The way it works is that Supreme Court hears their docket of cases for a whole session, then the session ends and the justices go off on their holidays and their decisions are released then. Clarence Thomas is probably sitting on a billionaire Republican donor’s yacht right now, fingering some Nazi memorabilia. Today, SCOTUS announced their decision in a pair of cases involving affirmative action in college admissions. The Supreme Court overturned the use of affirmative action. Congrats to American colleges and universities, you get to admit thousands of Beckys with bad grades, all while marginalizing the Black and brown kids who want to be doctors and scientists. As you would guess, Clarence Thomas, a shining beacon of affirmative-action employment, wrote the majority opinion dismantling affirmative action in colleges.
The Supreme Court on Thursday effectively overturned the use of affirmative action in college admissions policies, a practice that allows universities to consider a prospective student’s race along with factors such as academic merit, athletics, and extracurriculars. The court’s 6-3 ruling came after it heard arguments in a pair of challenges to affirmative action policies in place at the University of North Carolina and Harvard University.
ln its ruling, the court determined that race-conscious admissions violates the equal-protection clause under the U.S. constitution: “While this Court has recognized a ‘tradition of giving a degree of deference to a university’s academic decisions,’ it has made clear that deference must exist ‘within constitutionally prescribed limits.’ [The universities] have failed to present an exceedingly persuasive justification for separating students on the basis of race that is measurable and concrete enough to permit judicial review, as the Equal Protection Clause requires.”
In a concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas argued, “Far from advancing the cause of improved race relations in our Nation, affirmative action highlights our racial differences with pernicious effect. In fact, recent history reveals a disturbing pattern: Affirmative action policies appear to have prolonged the asserted need for racial discrimination.”
Meanwhile, in a dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor cited data showing that, “Racially integrated schools improve cross-racial understanding, ‘break down racial stereotypes,’ and ensure that students obtain ‘the skills needed in today’s increasingly global marketplace . . . through exposure to widely diverse people, cultures, ideas, and viewpoints.’ ”
“More broadly, inclusive institutions that are ‘visibly open to talented and qualified individuals of every race and ethnicity’ instill public confidence in the ‘legitimacy’ and ‘integrity’ of those institutions and the diverse set of graduates that they cultivate,” Sotomayor added.
Long a tool used to to help remedy historical discrimination and create more diverse student populations, proponents have argued affirmative action helps increase opportunities to underrepresented groups, including people of color. Opponents argue that the practice unfairly strips white people of those same opportunities and amounts to racial discrimination.
Imagine writing this with a straight face: “Affirmative action policies appear to have prolonged the asserted need for racial discrimination.” Clarence “Reverse Racism!” Thomas. Mr. Why Are You Being Racist To Becky With The Bad Grades??? While I’m sure a lot has changed since my college days, it feels like most universities and colleges genuinely want to keep their affirmative-action admissions policies in place – rarely were these cases about a college arguing that their policies were unfair, it was always about some wealthy white bigot crying that they can’t go to Harvard because of all of the “quota admissions.” I wonder if universities will find work-arounds in their admissions process, or if universities are just going to be for white kids exclusively now.
Wow. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissent. pic.twitter.com/ica3ED6LZq
— Neal Katyal (@neal_katyal) June 29, 2023
Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Backgrid, Instar.
-
- -Washington, District of Columbia – 20210423-Supreme Court of the United States 2021 Group Photo Members of the Supreme Court pose for a group photo at the Supreme Court in Washington, DC on April 23, 2021. Seated from left: Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Justice Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., Justice Stephen G. Breyer, and Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Justice Elena Kagan, Justice Neil M. Gorsuch and Justice Amy Coney Barrett. -PICTURED: Justice Sonia Sotomayor -PHOTO by: Erin Schaff/POOL/CNP/startraksphoto.com -042321_Supreme-Court-Pool_018 This is an editorial, rights-managed image. Please contact Startraks Photo for licensing fee and rights information at sales@startraksphoto.com or call +1 212 414 9464 This image may not be published in any way that is, or might be deemed to be, defamatory, libelous, pornographic, or obscene. Please consult our sales department for any clarification needed prior to publication and use. Startraks Photo reserves the right to pursue unauthorized users of this material. If you are in violation of our intellectual property rights or copyright you may be liable for damages, loss of income, any profits you derive from the unauthorized use of this material and, where appropriate, the cost of collection and/or any statutory damages awarded
-
- -Washington, District of Columbia – 20220407 United States President Joe Biden and hugs Associate Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson after she passed the 50 vote thresh hold by the US Senate for her confirmation to the Supreme Court at the White House in Washington, D.C. -PICTURED: President Joe Biden, Ketanji Brown Jackson -PHOTO by: Joshua Roberts/Pool/CNP/startraksphoto.com -040722_Biden-Jackson-Pool_008 This is an editorial, rights-managed image. Please contact Startraks Photo for licensing fee and rights information at sales@startraksphoto.com or call +1 212 414 9464 This image may not be published in any way that is, or might be deemed to be, defamatory, libelous, pornographic, or obscene. Please consult our sales department for any clarification needed prior to publication and use. Startraks Photo reserves the right to pursue unauthorized users of this material. If you are in violation of our intellectual property rights or copyright you may be liable for damages, loss of income, any profits you derive from the unauthorized use of this material and, where appropriate, the cost of collection and/or any statutory damages awarded
-
- -Washington, District of Columbia – 20210423-Supreme Court of the United States 2021 Group Photo Members of the Supreme Court pose for a group photo at the Supreme Court in Washington, DC on April 23, 2021. Seated from left: Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Justice Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., Justice Stephen G. Breyer, and Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Justice Elena Kagan, Justice Neil M. Gorsuch and Justice Amy Coney Barrett. -PICTURED: Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Justice Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., Justice Stephen G. Breyer, and Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Justice Elena Kagan, Justice Neil M. Gorsuch and Justice Amy Coney Barrett -PHOTO by: Erin Schaff/POOL/CNP/startraksphoto.com -042321_Supreme-Court-Pool_016 This is an editorial, rights-managed image. Please contact Startraks Photo for licensing fee and rights information at sales@startraksphoto.com or call +1 212 414 9464 This image may not be published in any way that is, or might be deemed to be, defamatory, libelous, pornographic, or obscene. Please consult our sales department for any clarification needed prior to publication and use. Startraks Photo reserves the right to pursue unauthorized users of this material. If you are in violation of our intellectual property rights or copyright you may be liable for damages, loss of income, any profits you derive from the unauthorized use of this material and, where appropriate, the cost of collection and/or any statutory damages awarded
-
- Associate Justice Clarence Thomas poses for a group photograph at the Supreme Court building on June 1 2017 in Washington, DC.,Image: 513106017, License: Rights-managed, Restrictions: WORLD RIGHTS- Fee Payable Upon Reproduction – For queries contact Avalon.red – sales@avalon.red London: +44 (0) 20 7421 6000 Los Angeles: +1 (310) 822 0419 Berlin: +49 (0) 30 76 212 251, Model Release: no, Credit line: Olivier Douliery / Avalon
-
- Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Clarence Thomas waits to administer the oath of office to Judge Amy Coney Barrett to be Associate Justice of the Supreme Court on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington, DC on Monday, October 26, 2020. US President Donald J. Trump and her husband Jesse M. Barrett look on.,Image: 565706222, License: Rights-managed, Restrictions: usage worldwide, Model Release: no, Credit line: Chris Kleponis / DPA Picture Alliance / Avalon
-
- Members of the Supreme Court pose for a group photo at the Supreme Court in Washington. Seated from left: Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., Justice Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., Justice Stephen G. Breyer, and Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Justice Elena Kagan, Justice Neil M. Gorsuch and Justice Amy Coney Barrett. Featuring: John G. Roberts Jr. Where: Washington, District of Columbia, United States When: 23 Apr 2021 Credit: Erin Schaff/POOL via CNP/INSTARimages/Cover Images
Just horrific to witness the regressive stance of this extremist court. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s dissent was spot-on. Her nomination is probably the best thing Biden has done during his administration.
I’m sorry but I’m thankful I don’t have children. I have enough stress in my life without worrying about what will inevitably be a disastrous future for this country. I worry so much for kids today.
I feel the same, Kitten. I chose not to have kids but I feel such sadness and worry for the kids inheriting this unspeakable mess.
I think ‘Get Out’ was inspired by CT.
Someone else is in that body.
+1 Justice Ketanji Jackson is one of the best things things the Biden administration has done. In her freshman year she has been amazing.
What a garbage decision.
An absolute disaster of a terrible decision. It has no basis in fact at all and less basis in law. And totally unsurprising from this court.
Justice Ketanji Jackson is the single most important and most brilliant decision of the Biden administration.
Me over here like: Black, beautiful, and childfree by (courts) choices, indeed.
Why is Clarence Thomas still on the Supreme Court?? Could you imagine the uproar, gnashing of teeth, and vapors if a Democrat had appointed him to the Bench? Not to mention the sobbing cries of impeachment. 🙁
And why was he ever allowed on the court in the first place (hint: corruption and misogyny).
Democrats should be screaming from the rooftops about Thomas’ corruption. I hate how passive they are about something so egregious and outrageous.
Some of us have been “screaming” since we first heard from Anita Hill. Although I don’t identify as. “Democrat” or reflexively accept the two-party system, I’d welcome any suggestions you might have for addressing either corruption in general or the current situation with: Poster Child for Affirmative Action says What?!
For some context, as a member of more than one minority group, I’m kind of inured to the possibility that my “screaming” might be easily ignored by many of those with more actual power, but I value collective action, and, again, would welcome suggestions for action — particularly in the face of multiple partisan unethical Supreme Court Justices with lifetime appointments and massive Republican support .
Huh? This isn’t true. They’ve been working on legislation to create actual ethics rules for the SC. They’ve been openly talking about it for a while. The issue lies in the Constitution itself. The SC kind of rules itself which is obviously dangerous. The White House, outside organizations and Dems have been expecting this, but there’s nothing they could do to stop this decision. The 2016 election was the ballgame. You know who is actually responsible? Republicans. They’ve actively been working towards this with an assist from nonvoters.
why is alito? why Kavanaugh? why barrett?
I think they are referring to a specific recent scandal (looks like bribery/corruption) plus there have been issues with his wife (conflict of interest stuff) not the fact that he’s very right wing like those other judges
Cried like a baby in a diaper over this decision, NGL.
That tired old angry bulldog has GOT TO GO!
This should encourage Black students to head back to HBCUs. Their numbers have been increasing and hopefully this will be a renaissance for Black Gen Z and Gen A.
I think that’s good in a way…you can get a quality education at many HBCU’s. I just hope this doesn’t exlcude them from certain opportunities. Business will need to pick this up because this only increases the exclusion of Black and brown faces (and women!) in spaces that hae traditionally been for white men (and maybe their partners).
And I truly hope that minorities are more determined than ever to get an education and create their own generational wealth because this current SCOTUS majority is doing everything they can to preven that from happening.
Generational wealth will be hard to achieve by education alone without the required social safety nets to support it. You don’t get a stab at true upward mobility if you’re saddled with student loan debt and an atrociously expensive healthcare system–and that’s to say nothing about the GOP gunning for social security and medicare. And then there’s the daily racial aggressions both micro and macro that people of color face. Amazing the lengths that people in this country will go to to keep POC down.
Of course much of the generational wealth in many whites families was achieved with massive Federal supports, but, sure: “determination “ and creating our “own generational wealth” should definitely balance out the generational impact of things like the GI bill, social security, certain aspects of the tax code, red-lining, racially focused violence in the face of Black accomplishments, gentrification that threatens our own generational wealth….
Speaking of generational wealth, is the Court going to stop legacies? Of course not. Because legacies benefit rich whites.
I just hope and pray that dismantling HBCUs isn’t next on the list for these white nationalists.
#ExpandTheCourt
THIS!
+1
Abso-f**kn-lutely
and don’t forget term limits. A lifetime appointment with no chance of getting fired.
I disagree — if only because the logical step would be to increase the number of Justices to parallel the number of circuit courts, which I think would be fine, but I can also imagine the Rethuglicans changing the numbers whenever they want to be sure of a partisan majority on the Court. What I’d prefer is setting up a clear system for removing unethical Justices that doesn’t rely solely on Implementation by a partisan Congress.
I don’t like the idea of term limits. That pushes out excellent jurists along with the unethical deplorable ones.
Unfortunately expanding the court, also expands the ability to politicize it even more. The entire idea of the court is for it to be a non-political community that makes decisions based on the US constitution. When we start to build SCOTUS by political parties the skew of constitutional interpretation makes for questionable integrity. One of the biggest flaws our forefathers made was not creating an oversight system for SCOTUS.
Schools will use this as an excuse to admit even less POC. Even Asian students will be negatively affected.
A generation of white women voted with their fellow white men for Trump and they will be MOST affected by this decision. What shameful legacy Thomas has left and many racist have ushered in.
White men think they benefit from keeping white women in dependent roles (not of course not all white men, but the concept of white men, the Trump supporters who pat women on the head for being obedient).
But all the boomer white men I’ve ever known struggled to be primary bread winners. Some didn’t want the role at all and often dipped out on child support as well, and others wanted the role, just like their fathers had, and found it stressful and exhausting. We all benefit from a rising tide.
My boomer parents were the problem. My dad promised my mom she never had to work again once they got married, so she didnt. My dad liked providing for her and I, but she honestly complained constantly and seemed so ungrateful. I told her multiple time to go back to work if she was so unhappy, and she did for a bit but only to get enough quarters for her social security. And would you believe my mother was one of the first women with an associate’s degree in computer science in in her area? My mother grew up poor and felt that marrying “up” was worth more than having a career. Despite all her complaining, she liked being dependent on my father. Mind blowing to me.
Andrea – I’m guessing your mom grew up with those values, that marrying well was the goal? But kudos to her for getting that degree in computer science! Both my Boomer parents grew up in very traditional families, but my mom’s mother encouraged her daughters to pursue education and financial independence (I can’t say why she was a closet feminist in the 50s, but she was). Meanwhile, my father watched his own father work himself into an early grave, and what my father took from that was to always prioritize his own goals, which he absolutely did. Married a string of women willing to support him through various degrees and ambitions, while still patting himself on the back for being father of the year. Which is all to say economic independence for women worked out great for my dad, but he’d never admit it.
White women are the primary benefactors of affirmative action. I hope this applies to gender based admissions as well. Then the Beckys and Abbies will see the light—when it directly impacts them.
And let’s be clear—this was about Asian students feeling like affirmative action discriminated against THEM! THEY believe perfect grades and SATs is what makes a must-admit. That’s never been true but white men are also going to be in for a ride awakening if ANY college admits solely based on test scores and grades. Imagine if legacy, wealth, opportunity, and whiteness were no longer admissions factors? Anyway, everyone can suck it.
The group (money) and moving force behind this lawsuit was a bunch of white people. They just found a handful of dumb Asians (every demographic has their share of dumb people) to be the “face” of the lawsuit so it didn’t LOOK like white people were behind it. Just like the anti-asian hate crimes, and the “model minority” myth, it’s really white people behind it all. As usual.
Girl, I’m listening…
@ThatsNotOkay — The Searle Trust, Donors Trust, and Edward Blum are the moving forces and financing behind these lawsuits. There are probably a bunch of articles about them if you google it, but here is one link: https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2022/10/28/donors-sffa-conservative-trusts/
These white people don’t give a cr@p about any minority, including asians, this is all about how destroying affirmative action helps THEM (i.e., white people).
+1.
It’s partly about Asians, who dominate the tech industry (innovation and wealth) and Indians who have made significant inroads into the medical establishment, (both perceived to be predominantly White industries in this country) and partly about Latinos outnumbering White people in the U.S. in the next decade or two.
I’m a white woman who benefited from some degree of affirmative action. I went to a rural Midwestern high school and got into the flagship land grant public university, finding out I got admitted before the end of my 1st semester senior year. I probably didn’t need it – I was in the top 10 percent of my graduating class, had very good test scores and activities, but it may have given me an extra boost.
Besides white women, students from mostly white rural high schools have also benefited enormously from affirmative action. Flagship public universities have to enroll a broad enough freshman class from across their state’s population, so students from rural high schools with lower grades and test scores in addition to a less challenging academic curriculum that may not include AP or IB classes will get in ahead of students from larger urban and suburban high schools who aren’t in the top 10% of their class. That type of affirmative action won’t be impacted by these decisions.
Same logic goes for out of state applicants and private schools. A wealthy white student from Montana or Wyoming with mediocre grades and test scores will get into an Ivy or near Ivy ahead of a BIPOC student.
Is the whole legacy admission a kind of affirmativ action for rich white people?
Isn’t that unconstitutional dicrimination as well?
Setting aside all of the ways he is a piece of shit (we all know it’s a long list), at the end of the day he is a BLACK man opposing policies to help other BLACK (and brown and Asian) people!!! How does he sleep at night?!?
People should watch the PBS document about Clarence Thomas and his wife (it’s on YouTube) or listen to the Slate’s Slow Burn podcast about him to understand why he thinks the way he does. Anita Hill’s testimony should have disqualified him from sitting on the bench.
Second this. It does a great job of showing how he came to a place of internalized racism.
Ditto. Just finished watching it last night on PBS app. Was also heartened to see PBS app has expanded # of historical shows you can see (used to be fewer). Excellent PBS Frontline show – Clarence Thomas, Holy Cross affirmative action student.
Currently listening to the Slow Burn S8 podcast. Would also recommend 2-yr old podcast ‘Because of Anita.’
This sounds interesting, but maybe something I’ll watch after he’s dead and no longer actively inflicting harm on so many communities that need help. Because right now, I think it would probably completely enrage me. (Yes, the harm he’s actively inflicting will continue to affect people, but I need the rage to fade some.)
I cannot stand this guy! What an affront to the legacy of the late great Justice Thurgood Marshall the appointment of CT is! The guy who greatly benefited from affirmative action policies which helped his career advancements, is one of the keys to dismantling it. What a truly sad day in the US. But I’m so glad HBCUs (Historically Black Colleges and Universities) are still excellent institutions of higher learning and that 45 was unsuccessful in his attempts to defund them.
I can’t wait for SCOTUS’ ruling on interracial marriage! /s. Sort of. After all, Congress failed to pass a bill protecting it. I guess Mitch McConnell forgot that he has an interracial marriage, with his wife being Asian American. And CT obviously doesn’t think he’s Black, but his interracial marriage to a White woman means the legality of their marriage is at risk too. The Repubs are going down their checklist of “liberal” laws to overturn and are determined to destroy any and all policies that don’t solely benefit White people.
California did this decades ago. This is the status quo in our progressive, leading public universities. Now, while I don’t agree with it at all, it is a chance to focus on the pipeline. In California, the pipeline refers more to community colleges than K-12, which is such a mess of budget cuts and extreme inequalities as to be better served by tearing the whole system down. But we can be proud of the one truly well designed educational system we have, the community colleges. They’re open enrollment and offer some of the highest quality academic support in existence. If any other states would be interested in hiring me as a consultant, I’m right here.
Slight correction: Thomas wrote a concurring opinion. Roberts wrote the majority opinion. Sotomayor and Brown Jackson wrote dissenting opinions.
The white guys who funded this will be shocked when it does not get them what they want. Their white sons will now be passed over for Asian girls.
PREACH! It’s gonna fail so hard. Then who do you blame for your own mediocrity?
Their white sons will still benefit from legacy admissions and/or athletic tips.
Sure, except Affirmative Action never stopped legacy admissions from being handed undue privilege.
Uuuuuugggggghhhhhhhh
Can someone with admissions experience add some commentary here? I would love to know if universities can continue their diversity efforts regardless of this ruling.
I haven’t read the full ruling, but California banned affirmative action in 1996, so I can comment on how that’s played out. It was devastating for student enrollment. But it didn’t slow diversity efforts, which involve fixing the entire pipeline into the universities, providing Upward Bound and other programs that give high school youth a chance to spend time on college campuses. There are numerous diversity programs on our campuses intended to help students from first generation and low income backgrounds to persist through to graduation. There’ve been recent SAT optional policies that reduce the barrier of expensive prep classes to compete with wealthier peers. I could go on, but the point is that this ugly, hateful ruling is largely just pulling off a bandaid from larger issues anyway. Affirmative Action has been an important policy for addressing inequality in college admissions, but we can continue to fight inequality at all levels.
Hi all! College admissions professional here! The professional community is heartbroken over this decision (many institutions and professional organizations are releasing statements). Most of us who do this work do it because we care deeply about students. As you can imagine, legal counsel for many colleges and universities are carefully reviewing the decisions to try and understand what this will mean in actual practice.
Thank you for the insight!
I was thinking of your profession when I read this. What a nightmare.
And the timing is brutal.
This is really bad. Our university has worked their ass off to ensure inclusion. I am university staff that works in grant work for DEI and First Gen projects. My grants are from the private sector and those companies have demographic reporting requirements. This will impact how we determine our statements of work and agreements.
Was reading somewhere else that Canadian colleges are taking socioeconomic status into account. Is that something that might be possible here and lift up POC candidates anyway?
Not for admissions, but the U.S. Department of Education has a catalog of grant-programs awarded to higher ed to support students on the basis of socioeconomic status, as well as a few to support high school students with college ambitions. Open-enrollment community colleges are also a powerful tool in balancing the scales, as long as they receive adequate funding to mitigate the impacts of inadequate academic preparation in high school (again, programs often supported by federal funding). Federal agencies are marginally less subject to the whims of the Executive and Judicial branches, so these are solid programs.
And yet, they don’t remedy the institutional racism that CAUSES minority groups to be at an educational disadvantage in the first place. Republicans and their puppets on the Court are truly evil.
It won’t stop at race. Wait until white conservative men find out that affirmative action overwhelmingly benefited white women.
They already know it. They want to end Title IX, and think the educational system is deliberately targeting white males to fail. The Proud Boys and other misogynist groups blame women for all that’s wrong in their lives. Conservative groups are paying women in the media to preach to young women about staying home and not working. https://www.mediamatters.org/charlie-kirk/career-women-right-wing-media-tell-young-girls-give-their-dreams-young-womens
I have a question for Thomas and other conservatives: why, in the absence of affirmative action, are minority groups underrepresented at college? Is it because of institutional problems that disproportionately disadvantage certain races? If so, then affirmative action is NOT giving any special benefit to minorities, it is adjusting for inequities so that each student can be truly judged apples-to-apples (otherwise, institutional inequities result in apples-to-oranges comparison). Or, do they think that certain races just aren’t as smart? I suspect it’s the latter. I just want to HEAR.THEM.SAY.IT. Because we know anti-affirmative action is just a cover for their own racism.
Watched a PBS documentary on Thomas. He is a despicable man. He stated he was going to make the left miserable and he achieved that and is now overachieving by making the entire country miserable by being worse off then we were 10 years ago. Speaks volumes of the men who nominated him for the position too.
I still don’t see how that grafter/grifter who accepted a house for his MOTHER from his rich “friend” and many, many other million plus dollar gifts is STILL on the Supreme Court wreaking havoc with all his white friends. God damn. They found the only black man in the U.S. who WAS NOT a black man. They had to dig deep to find that one.
This ruling sucks. AA may not be a perfect solution, but it helped. To me, the most galling aspect is that Clarence himself benefited from this program to attend Yale and now he’s pulling up the ladder behind him to prevent others from benefiting. The hypocrisy and the nerve is just unbelievable.
Well there goes my hope to ever go back to school again. Ive already heard numerous racist unaware white people telling me education is a privilege not a right now here’s the Supreme Court backing them up. I suppose in a white male hierarchal system education is going to be a privilege extended and accessible to the privileged and to those like minded white thinking individuals who have bowed to white supremacy.
This ruling has me so incensed! Even IF college education is a “privilege” and not a “right” (which I don’t agree with, but just for the sake of argument), there STILL needs to be equal opportunity for people to obtain that privilege. But the Court’s ruling denies that disparate educational opportunity exists, which is what affirmative action is trying to correct. The disparate opportunity starts early on, with different races suffering disparate levels of poverty, disparate quality of primary education, disparate health care and health care access, disparate study time, disparate living conditions, disparate access to mentors, disparate food security, etc., etc. That all adds up to not having equal opportunity to obtain a college education in the first place. The Court is trying to pretend that when someone applies for college, they are all starting from an equal place and that is simply not true. They cannot eliminate affirmative action until they eliminate the systemic discrimination that puts some races at a disadvantage — but they will never do THAT, so the republicans get to continue the cycle by also taking away college access. It is despicable.
I wonder how family reunions go for Clarence. I’m guessing not too well!
Bobby with the bad grades would be more apt. Men benefit more than women from affirmative action when it comes to higher education. Women students as a group tend to outperform men in gpa and sat scores as well as extracurricular accomplishments. Private colleges have been admitting male students with lower academic attainments for decades in order to try and keep a gender balance. It’s not a secret either, they are pretty open about it……throw in the athletic/sports scholarships which mostly go to guys. In the UK the same thing applies with the 11+ exams, weighted to benefit male students since the 50’s, again, not a secret either