Today, the Supreme Court decided that the race-based preferences in college admissions granted by Harvard and the University of North Carolina are unconstitutional.
There was a time in this country when principled leaders would say, "We disagree with the Court's decision but, because we honor the rule of law and understand that it is needed as the barrier between civilization and anarchy, we will abide by it in good faith."
Well, that was then. When Harvard and Dartmouth take a page (actually, lots of pages, just you watch) from the Christian Academies in Mississippi in the late Fifties, we get a better idea of what the rule of law actually means to them.
I think this case will make a difference. If the racial and ethnic mix of a class doesn't change in the wake of this decision, or if the mix remains static going forward, there will be prima facia evidence of reverse discrimination, and that is now categorically outlawed. If a school justifies admission on the basis of application essays claiming race has made a difference in that applicant's life, a review of the essays should show whether the difference is real. And if there is a new cop on the beat on January 20, 2025, the president can order a vigorous enforcement of civil rights laws, including prosecution, fine or slammer, for those who violate the law.
The footnote exempting the military from the decision is instructive for what it doesn't say. It excludes the military, but not reverse discrimination in employment, housing, contracting or other relationships. As for junking standardized tests, I think colleges and universities are entitled to eliminate them. I believe it was Justice Scalia who said it was the high academic standards of the elite schools, not discrimination, that made for a lopsided racial mix, so the schools could improve the mix by lowering the standards. The question would be whether the new standards are applied for the benefit of applicants regardless of race or ethnicity. Jim Dueholm
So they will lower or completely delete test scores as a requirement for admission. Or keep them and accept those with low scores. Result is Harvard is no better than podunk u.
But how will they know an applicants race? Based on the name: Abigail Worthington vs Kesha Washington - suppose that’s one way. I’ve always believed each applicant should be assigned a number so the name is not apparent.
In 1994 Lenora Fulani, the "crazed" leader of the New Alliance Party -- Michael Barone's term, not mine -- ran a strong primary challenge to Mario Cuomo. Her highest showing was forty percent, not in heavily black or socialist-leaning territory, but in rural Oswego County. Cuomo speculated that people relied on her name: "They thought she was Italian."
Indeed, names do not necessarily reveal one’s race. I used it only as an example of how desperate college admissions people might be to work around the SCOTUS decision given they will be prohibited from asking applicants outright.
"Because the teaching, learning, research, and creativity that bring progress and change require debate and disagreement, diversity and difference are essential to academic excellence."
There was a time in this country when principled leaders would say, "We disagree with the Court's decision but, because we honor the rule of law and understand that it is needed as the barrier between civilization and anarchy, we will abide by it in good faith."
Well, that was then. When Harvard and Dartmouth take a page (actually, lots of pages, just you watch) from the Christian Academies in Mississippi in the late Fifties, we get a better idea of what the rule of law actually means to them.
I think this case will make a difference. If the racial and ethnic mix of a class doesn't change in the wake of this decision, or if the mix remains static going forward, there will be prima facia evidence of reverse discrimination, and that is now categorically outlawed. If a school justifies admission on the basis of application essays claiming race has made a difference in that applicant's life, a review of the essays should show whether the difference is real. And if there is a new cop on the beat on January 20, 2025, the president can order a vigorous enforcement of civil rights laws, including prosecution, fine or slammer, for those who violate the law.
The footnote exempting the military from the decision is instructive for what it doesn't say. It excludes the military, but not reverse discrimination in employment, housing, contracting or other relationships. As for junking standardized tests, I think colleges and universities are entitled to eliminate them. I believe it was Justice Scalia who said it was the high academic standards of the elite schools, not discrimination, that made for a lopsided racial mix, so the schools could improve the mix by lowering the standards. The question would be whether the new standards are applied for the benefit of applicants regardless of race or ethnicity. Jim Dueholm
So they will lower or completely delete test scores as a requirement for admission. Or keep them and accept those with low scores. Result is Harvard is no better than podunk u.
But how will they know an applicants race? Based on the name: Abigail Worthington vs Kesha Washington - suppose that’s one way. I’ve always believed each applicant should be assigned a number so the name is not apparent.
In 1994 Lenora Fulani, the "crazed" leader of the New Alliance Party -- Michael Barone's term, not mine -- ran a strong primary challenge to Mario Cuomo. Her highest showing was forty percent, not in heavily black or socialist-leaning territory, but in rural Oswego County. Cuomo speculated that people relied on her name: "They thought she was Italian."
Indeed, names do not necessarily reveal one’s race. I used it only as an example of how desperate college admissions people might be to work around the SCOTUS decision given they will be prohibited from asking applicants outright.
"Because the teaching, learning, research, and creativity that bring progress and change require debate and disagreement, diversity and difference are essential to academic excellence."
Is this Harvard's idea of a joke?