3 ms·

While this issue this is clearly beyond the scope of the 14th ammendment, I suspect most Americans would strongly support legislation to ban the use of family r

While this issue this is clearly beyond the scope of the 14th ammendment, I suspect most Americans would strongly support legislation to ban the use of family relations in university admission decisions where public funds are in play.

TremendousJudge 3y ago
Yet that is never brought to the courts. Funny how that works out in the end.
- some_random 3y ago
  I know everyone has been conflating judicial review with legislation but come on. There's no law against it, go call your congressperson.
- flyingfences 3y ago
  It's never brought to the courts because there's no law about it. Complain to Congress; it's their job.
  - scarmig 3y ago
    Back in the 90s, there was a push to pass legislation banning or limiting legacy admissions, coming from a staffer in Ted Kennedy's office IIRC. Lobbyists from Harvard went nuclear and scared Democrats into opposing it. I barely even need to point out that Republicans didn't need to be scared into opposing legacy admissions, as they eagerly supported them, for people who might be taken in by their meritocratic facade from the decision yesterday. This is all documented in The Price of Admission (https://www.amazon.com/Price-Admission-Americas-Colleges-Outside/dp/1400097975 https://www.amazon.com/Price-Admission-Americas-Colleges-Out...).
- honkycat 3y ago
  Now do marijuana legalization!
- blululu 3y ago
  As mentioned in my post, the 14th amendment does not cover wealth, property or familial relationship as protected classes. This is not an issue for the courts. It would require a separate law.
dragonwriter 3y ago
> While this issue this is clearly beyond the scope of the 14th ammendment, I suspect most Americans would strongly support legislation to ban the use of family relations in university admission decisions where public funds are in play. If the Supreme Court interpreted the statutory language banning racial discrimination in federally-fund education the same way it interpreted the same language in employment, it would already be banned as disparate impact discrimination. Also, I disagree that it is clearly beyond the scope of the 14th Amendment: yes, I’d agree superficially, but then if you took the main opinion in the recent cases at its word when it claps back at the dissent suggestion that universities could move to other bases which are not, but correlate with, race about the ruling banning racially-discriminatory treatment regardless of how it is framed, the current court would absolutely strike down legacies if they were properly before it. (I predict that if such a challenge comes, in a case where they’d have to hear it to preserve legacies, they will tie themselves in knots to do so rather than act consistently, but that's another issue.)
- kuchenbecker 3y ago
  Harvard can legally choose anything as a criteria as long as it isn't a protected characteristic. They could decide that only people who swear their favorite color is Blue will get in, but still not discriminate based on race.

TremendousJudge 3y ago

Yet that is never brought to the courts. Funny how that works out in the end.

some_random 3y ago
I know everyone has been conflating judicial review with legislation but come on. There's no law against it, go call your congressperson.
flyingfences 3y ago
It's never brought to the courts because there's no law about it. Complain to Congress; it's their job.
- scarmig 3y ago
  Back in the 90s, there was a push to pass legislation banning or limiting legacy admissions, coming from a staffer in Ted Kennedy's office IIRC. Lobbyists from Harvard went nuclear and scared Democrats into opposing it. I barely even need to point out that Republicans didn't need to be scared into opposing legacy admissions, as they eagerly supported them, for people who might be taken in by their meritocratic facade from the decision yesterday. This is all documented in The Price of Admission (https://www.amazon.com/Price-Admission-Americas-Colleges-Outside/dp/1400097975 https://www.amazon.com/Price-Admission-Americas-Colleges-Out...).
honkycat 3y ago
Now do marijuana legalization!
blululu 3y ago
As mentioned in my post, the 14th amendment does not cover wealth, property or familial relationship as protected classes. This is not an issue for the courts. It would require a separate law.

dragonwriter 3y ago

> While this issue this is clearly beyond the scope of the 14th ammendment, I suspect most Americans would strongly support legislation to ban the use of family relations in university admission decisions where public funds are in play. If the Supreme Court interpreted the statutory language banning racial discrimination in federally-fund education the same way it interpreted the same language in employment, it would already be banned as disparate impact discrimination. Also, I disagree that it is clearly beyond the scope of the 14th Amendment: yes, I’d agree superficially, but then if you took the main opinion in the recent cases at its word when it claps back at the dissent suggestion that universities could move to other bases which are not, but correlate with, race about the ruling banning racially-discriminatory treatment regardless of how it is framed, the current court would absolutely strike down legacies if they were properly before it. (I predict that if such a challenge comes, in a case where they’d have to hear it to preserve legacies, they will tie themselves in knots to do so rather than act consistently, but that's another issue.)

kuchenbecker 3y ago
Harvard can legally choose anything as a criteria as long as it isn't a protected characteristic. They could decide that only people who swear their favorite color is Blue will get in, but still not discriminate based on race.