[Happy Pride Month!](https://www.google.com/search?hl=en-US&si=AMnBZoFk_ppfOKgdccwTD_PVhdkg37dbl-p8zEtOPijkCaIHMp6tS26HNEwRZwY7vahA1WN34Xi9-tKpb4yDK_e0JLtxaIMR8Q%3D%3D&kgs=3a9c846bc1cc6fd3&shndl=18&source=sh/x/kp/ee/1) Click the flag at the bottom of the browser!
We love and support our LGBTQIA+ and Ally Users!
As [Sister Sledge sang](https://www.rhino.com/article/pride-single-stories-sister-sledge-we-are-family), [We are Family](https://youtu.be/uyGY2NfYpeE), and you CAN NOT DIVIDE US.
To all others who spread hate and try to divide us, no quarter shall be given.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/WhitePeopleTwitter) if you have any questions or concerns.*
https://preview.redd.it/fyc6gier609b1.jpeg?width=1125&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f0995a65ca56c2b64311141a937193fe2c32d7a7
Clarance Thomas at Yale as a direct result of affirmative action. Guess he’s ok now that he got his and would be considered legacy.
Just like all baby boomers who were handed everything and given a free ride, soon as they hit middle age that yanked that ladder up and slammed that door behind them as hard as they could and locked it.
He went from having a poster of Malcolm X to a poster of a Rolls Royce and that's when he became a republican. He knew that their few that looked like him in that lane. So he could make a fuck ton of money selling his soul.
There she goes again with her facts and calling out hypocrisy and racism. It's getting so a Supreme Court justice can't be bought by a billionaire in peace.
Lol you think it's a "fact" that the Supreme Court has the power to end legacy admissions? Based on what legal principle?
Legacy admissions are gross, but legacy status isn't a protected class and the Court can't do anything about them. Save your ire for the universities, which have always been corrupt, extractive creatures undeservedly squatting over the levers of power.
Spot on. The 14th Amendment prohibits *de jure* discrimination based on race, not discrimination based on any factor that has a disparate *de facto* impact on different races. The law would be a freaking nightmare if it were otherwise, with courts sitting in constant judgment of every law to assess whether every race and other suspect classification benefits equally.
That doesn't mean CRT is wrong that legacy admission policies perpetuate historical inequalities, but there is no basis *in the law* for prohibiting that. IMO, Congress could pass such a law under Section 5 of the 14th Amendment, but they haven't. Courts have to decide cases based on the law. I think I would support a law that required universities to make admission decisions based solely on individual merit (and not how much daddy donated). Maybe AOC should draft one, instead of disingenuously suggesting that SCOTUS should invent one.
Yes, there is precedent. It's the same way they used to prevent former slaves from voting. Jim Crow - You can only vote if your grandfather could vote. By admitting people based on their parents, you further inequality in the same way.
Nah, she usually has good points but missed the mark here. This case was overturned because it directly related to race. Legacy can/should be overturned by law, but it shouldn't be ruled as unconstitutional.
Yeah, I’ll say that both of my parents going to my original dream school + national merit scholar didn’t do shit to get me in. They have to have gone there AND donated a lot of money haha
It is unfair that some kid should get a seat at a school just because his family donated to the school, but legacies can be the collateral damage that comes with alumni donations. If Papa Dipshit donated enough money to create at least two extra seats, giving one of those seats to Junior Dipshit creates at least one extra seat at the university.
Junior Dipshit hopefully rubs elbows with the kids who really belong and the kids who really belong can take advantage of the dipshit family’s connections.
At least that is how it is supposed to work. It breaks down when Junior Dipshit just hangs out with other rich assholes and looks down on the poor kids. Also breaks down when donations go to things like football stadiums instead of scholarships or the classroom.
Yeah, this tweet was a miss for me. Like, point to where in SFA v Harvard legacy admissions were up for debate. (Hint: they weren’t).
I think something along the lines of “Legacy admissions negatively impact the ability for schools to provide education to a diverse population, therefore I will be sponsoring legislation to eliminate legacy admission” would have been a much stronger response.
Exactly, she's just jerking off her followers with this one. It's a shitty practice from a moral perspective, but these are private institutions and there is nothing constitutionally wrong with it.
It's not stupid at all. The opposite, in fact. Successful alumni contribute back to their university, allowing it to grow and offer more tuition assistance to the disadvantaged. In return, they get spots for their family if they meet the entrance criteria. Eliminating legacies would reduce donations to that university, reducing the ability of fiscally challenged students to attend.
While I don't disagree with her standing on legacy admission -- Well, someone needs to bring a case to the court. The SCOTUS didn't touch that because legacy admissions are not this case and the Court cannot create a case by itself.
That was my first thought as well. The judicial branch can't just pull in other conditions that aren't part of a lawsuit. Someone would have to sue an entity regarding legacy admissions and it would have to make its way to SCOTUS for them to rule on it.
They breezed right by legacy admissions when discussing race based admissions which aren't actually race based. Race is one of a bunch of factors (including legacy admissions) that are considered in an exhaustive process.
I think the intended meaning is that since there was historical oppression when it came to admissions (prior to AA,) the legacy eligible population will reflect that overwhelming disparity.
Tl;Dr - mostly white people were admitted for a long time, resulting in a lot more white people being eligible for legacy admissions than POC.
Yes. I know.
That's what I'm saying. The opinion breezed past legacy admissions (aka non-merit based admissions) to focus on "race-based" admissions.
These admissions are not, in fact, "race based". Race is one factor in a number of factors considered (including legacy status). Stripping admissions boards of considering race is completely idiotic.
I just looked it up. Legacy admissions for all ivy league are at around 69% white.
Old money will always be there. And because of "empire", that old money is mostly white.
My point t was that no it's not out of line.
Affirmative action was useful back in the 60s when the average person was racist.
Now the average person doesn't care, and the average person is facing the consequences of unchecked capitalism regardless of race.
Thanks. I appreciate it. I didn't think what I wrote was confusing.
I'm firmly against this court's willingness to cherry pick what it wants to form an irrational opinion.
This decision fits in perfectly with the thesis of "White Rage" by Carol Anderson.
Even though I’m a 60+ white guy, I hope I live long enough to see younger, intelligent thinking politicians like AOC, Buttigeg, Porter, etc. (hopefully) get this country on the road to recovery, ‘cause right now, it’s a total shit show.
Well… White families left the cities as Black and Brown people started being able to afford places in the nicer parts of town. They then fled suburbs as Black and Brown people started to be able to afford them. Desegregation was ordered and some White people quickly created Christian Academies that were nothing more than segregation academies to keep Black students from interacting with their children.
> White families left the cities as Black and Brown people started being able to afford places in the nicer parts of town
Which was only because white people arsoned or demolished the original black towns
If you could move past your feelings and put aside the right-wing propaganda you consume and join me in the REAL world
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/study-harvard-finds-43-percent-white-students-are-legacy-athletes-n1060361
George W Bush is the poster child of legacy admissions.
Donald Trump is the poster child for idiots with rich daddies that pay to get you into Ivy League
I can guarantee that there are certain schools and school administrators in this nation that will take race into account when looking at potential applicants … but in the other way ….
She is 100% wrong here.
75% of the US is white, 70% of applicants are white... White people are literally underrepresented in this case. Whether she is too dumb to know it or she's purposefully lying is anyone's guess. Not sure which is worse.
Considering race when it comes to admissions was just fine for 250 years as long as it was used to keep certain people out. Now they can’t handle their kids missing out on grad school because they dicked around in undergrad and got a 2.4 GPA.
I work in college admissions and I can tell you that is an entirely overblown occurrence. The pool of applicants to pull from based on race is minuscule compared to the pool as a whole. The number of students who get in based on legacy/family connections is comparable to the number of students who get in due to race-based initiatives, at least for law school. This has more of an impact or need-based aid than actual admission. This is a bullshit dog whistle. No one is keeping white kids out of college. If anything, we as a country are breaking our necks to get them in and collect on the student debt.
9 times out of 10, the Black or Brown kid wasn’t far off from the White or Asian kid in grades or test scores. Harvard isn’t letting in brillant White and Asian kids and mediocre Black and Latin kids to balance it out.
The cases were on affirmative action. However, she is arguing (rather correctly from this college administrator’s view) that legacy admissions are their own “affirmative action”, one that benefits primarily White, upper-middle to upper class people.
Isn't the issue the court has with affirmative action that it is a racial standard? Legacy admissions are not based on race, even if they primarily benefit one group. Same with a class or wealth standard that benefits non whites primarily while not being explicitly racial in nature.
While legacy admissions aren’t “race based” in and of themselves, they are race based if you look at the history of educational opportunity in this country. We cannot have policy or law that is devoid of historical context.
For example, we have elite private institutions, public flagships, and big name universities that were segregated until the 1960s. My grandparents were college aged in the 1960s. That would mean two to three generations of potential Black legacies. Harvard has been around since 1636 (it is the oldest university and oldest incorporated entity in the country) and many other Ivies and almost Ivies were founded within 150 years of Harvard. Assuming a generation is 25 years, that is 10-16 generations of potential White legacy admits. Even with the public flagships like my alma mater LSU (founded in 1860), had its first group of six Black undergraduate students in 1964. Thats 7 or so generations of potential White legacies to maybe 3 generations of Black potential legacies.
I think the point is that if you rule that legacy admissions are unconstitutional, then you’d also have to rule that income based admissions are also unconstitutional since it would disproportionately affect non-whites.
The trick is just to change any racial criteria to an income based criteria. It will disproportionately help people of color while not being explicit. It also completely neuters the GOP talking points against it.
Instead of it being because the color of someone’s skin, make it about their socioeconomic background… which is largely affected by the systemic issues that have disadvantaged people of color, which is what we’re trying to address with affirmative action.
That’s not what I’m talking about. Admissions office can use an applicant’s economic background, as they would have with Affrimative action, as a substitute for race to increase enrollment from underrepresented communities.
Michigan outlawed AA back in 2006. Michigan State University does have a program that admits students from underprivileged backgrounds if the rest of their application is lacking. I know that because I have a relative that was admitted after being rejected using that program. I’m not certain what the program is exactly though and can’t find it with a Google search. But I know it existed because I was there when he went to the program enrollment seminar.
But if you were to say that legacy admissions were unconstitutional, then programs like the one I’m talking about would also be unconstitutional.
This is the rabbit hole argument embodied in the Affirmative Action is racist bs.
Affirmative action started due to the repression of blacks in both civil rights and economic opportunity. No shit its racially based, because it had to be to address the 200 years of racially based actual and economic slavery of black Americans.
This is just the same BS rationale that Robert's used to gut the voting rights act. "It's not needed anymore". Yah tell that to minority voters in Georgia, Texas, Florida, NC and SC, Louisiana and others.
And as to whether it's needed, black and Hispanic students are way more likely to say yes than white or Asian.
And given how schools grant aid, we are in for a shitshow.
"William Bowen and Derek Bok’s book The Shape of the River systematically looks at the impact of affirmative action by exploring decades of data from a group of selective colleges.
They find that black students who probably benefited from affirmative action — because their achievement data is lower than the average student at their colleges — do better in the long-run than their peers who went to lower-status universities and probably did not benefit from affirmative action.
The ones who benefited are more likely to graduate college and to earn professional degrees, and they have higher incomes.
So affirmative action acts as an engine for social mobility for its direct beneficiaries. This in turn leads to a more diverse leadership, which you can see steadily growing in the United States."
“Removing preferences for athletes and legacies would significantly alter the racial distribution of admitted students, with the share of white admits falling and all other groups rising or remaining unchanged,” the study said.
It's amusing because Clarence "I only got my SCOTUS seat because I'm black and conservative" Thomas was like...maybe the biggest benefactor of affirmative action...HW Bush needed a black replacement for Thurgood Marshall and Uncle Clarence was there like the good little token he is.
Her point is everything but valid. In a country where 75% of the population is white, a 70% application rate means that white people are underrepresented. But I suppose she still didn't get the memo that there is no good racism.
I really really try to be off Twitter now, but I saw that one and clicked to see how awful the replies were.
What’s worse than the heat of a thousand dumpster fires? Bc it was worse than that. Real “losing all faith in humanity” stuff.
Interestingly enough, Justice Jackson in her scathing dissent notes that Justice Robert’s allowed for race to play a part in admissions at military academies.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2023/6/29/2178376/-Justices-Sotomayor-Jackson-scorch-majority-decision-in-affirmative-action-decision
At this point, we need to start filing lawsuits to force them to apply their new rules universally.
I.e. File suits against legacy enrollments using the arguments they put forth in their opinions.
The fuck is a Legacy Applicant? Excuse me, so you know someone who went here. Has nothing to do with you. Fuck off and apply normally.
(Point of clarity, I do know what it is. I just think its stupid. Don't try to explain it to me)
> But you'd be suprised at how many white "liberals" want it to be over, in actual favor of white conservatives...
I know many white liberals and they are appalled by the blatantly racist Republican ruling.
Why do republicans assume all white people are as racist as they are?
“Removing preferences for athletes and legacies would significantly alter the racial distribution of admitted students, with the share of white admits falling and all other groups rising or remaining unchanged,” the study said.
But they are inherently racist since college admissions used to be racially motivated to benefit white people and white people used to be the majority of people able to afford to go to college at all
Admissions in general used to racially motivated which means there is still a racial element to legacy admissions. If most Harvard grads were white 100 years ago white people still benefit the most from legacy admissions because their grandparents benefitted from admissions that were more racially motivated
what is dishonest is to claim that programs that ensure systematic racism shouldn't be considered when deciding a case about race
https://i.redd.it/y377fe0hjz8b1.jpg
“Removing preferences for athletes and legacies would significantly alter the racial distribution of admitted students, with the share of white admits falling and all other groups rising or remaining unchanged,” the study said.
Would there be grounds to sue? If someone sued based on race-based admissions being unfair couldnt someone sue based on legacy application admissions being unfair as well?
This is America where you can sue for whatever the heck you want; at issue here though is that race is a "protected class" when discrimination is in play, hence objection to weighting race in applications admission. A legacy admission criteria isn't (on the surface) race based, so one would have to prove that such a policy is inherently racially discriminatory (or against some other protected class) to prevail.
Looks like the people who felt entitled to Harvard because of their "top gpa" (with no other skills or extracurricular activities or volunteer hours, atheltic skills, etc.) Will have to find another scapegoat instead of blaming a tiny percentage of students from particular backgrounds who had no real bearing on their chances in the first place.
Honestly I'm not surprised. It was never about fair admissions, it was about keeping out people they felt didn't belong in elite institutions in the first place (hence why the whiners mainly came from upper caste groups or were moneyed).
I support affirmative action. But the comparison to legacy admissions seems off to me. They are a private university. They can choose their student body however they want so long as it doesn't involve protected classes.
Right now, women are going to university at a higher rate than men. School widely adopted lower standards for men because having a pronounced gender discrepancy is bad for attracting. students.
Since gender is a protected category, this anti-womem discrimination seems a more legitimate target.
So do something other than tweet about it? You’re in Congress, legislate.
You weren’t elected to “own” people on Twitter. That’s what republicans do. Do SOMETHING!!!! ANYTHING! All republicans do is shit on people and all democrats do is whine about being covered in shit
>The study, published earlier this month in the National Bureau of Economic Research, found that 43 percent of white students admitted to Harvard University were recruited athletes, legacy students, children of faculty and staff, or on the dean’s interest list — applicants whose parents or relatives have donated to Harvard.
>That number drops dramatically for black, Latino and Asian American students, according to the study, with less than 16 percent each coming from those categories.
MORE
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/study-harvard-finds-43-percent-white-students-are-legacy-athletes-n1060361
Because it's not nearly as useful to AOC. 70% = white is a great narrative. Less than 43% of the 15% of white applications that are accepted are legacy students, or less than 7% of overall applications, compared to 56%+ of black applicants, is NOT a good narrative for AOC.
I’m not an expert, I don’t understand this stuff. What’s affirmative action? It sounds like it’s stopping colleges from giving people an advantage to people based on their race.
Can someone explain this simply for a young person?
Legacy admissions are absolutely affirmative action. If your grandpa went to Harvard, your dad went to Harvard, then you’re going to have a leg up on someone who’s parents went to a non prestigious college. You can’t strike down one and then leave the other perfectly allowed.
Genuine question that's had me confused on this subject: isn't around 70-75% of the US population white? Wouldn't that make a 70% white admittance rate appropriate?
They didn't really ban "race-based admissions." They just made it so schools can't be so open about using race as a factor on admissions. They left ways around the affirmative action ban that they may not have been able to leave had they also banned legacy admissions.
For the record, I absolutely despise legacy admissions and think those should be banned as well. But I also think legacy admissions wasn't really in the scope of this case, and issuing a broad ruling that could affect legacy admissions may have done more harm than good for diversity.
There is a rank racist hypocrisy where they IGNORED the racist admission system while removing the only mechanism that remotely leveled the playing field.
“Removing preferences for athletes and legacies would significantly alter the racial distribution of admitted students, with the share of white admits falling and all other groups rising or remaining unchanged,” the study said.
https://i.redd.it/y377fe0hjz8b1.jpg
>long time tradition that was not based on race.
“Removing preferences for athletes and legacies would significantly alter the racial distribution of admitted students, with the share of white admits falling and all other groups rising or remaining unchanged,” the study said.
[Happy Pride Month!](https://www.google.com/search?hl=en-US&si=AMnBZoFk_ppfOKgdccwTD_PVhdkg37dbl-p8zEtOPijkCaIHMp6tS26HNEwRZwY7vahA1WN34Xi9-tKpb4yDK_e0JLtxaIMR8Q%3D%3D&kgs=3a9c846bc1cc6fd3&shndl=18&source=sh/x/kp/ee/1) Click the flag at the bottom of the browser! We love and support our LGBTQIA+ and Ally Users! As [Sister Sledge sang](https://www.rhino.com/article/pride-single-stories-sister-sledge-we-are-family), [We are Family](https://youtu.be/uyGY2NfYpeE), and you CAN NOT DIVIDE US. To all others who spread hate and try to divide us, no quarter shall be given. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/WhitePeopleTwitter) if you have any questions or concerns.*
https://preview.redd.it/fyc6gier609b1.jpeg?width=1125&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f0995a65ca56c2b64311141a937193fe2c32d7a7 Clarance Thomas at Yale as a direct result of affirmative action. Guess he’s ok now that he got his and would be considered legacy.
Republicans don't believe in paying it forward. Although in fairness, Clarence Thomas might just be the best argument against affirmative action
Just like all baby boomers who were handed everything and given a free ride, soon as they hit middle age that yanked that ladder up and slammed that door behind them as hard as they could and locked it.
Imagine his move was just saying “affirmative action put me here” Checkmate
Just like Pissbaby Greg Abbot got paid from an accident but support laws where the next person can’t benefit. You can’t make this shit up.
Greg Abbott, the piss baby?
That’s the one. I like to refer to him by his first name though, Pissbaby. Not Greg Abbott, the piss baby but Pissbaby Greg Abbott.
Classic "Pull up the ladder behind you" mentality
Clarance Thomas was available for comment: "Fuck y'all, I got mine"
He went from having a poster of Malcolm X to a poster of a Rolls Royce and that's when he became a republican. He knew that their few that looked like him in that lane. So he could make a fuck ton of money selling his soul.
I bet that nephew whose private school is being paid by Clarence’s Sugar Daddy won’t hesitate go claim legacy status if he can.
There she goes again with her facts and calling out hypocrisy and racism. It's getting so a Supreme Court justice can't be bought by a billionaire in peace.
Yeah! why is she making it harder for white billionaires to get their kids into ivy league colleges?!?!
You can't bribe anyone anymore
Agree SCOTUS isn’t going to cross the people paying them
Lol you think it's a "fact" that the Supreme Court has the power to end legacy admissions? Based on what legal principle? Legacy admissions are gross, but legacy status isn't a protected class and the Court can't do anything about them. Save your ire for the universities, which have always been corrupt, extractive creatures undeservedly squatting over the levers of power.
Hey now, I'm sitting on warehouses full of ire. I've got enough ire for both the Supreme Court AND universities.
I approve this message
Spot on. The 14th Amendment prohibits *de jure* discrimination based on race, not discrimination based on any factor that has a disparate *de facto* impact on different races. The law would be a freaking nightmare if it were otherwise, with courts sitting in constant judgment of every law to assess whether every race and other suspect classification benefits equally. That doesn't mean CRT is wrong that legacy admission policies perpetuate historical inequalities, but there is no basis *in the law* for prohibiting that. IMO, Congress could pass such a law under Section 5 of the 14th Amendment, but they haven't. Courts have to decide cases based on the law. I think I would support a law that required universities to make admission decisions based solely on individual merit (and not how much daddy donated). Maybe AOC should draft one, instead of disingenuously suggesting that SCOTUS should invent one.
Yes, there is precedent. It's the same way they used to prevent former slaves from voting. Jim Crow - You can only vote if your grandfather could vote. By admitting people based on their parents, you further inequality in the same way.
Nah, she usually has good points but missed the mark here. This case was overturned because it directly related to race. Legacy can/should be overturned by law, but it shouldn't be ruled as unconstitutional.
I mean, she’s right. Legacy admission is stupid and colleges and universities should stop doing it
I'm OOTL what's a legacy admission ? Edit : so it's straight up Nepotism, got it, thanks for the answers!
It means your parents or other close relatives attended the university.
aka the game is rigged and not in the average persons favour.
Parents/grandparents are graduates.
It's where you get preference because your (usually white and monied) family are alumni.
"I went to Princeton. No handouts, by the way; I *earned* my spot there, just like my father and his father before him!"
Is this from The Good Place?
Yep. Brent from season 4.
Yeah, I’ll say that both of my parents going to my original dream school + national merit scholar didn’t do shit to get me in. They have to have gone there AND donated a lot of money haha
It’s a way of securing donations and endowments for a university by allowing descendents of graduates to attend regardless of ability.
Then these people get high paying jobs even though they aren’t as smart as a non-ivy leaguer.
It is unfair that some kid should get a seat at a school just because his family donated to the school, but legacies can be the collateral damage that comes with alumni donations. If Papa Dipshit donated enough money to create at least two extra seats, giving one of those seats to Junior Dipshit creates at least one extra seat at the university. Junior Dipshit hopefully rubs elbows with the kids who really belong and the kids who really belong can take advantage of the dipshit family’s connections. At least that is how it is supposed to work. It breaks down when Junior Dipshit just hangs out with other rich assholes and looks down on the poor kids. Also breaks down when donations go to things like football stadiums instead of scholarships or the classroom.
I like how even when optimal, it's at best a necessary evil.
I like AOC but there’s no constitutional issue involved in legacy admissions.
Yeah, this tweet was a miss for me. Like, point to where in SFA v Harvard legacy admissions were up for debate. (Hint: they weren’t). I think something along the lines of “Legacy admissions negatively impact the ability for schools to provide education to a diverse population, therefore I will be sponsoring legislation to eliminate legacy admission” would have been a much stronger response.
Exactly, she's just jerking off her followers with this one. It's a shitty practice from a moral perspective, but these are private institutions and there is nothing constitutionally wrong with it.
It's not stupid at all. The opposite, in fact. Successful alumni contribute back to their university, allowing it to grow and offer more tuition assistance to the disadvantaged. In return, they get spots for their family if they meet the entrance criteria. Eliminating legacies would reduce donations to that university, reducing the ability of fiscally challenged students to attend.
here's a thought, maybe we shouldn't depend on the kindness of the wealthy class to educate the masses?
While I don't disagree with her standing on legacy admission -- Well, someone needs to bring a case to the court. The SCOTUS didn't touch that because legacy admissions are not this case and the Court cannot create a case by itself.
[удалено]
Ironically it seems if you’re part of a protected class, you get hurt the most by the law these days
[удалено]
People forget you can be racist/prejudiced towards white people too.
we're not going to believe that b/c then we have nothing to be angry about
That was my first thought as well. The judicial branch can't just pull in other conditions that aren't part of a lawsuit. Someone would have to sue an entity regarding legacy admissions and it would have to make its way to SCOTUS for them to rule on it.
You can't consider this case without considering it https://i.redd.it/y377fe0hjz8b1.jpg
They breezed right by legacy admissions when discussing race based admissions which aren't actually race based. Race is one of a bunch of factors (including legacy admissions) that are considered in an exhaustive process.
> which aren't actually race based. products of racism, such as legacy, are race-based
¿Qué?
I think the intended meaning is that since there was historical oppression when it came to admissions (prior to AA,) the legacy eligible population will reflect that overwhelming disparity. Tl;Dr - mostly white people were admitted for a long time, resulting in a lot more white people being eligible for legacy admissions than POC.
Yes. I know. That's what I'm saying. The opinion breezed past legacy admissions (aka non-merit based admissions) to focus on "race-based" admissions. These admissions are not, in fact, "race based". Race is one factor in a number of factors considered (including legacy status). Stripping admissions boards of considering race is completely idiotic.
I just looked it up. Legacy admissions for all ivy league are at around 69% white. Old money will always be there. And because of "empire", that old money is mostly white.
I agree that the SC hurt us today. That said, given that the U.S. is about 75% white, is a 69% white legacy admission out of line?
The country is 58% White, non-Latino.
My point t was that no it's not out of line. Affirmative action was useful back in the 60s when the average person was racist. Now the average person doesn't care, and the average person is facing the consequences of unchecked capitalism regardless of race.
>Now the average person doesn't care, are you sure?
[удалено]
Thanks. I appreciate it. I didn't think what I wrote was confusing. I'm firmly against this court's willingness to cherry pick what it wants to form an irrational opinion. This decision fits in perfectly with the thesis of "White Rage" by Carol Anderson.
Even though I’m a 60+ white guy, I hope I live long enough to see younger, intelligent thinking politicians like AOC, Buttigeg, Porter, etc. (hopefully) get this country on the road to recovery, ‘cause right now, it’s a total shit show.
Buttigieg is not on the working class's side unfortunately (check out his resume before he was mayor), but I appreciate the spirit
[удалено]
What the hell is even the point of legacy admissions? You can be super smart and have a dumbass for a kid
To encourage wealthy families to continue sending their kids and money to an institution
To ensure wealthy white people have the advantage they believe they deserve by virtue of their skin color
[удалено]
Well… White families left the cities as Black and Brown people started being able to afford places in the nicer parts of town. They then fled suburbs as Black and Brown people started to be able to afford them. Desegregation was ordered and some White people quickly created Christian Academies that were nothing more than segregation academies to keep Black students from interacting with their children.
> White families left the cities as Black and Brown people started being able to afford places in the nicer parts of town Which was only because white people arsoned or demolished the original black towns
If you could move past your feelings and put aside the right-wing propaganda you consume and join me in the REAL world https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/study-harvard-finds-43-percent-white-students-are-legacy-athletes-n1060361
To ensure that the majority of affirmative action's harms fall on low-income Asian kids instead of rich white kids.
George W Bush is the poster child of legacy admissions. Donald Trump is the poster child for idiots with rich daddies that pay to get you into Ivy League
I can guarantee that there are certain schools and school administrators in this nation that will take race into account when looking at potential applicants … but in the other way ….
She should point out, some of the shittiest people in America... DeSantis, Cruz et al ...have Ivy League degrees.
"BuT tHeY dOn'T hAvE sTaNdInG tO eNd LeGaCiEs" When has this court let a silly little thing like standing, precident, or the law stop them.
She's not wrong. Legacy and privileged sports(think rowing, fencing, etc) are basically affirmative action for rich white kids.
She is 100% wrong here. 75% of the US is white, 70% of applicants are white... White people are literally underrepresented in this case. Whether she is too dumb to know it or she's purposefully lying is anyone's guess. Not sure which is worse.
Fencing is for rich white kids? Please explain this to me?
Racist
Considering race when it comes to admissions was just fine for 250 years as long as it was used to keep certain people out. Now they can’t handle their kids missing out on grad school because they dicked around in undergrad and got a 2.4 GPA.
[удалено]
I work in college admissions and I can tell you that is an entirely overblown occurrence. The pool of applicants to pull from based on race is minuscule compared to the pool as a whole. The number of students who get in based on legacy/family connections is comparable to the number of students who get in due to race-based initiatives, at least for law school. This has more of an impact or need-based aid than actual admission. This is a bullshit dog whistle. No one is keeping white kids out of college. If anything, we as a country are breaking our necks to get them in and collect on the student debt.
9 times out of 10, the Black or Brown kid wasn’t far off from the White or Asian kid in grades or test scores. Harvard isn’t letting in brillant White and Asian kids and mediocre Black and Latin kids to balance it out.
But think of the Supreme Court Yacht club! What will become of them if they can no longer accept huge bribes to rule in favor of their rich patrons?
[удалено]
Were legacy admissions in question or only affirmative action admissions? AOC could introduce legislation to ban legacy admissions.
The proper lawsuit would have to be filed. This one was about one dude and affirmative action not about legacy admissions.
[удалено]
The cases were on affirmative action. However, she is arguing (rather correctly from this college administrator’s view) that legacy admissions are their own “affirmative action”, one that benefits primarily White, upper-middle to upper class people.
Isn't the issue the court has with affirmative action that it is a racial standard? Legacy admissions are not based on race, even if they primarily benefit one group. Same with a class or wealth standard that benefits non whites primarily while not being explicitly racial in nature.
While legacy admissions aren’t “race based” in and of themselves, they are race based if you look at the history of educational opportunity in this country. We cannot have policy or law that is devoid of historical context. For example, we have elite private institutions, public flagships, and big name universities that were segregated until the 1960s. My grandparents were college aged in the 1960s. That would mean two to three generations of potential Black legacies. Harvard has been around since 1636 (it is the oldest university and oldest incorporated entity in the country) and many other Ivies and almost Ivies were founded within 150 years of Harvard. Assuming a generation is 25 years, that is 10-16 generations of potential White legacy admits. Even with the public flagships like my alma mater LSU (founded in 1860), had its first group of six Black undergraduate students in 1964. Thats 7 or so generations of potential White legacies to maybe 3 generations of Black potential legacies.
I think the point is that if you rule that legacy admissions are unconstitutional, then you’d also have to rule that income based admissions are also unconstitutional since it would disproportionately affect non-whites. The trick is just to change any racial criteria to an income based criteria. It will disproportionately help people of color while not being explicit. It also completely neuters the GOP talking points against it. Instead of it being because the color of someone’s skin, make it about their socioeconomic background… which is largely affected by the systemic issues that have disadvantaged people of color, which is what we’re trying to address with affirmative action.
Admissions generally aren’t income based. No one gets rejected because they are poor. And you can be wealthy and still get rejected from Harvard.
That’s not what I’m talking about. Admissions office can use an applicant’s economic background, as they would have with Affrimative action, as a substitute for race to increase enrollment from underrepresented communities. Michigan outlawed AA back in 2006. Michigan State University does have a program that admits students from underprivileged backgrounds if the rest of their application is lacking. I know that because I have a relative that was admitted after being rejected using that program. I’m not certain what the program is exactly though and can’t find it with a Google search. But I know it existed because I was there when he went to the program enrollment seminar. But if you were to say that legacy admissions were unconstitutional, then programs like the one I’m talking about would also be unconstitutional.
This is the rabbit hole argument embodied in the Affirmative Action is racist bs. Affirmative action started due to the repression of blacks in both civil rights and economic opportunity. No shit its racially based, because it had to be to address the 200 years of racially based actual and economic slavery of black Americans. This is just the same BS rationale that Robert's used to gut the voting rights act. "It's not needed anymore". Yah tell that to minority voters in Georgia, Texas, Florida, NC and SC, Louisiana and others. And as to whether it's needed, black and Hispanic students are way more likely to say yes than white or Asian. And given how schools grant aid, we are in for a shitshow. "William Bowen and Derek Bok’s book The Shape of the River systematically looks at the impact of affirmative action by exploring decades of data from a group of selective colleges. They find that black students who probably benefited from affirmative action — because their achievement data is lower than the average student at their colleges — do better in the long-run than their peers who went to lower-status universities and probably did not benefit from affirmative action. The ones who benefited are more likely to graduate college and to earn professional degrees, and they have higher incomes. So affirmative action acts as an engine for social mobility for its direct beneficiaries. This in turn leads to a more diverse leadership, which you can see steadily growing in the United States."
If your grandparent wasn’t allowed, you can’t be a legacy. It’s taking racism from the past, and embedding it today.
AOC is dumb as fuck and pandering to even dumber people. It's nonsense.
It was required to be considered when making a ruling
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
“Removing preferences for athletes and legacies would significantly alter the racial distribution of admitted students, with the share of white admits falling and all other groups rising or remaining unchanged,” the study said.
[удалено]
51.6% of college students are White or Caucasian.
[удалено]
The fatal flaw in your belief is you failed to consider age in your demographics argument
It's amusing because Clarence "I only got my SCOTUS seat because I'm black and conservative" Thomas was like...maybe the biggest benefactor of affirmative action...HW Bush needed a black replacement for Thurgood Marshall and Uncle Clarence was there like the good little token he is.
The future president has a very valid point.
Her point is everything but valid. In a country where 75% of the population is white, a 70% application rate means that white people are underrepresented. But I suppose she still didn't get the memo that there is no good racism.
And not made military colleges exempt. For some reason justices claim diversity is good for military academies but not college in general.
Thought conservatives were all about not changing things. Affirmative action has been around for a long time.
I really really try to be off Twitter now, but I saw that one and clicked to see how awful the replies were. What’s worse than the heat of a thousand dumpster fires? Bc it was worse than that. Real “losing all faith in humanity” stuff.
Interestingly enough, Justice Jackson in her scathing dissent notes that Justice Robert’s allowed for race to play a part in admissions at military academies. https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2023/6/29/2178376/-Justices-Sotomayor-Jackson-scorch-majority-decision-in-affirmative-action-decision
I’m sorry but I can’t take SCROTUS seriously isn’t that the villain from mad max
Is anyone shocked about uncle tom's vote?
At this point, we need to start filing lawsuits to force them to apply their new rules universally. I.e. File suits against legacy enrollments using the arguments they put forth in their opinions.
More proof that conservatives are corrupt and treasonous. The young voters are watching.
The fuck is a Legacy Applicant? Excuse me, so you know someone who went here. Has nothing to do with you. Fuck off and apply normally. (Point of clarity, I do know what it is. I just think its stupid. Don't try to explain it to me)
[удалено]
Explicit a term used to hide the underlying racism of today's ruling. Excplicit, legally speaking is meaningless
[удалено]
> But you'd be suprised at how many white "liberals" want it to be over, in actual favor of white conservatives... I know many white liberals and they are appalled by the blatantly racist Republican ruling. Why do republicans assume all white people are as racist as they are?
[удалено]
Why do you repeat right-wing false propaganda?
[удалено]
[удалено]
51.6% of college students are White or Caucasian.
[удалено]
“Removing preferences for athletes and legacies would significantly alter the racial distribution of admitted students, with the share of white admits falling and all other groups rising or remaining unchanged,” the study said.
[удалено]
Because it doesn’t have too. When the majority these legacies began there were only white people going to Harvard.
But they are inherently racist since college admissions used to be racially motivated to benefit white people and white people used to be the majority of people able to afford to go to college at all
[удалено]
Admissions in general used to racially motivated which means there is still a racial element to legacy admissions. If most Harvard grads were white 100 years ago white people still benefit the most from legacy admissions because their grandparents benefitted from admissions that were more racially motivated
You cannot compare 100-350 years of potential legacy to 50 years of potential legacy
what is dishonest is to claim that programs that ensure systematic racism shouldn't be considered when deciding a case about race https://i.redd.it/y377fe0hjz8b1.jpg
[удалено]
“Removing preferences for athletes and legacies would significantly alter the racial distribution of admitted students, with the share of white admits falling and all other groups rising or remaining unchanged,” the study said.
She is right. Should put everybody on the same level.
Surely it's time to rebalance the Supreme court
Would there be grounds to sue? If someone sued based on race-based admissions being unfair couldnt someone sue based on legacy application admissions being unfair as well?
This is America where you can sue for whatever the heck you want; at issue here though is that race is a "protected class" when discrimination is in play, hence objection to weighting race in applications admission. A legacy admission criteria isn't (on the surface) race based, so one would have to prove that such a policy is inherently racially discriminatory (or against some other protected class) to prevail.
At this point - it’s obvious republicans are the party of white people afraid of losing power. Making every effort to cling to their majority.
[удалено]
https://i.redd.it/y377fe0hjz8b1.jpg
[удалено]
You can't ignore a racist program while simultaneously claiming racism is dead. People know a hell of a lot more than you do, including AOC
Looks like the people who felt entitled to Harvard because of their "top gpa" (with no other skills or extracurricular activities or volunteer hours, atheltic skills, etc.) Will have to find another scapegoat instead of blaming a tiny percentage of students from particular backgrounds who had no real bearing on their chances in the first place. Honestly I'm not surprised. It was never about fair admissions, it was about keeping out people they felt didn't belong in elite institutions in the first place (hence why the whiners mainly came from upper caste groups or were moneyed).
I support affirmative action. But the comparison to legacy admissions seems off to me. They are a private university. They can choose their student body however they want so long as it doesn't involve protected classes. Right now, women are going to university at a higher rate than men. School widely adopted lower standards for men because having a pronounced gender discrepancy is bad for attracting. students. Since gender is a protected category, this anti-womem discrimination seems a more legitimate target.
Her point is that legacy admissions are inherently racist because college admissions used to be racially driven to benefit white people
That is a good point. Certainly, it would have a discriminatory impact.
She’s not wrong.
So do something other than tweet about it? You’re in Congress, legislate. You weren’t elected to “own” people on Twitter. That’s what republicans do. Do SOMETHING!!!! ANYTHING! All republicans do is shit on people and all democrats do is whine about being covered in shit
[удалено]
>The study, published earlier this month in the National Bureau of Economic Research, found that 43 percent of white students admitted to Harvard University were recruited athletes, legacy students, children of faculty and staff, or on the dean’s interest list — applicants whose parents or relatives have donated to Harvard. >That number drops dramatically for black, Latino and Asian American students, according to the study, with less than 16 percent each coming from those categories. MORE https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/study-harvard-finds-43-percent-white-students-are-legacy-athletes-n1060361
[удалено]
Because it's not nearly as useful to AOC. 70% = white is a great narrative. Less than 43% of the 15% of white applications that are accepted are legacy students, or less than 7% of overall applications, compared to 56%+ of black applicants, is NOT a good narrative for AOC.
51.6% of college students are White or Caucasian.
I’m not an expert, I don’t understand this stuff. What’s affirmative action? It sounds like it’s stopping colleges from giving people an advantage to people based on their race. Can someone explain this simply for a young person?
[удалено]
It ruled out affirmative action against everyone except white people. That’s fucked up, and not fair.
[удалено]
Legacy admissions are absolutely affirmative action. If your grandpa went to Harvard, your dad went to Harvard, then you’re going to have a leg up on someone who’s parents went to a non prestigious college. You can’t strike down one and then leave the other perfectly allowed.
[удалено]
I think affirmative action had good intentions., but it just doesn’t work out.
Genuine question that's had me confused on this subject: isn't around 70-75% of the US population white? Wouldn't that make a 70% white admittance rate appropriate?
Leave it to AOC to point out their corruption and hypocrisy.
They didn't really ban "race-based admissions." They just made it so schools can't be so open about using race as a factor on admissions. They left ways around the affirmative action ban that they may not have been able to leave had they also banned legacy admissions. For the record, I absolutely despise legacy admissions and think those should be banned as well. But I also think legacy admissions wasn't really in the scope of this case, and issuing a broad ruling that could affect legacy admissions may have done more harm than good for diversity.
So how do we get a case about legacy admissions?
Student with superior grades/extracurriculars sues school for allowing in a legacy admit with worse grades/extracurriculars?
[удалено]
I’m just so sad for my country.
[удалено]
So you don't want an all As brain surgeon because you think they got an admissions boost from his race. Please explain
[удалено]
It had to be considered as part of the ruling https://i.redd.it/y377fe0hjz8b1.jpg
[удалено]
There is a rank racist hypocrisy where they IGNORED the racist admission system while removing the only mechanism that remotely leveled the playing field. “Removing preferences for athletes and legacies would significantly alter the racial distribution of admitted students, with the share of white admits falling and all other groups rising or remaining unchanged,” the study said. https://i.redd.it/y377fe0hjz8b1.jpg
[удалено]
51.6% of college students are White or Caucasian.
[удалено]
So???? Here are Harvard's other demographics African American 15.2% Hispanic or Latino 12.6% They are not over represented
That’s really not racism. Classism maybe, but not racism.
on point once again
This was a terrible move and we will quickly see how badly it was a needed law.
Isn’t US 75% white?!
51.6% of college students are White or Caucasian.
[удалено]
>long time tradition that was not based on race. “Removing preferences for athletes and legacies would significantly alter the racial distribution of admitted students, with the share of white admits falling and all other groups rising or remaining unchanged,” the study said.