r/politics • u/politico ✔ Politico • Jun 30 '23
The Supreme Court gutted affirmative action yesterday, undercutting decades of precedent in U.S. colleges. We’re legal and higher education reporters at POLITICO covering the ruling. Ask us anything. AMA-Finished
The Supreme Court on Thursday dealt a major blow to affirmative action in higher education, striking down race-conscious admissions programs at Harvard and the University of North Carolina.
In a ruling divided along ideological lines, the high court’s six-justice conservative majority found that the universities discriminated against white and Asian American applicants by using race-conscious policies that benefited applicants from underrepresented backgrounds.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, saying the Harvard and UNC admissions programs “lack sufficiently focused and measurable objectives warranting the use of race, unavoidably employ race in a negative manner, involve racial stereotyping, and lack meaningful end points.”
“We have never permitted admissions programs to work in that way, and we will not do so today.” he wrote.
The three liberal justices dissented; with Justice Sonia Sotomayor saying the ruling “closes the door of opportunity that the Court’s precedents helped open to young students of every race.”
The decision is expected to upend universities’ decadeslong efforts to create racially diverse campuses. Let’s discuss what this means and what comes next – ask us anything.
More about our reporters (and some relevant reading):
Bianca Quilantan is POLITICO’s higher education reporter who’s been closely following the two cases challenging race-conscious admissions practices — and how American colleges have been preparing for a future without them.
Josh Gerstein is POLITICO’s senior legal affairs reporter who has covered the intersection of law and politics for more than a decade. He was one of the two reporters who broke the story on the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade last year.
(Proof.)
EDIT: That's all the time we have for today. Thanks for joining and for all of your thoughtful questions!
18
u/Mephisto1822 North Carolina Jun 30 '23
Do you think it would be possible, based off this ruling, to bring a lawsuit challenging the idea of legacy admission?
17
u/politico ✔ Politico Jun 30 '23
Do you think it would be possible, based off this ruling, to bring a lawsuit challenging the idea of legacy admission?
Josh: There have been various efforts dating back decades to examine the legality of legacy admissions preferences as well as athletic preferences and others that tend to privilege white applicants over other races. To give you a sense of how long this issue has been around, I covered some of that when I was in college in the 1980s and 1990s and the Education Department probed Harvard for alleged discrimination against Asian-Americans. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/10/21/harvard-admissions-affirmative-action-221669/ We've already seen some Democratic lawmakers call for the Justice Department to go after schools that have legacy preference https://bobbyscott.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/ranking-member-scott-statement-scotus-ruling-affirmative-action I think you'll see more legal pressure over this, but the public pressure and the pressure from student and advocacy groups may be what moves the needle since the prospects for the legal challenges is uncertain.
3
u/Kittygoespurrrr Jun 30 '23
Look, I hate legacy admissions, I think they should be done away with, but I keep seeing comments like these.
Do people really not understand why this was overturned? It's illegal in this country to discriminate based on race. That's the law which covers a lot more than just acceptance into colleges, it covers important stuff like employment also. Race is a protected class, as it should be.
Its not illegal to discriminate based on if your family attended college before you, just like it's not illegal to pick someone for a job position if one of their parents works for the company also.
No law or lawsuit is ever going to change that.
7
u/snarkymcsnarkythe2nd Jun 30 '23 edited Jun 30 '23
It's illegal in this country to discriminate based on race
This is such a hilarious and disgustingly twisted view of the law. Fit for a SCOTUS judge, really.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was written to stop segregation. To prevent black people from being denied service from restaurants or attending the same school as white people. So that they can get the same jobs as white people.
But no single individual is being denied service or privileges here based on their race with college admissions. >40% of Harvard students are white. 27.9% are Asian American. 15.2% are African American.
No individual is being denied anything based on their race.
But what you, and the SCOTUS are arguing for, under the fake guise of "equality", is that Harvard should instead be 45% White, 43% Asian, and only 1% should be African American.
And now you want to weaponize the very same laws that gave black people the right to hold the same jobs as white people to prevent them from even getting the degree required for the job in the first place. Effectively reduce the number of black people attending the school, essentially returning to segregation. All the while feigning moral superiority.
Absolutely disgusting.
7
u/Thucydides411 Jul 02 '23 edited Jul 02 '23
But no single individual is being denied service or privileges here based on their race with college admissions. >40% of Harvard students are white. 27.9% are Asian American. 15.2% are African American.
No individual is being denied anything based on their race.
Harvard's own internal calculations showed that 45% of incoming students would be Asian if academic performance were used to determine admissions. The main way that Harvard suppressed admissions numbers for Asians was by giving them a low "personal rating," supposedly indicating a lack of qualities such as "integrity" and "likeability."
This is all very similar to the Jewish quota that elite universities in the US had in the mid-1900s. Back then, people could also have pointed out that Jews were overrepresented at universities compared to their proportion of the US population. That didn't change the fact that universities discriminated against them based on ethnicity, which was morally wrong.
Today, Asian Americans are being denied admissions at universities based on their race. That's a disgusting policy, no matter how you justify it.
And now you want to weaponize the very same laws that gave black people the right to hold the same jobs as white people to prevent them from even getting the degree required for the job in the first place.
As a social policy for addressing the problems that face poor African Americans, affirmative action has done basically nothing. It's a policy that mainly benefits middle- and upper-class African Americans, almost by definition. If you want to deal with the issues facing poor African Americans, you have to tackle poverty, not hand out a few seats at elite universities to well-off people who happen to have the same skin color.
0
u/snarkymcsnarkythe2nd Jul 02 '23 edited Jul 02 '23
Thank you for the thoughtful and detailed reply.
I agree that any policy that lumps all "Asian people" into one homogeneous group is racist and appalling.
What I think I disagree with is the implication that opting to grant admission to a small number of African Americans who would otherwise not receive admission is necessarily the same thing as actively discriminating against Asian Americans just because they would have a higher representation otherwise. After all, the representation of every group except African Americans should increase without the policy.
What I haven't seen much before is a discussion of solutions. If Harvard removed race entirely but applied more weight to other factors that tend to correlate with race (like poverty), such that the incoming demographics stayed approximately the same, would people actually be satisfied with that? Or would that be considered racist too?
5
u/Thucydides411 Jul 02 '23
In practice, the policy does heavily discriminate against Asians.
The way that it goes is roughly like this. Harvard admits a bunch of legacy and donor children. Then come athletics and the various other pet projects the university has. But Harvard also wants to create the impression that it's admitting "underrepresented minorities," so it admits a certain percentage of people who technically fulfill that criterion (that could mean, for example, admitting the children of African immigrants from highly educated and affluent households). When you get to people being admitted for academic merit, you're already dealing with a smaller number of available spots, so the competition is that much more intense. Finally, the "personal ratings" strongly imply that Harvard is also tweaking things during the process to lower Asian admissions even further, probably because it doesn't want to be stereotyped as "the Asian school."
The whole process is incredibly sordid and unfair, and affirmative action is only part of that.
The thing is, this one policy - affirmative action - has become the social policy among supposed progressives in the United States. It does very little to actually help poor people, poor African Americans included, but it's treated as if it were the great accomplishment of the Civil Rights era. It isn't. It's a bandaid slapped on by Richard Nixon, to pretend something was being done about inequality.
→ More replies (3)7
u/ArchmageXin Jun 30 '23
And now you want to weaponize the very same laws that gave black people the right to hold the same jobs as white people to prevent them from even getting the degree required for the job in the first place.
There are more college spots than students in this country. If you want to study at a major, you will find a school.
As AA defenders often deride "Asians don't need to be in Harvard to be successful", I think it is perfectly fine to reshuffle the racial mix and see what happens now Asians can't be placed on the bottom of the pile.
-1
u/snarkymcsnarkythe2nd Jun 30 '23
Yes, precisely: if you want to study a major, you will find a school. So what exactly is the problem with Harvard deciding who to admit for whatever damn reason they please?
By any chance, is that rooted in feelings of supremacy over another race, thinking that they should be the ones to go to a different school instead, and that perhaps certain kinds of people deserve to go to elite schools like Harvard?
It can't be right? Because that would be racist...
→ More replies (1)7
u/ArchmageXin Jul 01 '23
First of all, this case applied to both Harvard and UNC, a state tax payer funded school. In both cases, statistics and internal communication showed a intentional, racist biases against Asians.
So it is clearly not "Why are Asians obsessed with Harvard" instead should be "Why are taxpayer funded institutions intentionally raise the bars for Asians"
But hey, if AA is so good, then lets re-instate it. But make sure all objective criteria and subjective criteria should be BELOW what is required for a African American to get in.
After all, if there need to be a pyramid, then don't stack Asian students on the bottom teir.
Or alternatively, we could take the Ted Cruz route: If an academic institution wish to discriminate against Asians, they can do so without Federal Funding. I don't want my tax dollars to go into some place that don't want my child to be there.
→ More replies (1)1
u/negisama Jul 01 '23
You ought to actually read the civil rights act of 1964. The plain language of Title VI is damning.
No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.
It doesn't say anything about stopping segregation in particular. It is a single plain black-letter statute.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (1)5
u/Mephisto1822 North Carolina Jun 30 '23
It wasn’t discrimination based on race though, it was using race as one of many factors in the admission process.
9
u/TopAncient7245 Jul 01 '23
Asians need to score 450 points higher on the sat as blacks for the same chance,according to Princeton. Tell me how that's not blatant racial discrimination . Favoring one race over another believe it or not is racism.
→ More replies (1)2
Jun 30 '23
Using race as a factor indicates some preference for one race over another which is absolutely discrimination. The only debate to be had is whether that discrimination is useful. I believe that it is. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t discrimination.
→ More replies (1)4
u/psychic_flatulence California Jun 30 '23
It wasn’t discrimination based on race though, it was using race as one of many factors in the admission process.
Treating people differently or holding them to different standards based on race. So discrimination based on race?
→ More replies (1)4
Jun 30 '23
It should not be any factor. Not sure why that is so hard to understand for those in this thread.
4
u/Mephisto1822 North Carolina Jun 30 '23
So nothing should be done to attempt to correct for the decades of systemic racism that held, and continue to hold back certain groups of people?
9
u/ForklessPhilosopher Jun 30 '23
The only way to do that is to pass a new amendment that basically says "actually you can discriminate based on race for X, Y, Z reasons". But the current law is very clear, you cannot discriminate on race.
Well, that or undo the effects of old systematic racism indirectly, like uplifting those stuck in bad socioeconomic statuses (not by race, but by that status). There are still things left that can be done.
→ More replies (1)1
u/g11235p Jul 01 '23
The law doesn’t say that you can’t discriminate based on race. It does say “actually you can discriminate based on race for X, Y, Z reasons.” Strict scrutiny means you can discriminate based on race as long as it’s to achieve a compelling governmental interest and the form of the discrimination is narrowly tailored to achieve its goal. Maintaining the safety of prisons is cited in this very decision as one of the compelling governmental interests that can justify race-based discrimination by the government
7
4
u/blueplanet96 Jun 30 '23
Bad things happening in the past doesn’t make for a robust defense for race based discrimination in the present/future; even if you think it’s for a noble cause.
→ More replies (2)2
0
u/jersey_girl660 Jun 30 '23
Yeah let’s just let under represented minorities continue to be under represented. What a great idea
4
u/ArchmageXin Jun 30 '23
If you want to create a race pyramid in favor of your group people at the expenses of others, sure.
But don't be surprised when the other group find a way to flip it over.
Would you be ok if the cutoff to Harvard was 1380 for the black man instead of Asians? Or better yet, lets move Asians to 900 instead. I would happily support AA for that.
1
u/Vegetable_War335 Jul 01 '23
So the race pyramid is good as long as Asians are on top? Got it.
2
u/ArchmageXin Jul 01 '23
Asians can live without one and prefer to be without one. But if there is one enforced by law, then there is no reason for Asians to be the one on the bottom stack.
1
0
u/blueplanet96 Jun 30 '23
Your obsession with diversity is almost cult like. Do you ever stop to think maybe racial discrimination is wrong no matter the reason you’re doing it? You’re arguing in favor of a policy that privileged some at the expense of others on the basis of race. I just don’t care about your skin color obsession. It’s wrong.
→ More replies (1)
36
u/B_order New Jersey Jun 30 '23
What does this mean for students from underrepresented backgrounds seeking internships? What about the diversity and inclusion efforts led by companies? Are those initiatives under threat?
21
u/politico ✔ Politico Jun 30 '23
What does this mean for students from underrepresented backgrounds seeking internships? What about the diversity and inclusion efforts led by companies? Are those initiatives under threat?
Hi This is Josh. As a technical matter, the Supreme Court's ruling doesn't apply directly to those sort of programs, except maybe if they are run by the federal government. But more broadly, such a sweeping decision by such a large majority of the court suggests that the justices are going to look very skeptically at any programs that amount to set-asides for members of particular races or ethnicities. DEI obviously encompasses a lot of different efforts from outreach to various kinds of targeting to hiring criteria etc. There are already legal challenges underway against a lot of DEI programs and this decision will clearly give fodder to lower court judges inclined to rule against those sorts of diversity efforts. An article by my POLITICO colleague Nick Niedzwiadek, who covers labor, addresses a lot of this: https://www.politico.com/news/2023/06/29/supreme-court-ruling-puts-dei-under-the-microscope-00104194
→ More replies (2)30
u/Reggie_Jeeves Jun 30 '23
Today's decision said the colleges violated the Equal Protections Clause to the Constitution which makes it unconstitutional to discriminate against a protected class. I have skimmed the decision... the reasoning is fairly broad and I see nothing in it which limits it to colleges. It is worth noting that they felt the need to carve out an exception for the military, which would indicate they intend the decision to be applied broadly. I would be concerned.
3
u/snarkymcsnarkythe2nd Jun 30 '23
How does a private institution like a college violate a constitutional clause, which binds government?
14
u/chuckangel Jun 30 '23
Federal funding and financing; grants, student loans, etc
8
u/snarkymcsnarkythe2nd Jun 30 '23
So everyone who received PPP loans is government and bound too now? Neato :)
4
u/ArchmageXin Jul 01 '23
PPP loans are for businesses, education grants are for education.
Business are not required to instate seats for certain races. That is why you don't see any seats set aside for Asians in the MLB, NBA or NFL or whatever 3 letter word the hockey league is.
→ More replies (2)11
15
u/palmmoot Vermont Jun 30 '23
After this ruling do you see any universities following Biden's suggestion of considering diversity and a student's lack of financial means in their admission standards?
19
u/politico ✔ Politico Jun 30 '23
It is definitely something college admissions officers say they have been considering. Low-income students and first generation college goers are under the umbrella of underrepresented students in higher education. Something to consider, however, is that colleges have been saying boosting recruitment strategies take resources and could be a big cost for universities. But boosting financial aid may be an incentive to have more students from lower-income families apply to schools. -Bianca
40
u/anurodhp Jun 30 '23
It's been fascinating to watch coverage of this. Oddly very little of the media has covered the perspective of asians who definitely have felt discriminated against. Nor has the coverage covered some of the facts of the case which clearly established that harvard did treat asians differently. This discrimination is so well known that people actively hide their"asianness" to help admissions.
For example this snippet from a harvard law professor writing for the new yorker often turns heads when said out loud:
"Harvard used an SAT score cutoff of 1310 for white students, 1350 for Asian American females, and 1380 for Asian American males. There were gasps in the courtroom when this evidence was revealed at trial. "
Why is this not featured more prominently in your own reporting?
15
u/politico ✔ Politico Jun 30 '23
A key part of the case was the intentional discrimination claim against Harvard. Disparities among personal scores or the “personal rating” were a big story line for us early on because it was the first time we really got to see behind the curtain of how college admissions decisions were made. The personal score was also a key part of SFFA’s argument to ban race-conscious admissions, and it’s helped the group garner support from Asian Americans who said elite schools are intentionally excluding them.
Here’s a snippet of an interview from a story I wrote earlier this month that describes what you mentioned in your post:
“Asian American children have suffered severely from this kind of discrimination,” said Mike Zhao, Asian American Coalition for Education president, in an interview. “Asian Americans have been regarded as the highest-income, best educated racial group in America. But under this discrimination, our children have to hide their racial identity when applying to schools. That’s a shame. That is social injustice.”
Zhao, whose group backs SFFA, said Asian American students face a higher admission standard than other minority students, and many carry overwhelming class loads. Some even experience depression or consider suicide, he said.
-Bianca
15
u/ArchmageXin Jun 30 '23
As usual, the liberal media have decided it is perfectly ok to sacrifice Asian interests on the altar of AA.
7
→ More replies (1)-11
u/mishap1 I voted Jun 30 '23
Zhao should probably consider the culture of pushing your kids so hard to achieve and land at Harvard more at fault for pushing some to depression or suicide rather than Harvard deciding they care more than just about SAT scores and AP loaded GPA.
Why are these kids pushing these classloads? Could shitty parents like Amy Chua and the Tiger mom culture be responsible?
Looked the dude up and he's got fake reviews on his shitty book about Woke culture. Refers to him as Dr. despite him not having any such degree.
16
u/ArchmageXin Jun 30 '23
Zhao should probably consider the culture of pushing your kids so hard to achieve and land at Harvard more at fault for pushing some to depression or suicide rather than Harvard deciding they care more than just about SAT scores and AP loaded GPA.
Or maybe Asians have been enduring so much discrimination and thus are forced to take the high bar just to stay equal to other races.
After all, why should Asian need a 98 to get into a good school while whites can do it at 90 and blacks can do it at 70? We should instead be working hard, we should use the law to force Harvard to admit us at 55!
→ More replies (2)5
u/rnjbond Jul 01 '23
When I applied for grad school, I was told to emphasize that I'm American and not coming straight from India, because applicants from India are overrepresented.
→ More replies (3)-3
u/mishap1 I voted Jun 30 '23
SAT scores are pretty much correlated with income. I don't think it's a surprise that groups with the highest parental educational attainment and household income would wind up with the highest SAT scores to start making the group relatively unremarkable for a given score range. You might as well just ask what your parents make.
I'd venture that almost no Asians got in with under a 1500+ without a seriously compelling story of hardship or uniqueness to their background (or their parents both graduated there and bought a library). Nothing to say these kids aren't bright and driven but so are most of the 50k+ other kids who apply each year.
If Harvard were to drop legacy admissions, the school would easily break 50% Asian within a couple years. 60% of the world's population is Asian and wealthy Asians are readily able to get citizenship in the US. I don't think Blum and his many legal fronts would call that "fair" however.
10
u/CleanYogurtcloset706 Jun 30 '23
A. I can’t wait until we have a more nuanced understanding of Asian Americans than we currently do, there are huge differences in this country between the experiences of East Asian, SE Asians, and South Asians.
B. Something I find interesting is that Asian American test score are binomial, meaning they are predominant at both at the top and bottom of national test scores.
C. I think one of the reasons there is so much heat around this issue is that people are talking around each other. One side feels all students bring value to elite institutions in different ways, while the other side feels like diversity isn’t as important as meritocracy.
→ More replies (15)→ More replies (3)2
u/negisama Jul 01 '23
I don't know what the problem with Harvard breaking 50% asian is anyway. I missed that part of your post. If that bothers you, I think you should do some soul-searching.
It sounds a lot like the rationale used by universities in the early 20th century to try to keep Jewish enrollment numbers down at the ivies.
It's a really ugly business to try to keep people out like that.
→ More replies (2)
8
Jun 30 '23
[deleted]
→ More replies (1)22
u/politico ✔ Politico Jun 30 '23
Admissions officers and their universities have been searching for ways to make sure their freshman classes are diverse without taking race into consideration and that includes focusing on recruitment. And they will still be considering essays to see how a student’s lived experience could bring diversity to campus. But after talking to a few admissions people this week, they’re going to be very cautious as they review their admissions policies because Edward Blum, president of SFFA, has already said his group will be playing watchdog on these schools in the next admissions cycle. - Bianca
→ More replies (1)
10
u/WeCanRememberIt Jun 30 '23
Have you noticed anything in your reporting which tried to reconcile the fact that upper middle class white women were the most likely to benefit from aa?
4
u/politico ✔ Politico Jun 30 '23
Our colleague Sophie Gardner had an interesting piece on what women have gained from affirmative action. Here’s a good place to start: https://www.politico.com/newsletters/women-rule/2023/06/16/what-women-have-gained-from-affirmative-action-00102397 -Bianca
6
u/Redline65 Jun 30 '23
What do you think of schools going to a lottery based system for admissions? Take all eligible applicants and randomly choose them to fill openings. Many high schools in the country already do this today. It seems like a fair system.
3
u/politico ✔ Politico Jun 30 '23
· 1 hr. ago
What do you think of schools going to a lottery based system for admissions? Take all eligible applicants and randomly choose them to fill openings. Many high schools in the country already do this today. It seems like a fair system.
Josh: I don't think a lottery will happen anytime soon at elite schools because they treasure the ability to hand-pick their students. And it probably wouldn't result in a class that "looks like America," as the saying goes. I've often thought it would be interesting to have an auction for some seats in lieu of alumni/legacy preference. It'd raise a lot of money. The problem is that the legacy preference provides schools with large sums of cash in part because many graduates donate thinking their kids will/might go and then they don't for a variety of reasons. So a lot of donor cash comes in that winds up not resulting in an admission.
1
u/wyzra Jun 30 '23
And it probably wouldn't result in a class that "looks like America," as the saying goes.
So having the same racial makeup as the US is something they care about?
→ More replies (1)3
u/esoteric_enigma Jun 30 '23
That's kind of the whole point of representation. If all things were equal, we should see spaces resembling the demographics of the nation at large. If we don't, there's almost certainly something bad preventing that.
2
u/wyzra Jun 30 '23
A lot of people make the analogy to pro sports, which really don't look like America. Is there "something bad" preventing all those whites and Asians from being NBA players?
In this case, it's made even worse because Asians were blocked from immigrating to the US except for skilled workers and refugees. So Asian Americans today disproportionately are descended from these groups.
2
u/ELEnamean Jul 01 '23
Is there "something bad" preventing all those whites and Asians from being NBA players?
Sort of yes and also it’s a terrible comparison. It’s not so much white people being disadvantaged as black people having some unique “advantages” particular to American sports. The main thing is that black people have always had severely limited career paths welcoming them, and sports became one of them with a disproportionate glamor and social status compared to others available. Black communities adapted to that opportunity by encouraging their youth to get involved in sports more, while white communities continued to try to steer their youth towards more “respectable” professions with better long-term odds like medicine, law, engineering, etc. it helps that sports have a lower financial barrier of entry than, say, supplementary math education.
But also, it’s a shit comparison because a NBA player’s height and athleticism directly correlate to their potential value on the court in away a prospective Harvard student’s test scores do not with their potential value as a student. And height and athleticism are correlated with race in America, while passion, intelligence, and all the things that actually make a valuable college student, are not. Test scores are though, and that’s why Harvard uses affirmative action. Test scores don’t actually tell them all they want to know.
2
u/wyzra Jul 01 '23
So explain then how do Asian American students magically get these high test scores without necessarily having more intelligence, or work ethic, or any other commendable trait in your eyes? Oh yeah, some kind of super-expensive supplementary math education, which I've never heard of in my life. I participated in the USA Math Olympiad, got a PhD in math with an international research career and faculty position. When I was in school my family didn't spend a cent on any supplementary education, I learned through teachers and friends in math club. We printed out old math competitions online and checked out books from the school library.
And have you ever thought that perhaps Asian communities have limited career paths as well and they all flow through higher education?
2
u/Vegetable_War335 Jul 01 '23
This is the problem asian students don’t seem to want to grasp. Your scores aren’t the only thing that matter, and it doesn’t make you exceptional across the board. Can you explain why Asians tie so much value into their score outcomes and why there’s a cultural phenomena of basing worthiness and intelligence on a single number?
Do you sincerely believe that the only people who should be attending elite universities are those with perfect scores on a boring test? You don’t believe for example that there’s a person out there that knows tons about bees and is going to make ground breaking research that doesn’t have a perfect SAT score because they’re so engrossed in their connection to bees that they don’t really care about a perfect SAT score?
You don’t think there’s an individual out there with something amazing to contribute that isn’t good at math and won’t score well on the math portion?
4
u/PhoenixWright14 Jul 01 '23 edited Jul 01 '23
Yes, you hit it on the head. Asian Americans just can’t seem to get it through their head that there’s something wrong with their culture and what they they value based on their historical and cultural identity.
Any cultural phenomena specific to Asian Americans is fine to characterize as a moral failing and is acceptable for society to criticize and punish until Asians accept their responsibility to correct the things they value as a culture and assimilate. Any cultural phenomena specific to other ethnic groups is always only due to strictly systemic and structural issues that such groups cannot be expected to have any control over or bear any responsibility for correcting.
4
4
u/wyzra Jul 01 '23
Dude, Asians aren't all narrowly focused on the SAT. That's just a stereotype, do you have any evidence this is the case? Young Asian Americans have made real achievements in all kinds of fields, look up June Huh, Stephanie Hsu, Alexandr Wang, Jeffrey Xiong, or Jennifer Lee.
This kind of racism shows exactly why affirmative action lasted so long.
2
→ More replies (1)1
u/Vegetable_War335 Jul 01 '23
Pro sports is a dumb analogy. Those are businesses interested in only taking the top players. They’re not contributing to the future of society like university graduates are expected to do.
3
u/flyingsouthwest Jun 30 '23
Hello Bianca and Josh, thanks for doing this. Do you know if this ruling will be enforced effective immediately? And do you think that this ruling could create major changes to the application process at top schools, or has the effect of AA on admissions processes been negligible thus far anyways?
4
u/politico ✔ Politico Jun 30 '23
A lot of people in admissions that I’ve spoken to (even just less than 30 min ago) say they’re still looking to understand what the scope of the ruling is. Something to consider is that while some of the admissions practices at UNC and Harvard are shared by other schools across the country, they all don’t follow a one-size-fits-all admissions strategy.
Edward Blum of SFFA has already threatened lawsuits against colleges who don’t follow the ruling, and colleges are worried about any future lawsuits.
Now, the way I’ve been looking at this is what other changes will be made now that schools can’t consider race. Some things I’ve heard from civil rights groups and education groups include going after requirements in admissions including standardized tests like the ACT or SAT that they say are barriers for underrepresented students who want to go to college. So, schools could be reconsidering their requirements.
And, as for top schools, it seems like there is a revival in a discussion around societal values and whether attendance at a so-called “elite” school is truly meaningful. Education Secretary Miguel Cardona has said some interesting things about this.
-Bianca
2
56
u/AdComplete5564 Jun 30 '23
The premise of the Supreme Court being above politics is no longer valid. The members themselves face scrutiny for their conduct wrt favors given by wealthy benefactors. What power do people have to demand accountability? Is there anything we can do as members of a democracy?
18
u/SirBorf Jun 30 '23
Vote in the senate election, and convince everybody you know to do so as well. The only way to unfuck the supreme court is to vote in someone who will well and truly commit to doing that by impeaching them in the senate.
-2
u/rahzradtf Jun 30 '23
Or, you know, pass laws. The Constitution clearly states you can't discriminate by race, which AA explicitly does. If you want to change that, you need to vote for people who will pass a constitutional amendment.
1
u/Matrix17 Jun 30 '23
Passing a constitutional amendment nowadays is almost impossible. It could only happen if there was a supermajority, and doesn't it also need the majority of states to agree as well?
→ More replies (3)2
7
u/snarkymcsnarkythe2nd Jun 30 '23
Never forget that everyone in this country who has any power, has it because we, the people, gave it to them. They serve us, we don't serve them.
1
u/FaithlessnessExtra26 Jun 30 '23
Not really. This is the kinda wet dream that these exact people abusing their power would hope you sleep with.
21
u/FightingTexasAggie69 Jun 30 '23
Can you theologically defend the suppression of Asian Americans in applications to schools purely on the basis of skin color? As an Asian American myself AA seemed inherently racist and discriminatory for something that I didn't pick. I didn't ask to be born a minority, but now I'm punished for it? I'm just trying to grapple with how it can be perceived as good from my side. Thanks.
14
u/gumballmachine122 Jun 30 '23
I feel like people have this idea of us as these personality-less study robots. They have a very stereotyped view of what growing up as an asian american is like.
9
u/AtmospherePerfect532 Jun 30 '23
Yeah think I read a study about Asian kids with amazing extracurriculars and they were deemed not having personality without an interview
-1
u/ELEnamean Jul 01 '23
Asian Americans outperform other races in the typical metrics used for college admissions. There are two possible explanations for this:
Inherent/genetic differences in intelligence/student quality
Structural/systemic/environmental differences in factors leading to higher performance on those metrics.
The former is textbook racism and has no basis in reality. The latter suggests that, despite any discrimination or systemic racism Asian Americans face, they also have some unique advantages. I’m not qualified to speak to what those advantages are so I won’t, but they must be there. That being the case, it makes sense for a school who wants students based on their innate or unique individual qualities to “correct” for their overreliance on factors (test scores) that are determined in large part by systemic inequality, rather than individual potential/merit.
5
u/PhoenixWright14 Jul 01 '23
Even though you're not qualified to or want to bother to explain what systemic advantages Asian Americans have, you somehow feel qualified to be determine that it's fine for schools to "correct" for these advantages that Asian Americans somehow have as an ethnic group even though you don't personally understand what those are.
Also, the issue is not if it "makes sense" for schools to discriminate against Asian Americans to further their objectives. The issue is that discriminatory practices limited to certain ethnic groups is not an acceptable way for any entities that receive federal funding to accomplish their objectives and is not permissible under the Constitution of the United States.
0
u/MassiveStallion Jul 03 '23
Do you really think these schools are "accidentally suppressing Asians because AA ties their hands"
Don't be so naive. These are the smartest people in the planet. They know what they are doing.
The schools discriminated even HARDER against Asians before AA even existed.
Stop being played. Those imaginary spots you think will go to Asian kids once AA is removed is just gonna go straight to rich white kids.
Do you really think a bunch of racists that schemed against admitting Asians are going to be stopped by a...lack of regulations?? These racists who admitted to creating barriers for Asians... You're just gonna do what they suggest?
→ More replies (1)
8
u/SeductiveSunday Jun 30 '23
I don't get how Chief Justice John Roberts can claim the Constitution is been colorblind. There are 11 clauses that deal with or have policy implications for slavery in the Constitution, the second amendment in 1792 was about 18 to 45 year old white men, and women were under coverture laws.
I guess this doesn't look so much like gutting affirmative action to me but instead upholding affirmative action for the elite. So I'm wondering as this gets more public attention, will more people realize that places like Harvard and Yale are less outstanding educational institutions and more as places where the elite play? Will these rulings help the public understand that a degree from a prestige ivy university has less to do with one's ability and more to do with one's social status?
Also, how is it acceptable that the military is exempt? Because that sounds like the supreme court is pushing those most marginalized out of gaining higher education and a leg up, and instead into military.
3
u/wyzra Jun 30 '23
Because Black people != slavery. And the Constitution was amended.
Military is exempt because they submitted an amicus curiae brief saying they need affirmative action to diversify the armed forces and I guess the Court kind of defers to them on this, although in my opinion even that is just evidence-free BS.
6
u/BobbyB90220 Jun 30 '23
What are the polling numbers for US voters on affirmative action? Here in California - a liberal state - we passed an initiative outlawing this racial discrimination. Are we outliers in California?
4
u/accord1999 Jun 30 '23
Michigan's similar referendum passed with a comparable majority:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Civil_Rights_Initiative
Washington State recently tried to reverse their ban on affirmative action but came up just short.
https://ballotpedia.org/Washington_Referendum_88,_Vote_on_I-1000_Affirmative_Action_Measure_(2019)
14
u/sittered Jun 30 '23
As emotionally charged as the ruling is, I've seen arguments that this will actually create incentives for schools to actually target any and all disadvantaged people by more accurate measurements of disadvantage, instead of using race as a convenient proxy.
The convenience here would be that of the school, since affirmative action relieves schools of much of the responsibility of understanding and controlling how their institution balances its advantaged and disadvantaged applicants.
In your reporting, have you spoken to anyone in higher education who acknowledges that affirmative action policies offer this kind of convenience to administrators?
4
u/KRMGPC Jun 30 '23
It won't. Many states, including California, haven't allowed affirmative action in admissions in a decade. They can't keep the minority enrollment up. In California, white student enrollment declined as well as black and hispanic. Asians was the group that increased it's enrollment. So it's not "white people taking spots", it one minority group enrolling at higher levels than other minority groups.
5
Jun 30 '23
How do you see this affecting workplace and government employment and advancement opportunities?
5
Jun 30 '23
[deleted]
0
u/Kittygoespurrrr Jun 30 '23
I believe we already have. When I lived out in California I know that their Board Diversity Law which mandated racial, ethnic, and sexual orientation diversity in corporate boards was ruled unconstitutional.
As it should be. You don't want to start doing away with equal opportunity laws just because you want to force more women or people of color into certain positions. That's not going to turn out the way you think it is.
→ More replies (1)3
u/SeductiveSunday Jun 30 '23
You don't want to start doing away with equal opportunity laws
Uh, I believe the supreme court just threw those laws out. They were called affirmative action laws and in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
5
u/wyzra Jun 30 '23
Were schools ever open with you about the mechanics of how the affirmative action policies actually worked? Or did they hide it just like with Prof. R. Sander or anyone else who asked?
Did any school ever admit to you that Asians were penalized more than whites? Even if just incidentally, to reflect their share of the local/US population?
How come you (or POLITICO generally) don't give anti-affirmative action voices a fair share of your coverage?
→ More replies (2)5
3
u/wkomorow Massachusetts Jun 30 '23
Given that race can not be considered, and financial need can sometime serve as a surrogate for race, how does this effect elite colleges that use needs blind admissions, meaning they do not look at the students financial status or ability to pay as part of the acceptance process? Will they use home address of applicant to ensure a culturally diverse class, or something else?
12
u/GJMOH Jun 30 '23
Are there measurable impacts of “decades” of affirmative action. Is there data on the economic backgrounds of those who benefited from Affirmative Action?
→ More replies (9)
3
u/ResurgentClusterfuck Texas Jun 30 '23
What can the current administration do to address existing inequalities in educational access in the wake of this decision?
3
2
u/HectorsMascara Pennsylvania Jun 30 '23
Not exactly on-topic, but would retroactively reducing student loan interest to zero be a viable legal work-around to the court's rejection of outright forgiveness?
2
u/tmntnyc Jun 30 '23
Affirmative action is racist. As an asian American, why should my application be artifically denied for someone else based on skin color? That's literal racism. If I worked hard to achieve a high score, and I have all As, why would an African American student who has B or C grades get chosen over me? Even if are tied, it shouldn't come down to race ever. Affirmative action is just corrective racism. It's still racism.
→ More replies (2)
3
2
u/I_am_so_lost_hello Jun 30 '23
Is there a strong reason for racial affirmative action to be preferred over a class based one? Many minorities are absolutely at a disadvantage due to historical systematic injustices that still affect them today, but don't these disadvantages present as economic ones? A class based AA would address those inequalities without involving the messiness of potential racial discrimination and not overcorrecting/undercorrecting for rich minorities and poor majorities.
7
u/cdiddy19 Utah Jun 30 '23
Except that when we do this based on class, the poor white people are then given the opportunity while people of color are still left behind
3
→ More replies (8)1
u/I_am_so_lost_hello Jun 30 '23
Is there evidence of that?
4
u/cdiddy19 Utah Jun 30 '23
Here is a study on names and resumes
When the exact same resume gets sent out with the only change as a name, guess who gets the job
5
u/Puzzled-Painter3301 Jun 30 '23
Let me guess: the white-sounding name? James instead of Jamal?
→ More replies (1)2
u/I_am_so_lost_hello Jun 30 '23
Discrimination was more prevalent at decentralized companies where the hiring process is spread out, he says, as opposed to a company in one location with specialized human resource employees.
With properly implemented class based AA this can be mitigated. Conceal names during application evaluation, and use committees instead of individuals to minimize individual bias.
→ More replies (5)
6
2
11
u/ThanksAsleep521 Jun 30 '23
Why were my Asian co-workers disappointed this didn't happen sooner?
21
u/crispypotato789 Jun 30 '23 edited Jun 30 '23
Asians have actually been getting the short end of the stick when it comes to affirmative action at schools. My understanding is that if you’re Asian, you have to perform much better than others of a different race.
I’m Asian but I’m conflicted on this ruling. I think socioeconomic background should be considered at least.
Edit: typo
16
u/deathaura123 Jun 30 '23
Absolutely, affirmative action had good intentions but harmful outcomes. A poor asian descendent of war refugees or coolies isn't better off than a rich black kid applying to college. However under affirmayive action, the rich black kid is considered underprivileged and will have an easier time making it in an elite college despite having significant advantages over the poor asian kid. Socioeconomic status is the prime advantage in life and goes beyond race. Not all black people are poor and not all asians are rich, affirmative action is rooted in racism for implying this is the case. Also setting quotas on race and accepting candidiates based on race is the very definition of racism.
2
u/meister2983 Jun 30 '23
I think socioeconomic background should be considered at least.
And they are perfectly free to.
-1
u/ultraviolentfuture Jun 30 '23
You do understand that the institutions aren't required to take the highest scoring or most qualified candidates? Asian applicants' outlooks do not necessarily improve with this news, institutions now simply have no obligation whatsoever.
7
u/KRMGPC Jun 30 '23
Wrong. Look at what happened when California, Michigan and other states banned affirmative action in admissions. Black and Hispanic enrollment fell and Asian enrollment rose despite whatever initiatives the schools used to boost Black and Hispanic enrollment
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (1)-6
u/mokomi Jun 30 '23
Yes. Normally it's White Culture, but in this case it's Asian Culture. I know this is stereotyping, but Asian Culture has a huge preservice on getting good grades compared to other cultures. Working toward that goal should get you that goal, but it doesn't. Your race has a huge factor in achieving your goal and working harder isn't going to help. The point of Affirmative Action is to force diversity. If we go with one metric than majority of the people will be from one select group. You want diversity. Just being different has a huge benefit in many, many different situations.
Schools are going to figure out other ways to achieve diversity. Which IMO, is good. Race has no barring on people's poverty, ideology, etc. Yes it has a higher chance, but it isn't a requirement. Then again, it's much easier to ask for Age, Sex, Location, Race, etc. than your living conditions.
6
u/ArchmageXin Jun 30 '23
but in this case it's Asian Culture. I know this is stereotyping, but Asian Culture has a huge preservice on getting good grades compared to other cultures.
Well they have to, seeing everyone put the bar so high for them.
→ More replies (3)15
u/anurodhp Jun 30 '23
Why were my Asian co-workers disappointed this didn't happen sooner?
because they know this and know its not fair:
"Harvard used an SAT score cutoff of 1310 for white students, 1350 for Asian American females, and 1380 for Asian American males. There were gasps in the courtroom when this evidence was revealed at trial. "
7
u/ArchmageXin Jun 30 '23
See that is what I don't get...why does Asians have to work so hard, instead of bending the laws to say, have Harvard put the Asian male cut off at 1100?
1
u/SleekExorcist Jun 30 '23 edited Jun 30 '23
What is the likelihood that we will see lawsuits against other programs that are income based, but by virtue of economics, "disproportionately" help minorities as a percentage of who gets the funds? Will this impact them in any way?
SES is highly correlated to race and may as well be a proxy measure. I could easily foresee a situation where someone who is white sues for not receiving a Pell grant or other benefit and claims "discrimination" using the logic of this case.
1
u/cracksilog California Jun 30 '23
Do you feel like people on either side of this issue are working with the same definition of “affirmative action” as the other? As in a lot of the misunderstanding might be from people who don’t actually know what affirmative action is? Or its limits? Or its purpose?
1
u/The_Magic California Jun 30 '23
Hi Bianca and Josh. I have seen some people say universities can still consider race if the student describes their personal experience in the application. Do you see this as a big enough loophole to minimize the impact of the ruling?
-2
u/SirBorf Jun 30 '23
Doing so would require a large proportion of applicants (I'd guess over a third) to specifically make their essay about race. That includes students of all races, particularly asian students would have to do this who have been historically harmed by affirmative action. So even if you did convince a large portion of college applicants, many of which aren't minorities or minorities who AA harmed, then the college admissions teams would be flooded with dozens and dozens of essays all about the same subject. I'll give you a hint, admissions officers tend to get annoyed when they're forced to read what boils down to the same handful of essays all about one singular topic over and over.
1
Jun 30 '23
[deleted]
-1
u/PromotedLurker Jul 01 '23
Because it’s a dog whistle conversation about hating black people. Nothing to do with schools or test scores. You can pretty much look at any company or school and the majority aren’t black(going back several years since AA). Go on LinkedIn LOL. Pick any company you want. I went to school in the area where Harvard is (not Harvard) and there wasn’t enough black people to fill a freshman hall. The obvious thing is that something inside them (people who have these strong opinions) that makes them deeply uncomfortable around minorities. It’s always been there. All you have to do is look at real life and not the news and the world tells a different story. I’m from a “shit hole” country. The people there deeply cared about education. People here don’t. It’s just the plain truth. They care about accolades and prestige and some amorphous thing about being “elite” Nevermind the reality that these “things” are discussed and done behind closed doors and away from these things(school name etc). I feel for the people who feel they’ve been wronged by an institution. Trust me I’ve watched it many times to a lot of different people. It’s a privilege to be worried about not getting into a school. Honestly and truly. I’m happy Asian Americans are getting their due. Let’s see what the future years bring……
2
Jun 30 '23
What do you say to people insisting that an anonymous meritocracy is the better option, rather than affirmative action?
Also, I see a lot of people saying that affirmative action hurt certain non-white groups of citizens, and I was wondering if there is any truth to that?
11
u/parliboy Jun 30 '23
What do you say to people insisting that an anonymous meritocracy is the better option
Because an A in one high school is different from an A in another high school, the only way that kind of meritocracy that can happen is by entrance exam scores. But that still isn't a true meritocracy because some families can afford test tutors and some cannot.
→ More replies (48)4
u/XiphosAletheria Jun 30 '23
I don't see how the ability to hire tutors undermines the idea of meritocracy. The tutors will of course be a source of merit for those that had them, but merit is ultimately luck-based anyway. We seek to promote those with merit not out of any concern with fairness but out of self-interest. If I get sick, I want the most competent doctor treating me, and I don't much care where that competence comes from - genetic intelligence, upbringing in a wealthy neighborhood, time spent studying under tutors, etc.
0
u/jersey_girl660 Jun 30 '23
You’re automatically assuming the best doctors have the highest grades and test scores which is absolutely not the case.
Also health outcomes are proven to be better when under represented minorities have a doctor of their ethnicity / race.
1
u/XiphosAletheria Jun 30 '23
You’re automatically assuming the best doctors have the highest grades and test scores which is absolutely not the case.
Sure it is. They may not be perfect proxies for merit, but they are close enough. All other things being equal, I would want the surgeon who graduated with all As over the one that scraped by with Cs.
Also health outcomes are proven to be better when under represented minorities have a doctor of their ethnicity / race.
Also health outcomes are proven to be better when under represented minorities have a doctor of their ethnicity / race.
When that doctor has first made it through a heavily meritocratic process, yes.
→ More replies (1)
1
u/Tommyd023 Jul 01 '23
Why couldn’t you just tie it to already in place “opportunity zones” and then filter by household income? That would be a better metric anyway because there are a lot of impoverished non minority communities that could be served as well.
2
1
u/telltal Oregon Jun 30 '23
Next: Anyone who was admitted to a university with affirmative action as a consideration will have their degrees revoked as illegitimate. 🙄 /s
-2
u/InternetPeon America Jun 30 '23
These are horrible, corrupt people - is the Supreme Court a sinking ship?
4
u/Kittygoespurrrr Jun 30 '23
If you think the SCOTUS is corrupt for overturning a racist policy, then you need to seriously look into moving to other countries where racism is accepted. This isn't one of them.
1
u/curlyfreak California Jun 30 '23
Yeah look at ACB. Technically shes an AA recipient - the version that white people have always had. She’s the least qualified of the justices and yet she got on the Supreme Court.
→ More replies (1)1
u/SirBorf Jun 30 '23
ACB was confirmed in late October 2020. All 3 of tfg's picks were rather young too. The ship is in mint condition and still has a long journey to go, sadly.
3
130
u/codearoni Jun 30 '23
I’m of the opinion that affirmative action should be based on economic status. Given that minorities are represented heavily by those families at or below the poverty line, they will still be represented in affirmative action while also including non-minority families as well.
My question for the experts is a critique of my thought above. What am I missing, or what are the unintended consequences of using economic status instead of race to guide affirmative action?