Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action in college admissions

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 1001 posts

Re: Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action in college admissions

#271

Post by s1artibartfast »

endisneigh wrote: post #19

I’ll need to read the opinion but why not eliminate consideration using all protected statuses (race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, sexual orientation, or gender identity), national origin, age (40 or older), disability and genetic information)? Affirmative action is not just about race. It doesn’t make sense that you can discriminate on any protected status to begin with. In any case I doubt this will c…

It is already illegial to consider all of the characteristics you mentioned.

Historically, there was a specific legal exemption 14th ammendementment allowing racial discrimination.

This ruling closes the exemption for racial consideration. Discrimination based on other protected statuses remain closed

>Any exceptions to the Equal Protection Clause’s guarantee must survive a daunting two-step examination known as “strict scrutiny,” first whether the racial classification is used to “further compelling governmental interests,” and second whether the government’s use of race is “narrowly tailored,” i.e., “necessary,” to achieve that interest. Acceptance of race-based state action is rare for a reason.

Re: Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action in college admissions

#272

Post by EatingWithForks »

mcv wrote: post #255
pjc50 wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I assume the intent is to help disadvantaged people have opportunities that more priviledged people have already. Right? I mean, I can get behind that. But then why the entire detour with race? Up until about 1971 (possibly later, but that's the date of Loving vs Virginia ), the US had formal, legal discrimination against black people. On finally removing that, there was at various times discussion of whether peopl…

Yeah, every time the discussion comes up about, for example, reparations for the descendants of slaves, I start out thinking: it's been 150 years! Some of those descendants are very successful now and some descendants of slave owners are probably very poor now. And some people are descendants of both. And then I learn about the Jim Crow period, and then you hear that even the GI bill explicitly excluded black people,…

Additionally we had issues where banks were being prosecuted for not giving housing support to primarily black neighboorhoods all the way still to STILL IN 2023! https://apnews.com/article/city-national-bank-redlining-sett...

Re: Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action in college admissions

#273

Post by adamrezich »

hospitalJail wrote: post #232
newacct3 wrote: post #110

Considering the failure and timing of prop 16 and overall makeup of the California electorate compared to rest of country, official discrimination on the basis of race likely won't return in higher ed. Also consider that prop 16 failed by double digits with the pro-discrimination crowd outspending the opposition 19x What I'm curious about is this: the Harvard decision is wrt a private entity, the court ruled that the…

>Could racially discriminatory hiring strategies be next? As someone who is white, and got 100% job offers from every interview, I wonder if I got it out of discrimination, or I'm so elite and they picked me despite being white.

I would imagine that the other white candidates for the positions that you got the offer for feel quite differently

Re: Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action in college admissions

#274

Post by AlgorithmicTime »

Maxion wrote: post #220
jlawson wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's worth bearing in mind that if affirmative action helped his father become a doctor, it also prevented someone else's father from becoming a doctor. I wonder what that person could have achieved.

As someone not from the US, this whole Affirmative Actions seems to just be reversed racism. I.e. in the end more-or-less still unfair. Better to just remove race all together, and e.g. require college admissions by law to be judged without knowing the applicants name or ethnicity. To me as an outsider, the US focuses wayyyyy to much on race. Race really does not matter, and no matter how much the US claims to be rac…

> Affirmative Actions seems to just be reversed racism. I.e. in the end more-or-less still unfair.

It's not even reversed racism, it's just plain old racism. The only difference is the targets of the racism are European descended and Asian descended people instead of African and Latin American descended people.

Re: Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action in college admissions

#275

Post by CuriouslyC »

azinman2 wrote: post #93
losvedir wrote: post #41

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…

If affirmative action is what enabled your father to become a doctor, then it almost certainly sounds like the success story that motivates the action. I don’t know percent of the time a similar story is required to justify the means, but it sounds like you should embrace the path that your family’s life has taken. The alternative, presumably, would be effectively unfair knowing what could and then did become.

Do we need race based affirmative action though? Couldn't we have needs based discrimination? What makes a poor hispanic immigrant more deserving of a hand up than a poor ukranian immigrant?

Re: Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action in college admissions

#276

Post by einszwei »

hospitalJail wrote: post #223
flowerlad wrote: post #47

It is important to note that Harward’s admission policy that is the subject of this case was designed to favor White students over Jewish ones [1]. Today it is being used to discriminate against Asian Americans. Colleges are already prepared for this ruling. Many, such as the University of Washington have abandoned standardized tests because such tests compell universities to admit the kinds of students universities…

This ends up moving the burden onto individuals. If you have an Asian Medical Doctor, they are AAA. If you have a multiple minority Medical Doctor, they are not necessarily AAA, they could be As. Which one do you want to do brain surgery on you? Without Affirmative action, you'd trust a multiple minority doctor equally to an Asian doctor. I wonder what the cost is on the healthcare system/US citizens when we have wor…

> If you have an Asian Medical Doctor, they are AAA. If you have a multiple minority Medical Doctor, they are not necessarily AAA, they could be As.

> Which one do you want to do brain surgery on you?

I have no strong opinion on affirmative action but this is a dishonest way to frame this topic.

Affirmative action doesn't mean an institution can produce unqualified doctors. Both doctors should've gone through same examinations at medical schools, studied same textbooks and have similar training.

Re: Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action in college admissions

#277

Post by [deleted] »

alsaaro wrote: post #98
kjfarm wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I completely agree with legislation via judicial branch being a bad idea. However, affirmative action isn't legislation. This is judicial review striking down policy (executive branch interpretation and implementation of legislation) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action https://www.history.com/topics/us-government-and-politics/af...

Judicial review has upheld the constitutionality of affirmative action policies for 40+ years, what changed is the composition of the Supreme Court and its related willingness to legislate from the bench -- abandoning stare decisis and judicial restraint. We saw this with Roe last year.

[deleted]

Re: Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action in college admissions

#278

Post by purpleblue »

HDThoreaun wrote: post #16
Flatcircle wrote: post #10

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.

Asians are the poorest demographic in NYC, and yet score the highest in testing. So, activists will probably eschew this method as well because it will give Asians preferential treatment which they are loathe to do.

Re: Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action in college admissions

#279

Post by 1234letshaveatw »

Maxion wrote: post #220
jlawson wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's worth bearing in mind that if affirmative action helped his father become a doctor, it also prevented someone else's father from becoming a doctor. I wonder what that person could have achieved.

As someone not from the US, this whole Affirmative Actions seems to just be reversed racism. I.e. in the end more-or-less still unfair. Better to just remove race all together, and e.g. require college admissions by law to be judged without knowing the applicants name or ethnicity. To me as an outsider, the US focuses wayyyyy to much on race. Race really does not matter, and no matter how much the US claims to be rac…

This post reeks of smugness. I hope you aren't from western Europe, as you can easily see that there is discrimination based on race with regards to eg policing- where crimes committed by certain individuals of a protected status aren't even allowed to be reported on. And FYI- equality is also enshrined in the US constitution, but constitutions are (universally) subject to interpretation

Re: Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action in college admissions

#280

Post by jwond »

falcolas wrote: post #81
Spivak wrote: post #38

> Nothing in this opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise. But this is affirmative action. What did they strike down? Also god damn I hate this supreme court for overruling their own decisions. Even the ones I would personally benefit from. This is going to ruin the…

> I hate this supreme court for overruling their own decisions Yeah. Based off the various deep dives I heard about a year ago, the court is supposed to strongly favor leaving prior court rulings in place, but the current justices decided that they were fine changing prior rulings since it's a convention, not a rule. The current SC really dislikes all the prior rulings that were based off the 14th amendment, so I ful…

The Supreme Court has a long history of overruling prior Supreme Court decisions, and has done so over 200 times.

https://constitution.congress.gov/resources/decisions-overru...

Post reply on HN