51–60 of 1001 posts
As someone of Hispanic descent this is very interesting to me. Affirmative Action probably helped my father, whose father was a construction worker and mother a homemaker both of whom dropped out of high school, get into college and ultimately become a doctor. But because my father was a doctor, I had a fairly privileged upbringing. I'm a generation removed, but growing up in California always had to indicate my back…
What does this mean in practice?
more asians, less blacks and a bit less latinos at top schools, especially private ones. Will be interesting to see if they move toward an income based affirmative action.
Whatever your opinion about recent supreme court decisions, this has all underscored what has been true for a long time: Legislating via the judicial branch is a bad idea. If it only takes 5 out of 9 people to make laws for 600 million, it only takes one seat change to revert them. (Edit: sorry, 300 - pre-caffeine posting)
> Legislating via the judicial branch is a bad idea. Perhaps, if there is no 75% majority of opinions at the supreme court, then the case is just put on hold indefinitely until new clarifying laws are passed?
Even Congress with 535 representatives isn't many. One representative for each 600,000 citizens? When was the last time a thousand Americans agreed on anything, much less half a million?
We have one of the worst ratios in the world: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_legislatures_by_number...
Edit: And the SC isn't representative anyway. They're appointed by the elites for the benefit of the ruling party, and there's a lot of politicking for those seats. Way too much power and corruption -- for life. The institution itself is a problem.
What does this mean in practice?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Admissions departments will find proxies for race. The next year of Harvard freshmen will not be majority Asian. The admissions department won’t allow that to happen.
> Admissions departments will find proxies for race. And that would be the same thing. If someone can prove it, it's illegal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Admissions departments will find proxies for race. The next year of Harvard freshmen will not be majority Asian. The admissions department won’t allow that to happen.
> Admissions departments will find proxies for race. And that would be the same thing. If someone can prove it, it's illegal.
> Sotomayor, the court’s first Latina, has been the boldest defender of what she prefers to call “race-sensitive” admission policies and has referred to herself as the “perfect affirmative action child.” That will probably not do a lot to convince those happy with this outcome.
And sure, race can serve as a proxy, the black population in the United States is impoverished compared to the mean, but in the same way that it's not acceptable to take race as proxy when it comes to crime, it's not acceptable to do it when it comes to livelihood, in my opinion.
A win for meritocracy - https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/new-chart-illustrates-graphic...
Around 25% of admissions in Ivy League schools are legacies. Unsurprisingly, this does not seem to outrage certain parts of society that much.
What does this mean in practice?
In relative numbers it probably impacts less than .1% of all students one way or another.