3 ms·

The 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

The 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 ago
My 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 ago
  Yeah, 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 ago
    What 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 ago
      I 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 ago
It 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.

gnicholas 7y ago

My 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 ago
Yeah, 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 ago
  What 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 ago
    I 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 ago

It 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.