3 ms·

Yes, they can. The SCOTUS decision was explicit: 1. At the level of an individual applicant, you can't take race/ethnicity into account when making a decision

Yes, they can. The SCOTUS decision was explicit: 1. At the level of an individual applicant, you can't take race/ethnicity into account when making a decision 2. Other ways to affect racial mix are still permitted. For example, nothing in the ruling prohibits colleges from: - having lower standards for people from certain neighborhoods (zip codes) - having lower standards for people from certain high schools - eliminating tests on which certain ethnic groups do worse than others

gnicholas 3y ago
They can do things that have the effect you describe, using broad and not 100% precise methods. But they can no longer explicitly "giv[e] Black and Latino students a boost."
- rahimnathwani 3y ago
  Yup. My understanding is that Harvard could still give someone a boost for having attended a particular high school (which happens to be 95% non-white-non-Asian).
  - gnicholas 3y ago
    That is an open question, especially if their reason for doing so is based on racial considerations. This question (is a policy that is racially neutral on its face allowable, if it was motivated by racial animas?) is being litigated in the TJ case, where school board members are alleged to have tweaked their HS admissions program with the goal of reducing Asian student enrollment.
    - rahimnathwani 3y ago
      Right. For now it's an open question. I hope it gets cleared up soon. I think the TJ case is a bit complicated, because: - an action motivated by racial balancing may be trying to correct for other issues, and not necessarily by 'racial animus' - a lot of the comments (from board members) suggesting racial animus were a precursor to the original proposed policy AIUI the most recent ruling suggested you couldn't assume the latest policy was informed by such animus just because the first one proposed was. To draw such a conclusion would mean the board could never make a new policy without it being tarnished. Such a messy situation.

gnicholas 3y ago

They can do things that have the effect you describe, using broad and not 100% precise methods. But they can no longer explicitly "giv[e] Black and Latino students a boost."

rahimnathwani 3y ago
Yup. My understanding is that Harvard could still give someone a boost for having attended a particular high school (which happens to be 95% non-white-non-Asian).
- gnicholas 3y ago
  That is an open question, especially if their reason for doing so is based on racial considerations. This question (is a policy that is racially neutral on its face allowable, if it was motivated by racial animas?) is being litigated in the TJ case, where school board members are alleged to have tweaked their HS admissions program with the goal of reducing Asian student enrollment.
  - rahimnathwani 3y ago
    Right. For now it's an open question. I hope it gets cleared up soon. I think the TJ case is a bit complicated, because: - an action motivated by racial balancing may be trying to correct for other issues, and not necessarily by 'racial animus' - a lot of the comments (from board members) suggesting racial animus were a precursor to the original proposed policy AIUI the most recent ruling suggested you couldn't assume the latest policy was informed by such animus just because the first one proposed was. To draw such a conclusion would mean the board could never make a new policy without it being tarnished. Such a messy situation.