Interesting. So essentially a private university would still be free to admit students in this way if they refused any federal assistance they’re currently getting aka basically an impossibility
I think at least one racist school tried to do this back in the day for opposite, Caucasian purposes, but didn't succeed
If I understand correctly i believe the ruling essentially says it’s okay to give consideration to race for a program so long as it’s not counter-balanced by the lack of another race receiving the same benefit elsewhere? So I.e. if a school does a “black accelerator” program for raised black admissions there essentially has to be Asian/hispanic/white/etc ones as well, they can’t just do it based around differential racial programs individual of each other
I don't think so; I believe that would go against what Roberts means when he writes that "race may never be used as a “negative” and that it may not operate as a stereotype."
If I understand correctly i believe the ruling essentially says it’s okay to give consideration to race for a program so long as it’s not counter-balanced by the lack of another race receiving the same benefit elsewhere? So I.e. if a school does a “black accelerator” program for raised black admissions there essentially has to be Asian/hispanic/white/etc ones as well, they can’t just do it based around differential racial programs individual of each other
I’m not sure if this was also related to AA but I know schools were actually denying Asian students who had better resumes than other students of color. Does that go away as well?
I don't think so; I believe that would go against what Roberts means when he writes that "race may never be used as a “negative” and that it may not operate as a stereotype."
I'm trying to understand the logic that it can be a positive but not a negative
I’m not sure if this was also related to AA but I know schools were actually denying Asian students who had better resumes than other students of color. Does that go away as well?
It will, if I understand this right:
Respondents’ race-based admissions systems also fail to comply with the Equal Protection Clause’s twin commands that race may never be used as a “negative” and that it may not operate as a stereotype. The First Circuit found that Harvard’s consideration of race has resulted in fewer admissions of Asian-American students. Respondents’ assertion that race is never a negative factor in their admissions programs cannot withstand scrutiny. College admissions are zerosum, and a benefit provided to some applicants but not to others necessarily advantages the former at the expense of the latter.
@krishna_bound I think this goes to what you're saying about races equally benefiting from a theoretically allowed positive use of race; basically, Roberts is saying that it's impossible
I think at least one racist school tried to do this back in the day for opposite, Caucasian purposes, but didn't succeed
Hillsdale does it to avoid Title IX requirements
Do these people make these rulings as confusing as possible on purpose
Yes
Do these people make these rulings as confusing as possible on purpose
It’s confusing because of the fear of loopholes
Do these people make these rulings as confusing as possible on purpose
That's why lawyers make so much money. It's an incredibly difficult job.
It will, if I understand this right:
Respondents’ race-based admissions systems also fail to comply with the Equal Protection Clause’s twin commands that race may never be used as a “negative” and that it may not operate as a stereotype. The First Circuit found that Harvard’s consideration of race has resulted in fewer admissions of Asian-American students. Respondents’ assertion that race is never a negative factor in their admissions programs cannot withstand scrutiny. College admissions are zerosum, and a benefit provided to some applicants but not to others necessarily advantages the former at the expense of the latter.
@krishna_bound I think this goes to what you're saying about races equally benefiting from a theoretically allowed positive use of race; basically, Roberts is saying that it's impossible
to me it reads like they're tiptoing around race neutrality w/o explicitly saying it which is what i don't fully get in the ruling. like if it negatively impacts another based on the trait of race it's obviously an issue due to it being zerosum as they mention, but it doesn't seem like it cares about the racial judgement in and of itself, only how it affects the outcome?
to me it reads like they're tiptoing around race neutrality w/o explicitly saying it which is what i don't fully get in the ruling. like if it negatively impacts another based on the trait of race it's obviously an issue due to it being zerosum as they mention, but it doesn't seem like it cares about the racial judgement in and of itself, only how it affects the outcome?
I suspect that in order to get Roberts and Kavanaugh on board they had to do this halfway crooks bit
I have always thought the endless discussion of the specific 25-year "limit" in Grutter is rather silly, it's always read as dicta to me
so we know how the student loan decision is gonna go tomorrow.
lmao
so we know how the student loan decision is gonna go tomorrow.
Lmao
so we know how the student loan decision is gonna go tomorrow.
It's over.
so we know how the student loan decision is gonna go tomorrow.
Can’t wait to live in the future where half of the billboards and ads you see are about suicide prevention.
A story just came out saying the man who is mentioned in the 303 Creative case never actually requested a website for his wedding and he is already married to a woman
The Court holds that the First Amendment bars Colorado from forcing a website designer to create expressive designs speaking messages with which the designer disagrees.
The Court holds that the First Amendment bars Colorado from forcing a website designer to create expressive designs speaking messages with which the designer disagrees.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-476_c185.pdf
yikes
cmon student loans plz