Live updates: Supreme Court rules against affirmative action programs, upending the way universities handle admissions
By: NBC News
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Updated June 29, 2023, 2:51 PM UTCBy NBC News
The Supreme Court issued a divided ruling on a pair of challenges to affirmative action policies at Harvard and the University of North Carolina, with potential implications across higher education and beyond.
The court ruled against the programs — saying in the majority opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts that the systems in place "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, those admissions programs cannot be reconciled with the guarantees of the Equal Protection Clause."
But the court did not rule out race entirely in admission programs, adding, "nothing prohibits universities from considering an applicant's discussion of how race affected the applicant's life, so long as that discussion is concretely tied to a quality of character or unique ability that the particular applicant can contribute to the university."
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Tags
Who is online
177 visitors
Awesome. And yes it's about time to kill the veiled racism that it represents. Now it should be based on that word that strikes fear in our liberal brethren..................MERIT!!!
Who can afford to pay the recruiter the most?
Blame the college if that’s the problem
As affirmative action is struck down, legacy enrollment should also go away. A level playing field should not include those whose generational advantages give them a free ticket.
You have no argument from me.
Now you just have to convince Universities that are beholden to the all mighty dollar.
On that, you are 100% correct.
Or, lacking merit if your father has enough money for a new library, or if your mother will lie for you about being on the rowing team, or just because your grandfather went there.
I get it. I totally see the 14th amendment problems here but it's certainly more than just merit going on here.
[✘]
Don't worry the university will try to get around it, but this time they were warned not to go there!
Anyone that agrees with decision is a racist!/S
Sorry, getting it out of the way for the leftists members.
What a great day for America. Sad that In the year 2023, three justices still want to Cling to institutional racism and racial discrimination.
All we have to do is notice that 2 racist presidents nominated those 3 racist justices.
Good,
The data revealed in the litigation show just how blatantly the university discriminated. A black person scoring in the 4th tier of harvards academic matrix(grades and test scores) had a better chance of getting in than an Asian scoring in the 10th and highest tier.
Supreme Court decisions increasingly have less to do with the Constitution and more to do with the predilections of the justices and their own ideology.
Any issue can be interpreted any way the Court likes and they can find a "constitutional" justification for it. That is because much of the Constitution is vague and wide open to interpretation.
It will one day get so bad that people will openly defy Supreme Court rulings.
Today the ruling says that race cannot be considered OTHER than if the college applicant can work it into a personal narrative of what they have overcome. What does this have to do with the constitution?
It's called EQUAL RIGHTS for a reason.
Couldn't agree more, the conservative justices feel that everyone is equal, the liberal justices think others are not.
Or is it that the liberal justices acknowledge that everyone is not TREATED EQUALLY, and the conservative justices refuse to see that?
If college entries were based solely on test scores and grades/participation in high school activities, and keep applicants feelings out of the mix, then everyone would be treated equal
Also, if colleges are still requiring pictures of the applicant on applications, that rule should go away.
They definitely aren't treated equally by universities; otherwise Asians would dominate admissions.
Leftists justices refuse to see that.
Just wait until the majority of college admissions are made up of those with Asian, Asian-Indian and Middle Eastern heritage. The hew and cry will be vociferous, all while forgetting the celebration of this decision.
I for one would not care as if this is what the university makeup would mostly look like, then it will show that those colleges are actually complying with the SC decision.
You would definitely tell which universities were not complying.
Are you saying liberal colleges are racist and need to be forced to not be racist?
But unfortunately, they are not. Somewhere in the process a human being can either allow or disallow someone purely at their discretion.
The college itself is not racist, however the people running the college and admissions have their own prejudices and beliefs that color their decisions.
Not if the admission standards were set in stone. Right now it is allowed for feelings to allow for certain races to get in, depending on who is on the admission board.
Applicants should be numbered, this removes any prejudices that the college admissions process has built in.
I like it!!!!!!!!!!!
Which they are not, and even if they were there are always ways around them.
It's called equal protection and opportunity under the law. Don't you believe in merit?
Those who support affirmative action as it was continue to believe that blacks are inferior and need to be given special treatment
The current decision is no more correct than the one that instituted affirmative action decades ago. It is just a different court now.
Really John? Is everyone equal or not?
So are you saying you are mad that many blacks will actually have to work hard in high school, show up to class, complete assignments and get the grades needed for entry into a good university......and hardest of all.....get the scores needed on entry exams?
What happened is the SC put every single person on the same footing as any other. No reason to be mad about it.
Sure, in theory.
Was everyone equal in 1850 ? Sure, in theory. Saying everyone is equal is just words.
Had there been no affirmative action do you think the minority representation in colleges and professions would have been what it is today? Of course not. History shows us that.
No, one decision is consistent with the Constitutional principle of equal protection to all citizens one is not.
The Roberts court achievement is bringing the law back into synch with the actual text of the Constitution.
Attempting to compare 1850 to 2023 is a fools errand.
This is pretty simple. Judge a person by the content of their character, not the color of their skin. This ruling accomplishes that.
No spin required.
Why do you think that is?
Without affirmative action would there have been the minority representation in jobs , professions and colleges that we see today?
City fire and police departments were forced to accept black and minority candidates. They didnt always do it on their own, they were forced. Same with many universities.
If people were judged on the content of character as long as anyone can remember, why were there no black firemen or cops in many cities, and why did certain colleges have almost no blacks?
We will see what this ruling does, hopefully it will all be ok.
Why do you insist on going back 150+ years. Affirmative action is a crutch whose time has come and gone. Long gone.
Colleges can still accept any student based on their circumstances not just on the color of their skin.
One wonders if you bleed for the Asian students with near perfect creds, that miss out because of “affirmative action?”
Well, we will see.
The 1960's was not 150 years ago.
And, that's one of the major differences between equality and the Marxist left's buzzword of equity.
Are you saying without affirmative action the liberal colleges would have kept racist policies?
True, but your reference to the James Meredith case at Univ. of MS was in 1962 ... two years before the first Civil Rights Act.
You might want to criticize Governor Ross Barnett, a Democrat, who said in 1962 ...
Unlike today's SCOTUS majority, he was clearly a racist and a Democrat, to boot!
Affirmative action was instituted just a few years after southern racists tried to keep all blacks out of universities in places like Mississippi. Without affirmative action how long would it have taken to achieve true representation?
If it actually worked we wouldn't need it anymore.
Said ruling creates a more level playing field plain and simple.
True, that was 60 years ago. A long time, much has changed.
And I noticed you didn’t answer my Asian question.
Not surprising.
That's a good way to characterize the dissent. Sotomayor's dissent is a political speech by a politician.
and they can find a "constitutional" justification for it.
It's called the equal protection clause. Square how race discrimination by the government is consistent with that.
It will one day get so bad that people will openly defy Supreme Court rulings.
from the people who say Trump is a threat to the Republic....
No more so than they have for years.
It's just that Americans have become so stupid they convince themselves any decision they disagree with is politically motivated while anyone they agree with is justice.
Bazinga!
So if you don't get your way you're just not going to follow the law?
Everything.
People cannot be denied admission based on race. That's not only true if you're black.
It is not vague on EQUALITY! One race does not get special status.
I heard your dumb ass president mutter that it is not a normal court. What was normal ? the leftist activist that ruled the court for 4 decades?
To absolutely nobodies surprise, the conservative justices feel that African Americans and all minorities have the ability to get into college on their own merits, the liberal justices do not. continuing the soft racism of low expectations.
Yep, a vote against structural racism.
Excellent!
I know this ruling will upset a lot of people, but I’m fine with it.
I saw Affirmative Action when I applied to law school. I was expected to have a certain combination of college GPA and LSAT score. But “under represented minorities” were allowed to have lower scores. No consideration was given to whether or not race was actually a contributing factor in those scores.
Also no one gave a shit whether I, as a white applicant, might have had to overcome some things specific to me. I came from a broken home with very little money - like a lot of people of color - but colleges don’t care. If I were a “URM,” I could have been admitted to more prestigious schools and I definitely would have had access to more financial aid.
It’s kind of bullshit.
Affirmative Action was a well intended, but simplistic solution to a problem that has largely been fixed anyway.
We are in a better place with race and admissions than we were 50 years ago. Is it perfect for everyone? No, but Affirmative Action was never supposed to be permanent. We were always going to have to shut it down before everyone was satisfied.
When I am building a team, I seek diversity. I find it makes the experience richer for everyone. But it’s not just a color thing. It’s about different perspectives, experiences, and traditions. Diversity allows solutions to problems that we wouldn’t see otherwise.
This can be tied to race, and the new ruling allows for that.
But it can also come from nationality, age, religion, economic status, sexuality, and many other factors. The only difference now is that applicants of color will have to make the case that their race matters.
Very well said.
Had a similar experience applying to the Naval Academy in the late 70’s. Back then they actually told you why you didn’t get in. Racial and gender quota’s in my case.
It really sucked back then but with perseverance one can find another way …. and I did.
Structural racism/bigotry is just wrong.
Period.
I guess the Supreme Court is back to being MAGA. Can't wait to hear the whining. Realistically I don't think the ruling is going to do much. There are still loopholes to be exploited and it will be almost impossible for an individual to prove why someone was chosen over them.
Not if grade transcripts and test results are used and shown. I may be wrong
Agree but my understanding is intangibles will still be able to be taken into account. It is much harder to dispute them.
and 12.1 friend Just Jim NC TttH
It's my understanding that students' high school transcripts, SAT/ACT test results (if colleges/univs even use them these days), extracurricular activities/awards, and teacher recommendations will set the tone for admittance. This will level the playing field (equality) and eliminate "equity".
The SCOTUS decision clearly allows a student to describe his/her personal experience(s) regarding race via the essay section. The personal essay will also show the quality of the student's writing and grammar skills.
True, but it will have to be at the margins as opposed to the blatant, heavy handed race discrimination that characterizes the current system.
I hope that is the case. I see lots of lawyers getting rich off this
That's what will keep them honest.
Yeah, the lack of transparency in admissions is infuriating.
Thomas' excellent retort to Jackson...the racist black activist Justice who can't define what a woman is.
READ: Clarence Thomas’ Straight-Fire Response to Ketanji Brown Jackson in Affirmative Action Case Concurrence – RedState
The man who grew up dirt poor, in the Jim Crow south speaking English as a second language just lowering the boom on racial determinism.
Excellent article.
In Con Law, you talk about Affirmative Action. I can’t speak for every law school, but I know that in our conversations, it was clear that while AA was well-intentioned, it was always on shaky constitutional grounds, and necessarily temporary.
Barack and Michelle Obama (both lawyers), while they appreciate the benefit that many have enjoyed from AA, clearly also understand that it was never a total fix and was never going to be permanent. They might be sad to see it go away, but they aren’t saying it was constitutionally the wrong decision.
Our Statements On the U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision To Overturn Affirmative Action
The Constitution says whatever the current Supreme Court wants it to say. The idea that there is some "objective" interpretation of the constitution is inaccurate.
Ok, well I don't who you think it was that expressed that idea, but it wasn't me. My comment was, at most, about a consensus of opinions from people educated on the subject.
Interestingly the first American college to ban discrimination in its charter, based on race, religion or sex, was not Ivy League or some other bastion of liberal thought. It was Hillsdale college. A college besmirched regularly by liberals today.
I believe they don't take federal funding. Isn't that interesting.
Yep, so the Fed can’t hold it over them and force their politics on the college.
One of the truly liberty centric institutions in our country.
There are so few these days ….
As I always like to do with important issues like this, I'll ask:
WHERE ARE THE FEMINISTS?
"Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson blasted the Supreme Court’s decision on affirmative action Thursday, warning that its decision “makes things worse, not better” for race relations."
In other words the SCOTUS should make decisions based on what will make certain groups happy. The High Court's duty is to uphold the Constitution.
The radical RACISTS on the left need to know that discrimination of any kind is unconstitutional!
"Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor hit back hard against the majority’s decision Thursday to restrict the use of race in college admissions in a biting dissent, suggesting that it “rolls back decades of precedent and momentous progress.”
Notice how the 3 radical activist members always stick together?
Sotomayer thinks the Court should be another legislative body enacting progressive legislation. How did she ever get approved to the High Court?
Correct boxes checked..............
Vic, the same could be said about the conservative activist members.
This issue is very complicated. It's not a black and white issue, no pun intended.
When my kids were applying to schools, I would read "College Confidential" which is a website about college applications. The Asian students would complain about limits on them, while parents of other children (mostly white), would complain that the UC schools were almost totally Asian. This decision could equally harm all people, which is my point, not just those who have had less than excellent schooling, due to their environment. I would know. I taught in one of those schools.
Absolutely not! You just had a case before this where Conservatives crossed over and agreed with the 3 lefties. Remember?
When my kids were applying to schools, I would read "College Confidential" which is a website about college applications. The Asian students would complain about limits on them, while parents of other children (mostly white), would complain that the UC schools were almost totally Asian. This decision could equally harm all people, which is my point, not just those who have had less than excellent schooling, due to their environment. I would know. I taught in one of those schools.
It is really easy to solve. Admissions should be based on nothing but merit. That is the moral issue. The Constitution forbids descrimination. That is the legal issue.
The Court got it right on both counts!
Vic, I might agree with you that they leveled the playing field (which I have to say can't happen if you don't have the same high school education) but they left legacies in place, which still means that those with money still get an advantage.
So, no they didn't get it right.
They only have one duty; To the Constitution.
If you want to help blacks we would need to first get out the message to black families. What are Asian families doing differently?
There is one other culprit as to the black scholastic achievement problem: the public school system. Black families need more choice.
I agree, and they didn't apply the Constitution evenly if they didn't address legacies.
That's not true or accurate. The school systems are the issue here and it is not only black, but other poor minorities. Poverty is the issue here.
They start off by being more affluent. Money talks.
And while I agree that the public school systems need to be fixed, I'm not sure about choice.
What does the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment say?
That's not true or accurate. The school systems are the issue here and it is not only black, but other poor minorities. Poverty is the issue here.
There are also poor Asians. I say culture and the public school system have a lot more to do with this than poverty.
They start off by being more affluent. Money talks.
What a generalization! Show me where Asians are rich?
You see, Perrie, in an Asian family the most important thing is education not playing basketball in the corner lot.
It says that people should be treated equally, but legacies are treated as special, so the court didn't do their job.
Poor Asian families have their children work in the family business.
No, I am not. I am saying that many of the Asian children are now either multi generational here, or have money and came here from various Asian countries. This is something that I know intimately since the town where my children grew up had a very large Asian population and my kids had many Asian friends. Yes, education is important to Asian people, but you are assuming that it isn't for other minority populations, which isn't true.
I'm missing the part where it supposedly says "legacies are treated as special." Can you direct me to where it says that?
Poor Asian families have their children work in the family business.
Is that a fact? Can you you show us where all Asian poor families put their kids to work?
Yes, education is important to Asian people, but you are assuming that it isn't for other minority populations
YES, THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I AM ASSUMING.
Come on Vic. By excluding legacies, who are given preference at many universities they are not leveling the field, which means they did not meet the 14th.
I see them in the store working.
That would be a wrong assumption.
To what? I have my copy of the Constitution right here. It doesn't say anything about "legacies." Maybe it's under the right of privacy. Oh wait, that isn't in here either.
By excluding legacies, who are given preference at many universities they are not leveling the field, which means they did not meet the 14th.
Discrimination against anyone, including Asians, Jews or whites is still discrimination! Do you remember Sandra Day O'Connor's warning about this cut out from the Constitution? It was wrong to allow it, but you were given time to correct anything the old liberals thought needed correcting. The bottom line is that discrimination is discrimination!
I see them in the store working.
I don't know if that extends to all Asians.
That would be a wrong assumption.
I think I'm on solid ground with that. You can bet that Barrack Obama spent more time with the books than basketball.
You’re really getting in the weeds now.
Not sure I agree legacies are equal to things like race or gender but if they are, we can’t stop there. There goes the GI bill and special treatment for Veterans.
Right?
Vic, it also says nothing about affirmative action, does it? That is the point of interpreting the law. By striking down affirmative action but not legacies, the court gave preference to an elite group. That is discrimination.
I didn't say it did and I made a point of saying that. So if you are going to try and play gotchya with me, I'll end the discussion.
Probably. But I have news for you. Most of my students didn't play basketball.
Correct. As I said, Sandra Day O'Connor made the point: you got it fot over a quarter of a century. Liberals got away with it. Now it is time to follow the Constitution and the Court just defeated discrimination, which is the essence of affirmative action.
I didn't say it did and I made a point of saying that. So if you are going to try and play gotchya with me, I'll end the discussion.
Anecdotal experiences don't really speak to Asian culture. You can end the discussion whenever you want.
Probably. But I have news for you. Most of my students didn't play basketball.
Nor were they using Obama as a role model.
I don't know if this is intentional or what, but as long as legacies exist, the court was not fair, since it gives preference to a group of people. End of story.
You were just as anecdotal when you said that my students all played basketball and here again:
How would you know? I can tell you this. Many of them were taking care of younger sibs while their parents worked two jobs.
Read it again. I was talking about cultures.
Not many radicals here this morning.
I guess that's a slap in the face to somebody.
https://babylonbee.com/news/awkward-supreme-court-rules-against-affirmative-action-with-affirmative-action-hire-standing-right-there?fbclid=IwAR3ZeTDUZ8LWe5OiIco7XNJ9ZEldafPsLwSFyhOPnI-Hz5Ma8J7yG0814hU