Scalia can be faulted for being blunt, but it is indeed fact that HBCUs like Xavier, and not the flagships like UT or Ivies, that have been the colleges most successful in producing black doctors & scientists.
Personally, I think this one fizzles. Last go round, I read it all. I’m just getting started, but (my bold) -
*Justice Kennedy broke this line of questioning up, asking Mr. Rein to tell the court what he believed would constitute a “sufficiently concrete” set of criteria to create a diverse freshman class.
Chief Justice Roberts shared his interest, though Mr. Rein has been telling the court that it’s not up to him to determine the university’s exact admissions criteria.
Mr. Rein, in the petition asking the court to hear the case, asked the court to further limit the use of affirmative action in admissions policies to “put an end to the masking of general social justice concerns as compelling educational interests.”*
Why does Rein seem tired (or uninspired) to me? Social justice concerns are easy to paint as compelling educational interests. If he had provided alternatives (this isn’t about “up to him,” but what “fair” other options do exist,) the court could weigh the present scheme against some hypothetical “better.”
Mr. Rein said schools could give more individualized consideration to each applicant to determine how that person might benefit in the incoming student body…
Well, that’s what “holistic” is.
…He didn’t foreclose the possibility that race could be used in that process. But he said race should come into play only if there aren’t race-neutral ways to achieve the same ends. He said UT had such alternatives at its disposal. But he isn’t going to name them. And UT says this is how to accomplish their goals. Garre: said it would be difficult to say how many made it in because of their race, given the individualized nature of how each student’s application is considered. So?
All UT will need to do is shift official emphasis to low SES and they can continue as before.
The best outcome for those interested in seeing the continuation of AA for some time (as suggested by Grutter), is that Kennedy will join Breyer, Sotomayor, and RBG. I don’t see how AA can win except for the possibility of a tie that lets UT continue its present position.
But isn’t that a key reason that UT is frustrated w the percentage plan-- that it admits predominantly low income URMS?
UT explicitly stated that it wants to be able to use race as a criterion in the holistic round to admit higher income URMs to have “diversity within diversity”.
there’s zero significance to them agreeing to hear the case –
the entire court need not grant cert – only need 4 –
the court’s conservative bloc – roberts, alito, scalia and thomas - can grant cert on any case, which is probably what happened here
there has never been a day of testimony in this case, believe it or not – never went to trial - decisions based on summary judgment motions only
but kennedy seemed to imply yesterday that a trial could be necessary
I don’t know that the holistic part is exclusively to get higher SES minorities. I’d need to find the how UT did put it.
In the past, they kept talking “critical mass,” as well, which I can grasp, but they still leave it vague.
The University of Texas and the lower court basically ignored the prior SC decision. Justice Kennedy mentions that in the transcript, starting on page 19. If the court thinks that you ignored their decision, and Kennedy seems to indicate that is what he thinks happened, do not expect the court to rule in your favor when they revisit the case.
I think UT had a weak argument that admitting middle and upper class minorities who wouldn’t otherwise qualify was necessary to have diversity within diversity. (To me this just looks like they want those who can afford full tuition).
@Ohiodad51 I didnt call Scalia a racist, BUT, he has let his opinions be known whether it is this case, the voting rights act, etc…
I dont appreciate the insinuation that schools where minorities do better are “lesser”. I have a child at an HBCU, she was accepted at NYU but we decided against it. She has not been harmed by going to her “lesser” school, in fact she has had better internships, and opportunities than her friends at the “better” schools(NYU, Cornell, Michigan, Northwestern). She has been the only one of her group that has been offered a job after graduation, even though she is just a rising junior.
The phrase “diversity within diversity” may have been coined by someone else.
One of the things the U is trying to preserve: The school also operates a separate “holistic” admissions track that gives weight to factors beyond class rank—including race. The university says it needs this program to capture applicants who bring additional qualities to campus and bring in minorities who attended more-competitive, majority-white schools. This program is at issue in the case.
Beware you don’t assume this means race alone, without other qualifications. Or that one example cited defines the goals. That’s crucial.
“Mr. Garre said the university made clear that it is pursuing the educational benefits of diversity. The number of minority students on campus decreased in the years when the school relied only upon race-neutral admissions criteria, he said.”
Rein would need to counter this idea there needs to be some individual reviewing, but he’s allowing for it.
Also, “Chief Justice Roberts asked whether UT has reviewed its race-conscious admissions criteria every few years as it had promised. Mr. Garre said the school had indeed done so, including by looking at statistics and the racial climate on campus. He said the school also has solicited and received input from faculty.” Of course, then Scalia jumped in.
Like it or not, Anton Scalia is one of if not the foremost legal minds of his generation. Just because he doesn’t buy the current liberal position on race shouldn’t be used to imply that he is somehow doing a disservice to the Court, or in your words, “make you sad”.
I have never heard anyone connected with this case ever say or imply that. I believe the point is that students who are admitted with stats significantly below the averages for a particular school tend to have a statistically harder time than the average. The question then is whether those students would be better off attending schools where their stats are more in line with the overall student body. It doesn’t have anything to do with race.
And to whoever asked the question up the thread, the Supreme Court ostensibly releases each of its decisions once the opinions are done, but in practice they tend to space out the truly significant decisions. I would think most people expect the Court to hand this down some time in June.
Initially I thought this would be a pretty straightforward and narrow reversal of the school’s policy. Generally the Court looks unfavorably on entities that ignore their decisions (like the Florida Supreme Court in Bush v Gore I), and I think it is pretty clear the UT took the first decision as license to keep on doing what they were doing. In short, I expected them to give UT a spanking and send them on their way. However, after reading the transcript of oral argument, it sure seems like Kennedy is struggling with any kind of rational justification for a policy favoring solely race based diversity. Will be interesting to see what opinions come out.
I feel like in such cases, whether it’s Fisher or the Harvard plaintiffs, it’s hard to prove causation in the case of any one applicant, or even a group of 10 applicants. Maybe 30-40 years ago it would’ve been easier, as most qualified applicants got in, but now these schools are such crapshoots that it’s hard to objectively prove that someone would’ve gotten in had their ethnicity been different.
Yes, a kid might’ve had a 2400 with a lot of debate awards. However, that doesn’t guarantee acceptance. Harvard rejects far more perfect scorers than they accept, and I’m sure they have their pick of top debaters. Maybe they needed a tuba player instead. Maybe the kid’s essays were dull. Any number of unknowns, all of it muddying the waters.
And for the record, I am not a flaming liberal. I dont think the 10% rule that Texas employs makes any sense, because the strength of the high school should be taken into account. However, I also dont think this case should be used to dismantle or chip away at affirmative action.
Top 10% means that there is more in state geographic diversity, which can help keep state legislators from districts that would otherwise be underrepresented from complaining too much.