japan, were not seen as "advanced economies" in any way compared to today. The point being that Civil Rights in that time frame was primarily about the African Americans who were here and facing systematic discrimination and racism. It wasn't about competing with Asians to get into university. This is simply not historically relevant to what was going on. Most of the Asians in America today only got here in the time period since the civil rights act.
@@dnifty1But other than Japanese, Chinese fought to get into schools too.
czcams.com/video/tCzfEAuoBbo/video.html
And mostly overlooked were Chinese schools for primary and secondary education, no mention of tertiary education.
And some religions based universities took in non-white students based on their religions. Like Wesleyan College which Soong sisters attended, that once accepted only Methodist- Episcopal women.
The schools will get around this ruling. Like California getting rid of the SAT which excludes a data point that would prove the racist admissions
This is just eliminating standards because you can't create objective race neutral standards standards that will get you the results you want.
Why isn’t anyone addressing the elephant in the room? Why aren’t the minorities competing so they can achieve the higher scores? It starts at the grade school level. Why not test early like other countries do and focus on them? Particularly in the low income communities. They used to do that here in some communities. Not everyone is born intellectually equal.
But you're forgetting what's to become of their competition after being raised by alternative facts .
They aren't addressing it because "Affirmative Action" was never meant to address inequality in secondary education. .
Lmao. You're clearly from a decent background. You have never seen poor's in their natural habitat.
Whether one likes it or not, the fact is that standardized achievement tests tend to load quite heavily on general intelligence (psychometric g), which becomes more heritable with age throughout childhood, and there's no clear evidence showing that it can be increased.
Yes and that's not a race issue. I know you desperately want to believe it is but you have no understanding if you've concluded that is a race problem. Also based on this case it's just ridiculous. Propaganda made it seem like a black person with a 2.5 GPA was being let into Harvard based on affirmative action when that was no the case Every person who was admitted into Harvard met their academic standard. For example, the standard is a 4.0 GPA The complaint from Asians is the that they may have got a very high SAT score: 1580 and not a 1530 the black student got but was rejected which is most likely because they only have high SAT scores. Once the Academic requirement was met other things come into play.
Just come out and say no Blacks. It's okay, we know.
These two panelists are oversimplifying the discussion, clearly. You need a scholar who can offer some insight on the opposing viewpoint.
I think this is a pretty good debate between proponents of both sides.
czcams.com/video/5YhLN-jhvLQ/video.html
Re: SFFA v. Harvard College (June 30, 2023).
There are several preferential admissions programs at Harvard that can lawfully operate to the detriment of highly qualified applicants. E.g., the preferential admissions program for "faculty brats," or the one for children of donors, or the one for legacy admissions, or the one for athletes, etc. So, even completely eliminating the AA program might not significantly increase the percentage of Asian applicants admitted to Harvard, and might even reduce it in the long run.
[NB: For the record, I don't necessarily object to the preferential admissions programs
for faculty brats, legacies, athletes, donors, etc. On the contrary, I want to add more.
In particular, I favor also granting preferential admission to the descendants of the groups
whose dispossession, enslavement, or destruction made it possible to establish many of
America's wonderful colleges and universities. (WATCH: "An Unacknowledged Legacy:
Land Grant Colleges and the Dispossession of American Indians." Univ. of California-Riverside
(6/11/2019).
What I object to is an interpretation of the Constitution that makes it extremely difficult to
grant preferential admission to the descendants of the groups whose sacrifices made it
possible to establish many of America's colleges and universities. WATCH: "An Unacknowledged
Legacy: Land Grant Colleges and the Dispossession of American Indians." [Several months ago,
I was perusing a modern map of the continental US and I was very surprised by the number of
existing "Indian Reservations." Riddle me this: What's the difference between a "reservation" and a
"ghetto" ?].
So a bunch of white people oppressed a bunch of black people, so to make things right we have to discriminate against a bunch of asian people in favor of a bunch of black people (most of whom have no connection to the previously oppressed black people other than the color of their skin). There were literally more black slave owners than asian slave owners but a bunch of mostly white people have decided that asian kids will have to make some sacrifices to make things right.
I can't speak for every asian on the planet but I am much more concerned that asian children are being told that it is in their best interests to hide their race than whether there are 400 asians or 500 asians at Harvard. I am much more concerned with the casual attitude towards racism against asians and the attempts to gaslight asians into thinking they are being racist for objecting to racism directed their way.
*Promo sm* 💐
This discussion seems like its more about keeping black people out. I notice they didn't mention 3 justices rejected the argument that Descendants of Slavery was not a sufficient proxy because there is precedent and it is based on harm and is remedial. I noticed this group stayed away from this.
Nothing justifies discrimination against any group and affirmative action is discriminatory against some groups
@@majedtaleb3944 Is Jim Crow and Lynching people and then flying Confederate flags in their face discrimination?