I'm very happy about this Legacy Status lawsuit which is now on the table. It's also good to hear former President's of Ivy league schools admit that these preferences aren't right and we need to get rid of them completely. Apparently though that does not include the "Harvard of the South" (a.k.a. Duke) whose president said banning these completely unfair admissions policies is "troublesome" because their institution is about "family".
So in addition to their assclown president in 2006, who with their faculty completely railroaded those LaCrosse players, we have a University proving that their level of utter douchebaggery is too high to quantify. Fk that entire University. That's all I have to say.
Platitudes
Legacy admissions will never change
Yeah this isn't going to change anything. Courts aren't going to tell schools they can't use whatever (legal) criteria they want to select their students - and I highly doubt they are going to judge legacy admissions are illegal.
I'm not so sure about that. I think it will take some time but that it can gradually be changed.
It will have to be changed voluntarily. I can't imagine a scenario where it would become illegal. As long as it doesn't violate federal law with regards to race, etc., Marquette (or Duke) can admit whomever they want using whatever criteria they want.
Quote from: The Sultan of Semantics on July 05, 2023, 06:07:08 PM
It will have to be changed voluntarily. I can't imagine a scenario where it would become illegal. As long as it doesn't violate federal law with regards to race, etc., Marquette (or Duke) can admit whomever they want using whatever criteria they want.
Well how can you prove if it violates federal law?
Quote from: Heisenberg v2.0 on July 05, 2023, 05:51:15 PM
Platitudes
Legacy admissions will never change
Yep, too much money behind it. Keep your alumni happy by admitting their kids, then weasel your way into their wills.
Quote from: MuggsyB on July 05, 2023, 06:17:20 PM
Well how can you prove if it violates federal law?
Admitting legacy students does not violate federal law.
Quote from: The Sultan of Semantics on July 05, 2023, 06:21:31 PM
Admitting legacy students does not violate federal law.
Admitting a Walrus doesn't either.
Quote from: MuggsyB on July 05, 2023, 06:22:48 PM
Admitting a Walrus doesn't either.
But enough about the women of Cobeen...
Quote from: The Sultan of Semantics on July 05, 2023, 06:24:32 PM
But enough about the women of Cobeen...
Maybe Harvard wants a good goalie? :)
If a white person can successfully sue a school for admitting a supposedly less-qualified Black person, couldn't a non-legacy person sue for admitting a supposedly less-qualified legacy?
I am not suggesting that could happen; I don't know enough about this stuff and I'm asking the question.
Quote from: MU82 on July 05, 2023, 07:16:38 PM
If a white person can successfully sue a school for admitting a supposedly less-qualified Black person, couldn't a non-legacy person sue for admitting a supposedly less-qualified legacy?
I am not suggesting that could happen; I don't know enough about this stuff and I'm asking the question.
I think the other lawsuit was filed by an Asian American.
How do you define who is more or less qualified?
Quote from: MU82 on July 05, 2023, 07:16:38 PM
If a white person can successfully sue a school for admitting a supposedly less-qualified Black person, couldn't a non-legacy person sue for admitting a supposedly less-qualified legacy?
I am not suggesting that could happen; I don't know enough about this stuff and I'm asking the question.
I get the spirit of the question and analogy, but the legal difference (please correct me where I am wrong) is AA is systematic, documented policies of including and excluding people based solely upon race.
Schools have been admitting and giving full rides to students that don't meet academic standards for decades without threat of lawsuits. None of it is based upon race.
Flip the numbers, and Harvard gives out golden lottery tickets to 72% of their admits who have no past ties to the school.
Harvard is a private institution that has zero actual responsibility for bringing perfect fairness to the universe.
Quote from: mu_hilltopper on July 05, 2023, 09:38:06 PM
Flip the numbers, and Harvard gives out golden lottery tickets to 72% of their admits who have no past ties to the school.
Harvard is a private institution that has zero actual responsibility for bringing perfect fairness to the universe.
The people of color who have graduated from Harvard just need to procreate more. Problem solved
Quote from: lawdog77 on July 05, 2023, 09:39:34 PM
The people of color who have graduated from Harvard just need to procreate more. Problem solved
Just not the Asians. ;)
Quote from: MuggsyB on July 05, 2023, 06:22:48 PM
Admitting a Walrus doesn't either.
Coo coo ca choo
Quote from: The Sultan of Semantics on July 05, 2023, 07:25:48 PM
How do you define who is more or less qualified?
The courts just ruled that a University does not have the legal right to decide what criteria it uses to define such things. That was the stance that previously allowed race to be considered, they ruled against it.
So by the logic of the Supreme Courts own ruling, legacy admits should not be permitted.
Quote from: forgetful on July 05, 2023, 11:44:21 PM
The courts just ruled that a University does not have the legal right to decide what criteria it uses to define such things. That was the stance that previously allowed race to be considered, they ruled against it.
So by the logic of the Supreme Courts own ruling, legacy admits should not be permitted.
No that's not what the Court ruled.
Legacy admits are all about da sheckels. Schools don't give a chit if da Old Man or Old Lady graduated from da joint. If, however, they can hand over a significant bag, Old Man Jr. or Old Lady Jr., have a bump. Schools don't run on love, aina?
Do people not know that California outlawed AA about 25 years ago? The liberals and progressives of California lead the charge to abolish the racist policy and have stuck to it for over 2 decades. Schools can be smart and motivated to promote diversity without arbitrarily tossing white and Asian applications in the trash.
Quote from: The Sultan of Semantics on July 06, 2023, 03:52:01 AM
No that's not what the Court ruled.
Affirmative action in college decisions was ended in California v. Bakke. But they left a carve out that it was the prerogative of the institution to determine what factors they would weigh in making their own application decisions. "A university was entitled as a matter of academic freedom 'to make its own judgments as to ... the selection of its student body.'"
The current case overruled that decision, saying that universities no longer have the academic freedom to make its own judgments, specifically, diversity cannot be used at all in decision making, as it violates the equal protections clause.
The current legacy cases show that, legacy cases disproportionately impact minorities. So, if they are consistent in their rulings, they should rule in the same manner. They of course will not, but mainly because the current Supreme Court is just a bunch of political hacks.
Quote from: forgetful on July 06, 2023, 09:04:07 AM
Affirmative action in college decisions was ended in California v. Bakke. But they left a carve out that it was the prerogative of the institution to determine what factors they would weigh in making their own application decisions. "A university was entitled as a matter of academic freedom 'to make its own judgments as to ... the selection of its student body.'"
The current case overruled that decision, saying that universities no longer have the academic freedom to make its own judgments, specifically, diversity cannot be used at all in decision making, as it violates the equal protections clause.
The current legacy cases show that, legacy cases disproportionately impact minorities. So, if they are consistent in their rulings, they should rule in the same manner. They of course will not, but mainly because the current Supreme Court is just a bunch of political hacks.
Harvard and UNC explicitly used race as part of their application evaluation process - that explicit use is what was outlawed. From the opinion:
"At Harvard, each application for admission is initially screened by a "first reader," who assigns a numerical score in each of six categories: academic, extracurricular, athletic, school support, personal, and overall. For the "overall" category—a composite of the five other ratings—a first reader can and does consider the applicant's race. Harvard's admissions subcommittees then review all applications from a particular geographic area. These regional subcommittees make recommendations to the full admissions committee, and they take an applicant'srace into account. When the 40-member full admissions committee begins its deliberations, it discusses the relative breakdown of applicants by race. The goal of the process, according to Harvard's director of admissions, is ensuring there is no "dramatic drop-off" in minority admissions from the prior class. An applicant receiving a majority of the full committee's votes is tentatively accepted for admission. At the end of this process, the racial composition of the tentative applicant pool is disclosed to the committee. The last stage of Harvard's admissions process, called the "lop," winnows the list of tentatively admitted students to arrive at the final class. Applicants that Harvard considers cutting at this stage are placed on the "lop list," which contains only four pieces of information: legacy status, recruited athlete status, financial aid eligibility, and race. In the Harvard admissions process, "race is a determinative tip for" a significant percentage "of all admitted African American and Hispanic applicants."
UNC has a similar admissions process. Every application is reviewed first by an admissions office reader, who assigns a numerical rating to each of several categories. Readers are required to consider the applicant's race as a factor in their review. Readers then make a written recommendation on each assigned application, and they may provide an applicant a substantial "plus" depending on the applicant's race. At this stage, most recommendations are provisionally final. A committee of experienced staff members then conducts a "school group review" of every initial decision made by a reader and either approves or rejects the recommendation. In making those decisions, the committee may consider the applicant's race."Any case that uses the "disproportionate impact" of a particular admissions criteria would be a completely different standard. And frankly it would be ridiculous and hard to enforce. Could it be argued that athletic status could cause disproportionate impact? What about standardized test scores?
None of that would be consistent with this ruling at all.
Quote from: forgetful on July 06, 2023, 09:04:07 AM
Affirmative action in college decisions was ended in California v. Bakke. But they left a carve out that it was the prerogative of the institution to determine what factors they would weigh in making their own application decisions. "A university was entitled as a matter of academic freedom 'to make its own judgments as to ... the selection of its student body.'"
The current case overruled that decision, saying that universities no longer have the academic freedom to make its own judgments, specifically, diversity cannot be used at all in decision making, as it violates the equal protections clause.
The current legacy cases show that, legacy cases disproportionately impact minorities. So, if they are consistent in their rulings, they should rule in the same manner. They of course will not, but mainly because the current Supreme Court is just a bunch of political hacks.
I really don't think that is what the Court held. There's certainly bases for criticizing the decision that are founded in reality. I don't think you're really interested in those because it seems your objective here is to seek catharsis by being angry on the internet.
Suffice it to say that the ruling does affect "affirmative action" in a way that is broadly consistent with your understanding. The degree to which that ruling can be applied to other admissions criteria (e.g., legacy status) is not affected the way you believe/want it to be. I am sorry to be the bearer of this bad news.
Quote from: jficke13 on July 06, 2023, 09:29:59 AM
I really don't think that is what the Court held. There's certainly bases for criticizing the decision that are founded in reality. I don't think you're really interested in those because it seems your objective here is to seek catharsis by being angry on the internet.
Suffice it to say that the ruling does affect "affirmative action" in a way that is broadly consistent with your understanding. The degree to which that ruling can be applied to other admissions criteria (e.g., legacy status) is not affected the way you believe/want it to be. I am sorry to be the bearer of this bad news.
I agree. Schools are still allowed to decide what factors are important (except race)In the states that have previously banned using race as a factor, colleges and universities have found creative ways to increase diversity, but it takes effort. Factors such as the first person in their family going to college, what high school, family income, essays.
Quote from: forgetful on July 06, 2023, 09:04:07 AM
Affirmative action in college decisions was ended in California v. Bakke. But they left a carve out that it was the prerogative of the institution to determine what factors they would weigh in making their own application decisions. "A university was entitled as a matter of academic freedom 'to make its own judgments as to ... the selection of its student body.'"
The current case overruled that decision, saying that universities no longer have the academic freedom to make its own judgments, specifically, diversity cannot be used at all in decision making, as it violates the equal protections clause.
The current legacy cases show that, legacy cases disproportionately impact minorities. So, if they are consistent in their rulings, they should rule in the same manner. They of course will not, but mainly because the current Supreme Court is just a bunch of political hacks.
Current cases claim
or have proven legacy cases disproportionately impact minorities?
Quote from: lawdog77 on July 06, 2023, 09:45:53 AM
I agree. Schools are still allowed to decide what factors are important (except race)In the states that have previously banned using race as a factor, colleges and universities have found creative ways to increase diversity, but it takes effort. Factors such as the first person in their family going to college, what high school, family income, essays.
Right. Schools have been doing a great deal to become more diverse without explicitly using race as a criteria. For instance at Marquette...
https://www.marquette.edu/diversity/encuentros-mentor-program.php
https://www.marquette.edu/explore/transfer-students-golden-eagle-advantage-messmer.php
I'm not saying Marquette is solely doing this for the sake of diversity. But partnerships with Catholic high schools like Messmer and Cristo Rey is not only consistent with the mission of the school, but is going to lead ot more diversity.
Another example:
https://news.uwgb.edu/phlash/mediacoverage/02/14/green-bay-high-school-students-will-be-admitted-directly-to-uw-green-bay-wbay/
Since the Green Bay public schools are a "majority minority" district, this is going to lead to a more diverse student body.
I do not support allowing employers or landlords choose based on race. Thus, I don't feel schools should either.