Affirmative Action - Supreme Court Decision

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/politics/live-news/supreme-court-decisions/index.html

This may belong in politics but I avoid that portion of the forum. Lol. Anywho, affirmative action case has been decided by the Supreme Court.

 

Awesome, another racism issue ends. I think the next step is LEGACY ADMISSION abolishment.

 

Life isn't fair, but it could be less fair if we got out of our own way. But sometimes that's not enough. Sometimes we need to actually fix something. Affirmative action is a way to do that. Sure, it's a sometimes-blunt instrument--providing advantages to some who don't deserve it while certainly helping many who do--but don't let perfect be the enemy of good.

The US Civil Service practices a huge affirmative action program: advantages to disabled veterans. When a job is listed for competition, three lists are generated: Best Qualified, Well Qualified, and Qualified. Also, before the job is listed, a decision is made by the hiring manager to make it available to all citizens or just those with Career status. (Career status is when someone has worked in the Civil Service for at least 3 years; conditional career status is granted after one.) Veterans, even those who do not have prior civil service experience, are permitted to apply to jobs restricted to career status civil servants. In other words, veteran status gives you an equal footing with career civil servants in applying for jobs. But wait, there's more....

There's no longer a point system--5 extra points for veterans, etc. It's just the three lists. Well, veterans who apply for civil service jobs can end up on one of those lists. If so, their names are put at the top of their respective list, a huge advantage if there are many qualified applicants. So, they "jump the line" over other comparably qualified civil servants. (But the hiring manager doesn't have to hire the veteran.) Thus, a veteran who is placed on, say, the Well Qualified list is placed at the top of the list. Again, the hiring manager can bypass the veteran, but the psychology is strong there. But wait, there's even more!

The disabled veteran who applies for a civil service job and who is found to be at least Qualified, not only jumps to the top of the list, that person is placed at the top of the Best Qualified list, even if they do not meet the criteria for that list. So, even a minimally qualified disabled veteran moves to the top of the best list. And, get this: you have to hire them. That's right, a disabled veteran bypasses all Best Qualified applicants, even other veterans. And we're talking about people with huge disabilities. A service connected injury or a condition like tinnitus will get you the 15% or more disabled status to qualify you. But wait, there's more....

If you're the hiring manager and you simply do not want to hire the veteran, you have to prove to HR that the veteran in question is, in fact, not qualified for the job. I've done this, and it is hard. After all, being minimally qualified isn't usually very hard--they're the kind of people who never get considered normally. But they get hired with their disabled veteran status.

Why? Because someone decided to give these people a leg up to make up for a disadvantage society gave them. The one big distinction: disabled veterans are individually adjudicated, while taking race into account for admission to university is given to a class of people. But it is a distinction without a difference if you've seen some of the people who are presented as "disabled"; they are sometimes anything but.

There is a lot of resentment in this country over the perception that some people are getting something they don't deserve. I believe I know its source, and it should be obvious to anyone. So, we're in a regressive time where we're trying to return the unevenness of the playing field to an earlier state. Or, alternately, we're trying to treat everyone equally.

But we're not equal. Some of us can't even get into the game, while others stand their at the plate and see one fastball after another, hoping to get a hit. Then, there are those who were born on 3rd base and think they hit a triple. We call them things like "legacy admissions."

Finally, does anyone find it interesting that the Supreme Court decision explicitly excluded the military academies? These schools are allowed to continue including race in their admissions decisions.

 

I've gotten so many emails stating that I was Best Qualified, but they had to hire a veteran. I know some of these people are gaming the disability rating system. There are people who offer paid services to help people game the system, but whatever.

 

Is it racism, though? I saw it as a way to accelerate opportunities for those who were long oppressed and denied opportunities. Yes, I agree with abolishing legacy admission.

 

I agree with NYT. I predict that more schools will stop requiring test scores, which will have the opposite effect of what anti-AA proponents want. I'm glad to be done with college because personality-driven selection does not favor introverts. I'd much rather compete on test score. Ironically, personality scores were used to keep elite universities from becoming 50% Asian or more. This Supreme Court decision will probably cause universities to give personality more weight.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/29/us/affirmative-action-college-admissions-future.html

 

I believe everyone should be treated equally regardless of origin, sexual orientation, age, etc. You get into college not because of your race but rather than your academic achievement. Not all Asian Americans are smart; take me as an example; I am dumb like a rock. I am only different from most people because I work really hard; I am a "B" student. I am willing to take extra steps to get into top school. I was born in a chicken coop and grew up in poverty; I never attended school until I was almost 13 years old. Many African-Americans are much more intelligent than I am, so it is unfair that they get extra perks because of race. I was rejected from the University of Illinois Urbana Champaign's MBA admission, I was rejected from George Washington University's Ph.D. in Engineering Management, and I was rejected from Columbia University's Doctor of Engineering in Computer Science because there were more qualified candidates than I am.

 

a) admissions offices used, or use, race as one factor due to the schooling, elementary to high school, not being equal based on race (deeper discussion can be had later - very few African-Americans attend well funded private schools and their public schools are usually a step lower when it comes to education compared to White public schools even in the same district).
b.1) Many African-Americans are much more intelligent than statement. Did I misread? Are you saying many African-Americans received a better education than you did so they have more knowledge than you in school subject matters?
b.2.) African-Americans receive extra perks because of race statement can be applied to any minority with regards to Affirmative Action; which applies to all none Whites (opps, White women are also included under Affirmative Action)
b.3.) extra perks, does that include legacy admissions as well, because that is a perk, usually means an automatic admission (at times no need to be too concerned with their prior academic achievement)
b.4.) please give an example of a perk that African-Americans receive that you do not receive
b.5.) perks I know they do not receive: automatic admissions because they are Black (perhaps if they are a legacy), free cost of a degree solely because they are Black
b.6.) if African-Americans are intelligent, as you mentioned, then only the intelligent ones have a high GPA and scored high on ACT and or SAT and received a scholarship(s) due to those high scores, because as far as I know, African-Americans with low scores are not being admitted to Harvard nor other Ivey League schools nor top schools.
Admissions do not say here is a Black student with a 1.99 GPA and we will let him in because he is an African-American even though we require a 3.0 minimum GPA. It could happen. Perhaps on a rare occasion?

Athletes, no matter the race, get in on talent. Speculating that some of them might not have the minimum required GPA.

 

This is so true. Racism has led to people believing that Ivy League colleges are admitting Black and Hispanic students who are subpar. In reality, they're above average. If they hadn't gotten into an Ivy League with those extra race points, they would have gotten into some other top school.

Ultimately, this is all about the Ivy Plus and Public Ivy network and the power and influence that comes with it. No one who's earned it is being denied access to an excellent education because of race. People are fighting over a certain group of schools that disproportionately create political leaders and CEOs because of networking and brand appeal.

 

If universities wish to do so they can favor applicants from economically disadvantaged backgrounds.

 

Had a thought just now though...Californian local governments are talking seriously about paying "reparations" to, as I understand it, descendents of slaves and those who suffered from Jim Crow. Well. I could make a pretty solid argument that such payments would constitute illegal discrimination based on race in light of this decision.

Interesting to watch the situation develop.

 

It is unlikely to be cash payments. Much more likely assistance for home ownership, student loans, and/or medical care, that sort of thing.

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/05/10/california-officials-response-on-slavery-reparations-00096312

 

Doesn't matter. Still race based discrimination and illegal. I think.

 

That’s so true-“People are fighting over a certain group of schools that disproportionately create political leaders and CEOs because of networking and brand appeal.”

 

Maybe this is why I really couldn't care less. The same schools have been producing political leaders and CEOs disproportionately for years now and the overwhelming majority of these CEOs and political leaders are...not people I admire or think anyone should strive to be like.

Maybe they should spend less time worrying about admissions and more time teaching ethics, but we all know that isn't suddenly going to happen even if the government decided that Ivy League admissions were legally required to adopt a "first applied, first approved" model.

 

Two things. First, affirmative action programs don't admit unqualified applicants. They're designed to admit applicants who might not otherwise be considered/admitted. Second, "merit" is a slithery concept. Not every one competes on the same level playing field. Many students attend inferior schools, for example, schools that have been neglected on the basis of race. Isn't that student behind before the race to admission even begins, even though he or she might be otherwise capable?

 

Graduates of elite schools have a disproportionate share in the highest levels of government and business. They always have had. But at bottom the United States is a representative democracy. If the people really wanted to change the situation we could do so.

"The government you elect is the government you deserve." Thos. Jefferson