SCOTUS “gave universities a narrow opening, and Harvard just announced it’s going to drive an affirmative action truck right through it”
Today’s decision was a major achievement, don’t get me wrong. But the battle is just getting started to enforce this victory for equal protection.
I haven’t had as much time as I would have liked to write about the Supreme Court opinion in the Harvard/UNC cases because I’ve been doing media interviews.
Well, it’s extraordinarily important. It has established or reestablished something we strayed from in judicial decisions, a very clear statement that an individual is to be judged as an individual, not based on race. And that’s something that a lot of universities particularly have gotten away from….
I think it may have a big impact, particularly on Asian students because particularly in the Harvard case, they are the ones who were the focus of the discrimination more than anybody else. And if the percentage of Asians in the school is not acceptable to the school administrators, that’s just too bad. The Constitution guarantees each of those people to be treated as an individual, not as a proxy for an ethnic group or a racial group.
Justice Thomas’ epic concurrance, in which he destroyed the dissents (particularly from KBJ) is worth a post in itself.
But there is one really important point that came near the end of the majority opinion that is a narrow path to consider applicant’s experience on race (as opposed to their race itself)(emphasis added):
At the same time, as all parties agree, nothing in this opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise. See, e.g., 4 App. in No. 21–707, at 17251726, 1741; Tr. of Oral Arg. in No. 20–1199, at 10. But, despite the dissent’s assertion to the contrary, universities may not simply establish through application essays or other means the regime we hold unlawful today. (A dissenting opinion is generally not the best source of legal advice on how to comply with the majority opinion.) “[W]hat cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly. The Constitution deals with substance, not shadows,” and the prohibition against racial discrimination is “levelled at the thing, not the name.” Cummings v. Missouri, 4 Wall. 277, 325 (1867). A benefit to a student who overcame racial discrimination, for example, must be tied to that student’s courage and determination. Or a benefit to a student whose heritage or culture motivated him or her to assume a leadership role or attain a particular goal must be tied to that student’s unique ability to contribute to the university. In other words, the student must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual—not on the basis of race.
That bold language has been seized upon by Harvard in a mass email shortly after the decision to smuggly suggest that there will be no change of course, rather, Harvard will expoit the perceived permission to consider an applicants experience with race to drive an affirmative action truck through that tiny opening:
The Supreme Court gave universities a narrow opening, and Harvard just announced it’s going to drive an affirmative action truck right through it. https://t.co/Icj8ubIcpn pic.twitter.com/jBD2qCcRHt
— William A. Jacobson (@wajacobson) June 29, 2023
Harvard’s President-Elect came out forcefully that Harvard would stick to its “values” while obeying the court ruling (wink, wink).
Apparently this is happening elsewhere, colleges are trying to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat by claiming that they can use experience with race as a substitute for race, and thereby achieve the same racial preferences.
Of course, the following sentences (underlined above) contradict schools’ ability to do that, but that will have to be litigated and proven that they are using essays and so on as a ruse. In the meantime, the smug universities will do whatever they please, and then litigage the cases to death.
Harvard incoming president, whose selection was exemplar of bureaucratization of higher-ed (as dean, she was known for DEI initiatives), hasn’t read the part where Roberts says “universities may not simply establish through application essays… the regime we hold unlawful today.” https://t.co/pP2FVkGpwL
— Ilya Shapiro (@ishapiro) June 29, 2023
In 4 or 6 or 8 years they may win or not, but they don’t care. They are so deeply invested in racial preferences, they will not let it go and are happy to use their massive endowments to fight this, just like they did the cases just decided.
Today’s decision was a major achievement, don’t get me wrong. But the battle is just getting started to enforce this victory for equal protection.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
The colleges will find a work-around. So, the decision is meaningless.
The decisionn is good but not meaningless. The Democrats will mobilize and campaign in full force on Affirmative Action and race preferenced college admissions in 2024. Just like they did in 2022 on Dodd. The real problem is Public school education is lousy and minority students are short-changed by the radical progressives and can’t commpete. Democrats want to focus on a back ended top-down remedy when the solution lies upfront.
I beg to differ. What that worthless hack Roberts has done is deliberately undermine the entire holding supposedly striking down affirmative action. I bet (and so does Harvard) that every racial preference can easily be justified based on the garbage amorphous standards outlined in this opinion. Every minority student any university wants to favor will be deemed to possess some unique ability to contribute to the university.
How could he have prevented students from writing about their experiences, including racial experiences, in their application essays? He could not. So rather than pretending that workaround doesn’t exist, he mentions it and forbids it.
Also, despite Thomas and Gorsuch saying the ruling might be clearer if based on Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, that’s just legislation. A Democratic Congress could change it in the future. Finding that the whole thing is illegal based on 14A is much more durable, and that’s what Roberts did.
I can’t think of a way the ruling could have been improved. Maybe I missed something, so please help me out if you see something.
Short of forcing colleges to scrap the application essay (not a bad idea, but not on the table either) please tell me what more he could have done.
He forbids it? That’s a good one. Thanks, I needed a laugh.
And how could the ruling have been improved? Apart from not having Roberts write it, it could have done without the non-standard standards allowing universities the opportunity to justify racial discrimination by simply relying on the supposed unique individual benefit the applicant brings to the university. Every time the university wants to discriminate, it will find that unique quality in the applicant. Right up to the point they meet their racial quota. And as pointed out in the article above, future litigation is years away. who knows what the court will look like when if it hears a new case?
Concise, you did not answer what I wrote. Also:
“Not having Roberts write the opinion” begs the question: what’s wrong with what he wrote? So we’re back to the substance.
And the substance is that the loophole was there anyway, and he did what he could to close it. Of course colleges will cheat, Harvard has shown its intent to cheat already and many others will too, and then there will be lawsuits … that is our system. Roberts cannot order armed guards to stand over each admission officer’s shoulder and make sure they’re complying with today’s ruling.
As I noted elsewhere, institutions will obviously try anything to further their racist agendas. But this arrogant clown Roberts has given them license to implement their racism. As long as they say an applicant’s heritage or culture or ability to overcome racial discrimination is a benefits, they’re good. Some courts may buy it, some may not. Time will tell. Roberts though has guaranteed the racial preferences will endure. If you don’t like this answer, tough.
It could have been written that no college admittance standard can use race or gender in any form. Period.
Maybe, but almost all colleges/universities take federal funding of some sort.
Lose a suit and lose your funding.
Still sound like a good idea to fart around trying to find an gap?
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act “prohibits discrimination on the basis of RACE, color, or national origin in any program or activity that receives Federal funds or other Federal financial assistance.”
Yeah. The Fedguv lets stuff like what goes on at Harvard slide, but then climbs up the ass of conservative colleges like Hillsdale, which not only take ZERO federal money of any sort, but also DON’T perpetuate any of the hinky racial or sexual quotas that the other schools do.
Another reason I suspect the chest beating about pushing the envelope and finding a way to do it anyway is just big talk:
:
The reality is that it’s just not that popular even with their base.
While those polling results would indicate Affirmative Action in college admissions is unpopular, these colleges and universities (well their leadership and staffers) couldn’t care less what is, or is not, “popular”. They will do as they damned well please, according to their ideology, until it costs them so much in court awards that they find it financially unsupportable.
I want to vote for the Genghis Khan of republicans. Someone who will take scalps and laugh at the enemy.
Even Ahnold “Conan” truckled under to the proggies. Good luck finding one.
He apparently faced an ultimatum, get with the program or sleep alone permanently.
I respectfully disagree, on narrow grounds. The decision is not meaningless, because for example, statements by an institution that it will find a workaround can be taken as willfulness. It will take a lawsuit, but the lawsuit is winnable. People are already collecting hot statements from colleges that they intend to violate the spirit of the case. This will not end well for them.
Yes, I think Harvard made a mistake to protest like this without even taking much time to think about it. They’ve basically said that the now-prohibited approach is a core value of theirs. They can never take that statement back and pretend that’s not how they really think.
“They can never take that statement back and pretend that’s not how they really think.”
Sure they can, just watch them some years down the road in court. They might claim that the current leadership thought that way, but the then leadership clearly doesn’t and never did. Lies come easily…
I understand your reaction, but if you can’t sweep away decades of active discrimination in one shot then you have to do it step by step (eating an elephant one bite at a time). This is a huge first step and should be celebrated as such while not losing site of the necessary continuing fight.
Schools can also get creative with things like zip codes and other metrics. For example, Dallas ISD has several magnet schools, and as a minority-majority district, a plethora of the “right” candidates can easily float to the top of the applicant pool.
It’s time to go long on bull bleep futures. Over at the Althouse blog, Professor Althouse has used Chatbot and Bard and other AI sites to write the kind of essays that ought to slide through a Harvard admissions committee like grease through a goose. The fight against racial preferences has just started.
Sheesh. I already predicted this. It will be fun.
When can we begin to call “higher education” what it really is… lowered education? From now on, a B.A. should be a B.A./AA with M.A./AA, and with PhD/AA. Same for STEM/AA. Much like MLB needing an * for the steroid years, one for the Affimative Action years. The President Elect/AA for Harvard sounds about right.
Unfortunately for blacks with degrees, there is an assumption based on hard experience that those degrees are meritless., 8-9 times out of 10, that is the case..
I suspect that most, if not all, black applicants have experience being black.
Oh, it’ll be simpler than that. All black applicants have to do us start their essay with, “As a person who is black…” and the college’s word search programs will start giving those applicants higher priority.
Roberts thought he was being clever when all he was doing was being a coward to not end affirmative action.
Except, of course, Clarence Thomas, who was poor and raised by his grandmother, and ridiculed when he was young as “ABC” (“Americas’ Blackest Child”), who persevered and rose up to become a justice of the Supreme Court. He shall be deemed to know nothing of the black experience.
Or Tim Scott on The View last week. Or Candice Owens testifying in Congress. Or whoever didn’t vote for Gropey Joe this last time around — “You’re not really black.”
Looks like a whole bunch of black and brown Americans are going to turn those speeding tickets into golden tickets.
So, if I apply to a college, I have to talk about my race in an essay?
Write it in Ebonics. You’re a shoo-in.
All you have to say is you were born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii by your rich grandmother who was the president of a bank and you will get right in.
Basically I think it’s a good idea to put a short “DEI statement” into the college essay. Colleges like those for professional positions, so if it can be shoehorned into an undergrad admission essay, it would probably do well. But it has to be specific and white-hating, what you’ll do and have done to overturn the oppression of whiteness, especially if you’re white.
Now required many places for students, too. No shoe horning required.
Not if you are white or Asian.
an individual is to be judged as an individual, not based on race
Not in Progressivism. That’s where the problem lies.
The Constitution guarantees each of those people to be treated as an individual, not as a proxy for an ethnic group or a racial group.
Said even better, IMO. Just add “of equal value and dignity” and you can sneak “equal under the law” into it, too.
there will be no change of course, rather, Harvard will exp[l]oit the perceived permission
So, exactly like NY and NJ have obeyed the Bruen ruling?
They are so deeply invested in racial preferences
It is part of their Progressive religion.
When does the separation of church and state begin on this religion?
The justices on the Supreme Court know more about the law than I do. I could have guessed this would’ve happened. So did they.
You know as much about the law as they do. All you have to do is read.
I read your posts and learn quite a bit.
People take their case to the SCOTUS to get finality, not a loophole! They are becoming like jellyfish because there is no firmness there on anything. That’s what they are there for!
When Claudine Gay needs a cardiac thoracic surgeon does she choose him or her by the surgeon’s skill level or their race and life experiences from their college essay. What about a pilot? Are his “lived experiences” as an African more important than skill?
United thinks race is equally important as merit. Keep that in mind when you make reservations
What about Southwest?
I quit flying, too much hassle.
Really?
Firmness is difficult to project when you have no more divisions than the pope.
Fooled again
Claudine Gray = an AA hire writ LARGE.
A population of 330MM and this is the “best” that John Harvard (1607-1638) can come up with. Yikes!
Althouse has a ChatGPT essay that will get anybody in, except it would have to be worked over to avoid elite white cliches.
The Bard essays that follow them are usable off the shelf. Only exception is that one has a white guy saying he’s proud to be white. Bard doesn’t know that that’s politically incorrect to say. Say something like you’re hurt that those people see you as a color rather than getting to know you, and you’re committed to creating interaction, and you’ve done X Y and Z in your own life for that purpose …
It’s the wrong battle anyway. Freedom of association ought to be the goal, not judgment on merit or anything else.
Freedom of association except in monopoly markets.
Exactly, See my comments below.
I am not so sure that (successfully) evading or ignoring this ruling is going to be as easy as some forecast. In his opinion Roberts called attention to the persistent narrow band in the racial composition of each Harvard entering class. Black students 10-12%, Hispanic students 8-12%, Asian students 17-20%. Roberts stated that this was in essence proof that ‘Harvard’s focus on numbers is obvious’.
Couple that with the majority opinion firmly shooting down the minority opinion attempting to find room for evasion in part by stating ‘ universities may not simply establish through application essays or other means the regime we hold unlawful today’. Referring the point ‘what may not be done directly, may not be done indirectly’.
Will universities give it a try? Probably so. Will they succeed is the question. For a time sure while they tie up the issues in litigation, assuming that an injuction isn’t imposed preventing implementation of their shenanigans while the case is pending. The end of that tunnel may turn out to have an expensive toll. Universities with large endowments may find themselves putting those endowments at risk of severe loss to plaintiffs.
The other aspect many are ignoring today is the impact for future Federal and State funding to institutions who choose to thumb their nose at this ruling. A motivated Congress and POTUS will find it much easier to cut off funding; direct grants, eligibility of their students to receive Federal financial aid, student loans after today’s ruling.
It’s just a matter of time until that happens. That’s one reason the leftists are.so PO today. Not at the ruling but b/c the ruling strips away the veneer of social acceptance for active discrimination using race as direct factor in admission. Except for losing power, there’s nothing the left hates worse than having their projection shoved back onto them and exposed as BS.
If you say so. But, since the S. Ct found that public school teachers couldn’t be compelled to pay union dues as a condition of employment, why are so many still stuck paying union dues? And thanks to that puke Roberts, similarly expect racial preference system to thrive on for years. By the time a new case (if it ever does) reaches the Court, the damage done by Moore v. Harper (another Roberts gem) will probably ensure that the make up of the Court will be decidedly different. Who knows, maybe Jackson will be chief justice?
You’re insulting Roberts, but in this case he did all that can be done. Of course students will use the essay. He doesn’t need to give them the hint, and he can’t stop it short of banning the essay altogether. But he mentioned it so that he could forbid it being used by the colleges to avoid compliance with the substance of today’s ruling.
That’s strategy and careful work, not weakness.
Yeah, crafty and strategic. Like locking your front door and then posting a note outside telling the thief where the key is hidden. Or like McCarthy’s debt ceiling negotiations. But I’m glad you noticed I was criticizing Roberts. I was afraid I might have been too subtle.
Was it a complete.and total victory? No. Was it 95%+ yes. Today is a different envelopment than yesterday for affirmative action. Learn to take yes for an answer.
So basically, discriminating universities will keep right on discriminating but they’ll just say they’re really only favoring those unique individuals providing a benefit to the university. Quite a victory. We’d be speaking German now if we had had such victories in WWII.
When inevitably challenged on their future bad faith admissions practices that continue using race as a factor (which is what the CT just told them not to do) the univ are going to need to be able to defend their admissions policies.
Roberts neatly set the trap in the majority opinion by pointing out the persistent narrow band of ‘race’ % in admissions as determinative of bad faith in current process. If the future admissions regime maintains the same % then they are still using race.
Every CT ruling must eventually be enforced by more litigation. Jackasses will keep trying to continue their jackassery. The answer is litigation that sues them to stop and has a large enough financial penalty to make it hurt. Bring the pain oven enough and even stubbornly stupid jackasses learn with pain as always excellent teacher.
An admissions process that favors unique individuals who overcome individual hardship is absolutely permissible. What is no longer permissible is using race as proxy as a stand in for overcoming hardship. Especially when the primary beneficiaries are upper middle class kids suburban kids whose only difference from many of their legacy admission classmates is race.
Learn to take a win even if you think it isn’t as complete and total a victory as you wish for. Half a loaf is way better than no loaf at all. This ruling was far more than half a loaf.
“In his opinion Roberts called attention to the persistent narrow band in the racial composition of each Harvard entering class.”
Wait, so like the “disparate impact” reasoning the DoJ’s used? Here’s a stat anomoly, it must mean this thing here?
The culture-wranglers hoist by their own abacus a bit, it seems.
The results were deliberately engineered as admitted by the univ. In disparate impact the outcome isn’t claimed to be deliberately engineered. Instead it is the result of a neutral policy which has the ‘disparate’ impact claimed to produce ‘bad’ results.
I believe Roberts was laying out a marker here that in effect tells univ if they ignore the ruling or try to go around it then if their historical admission numbers don’t vary then that fact will indicate non compliance with the ruling.
The univ and the amicus briefs all seemed to agree that if AA as they now do it was removed then the # of Asian and White students would significantly increase while Black and Hispanic student admissions would fall. So if the # don’t fall then they haven’t complied with the ruling.
Got it. Thanks.
Judge Thomas rebukes the pope black person who doesn’t know what a woman is but got a golden ticket to school and the SC
Definitely worth a read
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2023/06/29/justice-jacksons-dissent-our-country-has-never-been-colorblind/
There is another solution Claudine Gay could pursue if she is so inclined. Resign from the Ivy League and transform Harvard by applying for a historically black college and university status.
In the words of Gomer Pyle, USMC: “Surprise, surprise, suprise!”
Harvard has cut off the limiting second half of the sentence it quotes:
“…so long as that discussion [about race] is concretely tied to a quality of character or unique ability that the particular applicant can contribute to the university.”
In simplest terms, race-related experience must be a positive, not a negative. It must have created positive attributes. It cannot be an excuse for discounting a lack of positive attributes, such as a lack of ability to do school work.
Which racial-cultural experiences are more likely to create positive individual attributes? Heavily parent-involved upbringings that instill values of hard work, personal responsibility and civic responsibility? Or upbringings dominated by single motherhood and criminal street gangs?
Logically, the exception that the Court allowed is one that cuts hard against blacks and other groups that have high rates of family and cultural dysfunction, so logically the Court should have left it out, since logically interpreted it is just a way of double counting the advantages that some cultures and races get from being functional instead of dysfunctional.
Such double counting would magnify racial disparities, so if it is meant to be a gesture towards equality, it fails in that regard. But of course it is not going to be used according to its logical interpretation, but opposite to logic. It is going to be used as race has always been used throughout the era of affirmative action: as an excuse for lack of scholarly merit (or of whatever kind of merit is relevant to the position that is vied for), in-effect regarding race itself as merit, which the ruling explicitly forbids.
So why leave a door of misinterpretation open for this result that the Court is trying to shut down? Asian students probably have on average at least double the extracurricular and civic accomplishments on their resumes that blacks applicants do. At the least the Court should have asserted that such extra-curriculars must be weighed by the same standards for all races.
When the inevitable radically differential race-based weighing of extra-curriculars occurs, this can become a ground for suit, giving the Court a chance to affirm: “yeah, we should have clarified that back in 2023.”
Indeed.
In a free and fair marketplace, be it commerce, enterprise, invention, ideas, the arts, or academia, these issues would naturally resolve themselves. Because meritocracies succeed. Free and fair markets abhor failure. But sixty years of leftist control of our institutions, and unrestrained government spending in support of their goals has decimated free and fair markets across all disciplines and enterprises. The government has nearly unlimited resources to subsidize failure. Harvard could not care less whether their graduates are literate or promote the advancement of human endeavors. Harvard is in the business of producing ideologues. Period. And that will continue for as long as government can force taxpayers to underwrite their exorbitant failures.
Every white and Asian applicant should be writing an essay about how they suffered from systemic, legally sanctioned and legally required discrimination based on their race/color until this Supreme Court decision. Also how this discrimination was by the federal government, state government, local government, universities, etc. And how they fear that this discrimination will continue through continuing quasi-legal and insidious means.
Also, how despite this state-required discrimination, they still achieved enough to be admitted.
It’s all a big, sick joke because Claudine Gay is, herself, the quintessential affirmative action pick. She’s an idiot who came out of the joke department of Black Studies.
As I wrote before, I have no problem with schools picking people based on color and identity quotas, if that’s what they want. What I object to is any federal (or state, though I am not from that state so it is not my business) money going to them. Hah-vahd wants to be anti-white central? Good for them. But they should be doing it on their own dime. Not a penny of federal funds should go to them and not an ounce of ink on a loan guarantee should go to any Hah-vahd students. Hah-vahd has billions. They can support themselves and pay for their own demented virtue signals.
This is all completely laughable. It reminds me of the case where Hah-vahd Lawn Care School had the bit “sit-ins” by whiney minority students so they turned around and changed the way the Lawn Care Review was staffed – only half the positions being by grade and half by subjective essay (LOL). And then the sub-par gang of new editors got to elect their President of the Lawn Care Review … That was the story of how Barky got started. He was the one who was voted in as the Precedent of the Lawn Care Review that year, even though he didn’t have the grades to even be an editor, if things were run as normal …
And now Hah-vahd has this affirmative action joke of an academician they are trying to pawn off as the President of the University …
So her immediate overreaction to this ruling is an outgrowth of her narcissism. The ruling is bad for people like her, could lead to questioning of her own merits, and so she strikes out without even taking a day for reflection.
Harvard has fallen a long way.
When I first heard about this decision this morning, I had hope. However, since it is never going to be enforced due to the grand Roberts Loophole AND we are on the downward cycle for our nation and society, we don’t have enough time left to fix things. What will be, will be.
Subotai Bahadur
Be not afraid. The Thomas Concurrence is going to be the most-quoted part of the Opinion. There, I said it.
There is no Roberts loophole. He identified that loophole, which exists anyway, to say it could not be used to keep doing the same as they’ve been doing. You could call it the Roberts Roadblock.
Yep. He points it out as impermissible. Not sure why so many folks get this wrong. Then there’s Justice Thomas concurring opinion which begins with him fully agreeing with the majority opinion and goes on to devastate the philosophy of the dissent. If anything it set a trap for the univ who thumb their nose by referring to the persistent % by race under impermissible standards. If the % remains the same the burden should now be on the univ to show compliance via transparent discovery of their new bad faith admission process trying to use a backdoor AA.
https://twitter.com/realchrisrufo/status/1674548940522549248
EXCLUSIVE: Berkeley Law School dean Erwin Chemerinsky explains how he has secretly enacted a policy of racial discrimination in faculty hiring—which is illegal in California.
“If I’m ever deposed, I’m going to deny I said this to you.”
Anyone who has ever sat on any university hiring committees has known this FOR DECADES!
I would venture that a law school prof saying “If I’m ever deposed, I’m going to deny I said this to you.” is more than adequate grounds for immediate firing, tenure or not. I can hardly think of anything worse a law school professor could say in class. And to say something so criminal and stupid over something else that everyone knows about (the absolute racism and idiocy in faculty hiring decisions) makes it all the more retarded. This guy ain’t quite the rocket surgeon.
I hope that someone brings suit against Berkeley Law based on this video.
I see that as of today, Twitter has made it impossible to view transactions on Twitter if you don’t have an account. Formerly, Twitter used to ask you to login but you could cancel it and read anyway. The loopholes seem to be gone now.
“….think it may have a big impact, particularly on Asian students because particularly in the Harvard case, they are the ones who were the focus of the discrimination more than anybody else. ”
Asian, as in “from Asia”, or Americans of Asian descent. Why do we have whites and blacks, but describe Asian descent as Asian and not yellow, and write Hispanic, but not brown?
Harvard stands a chance of being held in contempt of court if if as thiis tweet suggests it will ignore the ruling of SCOTUS. Maybe we will need the 101st Airborne to end quotas at Harvard just as it was needed to end segregation in Little Rock
The Left’s agenda is to stall and litigate until the time rolls around that have the White House and they control both the House and Senate and, they believe that will be game over.
“If you want a picture of the future, imagine a designer shoe stamping on a human face forever.”
Harvard will be sued for it again and again, and they will lose again and again. That’s how these things go.
A new industry was just created: suing Democrats for racial discrimination.
Univ CA schools were required to stop using race based admissions criteria back in the 90s. They have tried every work around possible, but black enrollment has declined significantly, while asian americans are over represented nowadays.
Now that Harvard and UNC have been found to have discriminated against Asians on the basis of their race, what kind of legal actions are available to require these universities to reimburse the U.S. Treasury for federal monies they received in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act? And, what about the Asian students who were discriminated against? What legal remedies do they have to recovery monetary damages for the injuries they suffered? Only when Harvard and UNC, and other universities, have to suffer financial penalties for their actions will race discrimination in college admissions be truly ended.
“The Supreme Court gave universities a narrow opening, and Harvard just announced it’s going to drive an affirmative action truck right through it.” William A Jacobson
I’m looking forward to MASSIVE judgements being handed to victims of Harvard’s violation of The Constitution and violation of this ruling.
I asked ChatGPT to compose an admission essay for a competitive college by a minority applicant (prompt below)
Interesting that the essay never mentions which minority. Could be black, Hispanic, Asian, or other. Just the sort of essay Asians should submit to Harvard.
Of course candidate name might give it away. All names should be redacted from material seen by admissions committee and replaced with a candidate number.
Based on this essay ChatGPT would likely be accepted at Harvard without even needing to take the (no longer required) SAT exam.
Prompt: A 300 word admission essay for a competitive college discussing challenges I faced and overcame because of my minority race
Title: Embracing My Identity: Overcoming Challenges as a Minority
As a young individual growing up in a society that often fails to acknowledge the diverse experiences and struggles faced by minority communities, I have encountered my fair share of challenges. My journey has been shaped by the unique perspective granted to me as a member of a minority race. Through perseverance, self-reflection, and the unwavering support of my loved ones, I have transformed these obstacles into stepping stones towards personal growth and resilience.
One of the most significant challenges I faced was the constant battle against stereotypes and prejudice. Despite possessing the same potential as my peers, I often found myself being underestimated solely based on my minority background. Rather than succumbing to bitterness or despair, I chose to use these moments as opportunities to prove my worth. I sought to dismantle stereotypes by excelling academically, engaging in extracurricular activities, and participating in leadership roles. Through these endeavors, I not only demonstrated my capabilities but also empowered others from similar backgrounds to challenge societal biases.
Another hurdle I encountered was the lack of representation and resources available to minority students. While the educational system aimed to foster an inclusive environment, the scarcity of role models and mentors from my racial background made it difficult to navigate the path to success. Determined to break this cycle, I became proactive in seeking out opportunities to bridge this gap. I reached out to community organizations, participated in mentorship programs, and volunteered as a tutor for underprivileged students. By actively engaging in these initiatives, I aimed to provide the support and guidance that I had once yearned for, and in doing so, I discovered the immense impact a single individual can have on empowering others.
Furthermore, I learned to embrace my cultural heritage as a source of strength and resilience. Initially, I struggled to reconcile my dual identity, fearing that my background would hinder my acceptance into mainstream society. However, I gradually came to appreciate the richness and depth of my heritage. I delved into the literature, art, and traditions of my ancestors, discovering the power of cultural expression as a tool for fostering understanding and unity. I actively shared my experiences and perspectives, engaging in open dialogues and cultural exchanges to promote inclusivity and appreciation for diversity.
In conclusion, the challenges I faced as a minority individual have been instrumental in shaping my character and values. I have transformed adversity into an opportunity for growth, advocating for representation, empowerment, and cultural appreciation. My experiences have fueled my ambition to pursue higher education and contribute to the creation of a more inclusive society. I am eager to bring my unique perspective, determination, and resilience to a competitive college, where I can continue to learn, grow, and inspire positive change for both myself and others
I taught part-time at UC Irvine from 1998-2016, and the student body was (probably still is) just over 50% Asian-American. It was one of the most positive features of UCI, in my view. They were serious students dedicated to academic excellence and enjoying their college experience. Had their % been 100%, so much the better. Yet, I know there was talk in the UC system expressing concern about their high numbers.
If Asian-American students are running circles around the rest of us (including white students), it is up to the rest of us to emulate them, not try to punish them.
Of course, we want to see more black and Hispanic kids getting higher education, but you cannot produce that artificially. The solution lies in the secondary schools and how they educate and prepare students for higher education. Not to mention all the societal issues at play preventing educational success.