The case was brought up Asian students who argued that they were held to a higher academic standard to get into the best universities, which the SC agreed was a clear case of racial discrimination.
And a number of states had already ban affirmative action, such as California.
You mean the Supreme Court with a Conservative supermajority? The video explains the decision quite well.
I can’t believe none of you are discussing how there was cocaine found at the White House. Was it Hunter’s? We can’t be sure but the silence about this by the fourth estate only proves the liberal media will cover up any and all of Biden’s criminal activities.
The Following User Says Thank You to ResAlien For This Useful Post:
If I know one thing for a fact it’s that the war on drugs should be focused on Hunter and Hunter alone. He is the only person in Washington DC who has ever or will ever use cocaine in one form or another. The man is the Forrest Gump of narcotics. Pablo Escobar’s death? Hunter was on the roof. General Noriega? Hunter in a uniform. El Chapo? Best friends with El Cazador.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to ResAlien For This Useful Post:
And a number of states had already ban affirmative action, such as California.
In a public ballot where all the money and promotion were on the side of revoking the ban.
It doesn’t take undemocratic shenanigans by a conservative Supreme Court to reject affirmative action. It simply isn’t a popularly supported policy, even among minorities in blue states.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
Conservatives: "College admissions should be done completely on merit!"
"What about legacy and donor admissions?"
*crickets*
A Republican presidential candidate just called for the removal of legacy admissions last week.
Quote:
Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) said now that the Supreme Court has limited the use of race as a factor in college admissions, colleges should eliminate legacy-based admissions next.
The great majority of people of all political stripes are against legacy admissions. It’s mainly college administrators (not a notably Republican/conservative bunch these days) and some alumni who defend them.
If I know one thing for a fact it’s that the war on drugs should be focused on Hunter and Hunter alone. He is the only person in Washington DC who has ever or will ever use cocaine in one form or another. The man is the Forrest Gump of narcotics. Pablo Escobar’s death? Hunter was on the roof. General Noriega? Hunter in a uniform. El Chapo? Best friends with El Cazador.
He killed JFK. You may say he wasn’t alive but I’m telling you he did it.
A Republican presidential candidate just called for the removal of legacy admissions last week.
The great majority of people of all political stripes are against legacy admissions. It’s mainly college administrators (not a notably Republican/conservative bunch these days) and some alumni who defend them.
Oh weird. So 2023 was the only moment in history where these things could have been abolished, and not a single right-leaning person was involved in establishing and maintaining them? Did not know that.
Considering affirmative action began as a counter to legacy admissions, you'd think you'd want to scrap the latter before scrapping the former. But nope, can't have too many minorities taking spots from white failsons.
In the United States, legacy admissions in universities date back to the 1920s. Elite schools used legacy admissions to maintain spots for White Anglo-Saxon Protestants amid fears that Jews, Catholics and Asians were increasingly taking spots at the schools.[8][9]
A 1992 survey found that of the top seventy-five universities in the U.S. News & World Report rankings, only one (the California Institute of Technology) had no legacy preferences at all; the Massachusetts Institute of Technology also affirmed that it does not practice legacy admissions.[10] Legacy preferences were almost ubiquitous among the one hundred top-ranked liberal arts colleges as well. The only liberal arts college in the top one hundred that explicitly said it did not use legacy preferences was Berea. Notably, in 2014, Johns Hopkins University said it was ending legacy practices, and in 2021, Amherst College also ended legacy practices.[11][12]
In fairness, the money that a lot of institutions got from legacy admissions can pay for a lot of those affirmative action students, and others who aren't in a position to attend without significant financial assistance... but in reality it probably just pays for the absurdly bloated army of administrators and non-teaching employees who run the show.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
In fairness, the money that a lot of institutions got from legacy admissions can pay for a lot of those affirmative action students, and others who aren't in a position to attend without significant financial assistance... but in reality it probably just pays for the absurdly bloated army of administrators and non-teaching employees who run the show.
Hey now! Those football coaching salaries aren't going to pay for themselves either!
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to rubecube For This Useful Post:
Oh weird. So 2023 was the only moment in history where these things could have been abolished, and not a single right-leaning person was involved in establishing and maintaining them? Did not know that.
Considering affirmative action began as a counter to legacy admissions, you'd think you'd want to scrap the latter before scrapping the former. But nope, can't have too many minorities taking spots from white failsons.
You’re flailing at strawmen. Who is it you think are defending legacy admissions?
77 per cent of Republicans say whether a relative attended a college should have no impact on admissions and 72 per cent of Democrats say the same. And contrary to your strawmen, 80 per cent of white Americans are against legacy admissions, compared with 62 per cent of Black, 67 per cent of Hispanic, and 59 per cent of Asian Americans.
Basically, the group most strongly opposed to legacy admissions are white Republicans.
You’ll note wide majorities of Black (59), Hispanic (68), and Asian (63) Americans are also opposed to race and ethnicity playing any part in college admissions.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
Last edited by CliffFletcher; 07-07-2023 at 09:23 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
You’re flailing at strawmen. Who is it you think are defending legacy admissions?
77 per cent of Republicans say whether a relative attended a college should have no impact on admissions and 72 per cent of Democrats say the same. And contrary to your strawmen, 80 per cent of white Americans are against legacy admissions, compared with 62 per cent of Black, 67 per cent of Hispanic, and 59 per cent of Asian Americans.
Basically, the group most strongly opposed to legacy admissions are white Republicans.
You’ll note wide majorities of Black (59), Hispanic (68), and Asian (63) Americans are also opposed to race and ethnicity playing any part in college admissions.
Oh I'm not saying it's just Republicans. I've just generally heard less angry rhetoric from the right aimed at legacy admissions than I have seen aimed at affirmative action. And they have always been very angry about affirmative action.
Do you not think that the disparity in rhetoric and media coverage of one of those two topics might play a role in those poll numbers you're quoting?
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to rubecube For This Useful Post:
Oh I'm not saying it's just Republicans. I've just generally heard less angry rhetoric from the right aimed at legacy admissions than I have seen aimed at affirmative action. And they have always been very angry about affirmative action.
Do you not think that the disparity in rhetoric and media coverage of one of those two topics might play a role in those poll numbers you're quoting?
I don’t follow Fox News and the like, so I’m not up on what they’re getting outraged about on any given day. But in the media I consume, I’ve been seeing calls for legacy admissions to be abolished for years.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
The Following User Says Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
I don’t follow Fox News and the like, so I’m not up on what they’re getting outraged about on any given day. But in the media I consume, I’ve been seeing calls for legacy admissions to be abolished for years.
I'm curious what media you do consume to get the modern conservative perspective. But yeah, the likes of Fox News, Daily Wire, etc., have all been railing against affirmative action for years. Any of the calls to end legacy admissions or rail against corruption in the admissions process has generally been targeted at small, isolated incidents where they can rail against "leftist elites," such as the admissions scandal from a few years ago.
It's pretty obvious why they wouldn't rail against legacy admissions, as much of the conservative media sphere is just a giant collection of failsons and nepo babies (e.g. Tucker Carlson, Crowder, the Trumps, etc.).
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.
Last edited by accord1999; 07-08-2023 at 05:46 PM.
Oh weird. So 2023 was the only moment in history where these things could have been abolished,
Many public schools have gotten rid of or never had legacy admissions in the past, such as the prestigious University of California and Texas systems. It's mainly private schools where legacies are still a major part of their admissions.
IMO, affirmative action cases are more common because it's an easier case to win because of the 14th Amendment. Now without the shield of affirmative action, Harvard and other private schools concerns about "diversity" means that they should greatly reduce or eliminate legacy preference altogether.
Many public schools have gotten rid of or never had legacy admissions in the past, such as the prestigious University of California and Texas systems. It's mainly private schools where legacies are still a major part of their admissions.
IMO, affirmative action cases are more common because it's an easier case to win because of the 14th Amendment. Now without the shield of affirmative action, Harvard and other private schools concerns about "diversity" means that they should greatly reduce or eliminate legacy preference altogether.
Not sure I am following your last sentence. Are you saying legacy admissions was a response to affirmative action?
__________________
From HFBoard oiler fan, in analyzing MacT's management:
O.K. there has been a lot of talk on whether or not MacTavish has actually done a good job for us, most fans on this board are very basic in their analysis and I feel would change their opinion entirely if the team was successful.
Many public schools have gotten rid of or never had legacy admissions in the past, such as the prestigious University of California and Texas systems. It's mainly private schools where legacies are still a major part of their admissions.
IMO, affirmative action cases are more common because it's an easier case to win because of the 14th Amendment. Now without the shield of affirmative action, Harvard and other private schools concerns about "diversity" means that they should greatly reduce or eliminate legacy preference altogether.
Most state schools are open systems, meaning they accept all comers and rarely turn down students who meet basic academic requirements. They are mandated by law to operate this way as they are receiving public money to operate. The exceptions are predominantly in the southeast and usually where Greek life and such tradition has a major influence on the institution.
Private institutions on the other hand can operate as they like, because they are private institutions and free from government interference. Legacy acceptance is also associated with fund raising and maintenance of the school's endowment, which is why private schools still rely on the practice and will continue to reply on the practice. Giving preference to a legacy is how they keep the money flowing.
The Following User Says Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
