In a decision handed down today, the United States Supreme Court banned the use of race-based affirmative action in college admissions. The six conservative justices voted for the decision, the three moderate-liberal justices voted against it.
The media coverage stresses the likelihood that entrants to elite universities will become more Asian and more white, because of reliance on standardized tests, where those two groups typically have higher scores.
But we do not yet know how much it matters to eliminate official policies of affirmative action.
Most colleges in this country admit everyone who applies, so the elimination of affirmative action won’t change anything for them.
The elite colleges have many more applicants than openings. This is where the elimination of affirmative action is expected to matter. The top colleges often have five or ten times more applicants than spaces.
But selective colleges don’t rely solely on standardized test scores to fill their freshman class. They consider a variety of factors, including grade point average, the student’s participation in non-academic activities, students’ essays, and other factors. They may give preferences to fill their athletic teams, to provide enrollment for all majors, to recruit talented musicians, to accept “legacy” students, the children of alums.
In addition, growing numbers of selective colleges are test-optional, so the tests don’t matter for them.
After nearly 50 years of affirmative action, most elite colleges have internalized the norms of equity, diversion and inclusion. They have welcomed the diversification of faculty, students, and staff. How likely are they to abandon those norms? Not likely, in my view.
My own undergraduate college is led by a very respected African American woman; the director of admissions is also an African American woman. Harvard University has a new president, an African American woman. I doubt that the ethnic profiles of such institutions will change much if at all.
Conservatives have forgotten that President Richard Nixon started affirmative action. That decision was hotly debated but never abandoned until now. At the time, in the late 1970s, I questioned a system that gave points for skin color but in retrospect, I think Nixon’s policy was a great success. It generated a significant number of Black professional. That’s good for Anerican society.
I doubt that the decision today will curtail access to higher education for Black students, not even in the elite colleges that are the target of today’s decision. Diversity, equity and inclusion have become the norm.

I think Nixon’s policy was a great success. It generated a significant number of Black professionals. That’s good for American society.
That says it all.
LikeLike
Conservatives from Nixon’s era, and Eisenhower, and even Regan wouldn’t recognize many of the elected members of the Republican party today as conservatives or the MAGA voters as conservatives.
New York magazine ran an Op-Ed piece about that: “Conservatism and fascism are not the same thing”
… “It is vital to understand the interplay between authoritarian logic and standard-issue conservative politics. My long-standing contention is that the two overlap heavily — that is, rather than having descended suddenly in the form of Donald Trump’s hostile takeover of the party, right-wing authoritarianism grew out of the conservative movement organically.” …
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/conservatism-and-fascism-are-not-the-same-thing.html
The conclusion of this OpEd: … “What’s dangerous about the modern right is not its social-policy agenda but its refusal to share power or accept the legitimacy of Democratic election victories and majoritarian governance.
“The idea that conservatives can’t pursue their policy goals democratically is dangerous. Treating all conservative politics as undemocratic is paradoxically to reinforce that poisonous belief.”
LikeLike
If you look back to the late 1950s and 1960s, the National Review, the primary Conservative propaganda organ of the time, was co-founded by Revilo Pendleton Oliver (along with William F. Buckley), an American white supremacist and mentor of William Luther Pierce, who founded National Alliance neo-Nazi group and wrote The Turner Diaries–the white supremacist novel calling for the extermination of nonwhites worldwide that introduced the neo-Nazi meme “The Day of the Rope.”
So, while some conservatives of the past might not recognize the current neo-Nazi Repugnican Party, many of them would be quite at home. Trump brought BACK OUT the conservative Fascism and racism that had been dormant.
LikeLike
My own view, which I realize many here won’t share, is that this was a good decision. I expect it will have some impact on the demographics of elite colleges and universities, but I also expect those institutions to try to find other methods to continue to maintain a certain racial balance. And I expect there will be new litigation over those methods.
LikeLike
Sure, it makes so much sense in a country with PROFOUND current economic disparity along racial lines due to a history of PROFOUND economic discrimination over CENTURIES, to pretend that everything’s all equal now because we said, “Hey, everything’s all equal now.”
TALK ABOUT NOT LIVING IN THE FREAKING REAL WORLD
LikeLike
I won’t try to convince you. But people shouldn’t pretend this decision was way out of step with what most Americans think. Making admissions decisions based on the applicant’s race is not very popular.
LikeLike
Neither is making reparations for the horrors done to black and brown people and continuing to be done. Where, for example, is Americans’ outrage at Trump and Miller and a half dozen Repugnican governors for kidnapping brown folks and separating them from their children?
LikeLike
Bob I think the border separations of parents from children is up there with the most sad and despicable events in American history. If John Roberts thinks racism is washed away in our time, he has a block in his thinker the size of Texas. The man is so out of touch, I’ll bet the soles of his shoes never show wear. CBK
LikeLike
Exactly right, CBK. Taking those kids from their parents was just pure evil. In a just society, those responsible for doing that would be charged with kidnapping–as many counts of that as there were kids.
LikeLike
I would share what I think of people thinking that this decision is OK, but Diane does not allow such language on her blog.
LikeLike
“Making decisions based on the applicant’s race” is a racist trope that goes back to first opposing voices to the Brown decision. No institution makes such decisions. Race is rightly one factor in the admissions process. Not the only one as racist absolutists would have us believe.
LikeLike
Of course
LikeLike
Phrase it however you like, Greg. “Having an applicant’s race be a factor in whether he or she is admitted to college is not very popular.” Happy?
People aren’t as stupid as you think. There are plenty of applicants who would not have gotten into these schools if they had been a different race. And there are plenty who were rejected would have gotten in if they had been a different race.
Unlike Dobbs, this is a decision that is perfectly in step with how Americans feel about the matter.
LikeLike
That’s a sad statement about “Americans.”
Read this. Then, let’s talk. In the face of this, affirmative action is small potatoes.
https://oag.ca.gov/ab3121/report
LikeLike
“The whole ancient city has come tumbling down in this disaster caused by examining and analysing; and all that’s left of it is a panicked population thrashing about in the ruins, not knowing what stone to lay their head on, camping out in the storm, demanding a solid and permanent refuge where they can make a fresh start…So you shouldn’t be surprised if we’re discouraged or impatient. We can’t wait any longer. Science is too slow and has gone bankrupt, so we prefer to fall back – yes! – on bygone beliefs which, for centuries, were enough to make the world happy.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m not opposed to reparations in theory, although the price tag probably makes it politically infeasible.
True reparations are impossible. And affirmative action in perpetuity (and it would have to be in perpetuity, given that America’s debt to descendants of slavery can never be repaid) is not a good vehicle for reparations.
The best proxy for reparations is a strong social safety net. Healthcare, housing, guaranteed income in old age. Unfortunately, these are all under political attack from the right. But on the plus side, I think most Americans believe in those things.
LikeLike
FLERP!,
“There are plenty of applicants who would not have gotten into these schools if they had been a different race.”
Are you talking about Jared Kushner, Ivanka Trump, Tiffany Trump, Donald Trump Jr., and the myriad of other white applicants who benefit from the Supreme Court saying that it is fine to take an applicant’s wealth into consideration but not their race?
Elite college admissions criteria have long been gamed to give boosts to privileged white applicants who would not otherwise gotten into the schools. Asian applicants, middle class white applicants, underrepresented minority applicants — who together comprise a large percentage of the applicants — all fight over whatever seats are left after the students admitted based on criteria that heavily favors already privileged white applicants get their admissions boost.
Giving admissions preferences to applicants whose families were able to accumulate massive wealth favors white applicants. Giving admissions preferences to elite private school students over public school students favors families rich enough to pay upwards of $50,000/year tuition for 13 years, which favors wealthy white applicants.
Admitting students based on their skill in a sport primarily played by affluent white students, where from a young age families bear a significant cost for their kid to participate, favors white applicants. The common trope – a myth – is that African American students recruited to play on elite college basketball and football teams are MOST of the athletes recruited. But most of the recruited athletes are white, because elite colleges feel obligated to generously finance sports that very few students and alum care about, although the alums that do are very likely to be white and rich. So there is an admissions boost for applicants who excel at sports that students whose families are rich (ie more likely to be white) play: squash, lacrosse, fencing, golf, water polo, field hockey, sailing, lightweight and heavyweight crew, diving and swimming and ice hockey. Not to mention tennis, which at least is a sport that can be played without a significant investment of time and money by a parent, although not surprisingly most recruited tennis players at elite colleges did have parents able to devote huge amounts of time and money to their sport.
And as we know from the Harvard and Stanford scandals, there seems to be a long tradition of very rich college athletes whose parents can donate lavishly to the athletic program getting admitted with the “legal” admissions boost of being a fencing or sailing “recuit” despite there being dozens of BETTER fencers or tennis players who weren’t admitted. “But my kid was a good fencer so as long as he was a good fencer, it’s okay that it was admitted over BETTER fencers who applied.”
Which is the real hypocrisy here. When the Jared Kushners and Ivanka Trumps are admitted over an Asian student from Stuy with a far better academic record, and “good” tennis players or fencers with billionaire fathers are admitted over an upper middle class or middle class Asian or white applicant who is by all measurements the better athlete, the rules of the game change. Fairness is re-defined to mean that an extremely privileged applicant only has to be “good enough” and it doesn’t matter that there are dozens or hundreds of rejected applicants who are better. When the group of applicants given unfair admissions boosts over applicants with better grades and test scores and talents is primarily white, all the arguments made by folks pretending to care about how the process is “unfair” to Asian students is thrown out the window.
The Asian American community doesn’t speak with one voice against affirmative action. And many Asian Americans who are in elite schools or graduated from elite schools are critical of this Supreme Court decision. Because they have seen the reality – that there are lots of very rich, primarily white students who are admitted despite rejected applicants having better test scores and/or gpas. And lowering standards to admit an applicant who already had 13 years of the best education money can buy (plus unlimited private tutors) is far more problematic than lowering the standards for a underrepresented minority who did NOT have those advantages and who will likely thrive and excel when given a small amount of the advantages the very rich student has already had for 13 years. The Jared Kushners and Trump siblings who have already been coddled and privileged for years should be the ones required to be better than all the other applicants. It’s a shame that many Asian families don’t realize that those privileged students take more seats than students admitted via affirmative action. And I suspect the joke is on them, because most of their kids will still get rejected while applicants with worse academic records are admitted. It seems illogical that it’s more “fair” if a hard working Asian student loses their seat to a very rich applicant who, despite already been given every advantage, still has lower test scores, but it’s “unfair” if a hard working Asian applicant gets rejected in favor of an URM applicant who has lower test scores but excelled under very trying circumstances.
I find it laughable that it’s not okay to consider race, but it is okay to use other considerations that favor applicants who are very, very rich — which just “coincidentally” just happens to include very few applicants who aren’t white.* When the pool of applicants who are allowed to “legally” get admissions boosts just happens to benefit a group of applicants that has a very low percentage of URM students, it isn’t surprising that there are very few URM students.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well said, NYCPSP!
LikeLike
NYC public school parent Yes, . . . the present system is just another version (writ-large) of what goes by “self-dealing” in businesses by individuals (writ-small).
In the case of SCOTUS decisions, it’s groups and not individuals who are self-dealing: the mainly white and rich group dealing to white and rich people. The group remains mostly white, and the rich get richer, now overtly by formal rich-white design.
While the screwing of the poor, the “working class,” people of color, and now “problematic” gender situations, gets written into formal law. Writ-large democracy slides downward by getting gaslighted, again, and SCOTUS, who is supposed to be the “supreme” moderator of the law in a democracy, shoots itself in the foot and writes its own walking papers. CBK
LikeLike
Universities are the ones who have decided to use legacy status and athletics as bases to admit students. They could stop doing that tomorrow if they want. Perhaps if they’re pressured enough, they will. But the ball is in their court. There’s no argument that it’s illegal to use legacy status or athletics as admissions factors (maybe states could pass legislation that changes that), so at the moment there’s no good basis to sue the universities to force them to stop using them.
LikeLike
FLERP!,
If I understand your point, what you are saying that universities are now free to give admissions preferences to groups that have very high percentages of students who are white and very few students who are African American, as long as they don’t SAY that their goal is to favor students of a certain race? Giving admissions preferences – filling 20% or 30% or 40% of the seats – to a group that is primarily white and almost entirely excludes African American applicants is legal as long as the college can profess to be shocked, shocked that so few URM students were in that group of students whose parents are billionaires who get special admissions preferences? “Oops, we accidentally created a group of applicants who we can admit over Asian students with higher test scores that doesn’t include Black students. Glad everyone is good with that!”
I mean, who wouldn’t be absolutely shocked that when you give admissions preferences to students whose families are billionaires, that group would be mainly white students and there are almost no URM among them? Who wouldn’t be shocked that when you give admissions preferences to lacrosse players and students who sail competitively, that there would be almost no Black students in that group being given admissions preferences! Admitting students from those groups to fill 20% of the seats even though we are rejecting so many Asian applicants with better test scores is perfectly fine!
It would be a perfect response for elite colleges to create new groups of students to give admissions advantages to that “have nothing to do with race”, just like the admissions boost given to lacrosse players and billionaires’ children “has nothing to do with race”. And yet — purely by coincidence of course — somehow results in very few students who aren’t Black being admitted. Perhaps Harvard will announce it will be giving admissions preferences to students who themselves or whose extended family members have been victimized by aggressive treatment from police. After all, that could include a student of any race, just like giving advantages to billionaire applicants or lacrosse players can include students of any race. It’s purely coincidence that almost all the applicants admitted from the billionaire and lacrosse group are white and that almost all the applicants admitted from the pool of students who have themselves, or had family members victimized by aggressive treatment from police are Black.
LikeLike
I’m saying what I said, which is that legacy preferences were created by universities, and universities can end them tomorrow if they want to. Anyone angry about that should complain to the universities or state legislators.
LikeLike
Give me a break, FLERP. By your logic, the SCOTUS decision was nonsense, as colleges could also stop affirmative action whenever they want. Why didn’t the Ed Blum folks just give ’em a call instead of spending millions to litigate?
LikeLike
FLERP! Why are you changing the subject? I suggested an immediate fix.
As you keep pointing out, it is still legal to give admissions preferences to certain categories of applicants, and those applicants are legally allowed to be admitted over Asian students with better academic records. The reason that elite colleges are still legally allowed to admit students from these special categories over higher performing Asian students is because the colleges do not consider race when they give admissions preferences to those applicants. It is just a coincidence that the applicants in those categories are primarily white and those categories have very few Black students. So when the mostly white applicants in those special categories are admitted over higher performing Asian students, it is perfectly legal.
An immediate fix would be for elite colleges to create more groups of applicants who can be admitted over higher achieving Asian students. I give colleges the benefit of the doubt that when they give special preferences and admit billionaire’s kids and lacrosse players over more qualified Asian students, they are as surprised as you and I are that so many white students would be admitted over more qualified Asian students, because the race of the lacrosse player or the billionaire’s kid had nothing to do with why they were admitted over higher scoring Asian students.
And no doubt we would all be equally surprised that when colleges give preferences to students whose extended families have been victimized by aggressive policing, and it turns out that the students admitted over Asian students with better test scores turn out to be primarily Black, just like the lacrosse players admitted over Asian students turn out to be primarily white. After all, race has nothing to do with it.
LikeLike
I’m not changing the subject. The subject of my comment was about preferences for legacy and athletic preferences in admissions. I said that if people find those things unfair, the easiest immediate fix that the universities could make is to stop using legacy and athletic preferences in admissions. To the extent you’re complaining that I’m not engaging with your comments point by point, that’s because (a) your comments are very long and require a lot of unpacking to respond to, and (b) I only skimmed them.
If you’re dying to brainstorm ideas with someone, I suggest trying some of the many other commenters.
LikeLike
“Give me a break, FLERP. By your logic, the SCOTUS decision was nonsense, as colleges could also stop affirmative action whenever they want. Why didn’t the Ed Blum folks just give ’em a call instead of spending millions to litigate?”
Because the universities wanted badly to continue doing what they were doing. Same thing in this case: the universities want badly to continue offering legacy and athletic preferences. Any outrage over the existence of those preferences should be directed at the universities. Perhaps, given all the rhetoric they produce about “equity,” they can be shamed into changing their policies.
LikeLike
LikeLike
My candidate for the dumbest song ever written.
LikeLike
My candidate for the cover of a dumb song, meaning it’s good.
LikeLike
from the silly to the sublime:
LikeLike
Roberts:
Everything is beautiful in its own way,
Like arresting folks for breathing while black
Or docking their sub-living-wage pay.
Everything is beautiful, in its own way.
That’s what they get for showing up late
When the bus they took to work was delayed.
Thomas:
There is none so blind
As he who will not see
That white folks have earned
Their leg up . . . eternally.
Everybody sing! [Cue the dancing Alitos]
LikeLike
“shouldn’t pretend this decision was way out of step with what most Americans think”
According to a 2019 Gallup poll, 40 percent of Americans believe that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old. 60 percent can’t calculate a 10 percent tip even though all they have to do is move the decimal point. So, that may well be true. A lot of dim bulbs out there.
LikeLike
Figures that 60% of Americans would be trying to leave 10% tips when the going rate is at least 15.
At least there is an excuse for not understanding percentages.
But there is no excuse for being a cheapskate
LikeLiked by 1 person
Brown v. Board of Education wasn’t very popular either. Was that a bad decision?
LikeLike
Decisions that protect individual rights, especially the rights of a small minority of the population, are often unpopular. No, Brown was a good decision. Discriminating on the basis of race is wrong, and thankfully also unconstitutional.
LikeLike
Unconstitutional, yet somehow perfectly legal. Nearly every law on the books negatively impacts Blacks for the benefit of whites, but the one law that was actually the reverse of that is unConstitutional. Okay.
LikeLike
Nearly every law on the books negatively impacts blacks for the benefits of whites? I’m a little skeptical of that claim. What are some examples?
LikeLike
Any example I give you’ll say is an economic issue, not a race issue. Which is true, but the point is that race and economics are (intentionally) inextricably linked and affirmative action was one of very few ways to overcome that entanglement. Reparations would be another, but I’m guessing you’re even more opposed to that.
LikeLike
Economic disparities are not legal disparities.
I’m not opposed to reparations. In theory it would be the best approach, including because it could target actual descendants of slavery. But the cost is probably so high that it’s politically if not economically infeasible. And there’s also a theoretical problem with reparations, which is the argument that the harm from slavery is irreparable. This isn’t like a settlement where the recovering party takes a sum of money as compensation and in return signs a full release of any other claims that relate to the same conduct.
LikeLike
“Economic disparities are not legal disparities.”
Yes, and therein lies the problem. All manner of economic fraud and abuse – all of which (by design) impact Blacks more than whites – is perfectly legal.
LikeLike
I have been spending the afternoon reading the decision. Unfreakingbelievable. Poor logic. Roberts quotes an 1867 case in decision’s conclusion. Thomas’s concurrence is a complete writing of American history, so if you want to get a sense of the kind of history we’ll soon get read.
Here’s my initial conclusion: this is one heck of a jobs bill for young, cynical attorneys. By concluding that race cannot be a factor in decision-making, but “experience” can, the decision has not only opened the floodgates, but bombed the whole damn dam. Literally every every basic right is up for grabs and negotiable. Contract law replacing constitutional law.
“At the same time, as all parties agree, nothing in this opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise.” [Setting a precedent for future anti-trans legislation challenges, could easily have used “one’s”.
Won’t comment on this other than bolding the subjective language. Class can discuss if they want. From syllabus of opinion:
“For the reasons provided above, the Harvard and UNC admissions programs cannot be reconciled with the guarantees of the Equal Protection Clause. Both programs lack sufficiently focused and measurable objectives warranting the use of race, unavoidably employ race in a negative manner, involve racial stereotyping, and lack meaningful end points. We have never permitted admissions programs to work in that way, and we will not do so today.”
Excerpt from Thomas’s concurring opinion:
“The earliest Supreme Court opinions to interpret the Fourteenth Amendment did so in colorblind terms. Their statements characterizing the Amendment evidence its commitment to equal rights for all citizens, regardless of the color of their skin.” [He fails to mention that for black skinned slaves, the color of their skin was a big part of the 14th Amendment.]
LikeLike
Thomas…complete rewriting
This language is a young cult racist lawyer’s dream.
LikeLike
if you want to get a sense of the kind of history we’ll soon get read
history, formerly known as white nationalist mythology
LikeLike
Clarence Thomas’s rewriting of history belongs to the tradition of Dred Scott and Plessy.
LikeLike
Good for you, Greg. I haven’t been able to bring myself to read it yet. I’m sure I will need a barf bucket, as for the Dobbs decision by Alito.
LikeLike
You’re gonna need a bigger bucket. Get a few of the biggest you can find.
LikeLike
Here’s another hidden gem in the footnote of the opinion, which is to this sentence: “Harvard’s focus on numbers is obvious.” It comes after a graph which is intended to demonstrate Harvard’s “numerical commitment” to — they don’t use the word but it’s the same — quotas. Here’s the footnote, assuming “clockwork” is conspiracism-adjacent:
“For all the talk of holistic and contextual judgments, the racial preferences at issue here in fact operate like clockwork.”
LikeLike
I agree that it likely won’t make a difference in acceptance patterns at the elite private colleges. Helping my godson, raised by a single immigrant Mexican mother, navigate admissions offers among several small liberal arts colleges taught me how much these colleges center and help many students of ethnic and linguistic minorities thrive. I hope that our country’s focus can move towards ameliorating poverty and educational inequities by instituting UBI and access to single payer healthcare.
LikeLike
What is UBI? Thanks!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Universal Basic Income…
Highlight any word
Right click
Select Search
Bingo, You know everything…
LikeLike
Didn’t know either and it took me less than 2 seconds to Google it. Give it a shot, Duane! Might take you 10 seconds.
LikeLike
OK so what is the difference between universal basic income and a flower pot?
LikeLike
I don’t know, Roy, you tell me.
LikeLike
FWIW, Duane knows this, IMHO. It’s part of his war, AFAIK, on initialisms and acronyms. IKR? So, there. FTFY. And, they R annoying, TBF. But, that said, G2G, B4N, BRB or TTYL if U HMU, IYKWIM.
LikeLike
WTF?
LikeLike
Hi Duane, I can’t follow all these replies, but it stands for Universal Basic Income. I’m hopeful that it will become standard in my lifetime!
LikeLike
News from the Future
“Why pay UBI to and allow continued propagation of members of a mostly unenhanced and thus primitive worker class that has been rendered unnecessary by automation and, at any rate, just uses up the Earth’s finite and fragile resources? This is a tough one, to be sure, but sometimes, one just has to make the hard decisions. Think of it as protecting stakeholder value.”
–Question posed by first American trillionaire at Davos 2036
LikeLike
It’s unfortunate that Affirmative Action is out , but a class based system might replace it. We have a different history in Canada. Our slavery was tiny and abolished by the stroke of a pen by a new governor decades before we became a country in 1867. I dare say, our white working class is far less racist than USA.
We think far more about class inequalityand far less about rac inequality although our original sin was against Indigenous peoples.
Hence universal Medicare and othe social program.
Why would class based affirmative action not work? In USA?
LikeLike
The US is profoundly divided by class, but the subject of class is almost never discussed here. This is so bizarre. So, we end up with millions of American morons worshipping folks like Bush, Jr., or Donald Trump who would call security if they showed up in a dining room at their clubs.
LikeLike
Class clashes (that was a good one!) with the bootstraps narrative.
LikeLike
yup
LikeLike
LikeLike
Help! I’m banished to moderation!
LikeLike
Join the crowd. If you go to the back of the room you’ll see an open bar.
LikeLike
Unhappy hour!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Here’s to you, Duane!
LikeLiked by 1 person
It remains to be seen what the results of this ruling will be. I would prefer that we completely abandon the idea of “elite” colleges and universities. At the undergraduate level the education is not particularly good. It is just an absurd chase for prestige and harms more young people that it helps. One thing is clear: Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Alito and Coney Barrett could use some of the anti-racism training that Repuglicans are trying to eradicate. Thomas is hopeless due to his deep resentment, bitterness and self-loathing.
LikeLike
No college that will graduate the likes of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz can claim to be “elite.”
LikeLike
Our liberal Supreme Court Justices voted agains this law. I think that speaks volumes.
Read the dissents in the Supreme Court ruling against affirmative action
Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson each wrote dissents in the court’s decision against race-conscious admissions practices in higher education.
By POLITICO STAFF
06/29/2023 11:49 AM EDT
Three justices — Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson — dissented in the Supreme Court’s decision against affirmative action Thursday.
Sotomayor and Jackson each wrote dissents against the court’s ruling that Harvard and the University of North Carolina discriminated against white and Asian American applicants by using race-conscious admissions policies that benefited applicants from underrepresented backgrounds. Kagan signed both dissents…
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/06/29/sotomayor-brown-jackson-supreme-court-affirmative-action-00104193
LikeLike
An article a few days ago noted that 85% of the black students at Harvard grew up in affluent families, many of them immigrants from Africa or the Caribbean. Admissions to elite colleges have no significance for 95+% of future college students. These days Harvard, etc. are mostly signaling devices for the already elite to get their kids ahead, and for most professions employers eventually care little where you went to college so long as you have an impressive work record.
LikeLike
I have recent experience with a company where the young, Harvard-educated CEO fired almost all the older workers within two years of taking over and replaced them with young graduates of Harvard, Yale, Stanford, etc. Ofc, the fired older workers knew what they were doing and the new ones from the Ivies didn’t.
LikeLike
I had experience working with a Harvard MBA once. I was working as an engineer in an R &D group on scientific instrumentation and the MBA was utterly clueless about the technology and said the dumbest things at engineering meetings. The MBA lasted two months before they were effectively fired by the company President.
Harvard is good in some areas, but lots of departments and schools at Harvard are waay overrated. The latter basically ride the coat tails of the former.
LikeLike
As n dad of course, George Dumbya Bush is a Harvard MBA
LikeLike
It still kills me that Trump got a BS in Economics from Wharton. How is this possible? Certainly, this man, one of the most ignorant who ever slimed his way across this continent, could not have gotten passing grades in advanced economics courses. I am extremely curious to know how he pulled this off. I’ve read that he paid someone to take his SAT. But how did he get through an entire undergraduate program in a demanding field of study?
LikeLike
Trump took his first two years at St. John’s in NYC. How he passed two years at PENN remains a mystery.
LikeLike
Someone paid off the professors, or someone pretended to be Trump and did all the work for the degree for him. Some such thing must have happened. One thing is certain: that utter moron did not himself do the work necessary to pass the sort of classes required for such a degree. The BA in Economics from Wharton requires a 4000-level Econ course, Micro and Microeconomics, several statistics courses (Statistics for Economists, Probability, Statistical Inference), Econometric Modeling, and Calculus. Trump wouldn’t know Bayes from his butt.
LikeLike
cx: micro and macroeconomics
LikeLike
Trump supposedly has this degree in economics from Wharton but insisted throughout his presidency and afterward that China was paying us billions and billions of dollars because of the tariffs he placed on their goods. It doesn’t take a degree in econ for a non-brain-damaged person to know that the tariffs are paid by the importing US business, and those payments are passed on to US customers in the form of higher product prices. “I have been in those rooms with [Trump] when he met with those [world] leaders, I believe they think he’s a laughing fool.” –John Bolton, Trump’s former National Security Advisor
“We are witnessing the consequences of three years without mature leadership.” –James Mattis, Trump’s former Secretary of Defense
LikeLike
Trump has succeeded by being a self-assured, arrogant bully. He knows nothing but money. How to get it and keep it.
LikeLike
Bob
You could ask the “How could ____ ever have graduated from _____ (Wharton, Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Penn,etc)? about lots of people
But the reality is that once you are “in” at these schools (particularly for certain majors) you are virtually assured of graduating (and “with honors”) if your family has money or influence and you put in minimal effort.
And getting in is relatively easy if your family has money or influence, and/or a family member went to the school.
And I’d bet that cheating is rampant at most of these elite schools and not confined to the Trumps and Bushes.
CheatGpT is undoubtedly all the rage these days in the Ivies
LikeLike
I do not think that Trump could have gotten a passing grade in any of these classes.
LikeLike
We are talking about a guy who thought that stealth airplanes were actually invisible, that we ought to send astronauts to the sun, that the Continental Army captured the British airports, that Denmark would want to sell Greenland to us, that we should inject disinfectants to kill Covid. This is an extremely cognitively challenged individual.
LikeLike
People who worked for him claimed that he could barely read and that they had to prepare picture posters for him in order to convey information they wanted to get across.
LikeLike
LikeLike
Can you imagine Trump in a calculus class? In a semester-long probability course? I cannot. Not possible. Pigs don’t fly. Trump doesn’t do calculus.
LikeLike
Remember when Trump thought the dementia test was an IQ test? The test that showed him a picture of a lion and asked him what animal it was? Then a picture of a rhinoceros? Then of a camel?
LikeLike
Here’s the decision:
https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/29/politics/read-affirmative-action-supreme-court/index.html
LikeLike
I knew a person who could not apply at Princeton because she had an Italian father. This was during my life. These atrocities, along with legacy admission to programs, means that whole populations were excluded from the American dream for many years, for some, centuries.
Affirmative Action was a paltry attempt at rectifying a long history of favoring certain groups of people over others.
LikeLike
The cult will interpret “a paltry” as wrong rather than “an insufficiently supported and grossly misunderstood”.
LikeLike
All those Yankees roasting a little pot
LikeLike
I thought it was witches.
LikeLike
I think it’s only fair that no Princeton grad should be allowed to marry into an Italian family
LikeLike
lol
LikeLike
Garlic and Yankee pot roast do not go together.
LikeLike
Roy,
“I knew a person who could not apply at Princeton because she had an Italian father.”
Princeton didn’t even admit women until fall of 1969 (and they only approved of going coed a few months earlier). Are you sure she wasn’t talking about her father applying? It’s possible that in 1970 Princeton was rejecting female applicants with Italian fathers, but that seems unlikely.
But that’s a slight quibble, because I absolutely agree with what you wrote:
“…whole populations were excluded from the American dream for many years, for some, centuries.
Affirmative Action was a paltry attempt at rectifying a long history of favoring certain groups of people over others.”
Thank you for expressing it so well.
LikeLike
Let’s just hope they’ll get around to banning Affirmative Action for traffic stops and no-knock warrants next …
LikeLike
Affirmative incarceration?
LikeLike
Imagine that. Equal opportunity traffic stops, drug arrests, no-knock warrants, bail, sentencing, incarceration
LikeLike
Good one. Unfortunately, justice seems to be in the eye in the beholder that can be twisted through interpretation.
LikeLike
retired teacher writes: Unfortunately, justice seems to be in the eye in the beholder that can be twisted through interpretation.
You’ve put your finger on one of the great weaknesses of constitutional democracy and government by laws instead of “men” (people)–and also the answer to the question: Why is a thorough public education so important to a democracy? And with others here, I don’t know what happened to the meaning of unenumerated rights.
The further underlying problem is that, when we put democracy (social or otherwise) up against all of the other top-down kinds of governments, whether tribal, singly authoritarian, or group communistic, the question of freedoms (as in the First Amendment) and the movement of factions emerges. And when our education fails to address the differences, we are liable to (ooops!) drift into any one of a number of anti-democratic political situations, never to return?
Lately in the news (see link below) I have seen several references to how much land in the United States is owned by Chinese and other-country corporations and individuals, some of which is located near U.S. Military installations. But by Chinese law, for instance, the Chinese government, such as it is, has access to those corporations and individuals. Just some thoughts. CBK
https://www.npr.org/2023/06/26/1184053690/chinese-owned-farmland-united-states?utm_source=npr_newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=20230629&utm_term=8667564&utm_campaign=news&utm_id=66366992&orgid=270&utm_att1=
LikeLike
Will it matter?
Do we not yet know how much
racism wasn’t eliminated by
official policies?
Do we not yet know that
symbolic advancement in
the white system has yet
to change it?
Do we not yet know that
money rules no matter
what representative of
the donor caste is elected?
Do we not yet know that
the “balance of power”
myth, is just that?
Do we not yet know that
decisions/actions
disguised as democracy,
has yet to end disparity?
LikeLike
Since the writing of the majority was so bad, thought I’d share something worth reading:
“Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.” Aldous Huxley
“Freedom for the wolves has often meant death to the sheep.” Isaiah Berlin
“If we wait for the moment when everything, absolutely everything is ready, we shall never begin.” Ivan Turgenev
“He had the arrogance of the believer, but none of the humility of the deeply religious.” V.S. Ramachandran
LikeLike
lovely
LikeLike
I’m pretty sure Harvard and Yale will still retain their “affirmative action” program for white legacy applicants.
LikeLike
How else would people like George Dumbys Bush ever get in?
LikeLike
How else would people like George Dumbys Bush ever get in?
LikeLike
That’s entirely up to Harvard and Yale.
LikeLike
How else would people like Chelsea Clinton get into Stanford?
LikeLike
Not to mention the Idiot at Penn! Or Clarence Thomas to Holy Cross or Yale Law School.
LikeLike
Equal Protection Clause?
Some Equal Protections Are More Equal Than Others …
LikeLike
Roberts’s and Thomas’s Equal Protection Clause imitation pales to Groucho’s and Chico’s Sanity Clause.
LikeLike
Sent that joke to a friend and was one-upped:
As Chico Thomas would say— “You can’t a foola me, there ain’t no eagle projection clause”
LikeLike
The Strict Scrutiny podcast on the subject is highly recommended:
https://crooked.com/podcast-series/strict-scrutiny/
It includes considerable quotes from the “fiery” dissents, which can be found in their entirety here:
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/06/29/sotomayor-brown-jackson-supreme-court-affirmative-action-00104193
LikeLike
I understand the point that some have made that most colleges accept every student. However, so many national decision-makers in government and business come from the Ivy League or the California elite. (Yes. I know California doesn’t have Affirmative Action.)
It will be interesting to see how things pan out.
LikeLike
An extremely important point
LikeLike
so many national decision-makers in government and business come from the Ivy League or the California elite“
Some (not I, of course) might argue that that is one of the main reasons (if not THE main reason) why our country is FUBAR.
LikeLike
Behind every man made catastrophe (wars in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, global warming, big bank failures etc) and every failed response to a natural catastrophe (Hurricane Katrina) sits an Ivy League graduate.
Again, that is what some folks would say, not I.
LikeLike
I just read all of Thomas’s concurring opinion. Buy me a beer. Here’s an accurate summary: Thomas wrote thousands of words explaining how the Constitution and subsequent case law requires that we be colorblind. He has internalized this so thoroughly that he doesn’t know he’s Black.
LikeLike
I have never been so immediately incensed by reading anything in my life. Not even Mein Kampf, probably because I knew how that turned out. They were literally fighting words. Almost every one oozed contempt for precedent and every single victim, known and unknown, of racially motivated violence, policies, or behavior. Had this been submitted for a masters thesis in any online university not affiliated with the Christian “right,” it would get a note back. “Do you really want to submit this and be graded on it? I’ll give you one more chance.”
LikeLike
Tell him how he’s black, Steve!
LikeLike
Highly recommended… today’s Strict Scrutiny podcast episode on the subject:
https://crooked.com/podcast-series/strict-scrutiny/
It includes quotes from the “fiery” dissents, which can be found here:
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/06/29/sotomayor-brown-jackson-supreme-court-affirmative-action-00104193
LikeLike
Harvard argued to the SCOTUS that they should be allowed to continue to consider race because they were only doing it a tiny fraction of the time anyway. That figures. So-called elite universities never really achieved diversity. Quotas would have to have been required by law for that to happen. Or in my opinion, ending legacy admissions would have gone a long way. Just think about what the word legacy means in this country.
LikeLike
https://www.whatisblack.co/blogposts/the-curtain-of-my-skin-color
LikeLike
THE SUPREMES [In black robes, with Micky Mouse Club moderator-style ultra-perky voices]:
AMY: Hey, guys! Guess what?
BRETT: Everything’s all good now.
SAMMY: Sure, there might have been some baaaad old racism way, way back then in the Olden Times,
NEIL: but along came that great Republican HONEST ABE, and POOF, it vanished in a white minute!
CLARENCE: And now, we don’t see bad old color anymore, do we?
AMY: So please join us in a chorus of “Everything Is Beautiful!”
[SUPREMES join in chorus line to dance and sing the song; last verse louder and at slower tempo, with high kicks on the downbeats revealing the fishnets and garters beneath those robes]
LikeLike
OK. I want to direct this on Broadway.
LikeLike
Direct? Recreate!
LikeLike
LOL. IKR?
LikeLike
Clarence Thomas: Poster Boy For Affirmative Action
Jun 26, 1995
Jeff Cohen, Norman Solomon
Creators Syndicate, Inc.
THERE is something unseemly about a guy who has just built a house on the beach and is now leading the charge to stop all further beach-front construction.
Or a recent immigrant who climbs the soapbox to call for a halt to further immigration.
Or a beneficiary of affirmative-action programs who climbs the ladder of success by attacking affirmative action.
That kind of unseemliness was demonstrated this month by Justice Clarence Thomas. But few reporters took note – even though it should be the media’s job to spotlight hypocrisy.
Thomas cast the deciding vote in the Supreme Court’s 5-to-4 decision to narrow federal affirmative-action programs. But Thomas went beyond even fellow conservatives on the bench – he argued for an immediate end to affirmative action.
There’s an obvious contradiction here: Clarence Thomas benefited enormously from the kind of affirmative-action programs he now seeks to kill.
Indeed, Thomas’ rise from his dirt-poor upbringing in rural Georgia into an elite Ivy League law school is an affirmative-action success story. But don’t take our word for it. Take his.
In a November 1983 speech to his staff at the federal Equal Employment Opportunities Commission, Thomas called affirmative action “critical to minorities and women in this society.”
Then, his remarks got personal: “But for them (affirmative-action laws), God only knows where I would be today. These laws and their proper application are all that stand between the first 17 years of my life and the second 17 years.”
https://archive.seattletimes.com/archive/?date=19950626&slug=2128294
LikeLike
!!!!
LikeLike
Thomas now claims that affirmative action cheapened his law degree from Yale.
But is that even possible in theory?
LikeLike
haaaa!!!
LikeLike
AEI says he didn’t say it …
https://www.aei.org/op-eds/an-old-myth-about-justice-thomas-and-affirmative-action/
You be the judge … oh wait …
LikeLike
Reading dissenting opinions now. Surely this quote will get play from Jackson’s dissent:
“The Court has come to rest on the bottom-line conclusion that racial diversity in higher education is only worth potentially preserving insofar as it might be needed to prepare Black Americans and other underrepresented minorities for success in the bunker, not the boardroom (a particularly awkward place to land, in light of the history the majority opts to ignore).”
“[S]uccess in the bunker, not the boardroom” is a particularly good line that will go way over the heads of the cult and their apologists. The Civil War, the Spanish-American War, World War I, World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War all have one thing in common: Blacks who served and expected to have equal rights of citizenship when they came home were often treated worse than the people who didn’t serve. It has been estimated that as many as 400 Black veterans were lynched or tortured to death after returning from overseas combat. Countless more suffered indignities great and small (if that’s possible). The message was and still is, affirmed today, you’re equal when you defend us, but not when you’ve done your duty.
The idea that the military would be exempt from today’s ruling is as close to a public policy acid trip as you can get.
LikeLike
Well said, Greg (and Justice Jackson!)
LikeLike
See Part I of this report, which details historical and present harms visited upon African Americans by our society. Where is the redress?
Click to access full-ca-reparations.pdf
LikeLike
The full report is a long download. This page is quicker:
https://oag.ca.gov/ab3121/report
LikeLike
This is an overwhelming, breathtaking, utterly damning document, an indictment of our country for unspeakable evils visited upon black and brown persons, but as damning as it is, it barely scratches the surface.
Not only is there so, so, so much more that can be said, but there is so, so, so much more that can never be said, its voice having been stolen, which is the point of this brilliant and difficult work by Saidiya Hartman:
https://timesmuseum.org/en/journal/south-of-the-south/venus-in-two-acts
LikeLike
The scope and magnitude of the crimes visited upon this people defy expression, they are so extreme, yet even this small redress is denied by so-called “justices.”
This defies all sense, all logic, all decency, all morality.
LikeLike
Here’s a challenge, a dare:
Read these two pieces, the report, the essay. Warning: doing so is not easy.
LikeLike
I can tell you who has NOT read these documents or, if they ever tried to read them, understood what they were reading: these people, whose names will live in infamy for having made a mockery of the title they bear, so ironically, of “justices”:
John Roberts
Clarence Thomas
Samuel Alito
Neil Gorsuch
Brett Kavanaugh
Amy Coney Barrett
LikeLike
Bum Justus
Justus isn’t blind
Of even deaf of dumb
But Justus is the kind
Who really is a bum
LikeLike
“Or even deaf or dumb”
LikeLiked by 1 person
In the face of the evils crying for redress from that reparations report, Affirmative Action is small potatoes indeed. A tiny ask. This ought to be obvious. If it ISN’T obvious to someone after reading that report, there are two possibilities: a) utter idiocy or b) abject racism. Ignorance is no excuse.
LikeLike
I can’t believe that the six “justices” are ignorant of the historical and contemporary facts in that report. So, that leaves a or b, doesn’t it?
LikeLike
“Blind Just Us”
Equal protection
Under the law:
“Ban abortion!
Ban it all!”
LikeLike
Alternative title: “Equal Popetection”
LikeLike
“Equal Protection Argument”
She didn’t use protection
So woman is to blame
For syphilis infection
From rapist, just the same
LikeLike
“For pregnancy election”
Works too
LikeLike
“Separate But Equal Protection”
Equal protection
At places like Howard
Will cure the infection
At places like Harvard
LikeLike
From what I know, the end of affirmative action at more selective university of California campuses resulted in far fewer Black and Latino students. So, there is ample reason to believe the effect will be significant. In addition, this is a thinly veiled attempt to reject efforts for a more equitable society and maintain the inequitable status quo.
LikeLike
Let me be the first in this long thread to type the word Asian.
[ducks]
LikeLike
Given those on the court who ruled against Affirmative Action have an obvious bias against the value that comes with a diverse society, such policies used by our “elite” institutions continue to fall short. I listened to an interview of an African American graduate of UNC who stated that although 10% of the student body at Chapel Hill is black 20% of the population of the state is black. When I watch college basketball or football games on TV it is obvious when observing the make up of the fans in the stands that whites still garner the privilege at these institutions. Family and legacy represent an affirmative action for admission into college that the court is obviously not bothered by. We have a long way to go with or without Affirmative Action. In that sense, perhaps this is a wake-up call to remind Americans that the work for equal opportunity continues. As long as universities continue to value selectivity as the holy grail of institutional excellence over a more comprehensive review and effort to get students into college who have the aptitude to get there, then true diversity will remain a pipe dream. As long as we focus on the “elite” colleges over the reality that there are literally hundreds if not thousands of universities in the country that provide opportunity for young people, privilege brought by legacy and wealth will maintain our current caste. Wouldn’t it be great if the college selection process could involve working with a high school student to find the best fit regarding passion, interests, then aptitude rather than focusing on arbitrary ratings from US News?
LikeLike
As always, Senator Bernie Sanders understands what is happening to this country. [Working to help people isn’t something the far R wants. Only the wealthy deserve more money.] Bernie is labeled a communist.
……………………….
Earlier today, the Supreme Court voted to overturn a Biden Administration program forgiving up to $20,000 of student debt per-person in this country.
In my view, this decision is not only deeply flawed legally but it is way out of touch with where the American people are. Student debt forgiveness has the support of the majority of people in this country, and for good reason.
Now, I would love to tell you that the Supreme Court is an impartial judicial institution whose decisions are above politics. That was perhaps once true, but it is certainly not the case any more.
Remember. Thirteen years ago, in the disastrous Citizens United decision, this Supreme Court ruled that billionaires can legally buy elections. And now, the Supreme Court has made it clear that they will continue doing everything possible to protect the big money interests against the needs of struggling working families. This right wing ideology is consistent with their recent decisions denying women the right to control their own bodies, ending affirmative action, attacking LGBT rights and limiting the government’s ability to address climate change.
In my view, if right wing Supreme Court justices want to make public policy they should quit the Supreme Court and run for political office. Frankly, I do not think their extremist views will gain much traction with the average American voter.
Let’s be clear. Their decision on student debt is not only a disaster for millions of working class families, but it will do great harm to the future of our economy and our country’s economic competitiveness.
The United States used to lead the world in the percentage of people who graduated college, which is one of the reasons that we have the strongest economy in the world.
Today, tragically, that is no longer the case.
Today, we are penalizing our children and saddling them with decades of debt just for doing just what we tell them they need to do in order to be successful: get a college education.
Today, as a result of this decision, there are millions of Americans who may put off starting a family, saving for retirement, buying the home of their dreams, or a car they’ve long-needed.
Today, as a result of this decision, there are millions of Americans who may put off their dream of entrepreneurship and starting small businesses. This, in turn, will slow economic growth. And less growth means fewer jobs and less tax revenue to pay for services Americans want and deserve. In 1998, a Congressional report concluded that for every dollar the federal government spent on the GI bill, the return on investment was $6.90 in additional tax revenues.
Today, as a result of this decision, a message has been sent to bright young people who have the desire and the ability to get a higher education but cannot do so because their families lack the money. That message is: either forget about your dream to get higher education or accept the reality that you will be paying off debt for the rest of your lives.
How many great doctors, scientists, and teachers are we losing as a result of this decision?
How many young people who need training in order to become skilled mechanics, carpenters, welders, and electricians will not get the post-high school training they need?
This ruling is not just a tragedy for the people carrying student loans and their families, but it is also a great loss for our nation.
Unless you are a member of the oligarchy in this country.
Because the children of oligarchs don’t go to community colleges, or struggle to figure out how to afford public universities in their states while taking on overwhelming loads of student debt.
And after graduation, the children of oligarchs don’t send out résumés or put off chasing their dreams because of their outrageous loads of student debt.
No.
In my view, it is profoundly unfair that other students, simply because they had the good fortune to be born into wealthy families, can graduate college without a cent of debt. If we are a country that truly believes in equal opportunity, shouldn’t we level the playing field for all young Americans? I certainly think so.
So where do we go from here?
Today, I am urging the Biden Administration to implement a Plan B immediately to cancel student debt for tens of millions of Americans who are struggling to pay the rent, put food on the table, and pay for the basic necessities of life.
Despite this legally unsound Supreme Court decision, the President has the clear authority under the Higher Education Act of 1965 to cancel student debt. He must use this authority immediately.
If Republicans could provide trillions of dollars in tax breaks to the top one percent and profitable corporations, if they could cancel hundreds of billions in loans for wealthy business owners during the pandemic when Trump was President and if they could vote to spend $886 billion on the Pentagon, please don’t tell me that we cannot afford to cancel student debt for working families.
The American people understand that we cannot continue to crush our young generation with a mountain of debt for doing the right thing — getting a college education.
In solidarity,
Bernie Sanders
LikeLike
I read the AEI article and its links. Cutting through AEI’s and CT’s characteristic obfuscations (we might even say “posturing”) I think the main charge still holds — that CT benefited in a decisive way from policies and programs whose “legs up” he later worked to cut out from under others.
LikeLike