Quote:
Originally Posted by activeStick
You mean the Supreme Court with a Conservative supermajority? The video explains the decision quite well.
|
The US SC had been long been ambivalent about affirmative action and what was supposed to be allowed was very narrowly tailored actions where race could not be used hurt an applicant's chances and these actions where supposed to be phased out over time. From the 2003 decision of Grutter v Bollinger:
Quote:
|
The Court is also satisfied that, in the context of individualized consideration of the possible diversity contributions of each applicant, the Law School’s race-conscious admissions program does not unduly harm nonminority applicants. Finally, race-conscious admissions policies must be limited in time. The Court takes the Law School at its word that it would like nothing better than to find a race-neutral admissions formula and will terminate its use of racial preferences as soon as practicable. The Court expects that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today. Pp. 21—31.
|
But the statistical analysis of Harvard's admissions was strong evidence that race (especially Asian-Americans) were used broadly, in defiance of Supreme Court rulings.