have fun, relax, but above all ARGUE!
http://www.theplanbforum.com/forum/
http://www.theplanbforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=23143
Scalia is dead and no longer making decisions on the Court; it was the subject of plenty of discussion during his tenure and after his death.
Bakke actually upheld affirmative action as a policy, although it prohibited the use of formal racial quotas in admissions. Last month's UNC and Harvard cases prohibited universities that receive government funding from even considering race as an element in the composition of their student bodies, effectively outlawing affirmative action for populations that have been historically underrepresented and marginalized due to racial discrimination. To the extent Bakke is relevant to the discussion, it is another long-standing (45 years) legal precedent summarily overturned by this Court.
As I understand it, one can have affirmative action, but you can't use race. Instead of race, use family economics status, geography, slave ancestry, and DNA. The family economics would allow in a lot of whites. Geography would eliminate most whites cause most whites don't live in those areas. Slave ancestry would cut out even more. It would still leave some, but setting a DNA minimum limit for slave ancestry would eliminate the rest. You would have affirmative action, but you would not have used race.Sue U wrote: ↑Wed Jul 19, 2023 4:38 pmScalia is dead and no longer making decisions on the Court; it was the subject of plenty of discussion during his tenure and after his death.
Bakke actually upheld affirmative action as a policy, although it prohibited the use of formal racial quotas in admissions. Last month's UNC and Harvard cases prohibited universities that receive government funding from even considering race as an element in the composition of their student bodies, effectively outlawing affirmative action for populations that have been historically underrepresented and marginalized due to racial discrimination. To the extent Bakke is relevant to the discussion, it is another long-standing (45 years) legal precedent summarily overturned by this Court.
I was heartened to see this article yesterday mentioning some schools that have ended legacy admissions. https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/19/us/wesle ... index.html
If you didn't know and apparently you don't, universities already use economic status and geography in admissions decisions (despite the absurdity of your claim that "[g]eography would eliminate most whites cause most whites don't live in those areas"). And how exactly do you think a university could use "slave ancestry and DNA" on an admission application? How is an applicant supposed to document "slave ancestry" apart from racial identification, and how do you think DNA could possibly show "slave ancestry"? Again, notwithstanding that this has virtually fuck all to do with creating a diverse student body in the 21st Century, since there are more than "black" and "white" people in this country; your misconception of affirmative action as "eliminating whites" again shows what a racist tool you are.liberty wrote: ↑Thu Jul 20, 2023 4:47 amAs I understand it, one can have affirmative action, but you can't use race. Instead of race, use family economics status, geography, slave ancestry, and DNA. The family economics would allow in a lot of whites. Geography would eliminate most whites cause most whites don't live in those areas. Slave ancestry would cut out even more. It would still leave some, but setting a DNA minimum limit for slave ancestry would eliminate the rest. You would have affirmative action, but you would not have used race.
No, you obviously understand legacy admissions just fine.BoSoxGal wrote: ↑Thu Jul 20, 2023 1:51 pmI don’t really get legacy admissions. If your parent went to Harvard, you would probably already have a huge advantage over most other applicants and if you can’t make it on your own merit, why do you deserve a boost because mom or dad got in? Truth be told I’ve no doubt that many legacy admissions to premier universities couldn’t get in on merit alone under blind admissions.
I am very familiar with Bakke, it was current at the time. One interesting detail is that UCD filed a brief which admitted that among the 500 top applicants for 100 positions they had no way of choosing better from worse.Sue U wrote: ↑Wed Jul 19, 2023 4:38 pmScalia is dead and no longer making decisions on the Court; it was the subject of plenty of discussion during his tenure and after his death.
Bakke actually upheld affirmative action as a policy, although it prohibited the use of formal racial quotas in admissions. Last month's UNC and Harvard cases prohibited universities that receive government funding from even considering race as an element in the composition of their student bodies, effectively outlawing affirmative action for populations that have been historically underrepresented and marginalized due to racial discrimination. To the extent Bakke is relevant to the discussion, it is another long-standing (45 years) legal precedent summarily overturned by this Court.