Law Affirmative Action Abolished: U.S Supreme Court Outlaws Racial Discrimination In College Admissions.

Laughable. You want to compare Harvard graduation rates to Mississippi Valley state and expect me to be surprised harvard has better graduation?

Also, I love this "So, insofar as the question of whether minority accepts are less qualified than white or Asian accepts, it's a non-question."

Asians, no longer minorities!

Uh, that wasn't the basis of the comparison. It was Harvard graduation rates having a lack of statistical difference between ethnic groups except that black and Native Americans graduate at a slightly higher rate. But nice side-step.

Yeah the framing of Asians being mentioned outside of minorities was a setup for the notion that they're being discriminated against, to which that article had an answer:

"All of that discussion prepares is for this big one: the elephant in the room. News media outlets parrot the lie that Asian (and now, White) students are systematically discriminated. 'Systematic' means 'intentional' and on a widespread, deliberate basis. No scientific evidence has supported this claim, yet it's a claim that requires scientific analysis to prove. As we've already seen, Asian students make up a healthy portion of every Ivy League student body. Moreover, most students at Ivy League schools graduate at the same, exceptionally high rates. What that means is that the mix of students, whatever it is, is the right one. Yet, discrimination theorists are arguing they know better. Fortunately, the Harvard law suit offers the science we need to show they don't. Economist David Card is a Clark Medal winner and widely acknowledged as the most accomplished labor economist alive. He analyzed 6 years of Harvard admissions data for the lawsuit. His conclusion was that not only were Asian students not discriminated, they were slightly favored. Yet, his main coinclusion was that the plaintiff's claims were deeply flawed. They assumed Asian students who had high test scores were also objectively strong in other categories. This, Card showed, was incorrect. That is, the plaintiffs fell for the halo effect. They assumed that if Asian applicants excelled in one category, they excelled in all categories. Card then shows that if Harvard ignored race, or qualitative factors, in its admissions it would seriously damage Harvard's incoming class quality."

As I mentioned in the other thread, test scores alone don't tell you everything about whether the student is tentatively strong or weak.
 
What that means is that the mix of students, whatever it is, is the right one.

This, right here, is the issue. This is a subjective opinion, trying to mascarade as objective fact.

Graduation at Harvard is near 100% for all groups, that doesn't mean that blacks need to be admitted based on different criteria. Thr whole premise is ludicrous.

You can claim that evidence shows asians weren't discriminated against, but that is a lie. They literally had different admission standards. That's discrimination. It has been ruled as such in court. You can be racist against asians if you want, it's not illegal, but Harvard cannot use racist standards for admission. Jobs are not allowed to hire based on race. This is the law. It isn't complicated.
 
Uh, that wasn't the basis of the comparison. It was Harvard graduation rates having a lack of statistical difference between ethnic groups except that black and Native Americans graduate at a slightly higher rate. But nice side-step.

Yeah the framing of Asians being mentioned outside of minorities was a setup for the notion that they're being discriminated against, to which that article had an answer:

"All of that discussion prepares is for this big one: the elephant in the room. News media outlets parrot the lie that Asian (and now, White) students are systematically discriminated. 'Systematic' means 'intentional' and on a widespread, deliberate basis. No scientific evidence has supported this claim, yet it's a claim that requires scientific analysis to prove. As we've already seen, Asian students make up a healthy portion of every Ivy League student body. Moreover, most students at Ivy League schools graduate at the same, exceptionally high rates. What that means is that the mix of students, whatever it is, is the right one. Yet, discrimination theorists are arguing they know better. Fortunately, the Harvard law suit offers the science we need to show they don't. Economist David Card is a Clark Medal winner and widely acknowledged as the most accomplished labor economist alive. He analyzed 6 years of Harvard admissions data for the lawsuit. His conclusion was that not only were Asian students not discriminated, they were slightly favored. Yet, his main coinclusion was that the plaintiff's claims were deeply flawed. They assumed Asian students who had high test scores were also objectively strong in other categories. This, Card showed, was incorrect. That is, the plaintiffs fell for the halo effect. They assumed that if Asian applicants excelled in one category, they excelled in all categories. Card then shows that if Harvard ignored race, or qualitative factors, in its admissions it would seriously damage Harvard's incoming class quality."

As I mentioned in the other thread, test scores alone don't tell you everything about whether the student is tentatively strong or weak.

The Asian percentage of Harvard's student population exponentially started to grow until they started instituting AA.

Then it was essentially the same percentage for years on end (until this recent decision.) There was an unspoken racial quota at these schools.

I don't know how you can argue it wasn't systematic - it clearly was.

Not only do Asian students need to score 240 points higher on the SAT's than black students, they also needed to score 140 higher than white students.

White students are already 60% of the student body. Why were Asians handicapped even against the majority white students?

Because there's obviously a racial quota.
 
great news for all Americans who's striving to better their lives based on their merit based hard work.
 
The next president is happy profiling people based on the color of their skin ever for colleges


Sad part is that this will happen next but not for the right reasons. Of course AA in corporate America is absolute horse shit and racism at its core.

The reason Corp America is next is because the Dem overlords need to justify cost saving metrics before companies implode, and there are huge chunks of fat in DI departments that serve zero business purpose. The fact that the officer level in every big company added a diversity officer across the table from CEOs and CFOs is comical. The real enemy of the DI groups are the traditional HR leadership. Only room for one grift.
 
lol…. Kind of related

Why are white liberals so retarded?



Lol…. Peak wokeness
 
The NAACP now believes college admission should be based on each student's own merits.

Activists spurred by affirmative action ruling challenge legacy admissions at Harvard

July 3, 2023



WASHINGTON — A civil rights group is challenging legacy admissions at Harvard University, saying the practice discriminates against students of color by giving an unfair boost to the mostly white children of alumni.

The practice of giving priority to the children of alumni has faced growing pushback in the wake of last week's Supreme Court's decision ending affirmative action in higher education. The NAACP added its weight behind the effort on Monday, asking more than 1,500 colleges and universities to even the playing field in admissions, including by ending legacy admissions.

The civil rights complaint was filed Monday by Lawyers for Civil Rights, a nonprofit based in Boston, on behalf of Black and Latino community groups in New England, alleging that Harvard's admissions system violates the Civil Rights Act.

"Why are we rewarding children for privileges and advantages accrued by prior generations?" said Ivan Espinoza-Madrigal, the group's executive director. "Your family's last name and the size of your bank account are not a measure of merit, and should have no bearing on the college admissions process."

Opponents say the practice is no longer defensible without affirmative action providing a counterbalance. The court's ruling says colleges must ignore the race of applicants, activists point out, but schools can still give a boost to the children of alumni and donors.

The complaint, submitted with the Education Department's Office for Civil Rights, draws on Harvard data that came to light amid the affirmative action case that landed before the Supreme Court. The records revealed that 70% of Harvard's donor-related and legacy applicants are white, and being a legacy student makes an applicant roughly six times more likely to be admitted.

It draws attention to other colleges that have abandoned the practice amid questions about its fairness, including Amherst College and Johns Hopkins University.

The complaint alleges that Harvard's legacy preference has nothing to do with merit and takes away slots from qualified students of color. It asks the U.S. Education Department to declare the practice illegal and force Harvard to abandon it as long as the university receives federal funding.

"A spot given to a legacy or donor-related applicant is a spot that becomes unavailable to an applicant who meets the admissions criteria based purely on his or her own merit," according to the complaint. If legacy and donor preferences were removed, it adds, "more students of color would be admitted to Harvard."

Harvard said it would not comment on the complaint.

The complaint was filed on behalf of Chica Project, African Community Economic Development of New England, and the Greater Boston Latino Network.

Also Monday, the NAACP launched a campaign aiming to get universities across the nation to promote campus diversity. The group called on 532 public and 1,134 private colleges and universities to end legacy preferences, eliminate "racially biased" entrance examinations, recruit diverse faculty, and support low-income and first-generation students with scholarships and mentoring, among other steps.

"It is our hope that our nation's institutions will stand with us in embracing diversity, no matter what," said Derrick Johnson president and CEO of the NAACP. "Regardless, the NAACP will continue to advocate, litigate and mobilize to ensure that every Black American has access to the resources and opportunities they need to thrive."

That effort joins another campaign urging the alumni of 30 prestigious colleges to withhold donations until their schools end legacy admissions. That initiative, led by Ed Mobilizer, also targets Harvard and other Ivy League schools.

President Joe Biden suggested last week that universities should rethink the practice, saying legacy admissions "expand privilege instead of opportunity."

Several Democrats in Congress demanded an end to the policy in light of the court's decision, along with Republicans including Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina, who is vying for the GOP presidential nomination.

It's unclear exactly which schools provide a legacy boost and how much it helps. In California, where state law requires schools to disclose the practice, the University of Southern California reported that 14% of last year's admitted students had family ties to alumni or donors. Stanford reported a similar rate.

An Associated Press survey of the nation's most selective colleges last year found that legacy students in the freshman class ranged from 4% to 23%. At four schools — Notre Dame, USC, Cornell and Dartmouth — legacy students outnumbered Black students.

Supporters of the policy say it builds an alumni community and encourages donations. A 2022 study of an undisclosed college in the Northeast found that legacy students were more likely to make donations, but at a cost to diversity — the vast majority were white.

https://www.npr.org/2023/07/03/1185...upreme-court-ruling-legacy-admissions-harvard
 
The NAACP now believes college admission should be based on each student's own merits.

Activists spurred by affirmative action ruling challenge legacy admissions at Harvard

July 3, 2023



WASHINGTON — A civil rights group is challenging legacy admissions at Harvard University, saying the practice discriminates against students of color by giving an unfair boost to the mostly white children of alumni.

The practice of giving priority to the children of alumni has faced growing pushback in the wake of last week's Supreme Court's decision ending affirmative action in higher education. The NAACP added its weight behind the effort on Monday, asking more than 1,500 colleges and universities to even the playing field in admissions, including by ending legacy admissions.

The civil rights complaint was filed Monday by Lawyers for Civil Rights, a nonprofit based in Boston, on behalf of Black and Latino community groups in New England, alleging that Harvard's admissions system violates the Civil Rights Act.

"Why are we rewarding children for privileges and advantages accrued by prior generations?" said Ivan Espinoza-Madrigal, the group's executive director. "Your family's last name and the size of your bank account are not a measure of merit, and should have no bearing on the college admissions process."

Opponents say the practice is no longer defensible without affirmative action providing a counterbalance. The court's ruling says colleges must ignore the race of applicants, activists point out, but schools can still give a boost to the children of alumni and donors.

The complaint, submitted with the Education Department's Office for Civil Rights, draws on Harvard data that came to light amid the affirmative action case that landed before the Supreme Court. The records revealed that 70% of Harvard's donor-related and legacy applicants are white, and being a legacy student makes an applicant roughly six times more likely to be admitted.

It draws attention to other colleges that have abandoned the practice amid questions about its fairness, including Amherst College and Johns Hopkins University.

The complaint alleges that Harvard's legacy preference has nothing to do with merit and takes away slots from qualified students of color. It asks the U.S. Education Department to declare the practice illegal and force Harvard to abandon it as long as the university receives federal funding.

"A spot given to a legacy or donor-related applicant is a spot that becomes unavailable to an applicant who meets the admissions criteria based purely on his or her own merit," according to the complaint. If legacy and donor preferences were removed, it adds, "more students of color would be admitted to Harvard."

Harvard said it would not comment on the complaint.

The complaint was filed on behalf of Chica Project, African Community Economic Development of New England, and the Greater Boston Latino Network.

Also Monday, the NAACP launched a campaign aiming to get universities across the nation to promote campus diversity. The group called on 532 public and 1,134 private colleges and universities to end legacy preferences, eliminate "racially biased" entrance examinations, recruit diverse faculty, and support low-income and first-generation students with scholarships and mentoring, among other steps.

"It is our hope that our nation's institutions will stand with us in embracing diversity, no matter what," said Derrick Johnson president and CEO of the NAACP. "Regardless, the NAACP will continue to advocate, litigate and mobilize to ensure that every Black American has access to the resources and opportunities they need to thrive."

That effort joins another campaign urging the alumni of 30 prestigious colleges to withhold donations until their schools end legacy admissions. That initiative, led by Ed Mobilizer, also targets Harvard and other Ivy League schools.

President Joe Biden suggested last week that universities should rethink the practice, saying legacy admissions "expand privilege instead of opportunity."

Several Democrats in Congress demanded an end to the policy in light of the court's decision, along with Republicans including Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina, who is vying for the GOP presidential nomination.

It's unclear exactly which schools provide a legacy boost and how much it helps. In California, where state law requires schools to disclose the practice, the University of Southern California reported that 14% of last year's admitted students had family ties to alumni or donors. Stanford reported a similar rate.

An Associated Press survey of the nation's most selective colleges last year found that legacy students in the freshman class ranged from 4% to 23%. At four schools — Notre Dame, USC, Cornell and Dartmouth — legacy students outnumbered Black students.

Supporters of the policy say it builds an alumni community and encourages donations. A 2022 study of an undisclosed college in the Northeast found that legacy students were more likely to make donations, but at a cost to diversity — the vast majority were white.

https://www.npr.org/2023/07/03/1185...upreme-court-ruling-legacy-admissions-harvard


Based:

https://www.npr.org/2023/07/03/1185...upreme-court-ruling-legacy-admissions-harvard

"Why are we rewarding children for privileges and advantages accrued by prior generations?" said Ivan Espinoza-Madrigal, the group's executive director. "Your family's last name and the size of your bank account are not a measure of merit, and should have no bearing on the college admissions process."

These would only mean less whites, and even less black and brown students, but a lot more Asian students

Harvard would be 99% Asian if you got rid of AA AND legacy admissions.
 
These would only mean less whites, and even less black and brown students, but a lot more Asian students

Harvard would be 99% Asian if you got rid of AA AND legacy admissions.

That's ONLY if you based college admission on test scores alone, as stated above. Test scores arent always indicative of the full scope of strength of a student.
 

Americans Say they Like “Affirmative Action”, Yet Oppose Racial Preferences in College Admissions

By Emily Ekins and Jordan Gygi | August 8, 2023



The Supreme Court again attracted much attention in June when it struck down Harvard’s and University of North Carolina’s use of racial preferences in admissions, a practice known as affirmative action. President Biden expressed anger over the decision and said “We cannot let this decision be the last word. The court can render a decision, it cannot change what America stands for.” But what does the American public think of affirmative action?

Polls do not produce a clear picture of where Americans stand on the issue. Question wording strongly influences if people say they support or oppose considering racial background in college admissions. Research has long shown that question wording impacts how people answer survey questions. However, patterns do emerge that give insight into how Americans are thinking about affirmative action. In short, questions that ask if Americans support “affirmative action” but don’t describe the policy find a majority support it. In contrast, surveys that don’t use the phrase but rather describe what affirmative action is find most Americans oppose it.

We examined nearly two dozen recently conducted surveys that asked about affirmative action (See Appendix A). In almost every survey question that uses the words “affirmative action,” a majority of Americans express support for the policy. For example, when NPR asked, “Do you think affirmative action programs in hiring, promoting, and college admissions should be continued or should be abolished,” 57% of Americans said they should be continued, while 38% said they should be abolished.1

However, survey questions that did not use the phrase “affirmative action” but rather described how the policy is implemented consistently found a majority opposed to the practice. For example, the Economist/YouGov asked, “Do you think colleges should or should not be allowed to consider an applicant’s race, among other factors, when making decisions on admissions?” In response, 64% of Americans said they do not think colleges should be allowed to consider race in admissions decisions, while only 25% said this should be allowed. Every survey that omitted the words “affirmative action” revealed majority opposition. Specifically, phrases such as “racial preferences” and “consider race as a factor” in admissions tended to elicit opposition.

Opposition to affirmative action policies in college admissions declined somewhat when the question mentioned its intent to increase the racial diversity of the school. In contrast, Americans expressed much greater opposition if they were asked if race should be a factor, among other factors, in college admissions decisions without explicitly mentioning its goal.
  • Survey questions that described affirmative action without mentioning the purpose of the policy found about 7 in 10 Americans oppose it:
Colleges should…

“…be able to use race as a factor in admissions…” 69% opposed (YouGov)
“…consider an applicant’s race as part of their admissions policies” 70% opposed (CBS/YouGov)
“…be able to use race as a factor in admissions” 74% opposed (YouGov)
“…be allowed to consider an applicant’s race, among other factors…” 65% opposed (Economist/YouGov)

  • Survey questions that mentioned the intention behind affirmative action policies as well how they are implemented found about 5 to 6 in 10 Americans oppose it:
Colleges should…

“.…be allowed to use race as one of the factors in admissions to increase diversity…” 58% opposed (Quinnipiac)
“…giv[e] Black and other minority college applicants preference in college admissions to make up for the past and present inequalities” 55% opposed (YouGov)
“…take into account…race and ethnicity…as one of the factors…in order to increase the racial and ethnic diversity of the school…” 50% opposed (Pew Research Center)

These data suggest that Americans may not know what affirmative action actually is. They may have a vague idea that these programs are intended to help increase diversity–a cause worth supporting. However, they disapprove of the way colleges go about doing it. The majority of Americans appear uncomfortable with the idea of using someone’s race as a factor in college admissions decisions. It’s likely that the practice of giving some applicants preference over others because of their race violates a sense of fairness that is important to many people, even if the idea of increased diversity remains important to them.

Black Americans have diverse opinions about affirmative action.

Black Americans tend to express majority support when the words “affirmative action” are used in the question. However, when the words are omitted and the policy is explained as colleges using race as a factor in college admissions, Black Americans tend to express greater opposition to the idea. Across different question wordings, data show that many African Americans oppose affirmative action, many support it, and many have mixed feelings about it.

For instance, when asked in a CBS/YouGov poll, “In general, do you think affirmative action programs in hiring, promoting, and college admissions should be continued, or do you think these affirmative action programs should be abolished,” 78% of Black Americans said they should be continued and only 22% said they should be abolished.

But in some surveys, a majority of Black Americans opposed affirmative action policies. For example, YouGov asked, “Some people think that public colleges and universities should be able to use race as a factor in admissions. Other people think that they should not be able to. What do you think?” Nearly two‐thirds (64%) of Black Americans said public colleges should not be able to use race as a factor in admissions, while only 36% said they should be able to.

The Pew Research Center found ambivalent support among Black Americans when the survey question mentioned both the policy and its intention. The survey found that less than half (47%) of Black Americans approved of “selective colleges and universities taking race and ethnicity into account in admissions decisions in order to increase the racial and ethnic diversity at the school.” But 53% either opposed it (29%) or weren’t sure (24%) if they approved or disapproved.

Although African Americans are more supportive of affirmative action compared to Americans overall, there is a great deal of variation and diversity in their views.

Most Americans don’t differentiate between public and private universities when forming opinions about affirmative action

The Court’s decision extends to both public universities and private institutions that accept federal funds. However, some point out that private colleges and universities should be treated differently since they are not run by the government and should thus be allowed to use race as a factor in their admissions policies.

However, the Court did not make this distinction, and it appears that most Americans do not either. A June YouGov poll asked respondents two separate questions about if private and if public universities “should be allowed to use race as a factor in admissions.” In both cases majorities of Americans oppose the use of affirmative action policies: 69% oppose for private universities and 74% oppose for public universities. Nevertheless, Americans were about 5 percentage points more likely to oppose affirmative action in public colleges than private ones. This means that some Americans do make the distinction. (Some of this difference could also be due to measurement error.) But overall, these results show that most Americans do not make a distinction between private and public universities when it comes to employing affirmative action policies.

Implications

Recent polls about affirmative action do not paint a clear picture. When simply asked whether they support “affirmative action,” a majority of Americans stand by the policy. However, when asked whether some racial groups should be given preference in college admissions, the implementation of affirmative action, a majority of Americans are opposed. Likely, Americans support the basic principle that guided the adoption of affirmative action, namely that college campuses should be diverse and that racial minorities should be more fully embraced in these spaces. But also it’s likely that many Americans feel the practice of using race as a factor in college admissions violates the value of fairness. The perception of these two values being in conflict may help explain why Americans’ opinions of affirmative action are highly sensitive to how the policy is framed in survey questions.

 

Americans Say they Like “Affirmative Action”, Yet Oppose Racial Preferences in College Admissions

By Emily Ekins and Jordan Gygi | August 8, 2023



The Supreme Court again attracted much attention in June when it struck down Harvard’s and University of North Carolina’s use of racial preferences in admissions, a practice known as affirmative action. President Biden expressed anger over the decision and said “We cannot let this decision be the last word. The court can render a decision, it cannot change what America stands for.” But what does the American public think of affirmative action?

Polls do not produce a clear picture of where Americans stand on the issue. Question wording strongly influences if people say they support or oppose considering racial background in college admissions. Research has long shown that question wording impacts how people answer survey questions. However, patterns do emerge that give insight into how Americans are thinking about affirmative action. In short, questions that ask if Americans support “affirmative action” but don’t describe the policy find a majority support it. In contrast, surveys that don’t use the phrase but rather describe what affirmative action is find most Americans oppose it.

We examined nearly two dozen recently conducted surveys that asked about affirmative action (See Appendix A). In almost every survey question that uses the words “affirmative action,” a majority of Americans express support for the policy. For example, when NPR asked, “Do you think affirmative action programs in hiring, promoting, and college admissions should be continued or should be abolished,” 57% of Americans said they should be continued, while 38% said they should be abolished.1

However, survey questions that did not use the phrase “affirmative action” but rather described how the policy is implemented consistently found a majority opposed to the practice. For example, the Economist/YouGov asked, “Do you think colleges should or should not be allowed to consider an applicant’s race, among other factors, when making decisions on admissions?” In response, 64% of Americans said they do not think colleges should be allowed to consider race in admissions decisions, while only 25% said this should be allowed. Every survey that omitted the words “affirmative action” revealed majority opposition. Specifically, phrases such as “racial preferences” and “consider race as a factor” in admissions tended to elicit opposition.

Opposition to affirmative action policies in college admissions declined somewhat when the question mentioned its intent to increase the racial diversity of the school. In contrast, Americans expressed much greater opposition if they were asked if race should be a factor, among other factors, in college admissions decisions without explicitly mentioning its goal.
  • Survey questions that described affirmative action without mentioning the purpose of the policy found about 7 in 10 Americans oppose it:
Colleges should…

“…be able to use race as a factor in admissions…” 69% opposed (YouGov)
“…consider an applicant’s race as part of their admissions policies” 70% opposed (CBS/YouGov)
“…be able to use race as a factor in admissions” 74% opposed (YouGov)
“…be allowed to consider an applicant’s race, among other factors…” 65% opposed (Economist/YouGov)

  • Survey questions that mentioned the intention behind affirmative action policies as well how they are implemented found about 5 to 6 in 10 Americans oppose it:
Colleges should…

“.…be allowed to use race as one of the factors in admissions to increase diversity…” 58% opposed (Quinnipiac)
“…giv[e] Black and other minority college applicants preference in college admissions to make up for the past and present inequalities” 55% opposed (YouGov)
“…take into account…race and ethnicity…as one of the factors…in order to increase the racial and ethnic diversity of the school…” 50% opposed (Pew Research Center)

These data suggest that Americans may not know what affirmative action actually is. They may have a vague idea that these programs are intended to help increase diversity–a cause worth supporting. However, they disapprove of the way colleges go about doing it. The majority of Americans appear uncomfortable with the idea of using someone’s race as a factor in college admissions decisions. It’s likely that the practice of giving some applicants preference over others because of their race violates a sense of fairness that is important to many people, even if the idea of increased diversity remains important to them.

Black Americans have diverse opinions about affirmative action.

Black Americans tend to express majority support when the words “affirmative action” are used in the question. However, when the words are omitted and the policy is explained as colleges using race as a factor in college admissions, Black Americans tend to express greater opposition to the idea. Across different question wordings, data show that many African Americans oppose affirmative action, many support it, and many have mixed feelings about it.

For instance, when asked in a CBS/YouGov poll, “In general, do you think affirmative action programs in hiring, promoting, and college admissions should be continued, or do you think these affirmative action programs should be abolished,” 78% of Black Americans said they should be continued and only 22% said they should be abolished.

But in some surveys, a majority of Black Americans opposed affirmative action policies. For example, YouGov asked, “Some people think that public colleges and universities should be able to use race as a factor in admissions. Other people think that they should not be able to. What do you think?” Nearly two‐thirds (64%) of Black Americans said public colleges should not be able to use race as a factor in admissions, while only 36% said they should be able to.

The Pew Research Center found ambivalent support among Black Americans when the survey question mentioned both the policy and its intention. The survey found that less than half (47%) of Black Americans approved of “selective colleges and universities taking race and ethnicity into account in admissions decisions in order to increase the racial and ethnic diversity at the school.” But 53% either opposed it (29%) or weren’t sure (24%) if they approved or disapproved.

Although African Americans are more supportive of affirmative action compared to Americans overall, there is a great deal of variation and diversity in their views.

Most Americans don’t differentiate between public and private universities when forming opinions about affirmative action

The Court’s decision extends to both public universities and private institutions that accept federal funds. However, some point out that private colleges and universities should be treated differently since they are not run by the government and should thus be allowed to use race as a factor in their admissions policies.

However, the Court did not make this distinction, and it appears that most Americans do not either. A June YouGov poll asked respondents two separate questions about if private and if public universities “should be allowed to use race as a factor in admissions.” In both cases majorities of Americans oppose the use of affirmative action policies: 69% oppose for private universities and 74% oppose for public universities. Nevertheless, Americans were about 5 percentage points more likely to oppose affirmative action in public colleges than private ones. This means that some Americans do make the distinction. (Some of this difference could also be due to measurement error.) But overall, these results show that most Americans do not make a distinction between private and public universities when it comes to employing affirmative action policies.

Implications

Recent polls about affirmative action do not paint a clear picture. When simply asked whether they support “affirmative action,” a majority of Americans stand by the policy. However, when asked whether some racial groups should be given preference in college admissions, the implementation of affirmative action, a majority of Americans are opposed. Likely, Americans support the basic principle that guided the adoption of affirmative action, namely that college campuses should be diverse and that racial minorities should be more fully embraced in these spaces. But also it’s likely that many Americans feel the practice of using race as a factor in college admissions violates the value of fairness. The perception of these two values being in conflict may help explain why Americans’ opinions of affirmative action are highly sensitive to how the policy is framed in survey questions.


I don't think most Americans really understand how Affirmative Action in the real world actually works. The idea of it sounds appealing... but

It's literally blatant discrimination.
 
Based:

https://www.npr.org/2023/07/03/1185...upreme-court-ruling-legacy-admissions-harvard

"Why are we rewarding children for privileges and advantages accrued by prior generations?" said Ivan Espinoza-Madrigal, the group's executive director. "Your family's last name and the size of your bank account are not a measure of merit, and should have no bearing on the college admissions process."

It'd be fine with that.

Redact all the identifying information of a student's application form for the Admission offices.
- Name
- Parent's names
- Gender
- Race
- Location

And base admissions solely on the merits of high school grades, , college testking, extra-curricular activities.... letters of recommendation, volunteer history, etc...

Wouldn't be a bad idea for job applications either... lol.
 
I don't think most Americans really understand how Affirmative Action in the real world actually works. The idea of it sounds appealing... but

It's literally blatant discrimination.
Seems to me that they like it in theory, but not in practice. One big virtue signal. It's like the "equity" thing. Everyone thinks it sounds great, until they're told to make sacrifices to make it happen. Then it's bullshit.
 
It'd be fine with that.

Redact all the identifying information of a student's application form for the Admission offices.
- Name
- Parent's names
- Gender
- Race
- Location

And base admissions solely on the merits of high school grades, , college testking, extra-curricular activities.... letters of recommendation, volunteer history, etc...

Wouldn't be a bad idea for job applications either... lol.

Admissions should also include penis size and their pronouns too.
 
If you want a clear example of how using race as a measure for admission is wrong... just consider a family I know well:

The family is middle class white, but the kids are all adopted, 2 asian and 3 black. SAT scores and grades of the Asian kids were just slightly better than their black siblings--all 5 kids were good, but not great, students.

Both Asian kids were rejected from every major college in their state. All three black kids were accepted to the most prestigious school in the state, each with generous scholarships.

How is this fair? These Asian kids didn't have the benefit of some Asian tiger-mom forcing them to study, yet they are being lumped in with that community just because of how they look. Same with the black children, they weren't raised in an oppressed community with limited resources--yet they are lumped in with that community as well. This is the very definition of racism.
 

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,114
Messages
55,468,187
Members
174,786
Latest member
plasterby
Back
Top