The move away from standardized testing by elite schools will help them “work around” any SCOTUS decision without getting caught. Without standardized tests, which threw the different treatment of racial groups into stark relief in the SFFA cases, it will be more difficult to prove racial discrimination in any subsequent litigation alleging non-compliance.
The following take may be too cynical, but here goes:
I wonder whether the prospect, and I would say likelihood, of workarounds makes the Court more likely to rule against Harvard and UNC. I question whether five or more Justices want to see black representation at top colleges reduced to the levels color blind admissions would produce. A sense that colleges will find a way to prevent this may enable Justices who have that concern to vote against the Harvard and UNC preference regimes.
However, if this is the case, we can't expect five votes for language tight enough to sharply limit workarounds.
I have a pretty good idea how colleges will greet a ruling banning racial preference in admissions. They'll cheat. The cheating will take many forms, the predominant one of which will be to disguise racial preferences, kick up a lot of dust to keep the disguises opaque, then do a good deal of hiding, lying, and smearing ("You're a racist!") when any interest is shown in penetrating the disguise. Race huckstering and anti-white sentiment is so deeply ingrained in academia that nothing as insubstantial as a Supreme Court ruling is going to stop it.
I agree colleges are likely to search for a workaround if, as I suspect, the Court puts the kibosh on racial preferences. I believe, though, that the California anti-preference referendum has proved quite effective. Maybe the Supreme Court could look to the referendum language in fashioning its remedy. Jim Dueholm
The move away from standardized testing by elite schools will help them “work around” any SCOTUS decision without getting caught. Without standardized tests, which threw the different treatment of racial groups into stark relief in the SFFA cases, it will be more difficult to prove racial discrimination in any subsequent litigation alleging non-compliance.
The following take may be too cynical, but here goes:
I wonder whether the prospect, and I would say likelihood, of workarounds makes the Court more likely to rule against Harvard and UNC. I question whether five or more Justices want to see black representation at top colleges reduced to the levels color blind admissions would produce. A sense that colleges will find a way to prevent this may enable Justices who have that concern to vote against the Harvard and UNC preference regimes.
However, if this is the case, we can't expect five votes for language tight enough to sharply limit workarounds.
I have a pretty good idea how colleges will greet a ruling banning racial preference in admissions. They'll cheat. The cheating will take many forms, the predominant one of which will be to disguise racial preferences, kick up a lot of dust to keep the disguises opaque, then do a good deal of hiding, lying, and smearing ("You're a racist!") when any interest is shown in penetrating the disguise. Race huckstering and anti-white sentiment is so deeply ingrained in academia that nothing as insubstantial as a Supreme Court ruling is going to stop it.
I agree colleges are likely to search for a workaround if, as I suspect, the Court puts the kibosh on racial preferences. I believe, though, that the California anti-preference referendum has proved quite effective. Maybe the Supreme Court could look to the referendum language in fashioning its remedy. Jim Dueholm