Octopus Overlords

Octavious wrote: Thu Jun 29, 2023 5:07 pm If you are failing to get into Harvard chances are you probably got into a million other schools. (Unless you are insane and apply when you have no shot.) So they blew up the whole thing because people got rejected from a school where most people get rejected anyway. I look forward to dealing with college applications this year. The whole thing is insane. Pay to do the SATs. Pay to SEND the SATs. Pay to apply. The amount of money you have to outlay is nuts. This year is going to be rough until my wife finds another job.

More Than 80% Of Four-Year Colleges Won’t Require Standardized Tests For Fall 2023 Admissions

At least 1,835 U.S. colleges and universities are now employing either ACT/SAT-optional or test-blind/score-free policies, according to an updated list released yesterday by the National Center for Fair & Open Testing (FairTest), an organization that is one of the nation’s leading opponents to high-stakes standardized testing.

stessier wrote: Thu Jun 29, 2023 4:12 pm

Kurth wrote: Thu Jun 29, 2023 4:08 pm With a nod to malchior's note above about schools pretty much ignoring this, won't they be able to achieve the desires result - diversity on campus - through means other than race-based admissions?

There's no way an admissions office can't focus on other factors that will produce a similar - if not better - result.

As already alluded to in the dissent, focus on the essays and personal statements. Focus on kids who have overcome adversity, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds who've experienced discrimination.

My kid wants to be a writer. I look forward to reading her essay about the disadvantaged background she was raised in when in reality she had an upper middle class experience (and not just because I've raised her to be a Patriots fan...so much winning!).

Not going to tell you how to advise your kid on the college admissions process, but if I were you, I wouldn't be encouraging her to lie in her essay or anywhere else on her application. That tends to get people in hot water these days.

Another thought, how about colleges take a step back and start interviewing kids again as part of the standard course (or at least offer that as an option)?

Also, the Patriots suck. That is all.

Octavious wrote: Thu Jun 29, 2023 5:07 pm If you are failing to get into Harvard chances are you probably got into a million other schools. (Unless you are insane and apply when you have no shot.) So they blew up the whole thing because people got rejected from a school where most people get rejected anyway. I look forward to dealing with college applications this year. The whole thing is insane. Pay to do the SATs. Pay to SEND the SATs. Pay to apply. The amount of money you have to outlay is nuts. This year is going to be rough until my wife finds another job.

That's the rub here - there are thousands of schools that accept most or all applicants. At the other end is that ~75 of institutions that accept less than 33% of applicants and of those there are ~10 that accept less than 10%. Power in this country largely lives in that bottom 75 schools. We can expect barring some magic formula that survives further judicial review that black and latino representation in that sphere will drop and white/asian representation will increase. In addition, the Roberts decision essentially greenlights privilege based preference. Talk about a "meritocracy". Such bullshit.

Grifman wrote: Thu Jun 29, 2023 5:18 pm

Kurth wrote: Thu Jun 29, 2023 4:08 pm With a nod to malchior's note above about schools pretty much ignoring this, won't they be able to achieve the desires result - diversity on campus - through means other than race-based admissions?

There's no way an admissions office can't focus on other factors that will produce a similar - if not better - result.

As already alluded to in the dissent, focus on the essays and personal statements. Focus on kids who have overcome adversity, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds who've experienced discrimination.

They could go with class/income as a surrogate. Sure some poor whites might get in, but who’s to say they aren’t significantly disadvantaged also? The only ones then who lose out are middle to upper class African Americans, some of whom may have gotten in due to racial preferences.

So think of this as a PC game and to win you need to optimize college diversity across all universities in the US with maybe extra points for elite schools. The number one tool historically used to successfully do that in the game just got nerfed. Can you still find another way to win? Sure, but did we really want to nerf the tool here?

Grifman wrote: Thu Jun 29, 2023 5:10 pm

stessier wrote: Thu Jun 29, 2023 1:52 pm

Grifman wrote: Thu Jun 29, 2023 12:59 pm FWIW, a significant majority of Americans, 74%, including 65% of African Americans and 70% of Hispanics, believe that race should have no role in college admissions:

Slavery polled pretty high in the 1800s too.

This is a pretty dumb comparison. Did slaves poll in support of slavery?

FWIW, I never said I supported the SC decision - I merely reported what the majority of Americans believed, including minorities that would be negativity impacted by the decision.

Did you actually share what your level of support is?

Enough wrote: Thu Jun 29, 2023 5:36 pm

Grifman wrote: Thu Jun 29, 2023 5:18 pm

Kurth wrote: Thu Jun 29, 2023 4:08 pm With a nod to malchior's note above about schools pretty much ignoring this, won't they be able to achieve the desires result - diversity on campus - through means other than race-based admissions?

There's no way an admissions office can't focus on other factors that will produce a similar - if not better - result.

As already alluded to in the dissent, focus on the essays and personal statements. Focus on kids who have overcome adversity, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds who've experienced discrimination.

They could go with class/income as a surrogate. Sure some poor whites might get in, but who’s to say they aren’t significantly disadvantaged also? The only ones then who lose out are middle to upper class African Americans, some of whom may have gotten in due to racial preferences.

So think of this as a PC game and to win you need to optimize college diversity across all universities in the US with maybe extra points for elite schools. The number one tool historically used to successfully do that in the game just got nerfed. Can you still find another way to win? Sure, but did we really want to nerf the tool here?

I feel like you're maybe overlooking the possibility that the "number one tool" here wasn't really the best way to approach the problem. Sometimes the weapon that let's you cheese your way through actually needs to get nerfed.

And, to be clear, no way am I saying that minority students who were aided by affirmative action were cheesing their way through. It's the colleges that were taking the easy way out here.

Kurth wrote: Thu Jun 29, 2023 5:45 pm

Enough wrote: Thu Jun 29, 2023 5:36 pm

Grifman wrote: Thu Jun 29, 2023 5:18 pm

Kurth wrote: Thu Jun 29, 2023 4:08 pm With a nod to malchior's note above about schools pretty much ignoring this, won't they be able to achieve the desires result - diversity on campus - through means other than race-based admissions?

There's no way an admissions office can't focus on other factors that will produce a similar - if not better - result.

As already alluded to in the dissent, focus on the essays and personal statements. Focus on kids who have overcome adversity, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds who've experienced discrimination.

They could go with class/income as a surrogate. Sure some poor whites might get in, but who’s to say they aren’t significantly disadvantaged also? The only ones then who lose out are middle to upper class African Americans, some of whom may have gotten in due to racial preferences.

So think of this as a PC game and to win you need to optimize college diversity across all universities in the US with maybe extra points for elite schools. The number one tool historically used to successfully do that in the game just got nerfed. Can you still find another way to win? Sure, but did we really want to nerf the tool here?

I feel like you're maybe overlooking the possibility that the "number one tool" here wasn't really the best way to approach the problem. Sometimes the weapon that let's you cheese your way through actually needs to get nerfed.

And, to be clear, no way am I saying that minority students who were aided by affirmative action were cheesing their way through. It's the colleges that were taking the easy way out here.

Oh, I fully agree it's not the best theoretical tool we could have or even already have, it's more that it has the best track record in terms of prima facie evidenced results. I too would love to live in a dream world where we had a color-blind meritocracy and accept in the real world (especially with big data we have now) there are other ways to achieve this short of race-based affirmative action. Our university president has already reiterated CSU's commitment to diversity and I fully expect they will embrace substitution (I am not convinced that these fools won't sue schools like CSU that continue to pursue diversity in plain sight). But unlike a video game, nerfing the most proven tool is going to have real life impacts on people that might have gotten in before thanks to diversity (too bad it's too late to keep Clarence Thomas from benefiting from it hahaha). And, if I'm a person of color living in poverty, this decision just chilled my hopes and desires to even try to get in to an elite. Again, if you think schools are not already trying to use these "best ways to approach the problem," I think you are mistaken. I know at least on the college level at CSU in my unit we very much try to do that right now.

College admission is about standing out in your peer group of those with similar life experiences and qualifications. Showing you will appreciate the opportunity and maximize it.

Admitting some based on minority status makes sense when you know other factors benefit the majority. None of those factors alone are fair — the fairness comes from applying them all.

No tool is good or perfect. Those who believe affirmative action prevented them from admission are full of entitlement and resentment — which is a good reason to exclude them from the advantages of admission.

Another perspective on what happened today and what it means for the group that has benefited the most from affirmative action - white women:

A 1995 report by the Department of Labor found that 6 million women overall had advances at their job that would not have been possible without affirmative action. The percentage of women physicians tripled between 1970 and 2002, from 7.6 percent to 25.2 percent, and in 2009 women were receiving a majority of bachelor's, master's, and doctoral degrees, according to the American Association of University Women. To be clear, these numbers include women of all races; however, breaking down affirmative action beneficiaries by race and gender seems to be rare in reported data.

Contrary to popular belief, affirmative action isn't just black. It's white, too. But affirmative action's white female faces are rarely at the center of the conversation.

...

Many college campuses, however, have historically had predominantly white student bodies — 84 percent of college students in the US were white in 1976 compared with only 60 percent in 2012 — which makes it far more likely that the beneficiaries of legacy admissions practices are white applicants like Fisher, whose sister and father went to UT Austin.

Fisher advocated for a colorblind, meritocratic admissions process for which she, as an individual, may still not have been qualified. But a look at the marginalized group that has most benefited from affirmative action shows that race was never a barrier for that group to begin with.

White women, like Fisher, stand as a testament to affirmative action's success. If anything, the dismantling of affirmative action is launched at people of color, but it affects white women, too. And the willingness to erase them from the story is part of the problem.

NOTE: The story is originally from 2016, but it's interesting to see what has changed in ~7 years.

Enough wrote: Thu Jun 29, 2023 5:40 pm

Grifman wrote: Thu Jun 29, 2023 5:10 pm

stessier wrote: Thu Jun 29, 2023 1:52 pm

Grifman wrote: Thu Jun 29, 2023 12:59 pm FWIW, a significant majority of Americans, 74%, including 65% of African Americans and 70% of Hispanics, believe that race should have no role in college admissions:

Slavery polled pretty high in the 1800s too.

This is a pretty dumb comparison. Did slaves poll in support of slavery?

FWIW, I never said I supported the SC decision - I merely reported what the majority of Americans believed, including minorities that would be negativity impacted by the decision.

Did you actually share what your level of support is?

I supported the status quo - that race can be considered as one of many factors in college admissions. But I do understand and sympathize with the arguments of the other side.

That said, why is my position even relevant as to the results of the poll I shared? Facts are facts, regardless of any position I might hold on the issue.

Grifman wrote: Thu Jun 29, 2023 6:05 pm

Enough wrote: Thu Jun 29, 2023 5:40 pm

Grifman wrote: Thu Jun 29, 2023 5:10 pm

stessier wrote: Thu Jun 29, 2023 1:52 pm

Grifman wrote: Thu Jun 29, 2023 12:59 pm FWIW, a significant majority of Americans, 74%, including 65% of African Americans and 70% of Hispanics, believe that race should have no role in college admissions:

Slavery polled pretty high in the 1800s too.

This is a pretty dumb comparison. Did slaves poll in support of slavery?

FWIW, I never said I supported the SC decision - I merely reported what the majority of Americans believed, including minorities that would be negativity impacted by the decision.

Did you actually share what your level of support is?

I supported the status quo - that race can be considered as one of many factors in college admissions. But I do understand and sympathize with the arguments of the other side.

That said, why is my position even relevant as to the results of the poll I shared? Facts are facts, regardless of any position I might hold on the issue.

It was you who brought up your stance and then didn't define it which got me curious. Thanks much for sharing, was honestly trying to decide where you stand, and again, all of us are likely right there with you in sympathizing with some of the arguments on the other side.

Smoove_B wrote: Thu Jun 29, 2023 6:05 pm Another perspective on what happened today and what it means for the group that has benefited the most from affirmative action - white women:

A 1995 report by the Department of Labor found that 6 million women overall had advances at their job that would not have been possible without affirmative action. The percentage of women physicians tripled between 1970 and 2002, from 7.6 percent to 25.2 percent, and in 2009 women were receiving a majority of bachelor's, master's, and doctoral degrees, according to the American Association of University Women. To be clear, these numbers include women of all races; however, breaking down affirmative action beneficiaries by race and gender seems to be rare in reported data.

Contrary to popular belief, affirmative action isn't just black. It's white, too. But affirmative action's white female faces are rarely at the center of the conversation.

...

Many college campuses, however, have historically had predominantly white student bodies — 84 percent of college students in the US were white in 1976 compared with only 60 percent in 2012 — which makes it far more likely that the beneficiaries of legacy admissions practices are white applicants like Fisher, whose sister and father went to UT Austin.

Fisher advocated for a colorblind, meritocratic admissions process for which she, as an individual, may still not have been qualified. But a look at the marginalized group that has most benefited from affirmative action shows that race was never a barrier for that group to begin with.

White women, like Fisher, stand as a testament to affirmative action's success. If anything, the dismantling of affirmative action is launched at people of color, but it affects white women, too. And the willingness to erase them from the story is part of the problem.

NOTE: The story is originally from 2016, but it's interesting to see what has changed in ~7 years.

But I'm sure there are better tools out there to get these results, am I right?

Smoove_B wrote: Thu Jun 29, 2023 6:05 pm Another perspective on what happened today and what it means for the group that has benefited the most from affirmative action - white women:

A 1995 report by the Department of Labor found that 6 million women overall had advances at their job that would not have been possible without affirmative action. The percentage of women physicians tripled between 1970 and 2002, from 7.6 percent to 25.2 percent, and in 2009 women were receiving a majority of bachelor's, master's, and doctoral degrees, according to the American Association of University Women. To be clear, these numbers include women of all races; however, breaking down affirmative action beneficiaries by race and gender seems to be rare in reported data.

Contrary to popular belief, affirmative action isn't just black. It's white, too. But affirmative action's white female faces are rarely at the center of the conversation.

...

Many college campuses, however, have historically had predominantly white student bodies — 84 percent of college students in the US were white in 1976 compared with only 60 percent in 2012 — which makes it far more likely that the beneficiaries of legacy admissions practices are white applicants like Fisher, whose sister and father went to UT Austin.

Fisher advocated for a colorblind, meritocratic admissions process for which she, as an individual, may still not have been qualified. But a look at the marginalized group that has most benefited from affirmative action shows that race was never a barrier for that group to begin with.

White women, like Fisher, stand as a testament to affirmative action's success. If anything, the dismantling of affirmative action is launched at people of color, but it affects white women, too. And the willingness to erase them from the story is part of the problem.

NOTE: The story is originally from 2016, but it's interesting to see what has changed in ~7 years.

That’s a pretty old report and I doubt that it is very relevant today. Women do better academically than men and have for years, affirmative action plays very little role now for white women now, IMO. Indeed, women now make up almost 2/3 of the undergraduate students at my alma mater. Getting academically qualified white males that can compete with women is actually a problem.

Zarathud wrote: Thu Jun 29, 2023 5:57 pm Those who believe affirmative action prevented them from admission are full of entitlement and resentment — which is a good reason to exclude them from the advantages of admission.

Responding to this and to greengoo's earlier comment which I took to suggest that "personal failings" are a more likely reason someone wasn't admitted to school than affirmative action, I think these comments largely miss the mark.

This is anecdotal, but having just gone through the college admissions process with my son last year and my daughter this past year, I think it's silly to suggest that affirmative action isn't having a material impact on the opportunities of otherwise qualified (or over qualified) kids who are not from diverse backgrounds. Looking objectively - or as objectively as a parent can - at my kids and their incredibly homogenous high school cohort, you'll never convince me that these kids wouldn't have been accepted into a significantly higher number of highly selective schools had they been able to check a different race/ethnicity box on the application.

And the kids know this, too. The trick is, which of them are pissed off and resentful about it, and which are able to take a big picture view and understand that while their college options may be somewhat diminished compared to minority kids, they don't have shit to complain about overall?

Isgrimnur wrote:

Octavious wrote: Thu Jun 29, 2023 5:07 pm If you are failing to get into Harvard chances are you probably got into a million other schools. (Unless you are insane and apply when you have no shot.) So they blew up the whole thing because people got rejected from a school where most people get rejected anyway. I look forward to dealing with college applications this year. The whole thing is insane. Pay to do the SATs. Pay to SEND the SATs. Pay to apply. The amount of money you have to outlay is nuts. This year is going to be rough until my wife finds another job.

More Than 80% Of Four-Year Colleges Won’t Require Standardized Tests For Fall 2023 Admissions

At least 1,835 U.S. colleges and universities are now employing either ACT/SAT-optional or test-blind/score-free policies, according to an updated list released yesterday by the National Center for Fair & Open Testing (FairTest), an organization that is one of the nation’s leading opponents to high-stakes standardized testing.

Ya most of the schools have said it's optional. But if you take someone that got a 1500 (One kid in her class got a 1500 jerk face) on their SATs vs someone that didn't submit a score and you have the same grades? Ya... She already took it once and did pretty decent and is going to take it again. Anything that we can do to try and squeeze some place for scholarship money lol.

Kurth wrote: Thu Jun 29, 2023 6:25 pm

Zarathud wrote: Thu Jun 29, 2023 5:57 pm Those who believe affirmative action prevented them from admission are full of entitlement and resentment — which is a good reason to exclude them from the advantages of admission.

Responding to this and to greengoo's earlier comment which I took to suggest that "personal failings" are a more likely reason someone wasn't admitted to school than affirmative action, I think these comments largely miss the mark.

This is anecdotal, but having just gone through the college admissions process with my son last year and my daughter this past year, I think it's silly to suggest that affirmative action isn't having a material impact on the opportunities of otherwise qualified (or over qualified) kids who are not from diverse backgrounds. Looking objectively - or as objectively as a parent can - at my kids and their incredibly homogenous high school cohort, you'll never convince me that these kids wouldn't have been accepted into a significantly higher number of highly selective schools had they been able to check a different race/ethnicity box on the application.

I'm recognizing that you acknowledge it is an anecdote but I think this is a good place to dig in a bit on the "mythology" of affirmative action. Most people don't have any idea how selective the schools are or what the applicant pool even looks like. You might think you have a grasp on the impact of affirmative action but you probably don't actually. Not a dig on you but just a reality that it's highly competitive and even in *this case* the group suing (AAPI) represented Asians who were already over-represented in the student body in Harvard. Which makes the whole thing extra perverse.

And the kids know this, too. The trick is, which of them are pissed off and resentful about it, and which are able to take a big picture view and understand that while their college options may be somewhat diminished compared to minority kids, they don't have shit to complain about overall?

Perhaps the kids believe this but like I mentioned above this is stuff at the edges at the most elite schools. The idea that anyone "knows" anything could largely be the result of conjecture and/or entitlement.

Kurth wrote: Thu Jun 29, 2023 6:25 pm

Zarathud wrote: Thu Jun 29, 2023 5:57 pm Those who believe affirmative action prevented them from admission are full of entitlement and resentment — which is a good reason to exclude them from the advantages of admission.

Responding to this and to greengoo's earlier comment which I took to suggest that "personal failings" are a more likely reason someone wasn't admitted to school than affirmative action, I think these comments largely miss the mark.

My comment was in response to Kraken's peers blaming "the others" because they didn't get what they wanted and/or expected.

I also tempered my "personal failings" comment to acknowledge there are many reasons that might result in being rejected that have nothing to do with failings, personal or otherwise.

I think we can all agree that every affirmative action student is one less white male student. So as far as material impact is concerned, of course it's going to impact someone, somewhere. That's (practically) the entire point. Less white males and more of everyone else.

As to any one specific person believing *they* have been singled out for exclusion due to someone else being included, chances are extremely high that it was something else.

And honestly, it might not be fair that you can't be one of the sea of white male faces at the school you choose, but what's even more unfair is systemic racism preventing others from their chance too.

GreenGoo wrote:I would like to believe that any affirmative action acceptances were at least qualified to attend the program they applied for. Right? I mean, it's not like they are scooping up random strangers from the street and giving them a slot. I hope.

You can always use this logic to spot the racist shit bags. I don’t mean you of course!

I mean the people that presume that the minority is otherwise not or less qualified. I see this all the time when it comes up in sports hiring practices. There’s always this mantra from these people to “hire the best people, regardless of race.”

The problem of course, is that they weren’t hiring the best people, regardless of race. In many cases, the minority candidates are clearly more qualified. That was the point.

As others have mentioned, part of the problem is leveling the playing field to account for institutional advantages. The other part was admitting/hiring less qualified whites because they were white. Which was (and still is) *rampant* in the sports world.

GreenGoo wrote: Thu Jun 29, 2023 7:20 pm And honestly, it might not be fair that you can't be one of the sea of white male faces at the school you choose, but what's even more unfair is systemic racism preventing others from their chance too.

I'm not sure if the "you" here is intended to be me or just a big generalized "you," but I'm hoping you saw that I never said it wasn't fair.

Of course, it's not "fair" on a micro level. Giving preference to one of two equally qualified kids based on race goes against fundamental concepts of fairness. But I specifically pointed out that I think that's a shitty way for people to look at it, and instead, they should be looking at this at the macro level in light of the full context of systemic racism.

Kurth wrote: Thu Jun 29, 2023 7:58 pm I'm not sure if the "you" here is intended to be me or just a big generalized "you," but I'm hoping you saw that I never said it wasn't fair.

General you. Sorry about that.

RunningMn9 wrote: Thu Jun 29, 2023 7:44 pm
You can always use this logic to spot the racist shit bags. I don’t mean you of course!

Yes, if it wasn't clear, I have always assumed that affirmative action is taking qualified candidates and moving them to the head of the line because white people males outnumber them in the line and because old white dudes run academia like they do everywhere else.

My questions were half joking and half incredulous at the idea that unqualified candidates are getting in. Would it surprise me if borderline candidates are getting in? Probably not, but I don't see that as a problem.

That said, I am a white male who went to university and I am not a part of any post secondary school's admissions department. I admit I don't actually know how it works.

Grifman wrote: Thu Jun 29, 2023 6:18 pm That’s a pretty old report and I doubt that it is very relevant today. Women do better academically than men and have for years, affirmative action plays very little role now for white women now, IMO. Indeed, women now make up almost 2/3 of the undergraduate students at my alma mater. Getting academically qualified white males that can compete with women is actually a problem.

Yeah, clearly white women squeezed all the affirmative action benefits out of the system by the year 2000, so it's long over due to be removed from higher education admissions.

I'm not quite sure you made the point you were looking for here. There's been a demonstration that the affirmative action laws had wide-spread benefits (education, employment) for all different groups since it was enacted. Some obvious, others not so obvious.

I'm not sure using statistics from the last ~decade to demonstrate how these laws and policies aren't helpful ignores the actual impact they've had (and how it shapes the current landscape).

As I said - I guess we''ll see.

GreenGoo wrote: Thu Jun 29, 2023 7:20 pm

Kurth wrote: Thu Jun 29, 2023 6:25 pm

Zarathud wrote: Thu Jun 29, 2023 5:57 pm Those who believe affirmative action prevented them from admission are full of entitlement and resentment — which is a good reason to exclude them from the advantages of admission.

Responding to this and to greengoo's earlier comment which I took to suggest that "personal failings" are a more likely reason someone wasn't admitted to school than affirmative action, I think these comments largely miss the mark.

My comment was in response to Kraken's peers blaming "the others" because they didn't get what they wanted and/or expected.

I should provide this context, from Britannica:

The first major challenge was Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled (5–4) that quotas may not be used to reserve places for minority applicants if white applicants are denied a chance to compete for those places. Although the court outlawed quota programs, it allowed colleges to use race as a factor in making admissions decisions. Two years later a fragmented court upheld a 1977 federal law requiring that 10 percent of funds for public works be allotted to qualified minority contractors.

I was in state university from 1978-79, and Bakke validated a lot of aggrieved white youths who had expected to be in better schools but for those newly overturned quotas. (I wasn't one of them; MSU was my first choice.)

GreenGoo wrote:Yes, if it wasn't clear, I have always assumed that affirmative action is taking qualified candidates and moving them to the head of the line because white people outnumber them in the line and because old white dudes run academia like they do everywhere else.

I think that’s the underlying assumption of affirmative action. All the white guys have an underlying assumption that they are more deserving of the women and minorities behind them. They never entertain even the remotest possibility that they aren’t the most qualified.

RunningMn9 wrote: Thu Jun 29, 2023 9:47 pm

GreenGoo wrote:Yes, if it wasn't clear, I have always assumed that affirmative action is taking qualified candidates and moving them to the head of the line because white people outnumber them in the line and because old white dudes run academia like they do everywhere else.

I think that’s the underlying assumption of affirmative action. All the white guys have an underlying assumption that they are more deserving of the women and minorities behind them. They never entertain even the remotest possibility that they aren’t the most qualified.

I only have insight into one university. If you played Fallout 4, you know it as the Institute, which is how it self-identifies. If you didn't play FO4, it's MIT.

DEI initiatives are embedded at every level. If you're a white kid exploring what the Institute has to offer, you will be hard-pressed to find people who look like you and 100 student organizations that exclude you. There are still a lot of pasty old men running the show, but more of them become emeritus every day.

MIT is the closest thing to a real meritocracy that I've ever encountered, and the BIPOCs are definitely rising.

However, the Court specifically exempted the military academies from its decision on race-based affirmative action. The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, said in a footnote that this policy would not impact how military service academies approached admissions, citing "distinct interests" those institutions have.

"The special nature of military academies and their interests was addressed in an important amicus brief filed in Grutter v. Bollinger almost 20 years ago," said Lawrence Friedman, JD, professor of law at New England Law Boston. "The Supreme Court's decision tacitly acknowledges that."

The Supreme Court's decision allows the academies to continue race-conscious admissions policies that have historically been justified by the need for a diverse officer corps. As of 2022 the Department of Defense’s Office of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion assessed that while 19% of the military’s enlisted personnel were Black, only 8% of its officers were Black.

https://www.military.com/daily-news/202 ... ction.html

The Supreme Court's decision allows the academies to continue race-conscious admissions policies that have historically been justified by the need for a diverse officer corps. As of 2022 the Department of Defense’s Office of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion assessed that while 19% of the military’s enlisted personnel were Black, only 8% of its officers were Black.

This confuzzles me. How can you, as the top jurists in the nation, see the need/success for race conscious and diversity in the military and then deny the same thing in institutional learning? What are the sufficient and necessary conditionals that differentiate them? Is that spelled out?

That's the thing - it doesn't have to make sense. This isn't "law" or justice - it is another exercise in use of raw power. They can do what they want so they will.

Smoove_B wrote: Thu Jun 29, 2023 8:37 pm Yeah, clearly white women squeezed all the affirmative action benefits out of the system by the year 2000, so it's long over due to be removed from higher education admissions.

As I pointed out, female students make up 2/3 of the students at my alma mater. Nationwide, female students make up 60% of college students (2020-2021). How much more affirmative action benefits are left to be "squeezed" out of the system? I've given you two data points, you give me . . . nothing.

I'm not quite sure you made the point you were looking for here. There's been a demonstration that the affirmative action laws had wide-spread benefits (education, employment) for all different groups since it was enacted. Some obvious, others not so obvious.

I'm not sure you are following my argument. I am not disagreeing that affirmative action hasn't had benefits - where did I say that? What I am saying is that there's no need for affirmative action for woman - to the extent that it existed - more on that below - any more in education. We now have an equitable playing field, as seen in college admissions. If you have data showing otherwise, now is the time to show it.

[I'm not sure using statistics from the last ~decade to demonstrate how these laws and policies aren't helpful ignores the actual impact they've had (and how it shapes the current landscape).

Wrong argument. I'm talking about the present, while you keep talking about the past.

That said, I have to questions something about the link you posted. Was there ever really "affirmative action" for women in education? Were women with lower grades/scores ever selected over men due to past discrimination (which is what I think most people think of when they think of affirmative action)? The article you linked to mainly mentioned anti-discrimination laws, which I don't think most people think of as "affirmative action". It seems to me that most of the advances in woman's education was due barriers/discrimination being eliminated and parents now encouraging further female education, and women seeking careers (and the related education). Once the barriers were lifted, women have seemed to flourish academically. I'm not aware of women being given preferential treatment but maybe I am wrong. I am willing to be corrected if I am wrong on this.

LordMortis wrote: Fri Jun 30, 2023 7:43 am This confuzzles me. How can you, as the top jurists in the nation, see the need/success for race conscious and diversity in the military and then deny the same thing in institutional learning? What are the sufficient and necessary conditionals that differentiate them? Is that spelled out?

military is for poor people, college is for rich people, is how I read that and is the stereotype in any case.

Oh look they ruled that you can be biased against gay people. AMERICA! Fuck ya

Octavious wrote: Fri Jun 30, 2023 10:15 am Oh look they ruled that you can be biased against gay people. AMERICA! Fuck ya

This is probably the one case where it's 100% not about law. The case and the question was essentially made up in a right-wing laboratory to get it in front of these despicable tyrants. They basically ruled on a hypothetical. I can't wait for the further flood of regressive cases this abuse of power will encourage.

Octavious wrote: Fri Jun 30, 2023 10:15 am Oh look they ruled that you can be biased against gay people. AMERICA! Fuck ya

It’ll be funny to watch the howls of protest when services get refused to straight couples or to Christians based on the same logic.

malchior wrote: Fri Jun 30, 2023 10:28 am

Octavious wrote: Fri Jun 30, 2023 10:15 am Oh look they ruled that you can be biased against gay people. AMERICA! Fuck ya

This is probably the one case where it's 100% not about law. The case and the question was essentially made up in a right-wing laboratory to get it in front of these despicable tyrants.

They literally ruled on a complete fabricated scenario

Ya so I guess that's the new Meta now? Just rule through the supreme court with made up cases? I can't wait to see what they tee up for next session.

There is a high chance this is totally going to spiral out of control.

Skinypupy wrote: Fri Jun 30, 2023 10:30 am

Octavious wrote: Fri Jun 30, 2023 10:15 am Oh look they ruled that you can be biased against gay people. AMERICA! Fuck ya

It’ll be funny to watch the howls of protest when services get refused to straight couples or to Christians based on the same logic.

They won't howl in protest. They'll sue and these tyrants will rule for them. We are in a new era. We are ruled by unelected tyrants. They might have limited control but they are ruthlessly abusing it.

On another note, this is the type of decision where I could see the state begin to break with accepting decisions. Is the court or federal government going to send in troops if the state won't issue or revokes a business license? Or levies fines. This might not get there but the potential for a breaking point is increasing when we see rulings as thin and illegitimate as this one are flying around.

Well no worries Biden has already said he wouldn't pack the court as that would be too political. They are playing Global Thermonuclear War while we're playing Tic Tac Toe.

At least anything is now possible.

"If gay space aliens come to earth to try to steal my kin, I need to be able to defend myself."

Student Loans dead too. Seriously turn off the lights on the way out.

Octavious wrote: Fri Jun 30, 2023 10:42 am Student Loans dead too. Seriously turn off the lights on the way out.

Not necessarily. There were two. The first was punted for standing which means there is a ruling on the other one that has yet to come.

Edit: And there it is. Same split striking it down. Without reading it this one is way less straight forward but I bet it will be 'the founding fathers' would have wanted kids to pay every cent of their indebtedness like those dirty Irish indentured servants they imported. Or something along those lines.

Edit 2: It sounds from the lawspeakers musings that Barrett Roberts wrote this opinion using their totally made up 'Major Questions' doctrine powers - aka making shit up. Nice.