It was in one of them. Not important to the general theme of discussion.
Biden Administration Asks Supreme Court To Ignore Harvard Asian Discrimination Case
- Thread starter ipatent
- Start date
It was in one of them. Not important to the general theme of discussion.
The Bell Curve then. This is not a discussion as your mind is too far gone. As I said, for many moderately intelligent people they largely retain their verbal skills as they age but their ability to reason drops very much.
You would be better off getting exercise than falling into posting addiction.
I'll put you on ignore for now, this is nonsense is not good for either of us.
You're running away from the truth.
Biden administration is really doing a lot of harm in many ways.
Supreme Court will consider challenge to affirmative action in college admissions
The case, naming Harvard and the University of North Carolina, is the most serious threat in decades to affirmative action at public and private colleges and universities.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court agreed Monday to hear challenges to the admissions process at Harvard and the University of North Carolina, presenting the most serious threat in decades to the use of affirmative action by the nation's public and private colleges and universities.
Despite similar challenges, the court has repeatedly upheld affirmative action in the past. But two liberal justices who were key to those decisions are gone — Anthony Kennedy and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Their replacements, Trump appointees Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, are conservative and considered less likely to find the practice constitutional.
In the latest case, groups backed by a longtime opponent of affirmative action, Edward Blum of Maine, sued Harvard and UNC in federal court, claiming that Harvard's undergraduate admissions system discriminated against Asian American students and that UNC's discriminated against both Asian American and white students. Lower courts ruled that the schools' limited consideration of race was a legitimate effort to achieve a more diverse student body.
____________________________
Tony Stark wrong again.
The case, naming Harvard and the University of North Carolina, is the most serious threat in decades to affirmative action at public and private colleges and universities.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court agreed Monday to hear challenges to the admissions process at Harvard and the University of North Carolina, presenting the most serious threat in decades to the use of affirmative action by the nation's public and private colleges and universities.
Despite similar challenges, the court has repeatedly upheld affirmative action in the past. But two liberal justices who were key to those decisions are gone — Anthony Kennedy and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Their replacements, Trump appointees Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, are conservative and considered less likely to find the practice constitutional.
In the latest case, groups backed by a longtime opponent of affirmative action, Edward Blum of Maine, sued Harvard and UNC in federal court, claiming that Harvard's undergraduate admissions system discriminated against Asian American students and that UNC's discriminated against both Asian American and white students. Lower courts ruled that the schools' limited consideration of race was a legitimate effort to achieve a more diverse student body.
____________________________
Tony Stark wrong again.
Last edited:
Race-conscious university admission policies to face Supreme Court review
Court precedents that said race may be used as one factor universities can consider in a wide-ranging evaluation of applicants.
But the slim Supreme Court majorities that decided Grutter v. Bollinger in 2003 and reaffirmed it in 2016 are gone, replaced by a much more conservative bloc. Challengers say the court should overturn those precedents and rule that considerations of race, which aid underrepresented Black and Hispanic students, violate federal law and the Constitution.
The court — its six-member conservative majority strengthened by President Donald Trump’s three appointments — has now accepted cases that could transform its jurisprudence on some of the most controversial issues of the day: abortion, gun rights and race.
Edward Blum, president of Students for Fair Admissions, the group that spearheaded the affirmative action challenges, said polls show that Americans strongly disapprove of race-conscious admissions.
“In a multi-racial, multi-ethnic nation like ours, the college admissions bar cannot be raised for some races and ethnic groups but lowered for others,” Blum said in a statement. “Our nation cannot remedy past discrimination and racial preferences with new discrimination and different racial preferences.”
Blum’s group told the Supreme Court it would be fitting to end the use of racial considerations by overturning policies at “the nation’s oldest private college and … at the nation’s oldest public college.”
Court precedents that said race may be used as one factor universities can consider in a wide-ranging evaluation of applicants.
But the slim Supreme Court majorities that decided Grutter v. Bollinger in 2003 and reaffirmed it in 2016 are gone, replaced by a much more conservative bloc. Challengers say the court should overturn those precedents and rule that considerations of race, which aid underrepresented Black and Hispanic students, violate federal law and the Constitution.
The court — its six-member conservative majority strengthened by President Donald Trump’s three appointments — has now accepted cases that could transform its jurisprudence on some of the most controversial issues of the day: abortion, gun rights and race.
Edward Blum, president of Students for Fair Admissions, the group that spearheaded the affirmative action challenges, said polls show that Americans strongly disapprove of race-conscious admissions.
“In a multi-racial, multi-ethnic nation like ours, the college admissions bar cannot be raised for some races and ethnic groups but lowered for others,” Blum said in a statement. “Our nation cannot remedy past discrimination and racial preferences with new discrimination and different racial preferences.”
Blum’s group told the Supreme Court it would be fitting to end the use of racial considerations by overturning policies at “the nation’s oldest private college and … at the nation’s oldest public college.”