Supreme Court’s conservatives are going to end affirmative action in higher education

[BUtterfield 8 41,819]

The Supreme Court’s six conservative justices appeared ready to end affirmative actionon Monday, during arguments in two cases challenging the limited use of race in college and university admissions.

In Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard University and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina, white and Asian students claim that the use of race in admissions that helps the enrollment of Black, Hispanic and Native American students unconstitutionally discriminates against whites and Asians by violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act in both cases and the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause granting equal treatment to all persons under the law in the North Carolina case.

The lawyers for Students for Fair Admissions, a nonprofit group run by conservative lawyer Ed Blum, who is white and has brought numerous cases before the Supreme Court challenging race-conscious policy-making, argued that any use of race was unconstitutional. They asked the court to overrule its prior precedents authorizing the limited use of race to achieve diversity in the 1978 case of Regents of the University of California v. Bakke and the approval of the limited affirmative action program used by the University of Michigan in Grutter v. Bollinger.

“Grutter is grievously wrong,” Patrick Strawbridge, counsel for Students for Fair Admissions, said in arguing that any consideration of race in admissions is unconstitutional and “divisive.”

The court’s six-justice conservative supermajority has the votes to overturn Grutter. Justices John Roberts, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas have all previously ruled in favor of ending race-conscious affirmative action programs. While Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett have a limited record on the issue, they all aligned with the arguments made by the plaintiffs on Monday.

[bionic 50,111]

I wonder how many of them benefitted from it

[Pennywise 36,080]

1 hour ago, BUtterfield 8 said:

white and Asian students claim that the use of race in admissions that helps the enrollment of Black, Hispanic and Native American students unconstitutionally discriminates against whites and Asians by violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act in both cases and the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause granting equal treatment to all persons under the law in the North Carolina case.

The lawyers for Students for Fair Admissions, a nonprofit group run by conservative lawyer Ed Blum, who is white

so this whole thing is a white & pick me clownfest, pathetic 

[Meta Mart 352]

It unfortunately has much deeper problematic tones. For instance, why is such an initiative in place, assuming that these people are able to qualify as much as anyone else. Does it mean there is a problem with prejudice where POC are not given favour or consideration in relation to their white counterparts. Like if the whole thing is about who is deserving of the opportunities, looking at it colourblind you would say that it should go to those with the keenest talents, achievement and aptitude, but we assume I suppose that having a selection quo for POC inclusion is there to even the playing field, even for those who might not have gotten the opportunity to make identifiable achievements that uplift their representation. The whole thing is a racist ****show on so many levels, not because I agree with this case, I support the POC considerable initiative, but it's underlying problems are much more contentious, than just wether there are people being given special treatment here for university admission. I'd say they deserve to be able to be given this special admission and preference. What cases like these do, and the deplorables who fight against it, is sweep aside the systemic factors which would lead to such an initiative like this being a necessity. Not to mention it is disturbing to think that without some kind of system in place like this, the admission process might be overwhelming racist, and that society too might be disenfranchising of these people's opportunity for things such as this. I do wonder though, if maybe this serves as a kind of limiter, for instance, if the admissions basically plateaued for POC representation based around this admission scheme, it might actually be working against them. Or is the problem that they are disproportionately represented on the whole due to being given preferential treatment to have more representation favourably than non-POC. I don't think this case has a basis in care for the situation beyond claiming victimisation based on preferential treatment of others, which would be concerning if it had a really effectual basis of a large scale, but it sounds to me more like they are accusing just this facet of diversity inclusion to be disproportionately in bad faith, displacing non-POC, based merely on their considerable inclusion, which I think comes from a bad faith position and doesn't sound like they consider these others to be equal to them as a prejudice, meaning I think they are inherently being prejudice against dismissal of systemic factors of diversity, in self-preferentialism.