5 ms·
Just so people are aware, this doesn't "set a bad precedent." It doesn't set any kind of precedent, because the precedent is extremely well established. This ru
by ravitation 7y ago
Just so people are aware, this doesn't "set a bad precedent." It doesn't set any kind of precedent, because the precedent is extremely well established. This ruling is directly in line with numerous SCOTUS decisions: Fisher v. University of Texas (2016), Grutter v. Bollinger, Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, etc... These cases are cited throughout the opinion. The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that race is admissible as part of an admissions decision as long as that admissions process stands up to strict scrutiny.
- blisterpeanuts 7y agoBakke established that specific quotas are not legal, but race as one of multiple factors is permissible. If Harvard's admissions policies include any kind of quota, they will probably be ruled illegal.
- ravitation 7y agoThe first line of the opinion's conclusion is that Harvard's admissions process survives strict scrutiny. If it were found to be dependent on quotas, this would likely not be the case, based on the previously mentioned well established precedent.
- gnicholas 7y agoMy understanding is that there was no written evidence of a hard quota presented. However, the rise in the percent of college-bound Asians has grown dramatically in recent years, but the share of Asians at Harvard has not increased commensurately. An appellate court could find that this fact, combined with other circumstantial evidence, indicates that quotas were used — even if not put in writing. Also, it is well known that "strict scrutiny" is interpreted differently in the context of affirmative action than "traditional" discrimination. So when a judge says something survives strict scrutiny, the analysis provided may be more akin to intermediate scrutiny (applied to sex-based discrimination) or rational basis (applied to pretty much everything else).
- ravitation 7y agoYeah, I mean all of that's true. I'm just saying A) this is just the latest decision in a long legacy of maintaining race as part of college admissions, and that B) Harvard's specific admissions process survived immediate scrutiny. Also, I'm saying this mainly because a lot of the comments in this thread are missing that context (especially when speculating on what happens next in this case, or on what implications this might have).
- gnicholas 7y agoWhat do you mean by "survived immediate scrutiny"? Do you mean that in a generic sense, or in some legal sense (that I'm unaware of — I only know strict, intermediate, and rational basis).
- ravitation 7y agoI mean it only in the generic sense, in that the admissions process overcame some level of review (and would likely not have if direct evidence of racial quotas had been presented, as the other comment mentioned).
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- sjg007 7y agoIt should be easy to prove quotas based on enrollment statistics from year to year. If Asians are 10% consistently then that seems like a problem. Also if it's not consistent with the qualified applicant pool itself, then that seems to be a problem.
- the_watcher 7y agoAffirming precedent is a part of setting and establishing precedent. It doesn't set a new precedent, but its absolutely a part of establishing precedent for the future.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- ravitation 7y agoYes, you're correct of course. I considered rewording my comment actually. The point is that the precedent had already been set, this decision primarily follows that precedent.
- rolltiide 7y agoThen the term precedent is overused and has lost its ability to emphasize the gravity of any situation. End
- the_watcher 7y agoIt has a very precise and important meaning in the context of American case law.
- rolltiide 7y agoand irrelevant in the context of casual conversation.