The U.S. Supreme Court Bans the Use of Race in College Admissions

[Laan Yaa Mo]

Finally. This is a step forward to end discrimination in the U.S.A. Citizens of the U.S. from an East and South Asian background will be especially delighted with this decision. They were the most notable victims of the old system in which Universities like Harvard would reject a number of highly academically qualified Asian candidates. How did they do this? One way as to assess the 'personalities' of Asians and deem them as deficient in that category, and reject them for entry to places like Harvard and North Carolina. Happily, the Asians fought to end the 'admission based on race' policy, and the Supreme Court's decision will be welcome news to them.

This book provides an excellent analysis of how and why Asians were discriminated against: Kenny Wu, An Inconvenient Minority: The Attack on Asian American Excellence and the Fight for Meritocracy.

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/ ... admissions

[Laan Yaa Mo]

There are some interesting comments from readers here although some seem to have interpreted the ruling incorrectly.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/supr ... -lhl9gfq56

[FrazeeDK]

Harvard as a private university could continue their race preference admissions policy IF they're willing to give up all Federal Funding.. After all, its endowment in 2021 totalled over 53 billion dollars...

As for UNC, if they wish to maintain a racial equity admissions policy I'd say they need to do aggressive recruitment or indeed even acadmic preparation of candidates in underserved communities..

[Laan Yaa Mo]

Harvard as a private university could continue their race preference admissions policy IF they're willing to give up all Federal Funding.. After all, its endowment in 2021 totalled over 53 billion dollars...

As for UNC, if they wish to maintain a racial equity admissions policy I'd say they need to do aggressive recruitment or indeed even acadmic preparation of candidates in underserved communities..

This opinion piece tends to agree with you that Harvard will still find a way around the decision, but argues that the decision is a positive step. As one philosopher recently stated the pendulum swings back and forth.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/posi ... -wspndfmh8

[Laan Yaa Mo]

See the supreme Court in the USA scoring another home goal, banning affirmative action by Universities, this action assisted in propelling at least TWO Supreme Court judges to their current position and GOD BLESS the Court again for efusing to allow a generation of youngsters forgiveness of part of their student loans while many members of Congress and at least one person in the supreme Court kept their businesses alive due to PPP, but their hypocrisy knows no boundaries it seems.

Khun Paul, Sir, perhaps after fifty years of affirmative action, it is time to close the book on this discriminatory policy that shut the door on many qualified Asian students born in the U.S.A. for gaining entrance to Harvard and other colleges of their choice. It's time to end racism. Merit, not race, should be the determining factor for college entrance.

[Laan Yaa Mo]

So basically bugger all to do with upholding the law for the GENERAL PUBLIC just another load of licksp[ittles to further invoke their friendly POTUS views, how UN-DEMOCRATIC , must be a great boon to the public tyo know that in actuality the supeme Court JUStces do not give a damn about the vast majority of the American Public .

I think the U.S. Constitution states that it is a Federal Republic. It does not state that it is a democracy.

[Khun Paul]

AGFEE IT IS plain to see America is NOT A democracy and I thought the constitution was about looking after the people ,hence my comment vis a vis the SUPREME Court who seem to be making decisions that reflect a political bent that affects millions as opposed to enacting the law to benefit the general public but then if not a democracy then the public are mere PAWNS !!!!

[Laan Yaa Mo]

Calvin Yang, a young Canadian who scored in the top 1% of the SAT Test, is one of those who were rejected by Harvard and joined the movement against the racist admissions policy of the University.

'Canadian involved in fight against affirmative action. One high-profile advocate for the case was Canadian. Calvin Yang, who is from Toronto but attended high school in New York, wanted to go to Harvard.

He said he dreamed of going where Pierre Trudeau studied, because it's a historic incubator for politicians and he has ambitions to return to Canada and run for office.

Yang's SAT scores were extraordinary, in the top one percentile. He was a Canada 30 Under 30 environmental leader after organizing massive climate protests in New York. He speaks French and has been involved with different groups and causes. But he was rejected by Harvard, just like about 97 per cent of applicants to that elite university.

He said when he received his rejection letter, he was stunned.

After that, Yang said, he learned that Asian applicants, like him, were systematically penalized with lower scores on subjective criteria, such as personality.

"That was my eureka moment," he told CBC News on Thursday. "And that is frankly racist and it is unconstitutional."

He contacted the plaintiff group in the case, Students for Fair Admissions, and has been conducting interviews on its behalf. He spoke at a celebratory news conference in Washington after the court's ruling.

Yang has written about the issue at the University of California, Berkeley, where he is a sophomore in legal studies and political economics. He is involved in a centrist conservative group in Canada weighing the creation of a new party.

Yang said he was well aware that African Americans have suffered multi-generational injustices in the U.S., but he believed race-based affirmative action wasn't the correct remedy.

He said he favours economic-based affirmative action. That way, he says, the child of a laid-off white West Virginia coal miner might benefit, as well as a poor African American child.

"Instead of race-based ... make it more socioeconomic based, or class-based," he said. - https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/us-suprem ... -1.6892475

[Khun Paul]

So basically bugger all to do with upholding the law for the GENERAL PUBLIC just another load of licksp[ittles to further invoke their friendly POTUS views, how UN-DEMOCRATIC , must be a great boon to the public tyo know that in actuality the supeme Court JUStces do not give a damn about the vast majority of the American Public.

The role of the Supreme Court is not to make policy that benefits anyone in particular. The role is to interpret laws vis-à-vis the Constitution.

THERE speaks a born bred true American sucked into the hype surrounding the Supreme Court despie recent rulings affecting millions and overtun decodes old laws and you tell me they nterpret the law ......harking back o a constitution written in the late 1700's, barely updated to reflect modern times or living but still having such a detrimental impact on many people and it is THESE rules and laws they interpret ............amazing surprised the States have survived that long !

[Whistler]

So basically bugger all to do with upholding the law for the GENERAL PUBLIC just another load of licksp[ittles to further invoke their friendly POTUS views, how UN-DEMOCRATIC , must be a great boon to the public tyo know that in actuality the supeme Court JUStces do not give a damn about the vast majority of the American Public .

I think the U.S. Constitution states that it is a Federal Republic. It does not state that it is a democracy.

The word 'Democracy' means little. It's modern connotation is that of Universal suffrage.

When the US constitution was written it gave zero voting rights to anybody. It left it up to the individual states to set voting eligibility. As a result minorities, women and even 40% of males had no right to vote.

Subsequent amendments have attempted to fix the many flaws in this revered document, however it remains a flawed relic of 18th century thinking

[Laan Yaa Mo]

So basically bugger all to do with upholding the law for the GENERAL PUBLIC just another load of licksp[ittles to further invoke their friendly POTUS views, how UN-DEMOCRATIC , must be a great boon to the public tyo know that in actuality the supeme Court JUStces do not give a damn about the vast majority of the American Public .

I think the U.S. Constitution states that it is a Federal Republic. It does not state that it is a democracy.

The word 'Democracy' means little. It's modern connotation is that of Universal suffrage.

When the US constitution was written it gave zero voting rights to anybody. It left it up to the individual states to set voting eligibility. As a result minorities, women and even 40% of males had no right to vote.

Subsequent amendments have attempted to fix the many flaws in this revered document, however it remains a flawed relic of 18th century thinking

The U.S.A. got 18th century English politics in which the President almost/tries to act like an absolute monarch whereas Canada got the 19th century version; hence, constitutional monarchy. Voting rights in both 18th and 19th Britain were very limited.

[Whistler]

So basically bugger all to do with upholding the law for the GENERAL PUBLIC just another load of licksp[ittles to further invoke their friendly POTUS views, how UN-DEMOCRATIC , must be a great boon to the public tyo know that in actuality the supeme Court JUStces do not give a damn about the vast majority of the American Public .

I think the U.S. Constitution states that it is a Federal Republic. It does not state that it is a democracy.

The word 'Democracy' means little. It's modern connotation is that of Universal suffrage.

When the US constitution was written it gave zero voting rights to anybody. It left it up to the individual states to set voting eligibility. As a result minorities, women and even 40% of males had no right to vote.

Subsequent amendments have attempted to fix the many flaws in this revered document, however it remains a flawed relic of 18th century thinking

The U.S.A. got 18th century English politics in which the President almost/tries to act like an absolute monarch whereas Canada got the 19th century version; hence, constitutional monarchy. Voting rights in both 18th and 19th Britain were very limited.

Even Canada did not grant women the right to vote until 1918, decades behind other ex British colonies. !982 before Canada enshrined rights to aboriginals.

[Laan Yaa Mo]

Yes...and...? I think the former Burma had the most liberal voting rights in the British Empire in 1921. I know...yes...and?

[Whistler]

Yes...and...? I think the former Burma had the most liberal voting rights in the British Empire in 1921. I know...yes...and?

Burma was a colony in 1921. The governor was appointed by the British government, the Burmese people had no say in who ruled their country. In 1921 it was a second class district under Indian command. It did not even exist as a country until 1947.

[Laan Yaa Mo]

Yes...and...? I think the former Burma had the most liberal voting rights in the British Empire in 1921. I know...yes...and?

Burma was a colony in 1921. The governor was appointed by the British government, the Burmese people had no say in who ruled their country. In 1921 it was a second class district under Indian command. It did not even exist as a country until 1947.

You missed the point about the Province of Burma, which is understandable.
Start a thread about it and we can discuss the subject further.

[Doodoo]

"Start a thread about it and we can discuss the subject further."

Away ya go