3 ms·

"the university should have some say in the makeup of its incoming class, and should have a right to minimize its homogeneity." If they don't take federal fundi

"the university should have some say in the makeup of its incoming class, and should have a right to minimize its homogeneity." If they don't take federal funding, I could understand that. Both Universities involved in this case do, so are subject to the Constitution of the United States.

dragonwriter 3y ago
> Both Universities involved in this case do, so are subject to the Constitution of the United States. No, accepting federal funds doesn’t make them government actors, nor does it subject them, particularly, to the Constitutional provision here (which binds neither private parties nor the federal government, but only the states.) They are bound by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, though, and the Court has a history of interpreting the language of that statute through the lens of its 14th Amendment jurisprudence regarding similar language, which it followed (while altering the guiding jurisprudence) in this case.
- wonderwonder 3y ago
  I agree with you; however, the federal government is of course a government actor and cannot continue to give funding to these schools if they continue to use affirmative action. Without the funding, the school essentially closes its doors or offers severely curtailed services.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > I agree with you; however, the federal government is of course a government actor Not one affected by the restriction on state action in the 14th Amendment. > and cannot continue to give funding to these schools if they continue to use affirmative action. Yes, it can (this is obvious, since the decision itself explicitly allows the federal government itself use race-based criteria in its own admissions at the schools it runs, notably, the military academies) and it can change the terms of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 so that the interpretation of the 14th Amendment limits on state action that the Supreme Court imported to it due to textual similarity are not imposed on recipients of federal funding.
    - wonderwonder 3y ago
      I'll consider myself outplayed as I am not going to take the time to research a response that may just end with me saying "I'm wrong" :) Either way I'm happy with today's ruling and look forward to everyone getting a little more equal treatment under the admissions process.
TechBro8615 3y ago
But race discrimination should (in theory) be illegal regardless of federal funding status. So if it's already illegal, and the assertion is that universities don't have the right to minimize homogeneity in their classes (presumably along legal, non-racial axes), then taking that logic to the extreme, why should admissions offices have any discretion at all? Should every university that accepts federal funding be required to follow a standardized rubric when evaluating applicants? Standardized metrics are one of the constraints that made affirmative action a problem in the first place, because when evaluations are limited to standardized metrics like test scores and GPA, the top universities have enough applicants to fill their class a dozen times. So they need to discriminate on some attributes. Maybe one alternative is a standardized baseline and a lottery system for the remaining spots. But when you're at the point of removing discretion from the process, and imposing government designed rubrics on every school, the process starts to look a bit Soviet...
- wonderwonder 3y ago
  Is it soviet or is it meritocratic? I think the Soviet Union was inherently corrupt and would wager that more discretionary decisions were made there than in the US today. I would be fully on board with your suggestion of a baseline and companion lottery system. I think all discretion should be removed. Let the most qualified people in based on high school grades and standardized test results. Everyone should have the chance to succeed based on that. I understand completely that life is harder for some than others, whether due to race, religion, financial history, etc. but to allow for a selection process to use any combination of that and intentionally exclude people due to their race is wrong. This is America, some people have it easy and are born with golden parachutes, but those people are actually few and far between and everyone has the chance to work hard here and succeed. Again the effort involved will vary but the opportunity is always there.

dragonwriter 3y ago

> Both Universities involved in this case do, so are subject to the Constitution of the United States. No, accepting federal funds doesn’t make them government actors, nor does it subject them, particularly, to the Constitutional provision here (which binds neither private parties nor the federal government, but only the states.) They are bound by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, though, and the Court has a history of interpreting the language of that statute through the lens of its 14th Amendment jurisprudence regarding similar language, which it followed (while altering the guiding jurisprudence) in this case.

wonderwonder 3y ago
I agree with you; however, the federal government is of course a government actor and cannot continue to give funding to these schools if they continue to use affirmative action. Without the funding, the school essentially closes its doors or offers severely curtailed services.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > I agree with you; however, the federal government is of course a government actor Not one affected by the restriction on state action in the 14th Amendment. > and cannot continue to give funding to these schools if they continue to use affirmative action. Yes, it can (this is obvious, since the decision itself explicitly allows the federal government itself use race-based criteria in its own admissions at the schools it runs, notably, the military academies) and it can change the terms of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 so that the interpretation of the 14th Amendment limits on state action that the Supreme Court imported to it due to textual similarity are not imposed on recipients of federal funding.
  - wonderwonder 3y ago
    I'll consider myself outplayed as I am not going to take the time to research a response that may just end with me saying "I'm wrong" :) Either way I'm happy with today's ruling and look forward to everyone getting a little more equal treatment under the admissions process.

TechBro8615 3y ago

But race discrimination should (in theory) be illegal regardless of federal funding status. So if it's already illegal, and the assertion is that universities don't have the right to minimize homogeneity in their classes (presumably along legal, non-racial axes), then taking that logic to the extreme, why should admissions offices have any discretion at all? Should every university that accepts federal funding be required to follow a standardized rubric when evaluating applicants? Standardized metrics are one of the constraints that made affirmative action a problem in the first place, because when evaluations are limited to standardized metrics like test scores and GPA, the top universities have enough applicants to fill their class a dozen times. So they need to discriminate on some attributes. Maybe one alternative is a standardized baseline and a lottery system for the remaining spots. But when you're at the point of removing discretion from the process, and imposing government designed rubrics on every school, the process starts to look a bit Soviet...

wonderwonder 3y ago
Is it soviet or is it meritocratic? I think the Soviet Union was inherently corrupt and would wager that more discretionary decisions were made there than in the US today. I would be fully on board with your suggestion of a baseline and companion lottery system. I think all discretion should be removed. Let the most qualified people in based on high school grades and standardized test results. Everyone should have the chance to succeed based on that. I understand completely that life is harder for some than others, whether due to race, religion, financial history, etc. but to allow for a selection process to use any combination of that and intentionally exclude people due to their race is wrong. This is America, some people have it easy and are born with golden parachutes, but those people are actually few and far between and everyone has the chance to work hard here and succeed. Again the effort involved will vary but the opportunity is always there.