Should the US Supreme Court end race-based affirmative action in university admissions?

Yes it does matter. I've already given the example of Title 9. How would a judge rule on that without knowing who was male and who was female?

 

gender doesn't matter, race doesn't matter

gender based discrimination is what maters

 

And how would you determine if discrimination occurred if you can't determine sex?

 

if someone discriminated based on gender, doesn't matter the gender

 

You seem to make biased assumptions. Are their really more “unqualified” Black students admitted than “unqualified” legacy students? The university seems to think that the Black students admitted are "qualified". You add that legacy students can pay their way. That seems to count as one of their “qualifications” making them more qualified because they are richer. Let’ pretend you are correct (without proof) that Black students dominate the bottom quarter academically. Does that mean they were unqualified for admission over more qualified students, which is, as you admit, a subjective evaluation to reflect the institutions standards. W and John Kerry, both legacy students, were at the bottom of their class, do you consider them unqualified for admission or is it just Black people?

 

all we have to do is look at the scores. and BTW the top law schools don't have legacy admissions. You are not being truthful about Bush and Kerry. they were not at the bottom of their classes. You also seem unable to figure out that racist reasons are illegal. Being able to give a school money is not. You continue to spew nonsense that shows you have made no effort to do any research or read any of the posts that cite the fact that at top law schools, blacks dominate the bottom quarter

 

Who determines the gender?

 

if the person discriminated based on gender, doesn't mater what gender they thought they were

 

That's not what civil rights laws are all about. How do you determine who is covered under Title 9?

 

"It prohibits sex-based discrimination in any school or any other education program that receives funding from the federal government. "

doesn't matter what gender they are, if they are discriminated against based on gender, then that is what the law applies too

this is why girls were allowed on boys football teams and visa versa - don't want to lose that funding

 

OK, I think I'll just leave it there. If you think that judges don't need to know the difference between men and women (that's a job only for trained biologists!) I don't see that it's worth my time discussing it.

 

I think justice is supposed to be blind when it comes to race, gender or religion

 

What you term “racist reasons” are not illegal. The schools give admission weight to under served minorities. You admit those that can buy their way into a university is a legitimate way to gain admission? How ethical is that? W had low Cs in high school and an SAT score in the 1200s. Other more qualified people were passed over because he was a rich legacy kid. You seem to be on the side of dubious ethics.
Speaking of research, where is the proof that Blacks dominate the bottom quarter of the top law schools?

 

they should be. denying a smarter harder working white or asian kid a seat purely due to his race is racial discrimination per se. You are still unable to figure out that admitting Bush-like thousands of other prep school men back then was not racist at all. And you need to GIYLF when it comes to easily available facts. I tire of people who want to debate issues and deny basic facts.

 

What kind of discrimination would you call denying a smarter hard working white, Black or Asian kid a seat purely due to legacy? I’ve let slide your dubious factoids like past admission to Yale average SAT was 1360 and in the 1200s was “good”, Legacy students graduated with higher GPAs, AA benefited wealthy lazy Black kids, the bottom quarter of elite schools is dominated by Blacks, but if I ask for any proof I get GIYLF. Well I did YDF and got nada.

All that is largely beside the point. The point is, as you admit, a university can judge admissions by their own standards and you don’t like an under served minority being given a leg up, but its okay for rich white kids.

 

1) financial reality
2) private schools can make decisions based good reasons (athletes, legacies who help fund the education of poor students) bad reasons, or no reasons at all-they just cannot engage in an ILLEGAL REASON. racial discrimination is illegal.

 

I think that there is. But I think SCOTUS will hold them unconstitutional. Trump and McConnell got the votes.

 

If the Supreme Court ends affirmative action will universities get rid of standardized testing? That's what happened in California, but it doesn't seem to be resulting in greater racial diversity so far:

"The university’s [University of California's] newest policy change — eliminating standardized tests — could be the latest evidence that even admissions policies that remove barriers can’t achieve racial diversity to the degree that affirmative action would. Critics of the SAT and ACT have said the tests are biased in favor of affluent, mostly white and Asian students with better access to test preparation, tutoring and the ability to take the exams multiple times....

"But in fall 2021, the first term when incoming students weren’t required to take the SAT or ACT, UC enrolled roughly the same percentage of new Black and Latino students as it did in previous fall terms. Enrollment data for fall 2022 likely won’t be released until January, but UC admitted about the same proportion of Black and Latino students as it did last year."
https://edsource.org/2022/as-suprem...y-of-california-offers-cautionary-tale/679692

 

Is it “discrimination” to add minority status to the admissions mix, but not “discrimination” when legacy is added to the mix of admission qualifications? You seem to think so.
Blacks kids are substandard and the white kids have money seems to be your reasoning.

 

for the last time-some forms of discrimination do not violate the laws of the land. Others do. you seem unable to figure that concept out

 

Every race based law, hate crime law, and anything that applies a different standard based on immutable characteristics should be entirely unconstitutional.

We're supposed to have equal application of the law.

Instead we have Animal Farm.

 

Who is being discriminated against based on their race?

 

you mean like drawing a C and circling it on a rental application to treat them different based on race?

 

agree, justice should be blind, laws should apply to all equally, regardless of race, gender or religion

a law for instance that says only Native Americans can practice the Peyote Religion is racist, it should apply to all, especially as it is a religion

 

I mean like in affirmative action.

Hate crimes affect an entire community not just an individual victim. A swastika spray painted on a temple should carry more weight than simple property damage because it affects the entire Jewish community.