3 ms·

> Why not just.. well, let poor people come first? Mostly it was a justice thing. The US spent decades disadvantaging people based on race and this was a step

> Why not just.. well, let poor people come first? Mostly it was a justice thing. The US spent decades disadvantaging people based on race and this was a step to try and reverse some of that. I agree that changing it from race to economic class is probably the right move at this point. That being said, I don't like that the SC is legislating from the bench. They are striking this down for purely political reasons.

thereisnospork 3y ago
> They are striking this down for purely political reasons. On its face affirmative action is pretty blatantly a violation of the 14th amendment: Which to a trivial reading would come out as 'All persons [black, white, rainbow] shall have equal rights to attend [state funded school], and as such a right to a fair and impartial admissions process'. Affirmative action adds the clause: "except those whose skin color we do not like today, those shall have to score higher on tests. Those whose skin color we do like today, those shall not have to score as high. Those whose skin color we do not care about can score the same as before."
- djur 3y ago
  I don't think it's accurate to say that affirmative action programs are driven by racial animus. What's your evidence for saying so?
- cogman10 3y ago
  No, it isn't. From a strict textual reading, the 14th says > No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Admittance to a school is not a deprivation of life, liberty, or property. Nor is this "equal protection of the laws". Where in the 14th does it say anything about school attendance? When did school attendance become a right? Which amendment does that come from? Seems like a pretty liberal reading of the 14th to come to the conclusion that prestigious school attendance is somehow a right for white people. Oh, and this ruling also said that "private schools are allow to discriminate on race if they so choose, this only strikes down the federal law tailored to roll back institutional racism." But hey, if you want to make the argument that higher education should be a right funded by the public I probably could get behind that. I just don't think there's constitutional or historical backing for that conclusion.
  - thereisnospork 3y ago
    >Where in the 14th does it say anything about school attendance? When did school attendance become a right? Which amendment does that come from? Brown v. Board of Ed, to start, seems to pretty clearly dictate that public schools may not discriminate on the basis of race because it is a violation of the 14th amendment. What is affirmative action if not a discrimination based on the color of one's skin? > When did school attendance become a right? I don't really feel like in 2023 I should have to be arguing that the right to attend a public school shouldn't be conditioned on a pupil's race or ethnicity.
    - cogman10 3y ago
      > public schools may not discriminate on the basis of race Harvard is NOT a public school! It is a private institution which receives public funds. Huge difference but I guess that's not something you want to consider. Nobody has the right to attend Harvard. They must discriminate based on something. (see: their legacy admission system which accounts for half of all their admissions. Which is fundamentally racist because, guess what color of skin harvard legacy admissions predominantly have?) > I don't really feel like in 2023 I should have to be arguing that the right to attend a public school shouldn't be conditioned on a pupil's race or ethnicity. Again, Harvard is NOT a public school. Affirmative action was conditions for receiving public funds. But if you are really mad at harvard for not letting in more deserving students maybe redirect that hate towards the legacy admissions which almost certainly pushed out well deserving students.
      - remarkEon 3y ago
        > Harvard is NOT a public school! It is a private institution which receives public funds. Huge difference but I guess that's not something you want to consider. That’s okay, because CJ Roberts did consider it. > Title VI provides that "[n]o person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance." 12 U.S. C.§2000d. "We have explained that discrimination that violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment committed by an institution that accepts federal funds also constitutes a violation of Title VI." Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U. S. 244, 276, n. 23 (2003). Although JUSTICE GORSUCH questions that proposition, no party asks us to reconsider it. We accordingly evaluate Harvard's admissions program under the standards of the Equal Protection Clause itself.
ajsnigrutin 3y ago
It also disadvantaged italians and irish people. Also, how does that help 18year old applicants, who are too young to do any disandvantaging.

thereisnospork 3y ago

> They are striking this down for purely political reasons. On its face affirmative action is pretty blatantly a violation of the 14th amendment: Which to a trivial reading would come out as 'All persons [black, white, rainbow] shall have equal rights to attend [state funded school], and as such a right to a fair and impartial admissions process'. Affirmative action adds the clause: "except those whose skin color we do not like today, those shall have to score higher on tests. Those whose skin color we do like today, those shall not have to score as high. Those whose skin color we do not care about can score the same as before."

djur 3y ago
I don't think it's accurate to say that affirmative action programs are driven by racial animus. What's your evidence for saying so?
cogman10 3y ago
No, it isn't. From a strict textual reading, the 14th says > No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Admittance to a school is not a deprivation of life, liberty, or property. Nor is this "equal protection of the laws". Where in the 14th does it say anything about school attendance? When did school attendance become a right? Which amendment does that come from? Seems like a pretty liberal reading of the 14th to come to the conclusion that prestigious school attendance is somehow a right for white people. Oh, and this ruling also said that "private schools are allow to discriminate on race if they so choose, this only strikes down the federal law tailored to roll back institutional racism." But hey, if you want to make the argument that higher education should be a right funded by the public I probably could get behind that. I just don't think there's constitutional or historical backing for that conclusion.
- thereisnospork 3y ago
  >Where in the 14th does it say anything about school attendance? When did school attendance become a right? Which amendment does that come from? Brown v. Board of Ed, to start, seems to pretty clearly dictate that public schools may not discriminate on the basis of race because it is a violation of the 14th amendment. What is affirmative action if not a discrimination based on the color of one's skin? > When did school attendance become a right? I don't really feel like in 2023 I should have to be arguing that the right to attend a public school shouldn't be conditioned on a pupil's race or ethnicity.
  - cogman10 3y ago
    > public schools may not discriminate on the basis of race Harvard is NOT a public school! It is a private institution which receives public funds. Huge difference but I guess that's not something you want to consider. Nobody has the right to attend Harvard. They must discriminate based on something. (see: their legacy admission system which accounts for half of all their admissions. Which is fundamentally racist because, guess what color of skin harvard legacy admissions predominantly have?) > I don't really feel like in 2023 I should have to be arguing that the right to attend a public school shouldn't be conditioned on a pupil's race or ethnicity. Again, Harvard is NOT a public school. Affirmative action was conditions for receiving public funds. But if you are really mad at harvard for not letting in more deserving students maybe redirect that hate towards the legacy admissions which almost certainly pushed out well deserving students.
    - remarkEon 3y ago
      > Harvard is NOT a public school! It is a private institution which receives public funds. Huge difference but I guess that's not something you want to consider. That’s okay, because CJ Roberts did consider it. > Title VI provides that "[n]o person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance." 12 U.S. C.§2000d. "We have explained that discrimination that violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment committed by an institution that accepts federal funds also constitutes a violation of Title VI." Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U. S. 244, 276, n. 23 (2003). Although JUSTICE GORSUCH questions that proposition, no party asks us to reconsider it. We accordingly evaluate Harvard's admissions program under the standards of the Equal Protection Clause itself.

ajsnigrutin 3y ago

It also disadvantaged italians and irish people. Also, how does that help 18year old applicants, who are too young to do any disandvantaging.