<p>I love you, mini…</p>
<p>Silly case. Silly decision. Silly waste of enormous resources, not only the money spent litigating the case, but the scarce judicial resources that went into saying . . . approximately nothing.</p>
<p>Essentially SCOTUS just affirmed that Grutter is the law 9which, of course, would have been the case had they never heard the Fisher case). Grutter applied strict scrutiny in determining that race-based affirmative action in college admissions is permissible where necessary to achieve a compelling governmental interest in diversity in public higher education, so long as it’s only one factor and doesn’t involve quotas. But SCOTUS reversed the Fifth Circuit in the Fisher case, not on any substantive grounds, but because (SCOTUS said) the Fifth Circuit, in applying Grutter, was too deferential to UT and didn’t actually apply strict scrutiny. But there’s nothing to stop the Fifth Circuit from going back and reaching exactly the same substantive result while dressing up its language to make the inquiry sound “stricter.”</p>
<p>In short, nothing changed. Anyone who tries to spin this as a victory for opponents of affirmative action is delusional.</p>
<p>I think it’s pretty clear 3 Justices–Scalia, Thomas, and Alito–wanted to overturn Grutter and outlaw affirmative action, but they didn’t have the votes and in the end caved because they recognized Fisher offered an extremely weak case, so their position was untenable. Another 3 Justices–Breyer, Sotomayor, and Ginsburg, along with, presumably, Kagan, who didn’t vote in this case–wanted to uphold affirmative action, and essentially got that result. Kennedy wanted to be the decider, which inclines him toward the middle, pandering for votes on either side. Chief Justice Roberts wanted more than anything to avoid a highly polarized, partisan vote, to avoid any further embarrassment from a Court that has become nakedly partisan in recent years. In the end, Kennedy and Roberts won. Kennedy got to write the majority opinion, and Roberts got a 7-1 vote that essentially said nothing.</p>
<p>So what, exactly, was the point of this exercise? The law is exactly as it was before we went through this whole charade.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The “exercise” was to reaffirm Grutter and tell the 5th that they interpreted Grutter incorrectly. Thus, their decision was incorrect by definition. Go back and review it again.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>From a practical matter, there was no victory on either side. While UT can keep its admission program for now, UT’s plan could still be held unconstitutional. (Hopefully, by the time it gets back to DC, the state lawyers will have better responses to the issues.)</p>
<p>As an aside, do any of cc’s legal folks know what % of cases are remanded by the Supremes?</p>
<p>…*strict scrutiny in determining that race-based affirmative action in college admissions is permissible where necessary to achieve a compelling governmental interest [here] in diversity in public higher education, *[then tagged]so long as it’s only one factor and doesn’t involve quotas.</p>
<p>I say, a-yup. Scrutiny doesn’t predict a change in the lower court, as long as diversity is a compelling government interest. </p>
<p>What I find intriguing is the combo of auto and holistic, as Texas uses it. It suggests auto doesn’t reach the diversity goals (we know it doesn’t) and that holistic is the fix. Ie, the process, as it is, is flawed. This is different than “an undergraduate admissions practice in which applicants’ grades and test scores are considered in the context of their educational opportunities and life experiences.” (UC) I thought the court might comment on that, tell UT to re-examine the percentage of auto and other methods. </p>
<p>Also, there isn’t necessarily a paper trail re: the use of race. If I understand, UT wraps race into the rating. There don’t have to be comments that “John, because he is Black” or “Juan, because he is Hispanic.” So, any holistic process- whether or not there is a sea change- is difficult to point a very specific finger at. </p>
<p>edited</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>mini, I have NEVER EVER advocated segregated schools or communities or advocating keeping anyone in “their place”, so before you start attributing libelous comments to me, why don’t u read the SCOTUS oral arguments and UT’s written submissions, then come back and argue the facts of the case. </p>
<p>UT argued that it needed to target privileged URMs, and made the example of a child of successful professionals in Dallas, to ensure the university had “diversity within diversity” because the percentage plan was admitting underprivileged URMs.</p>
<p>Perraziman, he would have been an academic admit anyway because of his SAT scores if he made in the 700’s in both CR & M. TAMU winds up with a very small percentage of students being review admits. Most are top 10% and/or 30 ACT/1300 SAT, meeting minimum requirements in CR & M.</p>
<p>“mini, I have NEVER EVER … facts of the case.”</p>
<p>GMT - We’re talking Fisher here, an individual who could not be admitted to UT based on “facts of life” but still held the view that she could (and should!) have been admitted based on “facts of her case.” (Ginsburg stated this in her Dissent much better than I.) So forgive mini for asking whether your position is based on “facts of the case” or “facts of life.” My argument is, and always has been, that in the end the “facts of life” always win out … no matter how hard Court Justices try to hold onto some personally-appealing philosophy. That’s why I believe URMs won’t get more under-represented when … not if … AA is eventually phased out. Society isn’t going back to the way things were.</p>
<p>Did UT focus on the need to add privileged minorities? With some exclusivity? Or, explain a point within a point? Diversity even within a race. Various forms.<br>
My favorite word, this month, seems to be context. Here, the context of the part of a discussion one wants to cite.</p>
<p>[Lawyers analyze Supreme Court decision on affirmative action
Inside Higher Ed
June 25, 2013](<a href=“http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/06/25/lawyers-analyze-supreme-court-decision-affirmative-action”>http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/06/25/lawyers-analyze-supreme-court-decision-affirmative-action</a>)
</p>
<p>I think the whole article is worth reading.</p>
<p>^ Bel - The reason I referred to it as “a punt” is that the SC has left “mushy” what the strict scrutiny standard should be. The only definition CERTAIN to meet SC standards would be “no use of race.” That wasn’t the ruling. If I’m UT, I’m revising my admission guidelines a bit … not much … and waiting two years for the revisions to make their way back to SCOTUS. Then rinse and repeat.</p>
<p>This notion that they have to prove they exhausted race-neutral options to promote diversity, is why we will continue to get these cases, for some time, in various states. Diversity is an accepted goal. There is no one, perfect way, today, that will get them there. Under strict scrutiny, aiui, they don’t have to prove their policy is perfect. (aiui, ok? I don’t think any of us are legal experts in this.) </p>
<p>They have to prove they have exhausted other viable race neutral options- that function to bring them to their goals or closer to them. Not go entirely with race neutral and let the chips fall where they may. Context. Each step is indisputably linked and layered with the conditions before it and at present.</p>
<p>Imo, it’s not: if only we applied RN, everything would work out. It’s not how it is. Today. I find it hard to accept that we’ll get there without massive changes in k-12.</p>
<p>It could be viewed as a punt- but it’s really about procedure. I don’t see ghosts in the room (that they held the case so long because they really want to do away with AA.) I suspect it was of interest legally and they wanted to chew on it. Not necessarily because the court wants to disband AA.</p>
<p>
It’s a fair question, and deserves an honest answer. The answer is that unless you put a thumb on the scale for high-SES URM kids, you can’t get enough URM kids who can do challenging college-level work (with “enough” meaning some number sufficient to generate acceptable racial diversity). There just aren’t enough poor ones with the academic preparation to succeed. In fact, there may not be enough high-scoring URMs at all, rich or poor, to really achieve significant diversity in selective colleges and tough programs. Why this is, exactly, is debatable, but the numbers make it pretty clear. So the thumb on the scale is what you do, and hope that it will cause those scores to migrate upward. The only other option I can see would be to accept low-SES URMs who really can’t do the work, and put them into a remedial track. Or give up on diversity, of course.</p>
<p>“I’m still waiting for a reason why high SES kids need a thumb on the scale”</p>
<p>And because a good number of minority professionals were originally part of high SES families. It takes time, money, and intellectual rigor to “grow” a professional.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How will racial preferences for URMs currently applying to college improve the SAT and ACT scores of URMs in the future? In what time frame is this expected to happen? I think Hunt is smart enough to suspect the truth about why URMs “need a thumb on the scale”, but he finds it unpalatable, so he engages in wishful thinking.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Without the recalculations yes it would have been easy. However, in these cases it is not easy to get into the top 25% by junior year. Remember they recalculated his perfect GPA to one that placed him at the bottom of the class with 9 high school courses (a year’s worth). This created a huge drag. He was effectively turned from a perfect GPA into someone with a 2.6 GPA (on a 4.0 scale) with 9 high school courses in the beginning of high school.</p>
<p>“How will racial preferences for URMs currently applying to college improve the SAT and ACT scores of URMs in the future?”</p>
<p>[For sake of argument] they won’t. So what? Racial preferences are going away, and with it the excuse for not accepting MORE URMs. The notion that colleges will use SAT and ACT scores to identify freshman admits is invalid.</p>
<p>
I think it will take more generations. Is that the unpalatable truth you think I know? If so, I admit it. I think we’ll need a thumb on the scale for another 50 years. Maybe another 100 years. But it’s kind of “you broke it, you bought it” in my mind. Our country so thoroughly trashed ethnic minorities that the recovery just takes a long, long time.</p>
<p>^ that’s it. Generations. Each generation influences the goals, aspirations and perspective of the next ones. And, alters the context. No one ( on the side of AA) is saying use diversity goals to give them a place for x years and nothing changes. </p>
<p>SDO’s 25 years is roughly one generation. This has to spill out and spread, over time. The point of the “voice” or ability to advocate for their group, mentioned in the argument, is not limited to the campus.</p>
<p>
Question: if we know we aren’t going to achieve “critical mass” for diversity purposes, is it okay to try (under Grutter)?</p>
<p>It takes a little while to overcome centuries of affirmative action for white people.</p>