|
Post by mm67 on Jun 29, 2023 12:45:26 GMT -5
Although I easily dismiss CT as a corrupt lightweight I must abide by the decision of the court as flawed as it is IMO. Erik Erickson? Ahem. Unlike some in ournation I believe ours is & must be a nation of law. The Court's decision is the "Law of the Land." Peace.
|
|
|
Post by bfoley82 on Jun 29, 2023 13:02:20 GMT -5
I'd like to see PVR respond to SCJCT's take: Should be noted Brown Jackson recused herself from the Harvard case.
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Jun 29, 2023 13:06:13 GMT -5
Sounds like HC will need to focus recruitment in targeted areas to keep the basic makeup of the student body. Does the ruling mean that the application can't have a little box for race (even if optional)?
Even if so, there are probably some ways you could sneak it on to an application. Probably not too many Asian students list membership in the AOH on their application, so the admissions board might assume I was Irish descent.
|
|
|
Post by hchoops on Jun 29, 2023 13:19:03 GMT -5
To what writing of Brown-Jackson is Thomas referring if she recused herself here ? Perhaps SOV or someone could post that one also.
|
|
|
Post by alum on Jun 29, 2023 13:19:44 GMT -5
I saw reporting that Justice Sotomayor wrote that the three justices of color graduated from elite universities and law schools.
Should be headlined: Summa cum laude grad of Princeton says Holy Cross is elite!
|
|
|
Post by mm67 on Jun 29, 2023 13:33:10 GMT -5
In the '60's I attended an all-white academy on a hill in Worcester. Admissions required a photo & was blatantly unfair. At that time I was aware that my education at HC although "rigorous" was incomplete and a failure. God bless us but we were a bunch of white ethnic guys, period. In fact I would regularly sneak off campus out of a desire for some fresh air. Back Bay Boston on long weekends, Bickfords in Worcester at 1 AM+ during the week. Class rarely.(Big mistake.)Today, HC has more minorities & a large female presence. It is more blessedly diverse and needs to be even more so.HC has joined the march toward equality. I can confidently state today's students at HC have a far better education than I ever had. No doubt the school will find a way to pick up the torch & work toward equality & a diverse educational experience to the benefit of all. Lift every voice...
Addendum: Obviously, the above was written from personal experience. It was not meant to tell the whole story. IMO students benefit from a diverse campus as I indicated. But more to the point affirmative action was an important to provide education to all, It was an attempt to level the playing field. I don't agree with the the court's ruling. It is totally divorced from the reality of the ongoing effects of racism & discrimination in our society. These problems did not end with the decision in Brown v. Board of Ed.
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Jun 29, 2023 13:51:53 GMT -5
If diversity is critical to a proper education, should HBCU's be closed?
|
|
|
Post by Sons of Vaval on Jun 29, 2023 13:52:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by bfoley82 on Jun 29, 2023 13:56:19 GMT -5
To what writing of Brown-Jackson is Thomas referring if she recused herself here ? Perhaps SOV or someone could post that one also. She recused herself from the Harvard case...not the UNC one.
|
|
|
Post by alum on Jun 29, 2023 14:22:49 GMT -5
If diversity is critical to a proper education, should HBCU's be closed? As for me, I don't think that a desire for diversity is the only reason for what we call affirmative action. I think that these programs continue to provide a remedy for the effects of prior discrimination. There are plenty of studies showing that the vestiges of discrimination, both as a matter of government policy and from human nature, still leave people of color behind even a half century after Jim Crow laws were abolished. Read The Color of Law by Rothstein or The Whiteness of Wealth by Brown. I read both during COVID and they make a detailed analytic study of the ongoing economic effects of discrimination. As to your question about HBCUs, I would first say that the government tells us that 25% of HBCU students are not black. I would also point out that most HBCUs accept a large portion of applicants, so any qualified student is getting in, unlike at Harvard where only a tiny percentage of qualified students are admitted. They were wildly important at one time when black students were not able to access public or private colleges, especially in the South. The study linked below reports that even into the 70s, one third of bachelors degrees awarded to black Americans were at these schools. Had he not gone to HC, CT would likely have attended Savannah State, an HBCU. I think we all appreciate our HC educations, the doors it has opened, and the people who have helped us because of our HC connections. I think that the HBCU experience and alumni connections have been even stronger. I drove past Howard Univ. on homecoming weekend. We got stuck behind a parade that lasted quite a while. For that matter, we know of the great crowds for the big HBCU football rivalries. I don't think we need to do away with that. nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=667#:~:text=Although%20HBCUs%20were%20originally%20founded,percent%20in%201976%20(source).
|
|
|
Post by lou on Jun 29, 2023 14:23:38 GMT -5
To what writing of Brown-Jackson is Thomas referring if she recused herself here ? Perhaps SOV or someone could post that one also. She recused, but she had a dissenting opinion regarding the UNC case
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Jun 29, 2023 14:31:26 GMT -5
If diversity is critical to a proper education, should HBCU's be closed? As for me, I don't think that a desire for diversity is the only reason for what we call affirmative action. I think that these programs continue to provide a remedy for the effects of prior discrimination. There are plenty of studies showing that the vestiges of discrimination, both as a matter of government policy and from human nature, still leave people of color behind even a half century after Jim Crow laws were abolished. Read The Color of Law by Rothstein or The Whiteness of Wealth by Brown. I read both during COVID and they make a detailed analytic study of the ongoing economic effects of discrimination. As to your question about HBCUs, I would first say that the government tells us that 25% of HBCU students are not black. I would also point out that most HBCUs accept a large portion of applicants, so any qualified student is getting in, unlike at Harvard where only a tiny percentage of qualified students are admitted. They were wildly important at one time when black students were not able to access public or private colleges, especially in the South. The study linked below reports that even into the 70s, one third of bachelors degrees awarded to black Americans were at these schools. Had he not gone to HC, CT would likely have attended Savannah State, an HBCU. I think we all appreciate our HC educations, the doors it has opened, and the people who have helped us because of our HC connections. I think that the HBCU experience and alumni connections have been even stronger. I drove past Howard Univ. on homecoming weekend. We got stuck behind a parade that lasted quite a while. For that matter, we know of the great crowds for the big HBCU football rivalries. I don't think we need to do away with that. nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=667#:~:text=Although%20HBCUs%20were%20originally%20founded,percent%20in%201976%20(source). Great insights. Just for the record, I see nothing wrong with HBCU's; I believe they are a very positive influence in this country.
|
|
|
Post by hcpride on Jun 29, 2023 15:57:36 GMT -5
Harvard published an open letter today reaffirming their commitment to diversity and noting they will obey the Supreme Court’s decision. www.harvard.edu/admissionscase/2023/06/29/supreme-court-decision/No mention of the Asians. Not even a passing acknowledgement of the discriminatory treatment they received at the hands of Harvard on account of their (Asian) race….much less a public apology and a promise to do better.
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Jun 29, 2023 18:31:23 GMT -5
Schools will find a way to (A) abide by the letter of the law and (B) continue to pursue their social engineering goals.
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Jun 29, 2023 20:23:05 GMT -5
KY, I am afraid you are right on both counts.
|
|
|
Post by longsuffering on Jun 29, 2023 20:31:17 GMT -5
Ironically, I don't believe HCBU's use race based admissions. They accept most applicants so they don't have to.
|
|
|
Post by lou on Jun 29, 2023 21:08:31 GMT -5
Lots of publicity for HC tonight on MSNBC including photos of CT as an undergraduate
|
|
|
Post by hcpride on Jun 30, 2023 5:22:27 GMT -5
Ironically, I don't believe HCBU's use race based admissions. They accept most applicants so they don't have to. I do suspect this (unconstitutional) discrimination was much more common at the ‘elite’ schools. I don’t even know to what extent (or even if) HC practiced race-based admissions to favor Black and Hispanic students on account of their race. I’m sure we’re all in on the (amorphous) racial diversity program if I read President Rougeau correctly but the former is not necessarily a component of the latter.
|
|
|
Post by alum on Jun 30, 2023 7:53:13 GMT -5
I skimmed through the majority decision, CT's concurrence and the dissents. CT and KBJ went after each other in pretty personal terms and even the Chief Justice's opinion took a shot at her saying that as a general rule people shouldn't take legal advice from a dissenting opinion which is a bit snarky for Roberts.
The court did not rule that affirmative action is never allowed. Race based classifications must meet strict scrutiny which means that they must serve a compelling government interest and be narrowly tailored to meet that end. In applying that to college admissions, they have said that the current plans, and virtually any other one someone could draw up, would be illegal. The decision relied quite heavily on a statement by Justice O'Connor in the Michigan law school case that said there had to be an end.
The justices disagree about whether the 14th amendement was intended to allow remedial programs to overcome racism and whether, if it did, the nation is at a point where it has been overcome. My question for our turbulent times is what happens if racism and discrimination return? Will the court revisit this again?
Looking forward to the student loan and same sex wedding cases today. It is possible that both could fizzle out on standing, although I think the court will twist those requirements as far as it can to reach the merits of the student loan case. We will know in an hour.
And then, these well paid life appointed public employees will take the summer off to travel and take well paying teaching gigs in places with good sightseeing and restaurants. Well, except for our guy who will probably see the country in his RV.
|
|
|
Post by alum on Jun 30, 2023 7:55:06 GMT -5
Oh, one more thing. The court stated in a footnote that its decision could not be applied to the service academies. I guess this implies that a diverse officer corp is a compelling government interest which could survive strict scrutiny.
|
|
|
Post by hchoops on Jun 30, 2023 8:01:54 GMT -5
I skimmed through the majority decision, CT's concurrence and the dissents. CT and KBJ went after each other in pretty personal terms and even the Chief Justice's opinion took a shot at her saying that as a general rule people shouldn't take legal advice from a dissenting opinion which is a bit snarky for Roberts. The court did not rule that affirmative action is never allowed. Race based classifications must meet strict scrutiny which means that they must serve a compelling government interest and be narrowly tailored to meet that end. In applying that to college admissions, they have said that the current plans, and virtually any other one someone could draw up, would be illegal. The decision relied quite heavily on a statement by Justice O'Connor in the Michigan law school case that said there had to be an end. The justices disagree about whether the 14th amendement was intended to allow remedial programs to overcome racism and whether, if it did, the nation is at a point where it has been overcome. My question for our turbulent times is what happens if racism and discrimination return? Will the court revisit this again? Looking forward to the student loan and same sex wedding cases today. It is possible that both could fizzle out on standing, although I think the court will twist those requirements as far as it can to reach the merits of the student loan case. We will know in an hour. And then, these well paid life appointed public employees will take the summer off to travel and take well paying teaching gigs in places with good sightseeing and restaurants. Well, except for our guy who will probably see the country in his RV. Not having followed these cases you mention at the end, I woukd appreciate your clarifying your last paragraph ?
|
|
|
Post by alum on Jun 30, 2023 8:21:15 GMT -5
I skimmed through the majority decision, CT's concurrence and the dissents. CT and KBJ went after each other in pretty personal terms and even the Chief Justice's opinion took a shot at her saying that as a general rule people shouldn't take legal advice from a dissenting opinion which is a bit snarky for Roberts. The court did not rule that affirmative action is never allowed. Race based classifications must meet strict scrutiny which means that they must serve a compelling government interest and be narrowly tailored to meet that end. In applying that to college admissions, they have said that the current plans, and virtually any other one someone could draw up, would be illegal. The decision relied quite heavily on a statement by Justice O'Connor in the Michigan law school case that said there had to be an end. The justices disagree about whether the 14th amendement was intended to allow remedial programs to overcome racism and whether, if it did, the nation is at a point where it has been overcome. My question for our turbulent times is what happens if racism and discrimination return? Will the court revisit this again? Looking forward to the student loan and same sex wedding cases today. It is possible that both could fizzle out on standing, although I think the court will twist those requirements as far as it can to reach the merits of the student loan case. We will know in an hour. And then, these well paid life appointed public employees will take the summer off to travel and take well paying teaching gigs in places with good sightseeing and restaurants. Well, except for our guy who will probably see the country in his RV. Not having followed these cases you mention at the end, I woukd appreciate your clarifying your last paragraph ? The three remaining cases, as described by Amy Howe from Scotusblog are: 303 Creative v. Elenis (argued Dec. 5, 2022): In this case, the justices are grappling with the tension between legal protections for LGBTQ people and the rights of business owners who are opposed to same-sex marriage. Lorie Smith, a Colorado website designer, is a devout Christian who believes that marriage is limited to unions between heterosexual couples only. She wants to expand her business to include wedding websites, but does not want to create wedding websites for same-sex couples. She seeks a declaration that Colorado cannot enforce its anti-discrimination law against her. Only Justice Neil Gorsuch has not yet written an opinion for the court’s December argument session, so he is the most likely author. Biden v. Nebraska (argued Feb. 28, 2023): One of two challenges to the Biden administration’s student-debt relief plan, this case was filed by six states with Republican attorneys general. The debt relief plan relied on the HEROES Act, a law passed after the Sept. 11 attacks that gives the Secretary of Education the power to respond to a “national emergency” by “waiv[ing] or modify[ing] any statutory or regulatory provision” governing the student-loan programs so that borrowers are not “placed in a worse position financially” as a result of the emergency. The states contend that the HEROES Act does not give the secretary of education the power to implement the debt relief program and, moreover, that the program violates the laws governing federal agencies. Before the justices can consider those questions, however, they must decide whether the states have a legal right to sue at all. The states’ primary argument is that one of the challengers, Missouri, controls one of the largest holders and servicers of student loans in the country. If the program is allowed to go forward, the states say, it could cost the agency as much as $44 million each year. The student loan cases are the only cases from the court’s February argument session that have not yet been decided. However, there are six justices who have not yet written for the court’s February session – Roberts, Alito, Gorsuch, and Justices Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson – so one (or two) of those justices is likely writing in the student loan cases. Department of Education v. Brown (argued Feb. 28, 2023): The second challenge to the debt relief program comes from two individual student-loan borrowers. One is not eligible for any relief under the Biden plan because she does not have any federal student loans, while the other cannot obtain the full $20,000 in relief available to some borrowers under the Biden plan. They too question the Biden administration’s reliance on the HEROES Act, but they too must first overcome questions about their right to sue.
|
|
|
Post by hchoops on Jun 30, 2023 8:36:52 GMT -5
Thank you. Maybe it is senioritis, but I still do not understand the final paragraph in you original post. ”Well paid life time public employees taking the summer off” ?
|
|
|
Post by timholycross on Jun 30, 2023 8:38:42 GMT -5
I'd like to see PVR respond to SCJCT's take: I just wish PVR was sitting in that lady's SC seat. I find him considerably more eloquent.
|
|
|
Post by alum on Jun 30, 2023 8:50:53 GMT -5
Thank you. Maybe it is senioritis, but I still do not understand the final paragraph in you original post. ”Well paid life time public employees taking the summer off” ? The justices don't work during the summer. They have decided all of their cases, and don't sit again until October. I think that they return to the office in September. In the interim, they can travel, teach for pay, or do nothing at all. (They are available for emergency motions, petitions, etc. but can handle those from anywhere.)
|
|