June 30, 2023 - 3:00pm
This week’s Supreme Court rulings presage a busy season of political strategising ahead of the 2024 elections. One of the most consequential decisions of this session was its ruling that colleges and universities may not explicitly base choices about applicants on their race. In response, President Joe Biden remarked that “this is not a normal court”. Alas, it is the one he has to contend with.
Over the last decade, the issue has become a fraught one on college campuses, particularly around the potential disadvantages placed on Asian American students. Although they count in the progressive vernacular as “people of colour”, these students are still seen by some admissions departments as benefitting from a series of privileges (usually “white” privileges) which are inaccessible to black and Latino students.
It has thus been a useful political tool in the hands of the Republican Party, which is looking to erode support for the Democrats among Asian Americans. The GOP put this to good effect in the 2022 midterms, which saw Asian American voters continuing to vote for Republicans in greater numbers. For their part, Democrats have used it as a way to shore up support among key constituencies of black and Latino voters, while using advocacy campaigns like “Stop Asian Hate” as a rearguard action to staunch the bleeding (the party’s share of the AAPI vote declined from 79% in 2016 to 61% in 2020).
But Thursday’s ruling on affirmative action is more likely to close off political opportunities than open new ones for both parties. According to a New York Times poll, 74% of all Americans believe public colleges and universities should not be able to use race as a factor in admissions (as well as 60% of Democrats). This is also supported by a recent Pew Research study, showing 50% of Americans disapproving of the consideration of race or ethnicity in admissions.
When the data is sliced by race, only 47% of black respondents said they approve of the practice, with 29% indicating approval and a notable 24% saying they weren’t sure. Even in California, it’s worth remembering that a 2020 ballot measure that was proposed to lift the state’s ban on affirmative action was overwhelmingly defeated by 57% to 43%.
How the Supreme Court ruling will come to shape the 2024 election has a lot to do with how institutions comply with the decisions. For example, if Harvard and other Ivy League colleges take an exceptionally expansive route through potential loopholes to still skew admissions against Asian Americans, Republicans could take advantage of this. Given that many Asian Americans reside in California and New York, this would mostly benefit the GOP in securing or possibly expanding their majority in the House of Representatives, and perhaps upending some more school boards and municipal elections.
For Democrats, the issue will not galvanise the base in the same way that last year’s Roe v. Wade’s decision did. Given that relatively low percentages of all racial groups support affirmative action, it is not a winning issue for Joe Biden or his party. The ruling may, in fact, signal a slow ebbing away of culture war and identity politics issues as a useful element of either party’s platform. As a result, in 2024 both the Republicans and the Democrats will have to show they have real things to offer Americans, beyond just more ways to antagonise one another.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
Subscribe“Alas, it is the one he (Biden) has to contend with.”????? What is that supposed to mean? The fact is, this is not a normal President. He is an extreme, progressive activist. Alas, he is the one we have to contend with.
The truth is that the Supreme Court did exactly what it should have done in striking down “affirmative action”. It interpreted the Constitution ( it’s actual reason for existing ) and upheld equal opportunity, not race-based unequal privilege. It reversed decades of discriminatory admissions practices, calling them -rightly – illegal, that is, unconstitutional.
Americans believe in equal opportunity and equal treatment before the law. They do not fall for the deception that discriminating “for” any group is equal treatment. What’s so hard to understand about that? And besides, the results of so-called “affirmative action” have been pretty much negative across the board. Both for its “beneficiaries”, and its victims.
I think you are rather overreacting to a turn of phrase…. I read it as a comment against Biden, rather than the Supreme Court.
It is pretty daft knowing everything we do about Biden’s machine politician history to claim he is a “progressive extreme activist” and certainly many Americans don’t think so – and the Republicans have to convince them.
However the Democratic Party is certainly far too influenced by its left wing progressive activists. Joe Biden isn’t the leader of the party as a British Prime Minister typically is.
Gerald Arcuri didn’t over react. He read it exactly correctly.
The MSM is doing the sales job regarding Biden. Their job is to hide the fact that we have a demented corrupt person in the oval office and that his goal to to destroy this country in order to implement the WEF motto of Build Back Better.
He is supported in this effort by Obama incompetent regurgitants, amateurs, box checked know nothings and social misfits. His wife is a traitor to both her marriage and her country. It would be a happy day for the country and the world if all those people involved in this administration simply vanished into the bowels of the earth.
This ruling removes the most significant incidence of systemic racism in the USA.
Gerald Arcuri didn’t over react. He read it exactly correctly.
The MSM is doing the sales job regarding Biden. Their job is to hide the fact that we have a demented corrupt person in the oval office and that his goal to to destroy this country in order to implement the WEF motto of Build Back Better.
He is supported in this effort by Obama incompetent regurgitants, amateurs, box checked know nothings and social misfits. His wife is a traitor to both her marriage and her country. It would be a happy day for the country and the world if all those people involved in this administration simply vanished into the bowels of the earth.
This ruling removes the most significant incidence of systemic racism in the USA.
I think you are rather overreacting to a turn of phrase…. I read it as a comment against Biden, rather than the Supreme Court.
It is pretty daft knowing everything we do about Biden’s machine politician history to claim he is a “progressive extreme activist” and certainly many Americans don’t think so – and the Republicans have to convince them.
However the Democratic Party is certainly far too influenced by its left wing progressive activists. Joe Biden isn’t the leader of the party as a British Prime Minister typically is.
“Alas, it is the one he (Biden) has to contend with.”????? What is that supposed to mean? The fact is, this is not a normal President. He is an extreme, progressive activist. Alas, he is the one we have to contend with.
The truth is that the Supreme Court did exactly what it should have done in striking down “affirmative action”. It interpreted the Constitution ( it’s actual reason for existing ) and upheld equal opportunity, not race-based unequal privilege. It reversed decades of discriminatory admissions practices, calling them -rightly – illegal, that is, unconstitutional.
Americans believe in equal opportunity and equal treatment before the law. They do not fall for the deception that discriminating “for” any group is equal treatment. What’s so hard to understand about that? And besides, the results of so-called “affirmative action” have been pretty much negative across the board. Both for its “beneficiaries”, and its victims.
The Supreme Court is what its name implies, and Biden is a temporary holder of office, subordinate to its judgements. That he can’t grasp these basic premises is disappointing but hardly surprising. It’s his arrogance rather than his incompetence which drives this position, after all.
Furthermore, in the linked article from “The Hill”, Biden is quoted as saying that the majority of Americans disagree with Supreme Court decisions. How does he know this? He appears to spend more time telling American citizens what they should think than he does attempting to discover what they do think. Still , that’s the agenda of the crowd in DC who fronted him as their representative, so again, no great surprise.
“It’s his arrogance rather than his incompetence which drives this position . . . .”
It is possible, I would say, to be both arrogant and incompetent. In fact, it is often the case that arrogance, incompetence, and ignorance are found in combination.
Arrogance, incompetence, ignorance and corruption. Hopefully, thanks to his financial escapades he won’t even last until Election Day 2024 but will go the same way as Nixon (or worse).
Nixon resigned when his party’s Senators told him he would be impeached. Biden will NEVER resign because he has even less class than Nixon. And that’s a low, low bar.
Nixon resigned when his party’s Senators told him he would be impeached. Biden will NEVER resign because he has even less class than Nixon. And that’s a low, low bar.
Arrogance, incompetence, ignorance and corruption. Hopefully, thanks to his financial escapades he won’t even last until Election Day 2024 but will go the same way as Nixon (or worse).
I agree with you, but it would be nice to get some consistency rather than people on both political sides agreeing with the supremacy of the Supreme Court when it happens to make a decision they agree with, and denigrating it otherwise!
“It’s his arrogance rather than his incompetence which drives this position . . . .”
It is possible, I would say, to be both arrogant and incompetent. In fact, it is often the case that arrogance, incompetence, and ignorance are found in combination.
I agree with you, but it would be nice to get some consistency rather than people on both political sides agreeing with the supremacy of the Supreme Court when it happens to make a decision they agree with, and denigrating it otherwise!
The Supreme Court is what its name implies, and Biden is a temporary holder of office, subordinate to its judgements. That he can’t grasp these basic premises is disappointing but hardly surprising. It’s his arrogance rather than his incompetence which drives this position, after all.
Furthermore, in the linked article from “The Hill”, Biden is quoted as saying that the majority of Americans disagree with Supreme Court decisions. How does he know this? He appears to spend more time telling American citizens what they should think than he does attempting to discover what they do think. Still , that’s the agenda of the crowd in DC who fronted him as their representative, so again, no great surprise.
Affirmative action has NEVER actually been very popular with Americans, even the ones it’s supposed to help. Americans have broadly and repeatedly rejected it, even in liberal strongholds like California, as the author mentions. The one big exception to this was college admissions. This is no surprise given how the theory has always enjoyed enthusiastic support in academia and basically nowhere else. The few supporters of AA in their ivory towers used a legal gray area to adopt social policy outside of the purview of government, because most states didn’t and still don’t have many or any rules about how colleges determine admissions. The colleges used the nebulous benefits of ‘diversity’ to justify discrimination on the basis of race, and they got away with it for a long time. Hopefully this puts the final nail in the coffin of affirmative action. Even if the present court is a historical aberration, it doesn’t matter unless the question comes before some future court. For that to happen, some college or state would have to openly defy the precedent set here. Since AA is still as unpopular as ever, it’s unlikely to garner enough political support for any state legislature/governor to fight this particular fight. The universities will no doubt try to weasel their way around the law, but colleges in states where AA has been banned have already tried to find formulas to promote ‘diversity’ that doesn’t explicitly use race as a criterion with very limited success. I suppose they could simply throw out all academic achievement criterion and just do some kind of lottery for admissions, which would at least give them, over time, a representative sample of the racial background of applicants, but then how would they justify their outrageous tuition. It’s no wonder the rhetoric from these academics ranged from hyperbolic to apocalyptic. This was their last stand, and they knew it.
Affirmative action has NEVER actually been very popular with Americans, even the ones it’s supposed to help. Americans have broadly and repeatedly rejected it, even in liberal strongholds like California, as the author mentions. The one big exception to this was college admissions. This is no surprise given how the theory has always enjoyed enthusiastic support in academia and basically nowhere else. The few supporters of AA in their ivory towers used a legal gray area to adopt social policy outside of the purview of government, because most states didn’t and still don’t have many or any rules about how colleges determine admissions. The colleges used the nebulous benefits of ‘diversity’ to justify discrimination on the basis of race, and they got away with it for a long time. Hopefully this puts the final nail in the coffin of affirmative action. Even if the present court is a historical aberration, it doesn’t matter unless the question comes before some future court. For that to happen, some college or state would have to openly defy the precedent set here. Since AA is still as unpopular as ever, it’s unlikely to garner enough political support for any state legislature/governor to fight this particular fight. The universities will no doubt try to weasel their way around the law, but colleges in states where AA has been banned have already tried to find formulas to promote ‘diversity’ that doesn’t explicitly use race as a criterion with very limited success. I suppose they could simply throw out all academic achievement criterion and just do some kind of lottery for admissions, which would at least give them, over time, a representative sample of the racial background of applicants, but then how would they justify their outrageous tuition. It’s no wonder the rhetoric from these academics ranged from hyperbolic to apocalyptic. This was their last stand, and they knew it.
As an old English man I have no skin in this game.
But the research consistently shows that its class / relative income that determines success in life, not skin pigment per se. So affirmative action favours rich PoC, not poor ones.
The best way to get into a top university and then a top job is to have rich parents. Even better, to have very rich parents. If they have political or media connections, even better still.
Sad, but ’twas ever thus.
Actually, research consistently shows that it is having two parents in the home during childhood that determines success in life.
Good point, one that is way too often ignored. More specifically, though, the importance fathers in the home is often ignored. And I’m not referring to “father figures” (such as sports heroes, local gangsters or Mom’s occasional boyfriends). Fathers have significantly advantageous effects on both boys and girls.
Since single fathers are as rare as hen’s teeth, 2 parents means almost the same thing. Gay couples, both male and female, are about as good as traditional couples in supporting their kids’ education it turns out. I would have thought they would be a bit more supportive since gay couples tend to have higher incomes.
Who said anything about single fathers? My comment was about the need of children for both mothers and fathers, not about single mothers or single fathers–and also not about two mothers or two fathers. Single parents do need and deserve public support if their spouses have divorced them, abandoned them or died. Every society has understood that and found ways of helping them, and their children, accordingly–but without claiming that the best arrangement for children is something other than a family with at least one father and at least one mother. At the moment, therefore, our society is engaged in a social-engineering experiment. And the evidence so far indicates that children do need both mothers and fathers. I wrote about fathers only because everyone still assumes that children need mothers.
I doubt that family structures mean “almost the same thing.” Although I’d prefer not to keep repeating myself, this topic comes up often on UnHerd, which is why it’s so important. The following, therefore, is from one my comments that appeared elsewhere: Kathleen Stock, “Can the NatCon Revolution Escape the Past?” UnHerd, 19 May 2023.
“Even if I were to argue that children must all learn some assigned “gender role” and perform it correctly—and I don’t argue that—I still wouldn’t argue that only fathers could teach that script to their sons and only mothers to their daughters. It’s probably easier for fathers to “perform” a standard version of masculinity and mothers to “perform” a standard version of femininity, instead of the reverse, but I wasn’t referring to that theatrical paradigm in my earlier comment. Rather, I was referring to the distinctive relational messages that fathers and mothers offer their children.
“In the case of mothers, their most basic psychological function within family life has always boiled down, ultimately, to providing children with unconditional love. Not all mothers are equally effective in communicating and evoking that bond, it’s true, but all mothers are equipped by nature with the ability to feed infants and, at least to some extent (assuming cultural encouragement), with the willingness to interact emotionally with them. In effect, mothers tell their young children (both sons and daughters), “I’ll always love you, no matter what becomes of you.” This is one of two sources of self-confidence, which is necessary for children to become mature adults.
“In the case of fathers, their most basic function within family life has always boiled down to providing their children with earned respect, the other source of self-confidence. This function does not begin immediately for fathers, when their children are newborns or toddlers. It begins gradually and later, when they prepare to leave home and enter the larger community. In effect, fathers tell their somewhat older children (both sons and daughters),”I’ll respect you if you learn to live honorably and effectively in our community.” This has nothing to do with emotion, although it doesn’t preclude emotional attachment. Fathers can, and usually do, love their children. But love, per se, is not their most important contribution. Moreover, it doesn’t necessarily produce emotional gratification for fathers, at least not until their children are mature. In this way, fathers and mothers do not have the same function and are therefore not interchangeable.
“It’s true, in theory, that mothers and fathers could switch functions, with mothers providing earned respect and fathers providing unconditional love. But that could present at least two serious problems that few experts or activists are willing to consider. I doubt that many mothers are ready even now to distance themselves enough from their children to command earned respect—not even if they are the ones, not the fathers, who work beyond the home. Maybe cultural intervention or training would eventually prepare them to do so, maybe not. The results of current experiments in social engineering, such as abandoning any gender system at all, are not yet in. Second, especially for single parents, I doubt that either mothers or fathers would help children in this fundamental way by giving them double messages. Coming from the same parent, after all, unconditional love conflicts with earned respect.”
Who said anything about single fathers? My comment was about the need of children for both mothers and fathers, not about single mothers or single fathers–and also not about two mothers or two fathers. Single parents do need and deserve public support if their spouses have divorced them, abandoned them or died. Every society has understood that and found ways of helping them, and their children, accordingly–but without claiming that the best arrangement for children is something other than a family with at least one father and at least one mother. At the moment, therefore, our society is engaged in a social-engineering experiment. And the evidence so far indicates that children do need both mothers and fathers. I wrote about fathers only because everyone still assumes that children need mothers.
I doubt that family structures mean “almost the same thing.” Although I’d prefer not to keep repeating myself, this topic comes up often on UnHerd, which is why it’s so important. The following, therefore, is from one my comments that appeared elsewhere: Kathleen Stock, “Can the NatCon Revolution Escape the Past?” UnHerd, 19 May 2023.
“Even if I were to argue that children must all learn some assigned “gender role” and perform it correctly—and I don’t argue that—I still wouldn’t argue that only fathers could teach that script to their sons and only mothers to their daughters. It’s probably easier for fathers to “perform” a standard version of masculinity and mothers to “perform” a standard version of femininity, instead of the reverse, but I wasn’t referring to that theatrical paradigm in my earlier comment. Rather, I was referring to the distinctive relational messages that fathers and mothers offer their children.
“In the case of mothers, their most basic psychological function within family life has always boiled down, ultimately, to providing children with unconditional love. Not all mothers are equally effective in communicating and evoking that bond, it’s true, but all mothers are equipped by nature with the ability to feed infants and, at least to some extent (assuming cultural encouragement), with the willingness to interact emotionally with them. In effect, mothers tell their young children (both sons and daughters), “I’ll always love you, no matter what becomes of you.” This is one of two sources of self-confidence, which is necessary for children to become mature adults.
“In the case of fathers, their most basic function within family life has always boiled down to providing their children with earned respect, the other source of self-confidence. This function does not begin immediately for fathers, when their children are newborns or toddlers. It begins gradually and later, when they prepare to leave home and enter the larger community. In effect, fathers tell their somewhat older children (both sons and daughters),”I’ll respect you if you learn to live honorably and effectively in our community.” This has nothing to do with emotion, although it doesn’t preclude emotional attachment. Fathers can, and usually do, love their children. But love, per se, is not their most important contribution. Moreover, it doesn’t necessarily produce emotional gratification for fathers, at least not until their children are mature. In this way, fathers and mothers do not have the same function and are therefore not interchangeable.
“It’s true, in theory, that mothers and fathers could switch functions, with mothers providing earned respect and fathers providing unconditional love. But that could present at least two serious problems that few experts or activists are willing to consider. I doubt that many mothers are ready even now to distance themselves enough from their children to command earned respect—not even if they are the ones, not the fathers, who work beyond the home. Maybe cultural intervention or training would eventually prepare them to do so, maybe not. The results of current experiments in social engineering, such as abandoning any gender system at all, are not yet in. Second, especially for single parents, I doubt that either mothers or fathers would help children in this fundamental way by giving them double messages. Coming from the same parent, after all, unconditional love conflicts with earned respect.”
Since single fathers are as rare as hen’s teeth, 2 parents means almost the same thing. Gay couples, both male and female, are about as good as traditional couples in supporting their kids’ education it turns out. I would have thought they would be a bit more supportive since gay couples tend to have higher incomes.
Good point, one that is way too often ignored. More specifically, though, the importance fathers in the home is often ignored. And I’m not referring to “father figures” (such as sports heroes, local gangsters or Mom’s occasional boyfriends). Fathers have significantly advantageous effects on both boys and girls.
Actually, research consistently shows that it is having two parents in the home during childhood that determines success in life.
As an old English man I have no skin in this game.
But the research consistently shows that its class / relative income that determines success in life, not skin pigment per se. So affirmative action favours rich PoC, not poor ones.
The best way to get into a top university and then a top job is to have rich parents. Even better, to have very rich parents. If they have political or media connections, even better still.
Sad, but ’twas ever thus.
Ah yes, I’m sure that Biden regards the current SCOTUS as illegitimate MAGA extremists, despite the fact that half of the majority on this opinion were appointed well before Evil Orange Man.
Well Mr. President, that’s the SCOTUS you have to deal with. And despite your rhetoric the contrary, race-based preferences have never been popular in the USA. You know, that whole MLK “judged by the content of their character, not color of skin” thing. Then again, I’m sure that Biden wouldn’t consider MLK or Clarence Thomas as authentic African Americans these days.
And when AA programs set up kids for failure at elite institutions rather than help them to get an education and graduate at solid state universities, is they really all that good?
Ah yes, I’m sure that Biden regards the current SCOTUS as illegitimate MAGA extremists, despite the fact that half of the majority on this opinion were appointed well before Evil Orange Man.
Well Mr. President, that’s the SCOTUS you have to deal with. And despite your rhetoric the contrary, race-based preferences have never been popular in the USA. You know, that whole MLK “judged by the content of their character, not color of skin” thing. Then again, I’m sure that Biden wouldn’t consider MLK or Clarence Thomas as authentic African Americans these days.
And when AA programs set up kids for failure at elite institutions rather than help them to get an education and graduate at solid state universities, is they really all that good?
The Supreme Court’s ruling is squarely based on the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. Democrats unanimouslyopposed the 14th amendment in 1867 (when it was proposed and passed) and continue to oppose it today. In 1867 they opposed the 14th amendment due to racial animous (which granted universal citizenship to newly freed slaves); now Democrats oppose the 14th amendment, because Asians will be admitted into elite universities in greater numbers based on merit. “Plus ca change, plus ca meme chose”.
The Supreme Court’s ruling is squarely based on the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. Democrats unanimouslyopposed the 14th amendment in 1867 (when it was proposed and passed) and continue to oppose it today. In 1867 they opposed the 14th amendment due to racial animous (which granted universal citizenship to newly freed slaves); now Democrats oppose the 14th amendment, because Asians will be admitted into elite universities in greater numbers based on merit. “Plus ca change, plus ca meme chose”.
Honest question: in what world are Latino not white?
In a world like the US, where “Latino of any race” is used, and with some validity. A person of full Latin American descent can be indigenous, or have ancestry from Europe, Africa, or even Asia (a small minority of Japanese or Chinese Spanish-first speakers; sometimes Filipinos are regarded as Latino/Hispanic), or some combination thereof. Some Latinos have full Spanish, Portuguese or other so-called white ancestry but they are in the minority in every Latin American nation.
They aren’t the minority in fact in several Latin American nations, Chile and Argentina among them.
Officially speaking you are correct. I tend to think that outside of a ruling elite even those “whiter” nations have many Euro-identified people who are in fact mestizo.
However, I’m not trying to be an ethnic purist so I’ll just admit that I overstated my main point: Latinos, like citizens of the United States or Britain, come in all ethnicities and complexions.
(Follow-up “research”: “A 2002 national poll revealed that a slim majority of 51.7% of Chileans stated that they believed that they possessed ‘indigenous blood'”; “A public health book from the University of Chile states that 30% of the population is of Caucasian origin; Mestizos with predominantly-White ancestry are estimated to amount a total of 65%”; Argentines: “an estimated 56% have some indigenous or mestizo ancestry”–Wikipedia.
I do wonder how many “lily- white” North Americans have an admixture, detectable through DNA tests or not. Not that it matters much, or should anyway, with a common African or Edenic origin.)
Officially speaking you are correct. I tend to think that outside of a ruling elite even those “whiter” nations have many Euro-identified people who are in fact mestizo.
However, I’m not trying to be an ethnic purist so I’ll just admit that I overstated my main point: Latinos, like citizens of the United States or Britain, come in all ethnicities and complexions.
(Follow-up “research”: “A 2002 national poll revealed that a slim majority of 51.7% of Chileans stated that they believed that they possessed ‘indigenous blood'”; “A public health book from the University of Chile states that 30% of the population is of Caucasian origin; Mestizos with predominantly-White ancestry are estimated to amount a total of 65%”; Argentines: “an estimated 56% have some indigenous or mestizo ancestry”–Wikipedia.
I do wonder how many “lily- white” North Americans have an admixture, detectable through DNA tests or not. Not that it matters much, or should anyway, with a common African or Edenic origin.)
They aren’t the minority in fact in several Latin American nations, Chile and Argentina among them.
In a world like the US, where “Latino of any race” is used, and with some validity. A person of full Latin American descent can be indigenous, or have ancestry from Europe, Africa, or even Asia (a small minority of Japanese or Chinese Spanish-first speakers; sometimes Filipinos are regarded as Latino/Hispanic), or some combination thereof. Some Latinos have full Spanish, Portuguese or other so-called white ancestry but they are in the minority in every Latin American nation.
Honest question: in what world are Latino not white?
The real question following this ruling is if anything will change. The academic decision makers are uniformly against it, and admissions processes are so opaque and multi factored that it will be difficult to hold them accountable.
Not unlike the history of public school integration following Brown v Board, there will be years of continuing litigation to try to get racists to stop acting and thinking racially.
The real question following this ruling is if anything will change. The academic decision makers are uniformly against it, and admissions processes are so opaque and multi factored that it will be difficult to hold them accountable.
Not unlike the history of public school integration following Brown v Board, there will be years of continuing litigation to try to get racists to stop acting and thinking racially.
An interesting enough analysis, although it would be nice if authors would stop assuming that everyone knows the enormous numbers of abbreviations used in American political and current affairs debate without explanation – “AAPI” – I presume “Asian American something”?
Asian American (or) Pacific Islander.
Asian American (or) Pacific Islander.
An interesting enough analysis, although it would be nice if authors would stop assuming that everyone knows the enormous numbers of abbreviations used in American political and current affairs debate without explanation – “AAPI” – I presume “Asian American something”?
Everyone knows that if you do “race blind” admissions based on exam scores, the blacks would lose out in terms of number places to the East Asians.
But many people wish so hard for this not to be true, that I bet that they will find some way (ignoring test scores completely) to achieve this phony “equity” by trying to pretend that all groups are the same when they are blatantly not.
Everyone knows that if you do “race blind” admissions based on exam scores, the blacks would lose out in terms of number places to the East Asians.
But many people wish so hard for this not to be true, that I bet that they will find some way (ignoring test scores completely) to achieve this phony “equity” by trying to pretend that all groups are the same when they are blatantly not.
It will be interesting to watch moderate Democrats campaign on returning Affirmative Action.
It will be interesting to watch moderate Democrats campaign on returning Affirmative Action.
The Democrats could get lucky and a Supreme Court justice could die giving them the opportunity to appoint Kamala Harris. Once she is out of the way they can move on Joe Biden. I assume they hoped Thomas could be removed for violating ethics rules but that didn’t work. I hope all of the conservative justices have good security!