Nothing but respect for you man. Your editing, writing, and the speed in which you turn out videos is very impressive. I hope you get where you want to go with this channel, you deserve it.
Man, you rolled this one out quick! Regardless of that, it was a super well put together discussion :) I really appreciate the factual arguments presented, especially the explanation of what has happened in states that banned race-based affirmative action before this supreme court decision. I also was super impressed that you actually looked into the groups involved in this case, and how this isn't some grassroots case; it's a conservative organization that has been bent on getting this precedent overturned for years now! It's really important added context that can really help in explaining what exactly was at play here. Here's hoping that this decision isn't as terrible as it seems for many, and thank you again for actually putting forth the effort to research and read on this opinion and the lead up to it!
This was a really thoughtful comment. Thanks for watching and engaging. I think proponents of affirmative action will have to find ways to claw back. I’ve been thinking of a few workarounds that could allow admissions professionals to give positive weight to factors that could serve as a proxy for race (like zip code, for example). There is a way forward if colleges and universities are willing to be strategic enough. Again, thanks for being here my friend!
The basic argument in the video is: two wrongs make a right. Since it is wrong to discriminate against non-alumni children, then this wrong should be undone by discriminating against Asian children. The video also incorrectly assumes that Jim Crow can be undone with affirmative action, ignoring all the studies showing affirmative action is worse for the majority of Black people. For example, an affirmative action admittance is more likely to dropout with student loans and no degree to help pay those loans off. Also, the majority of Americans are against affirmative action, just look at Prop 16.
Thomas blamed his inability to get a job after law school on his belief that he was percieved as being admitted to Yale law school through affirmative action rather than on merit, instead of considering that racism may have played a role. He has been after affirmative action ever since. Which os hilarious, because the only reason he became a federal judge, and then a supreme court justice was that he was the only black conservative in lime of sight when Bush senior needed one.
Wow! I watched this episode thinking I wouldn't hear anything new, but I was wrong. Your comments on the broader understanding of affirmative action and on the unfairness of legacy admissions was so insightful. Thank you, Garrison.
Phew! It's wild that you've been reading through the decision and Justice Thomas's opinion! So cool that you were able to read into his prose and see that he probably "started with the conclusions and then worked his way backwards." Always enlightening! Stay excellent!
Thanks for watching, Christopher! Michael Harriot pointed out that Thomas didn’t write his first a judicial opinion until the Supreme Court started taking on affirmative action cases. Also, Harriot said that this affirmative action concurrence is the longest opinion Thomas has ever written.
Admissions through legacy/nepotism should definitely be banned. Diversity is absolutely beneficial to academic institutions. However, I strongly disagree with achieving diversity in universities through racial discrimination. Instead, I think it should be achieved through a more bottom-up approach. Ex: Funding and providing better K-12 education and opportunities for low to middle income families. Affirmative action also comes along with a stigma that people were only accepted because of their race.
I strongly agree with your point! It has been 50 years and affirmative action still has not fixed the racial disparity because it is not the right approach. Affirmative action mainly benefits a small group of black elites. The majority of black students growing up in impoverished black communities would not even get to the point of applying for college, let alone Harvard. Funding K-12 education in those neighborhoods is the real solution.
Good analysis. As a close to 80 year old, I feel we do a much better job at educating our own students. I as a nurse trained for Registered Nurse in the 1960s at Homer G. Phillips Hospital School of Nursing. My teachers, physicians, classmates were Black. The hospital was under funded, so we learned much about using resources available. The care received from staff was incredibly supportive. I learned Black medical history during this time. Following graduation and entering the workforce, I could and still can run circles around my whyte counterparts, which created problems of its own, as things were still segregated during that time. Whyte people do not like to be out performed on any level… My advanced degrees were in Michigan, whyte Christian college, very different environment. There is just too many more subtle advantages to being on a campus where the racial stress is not present for the development of young minds and worldviews, that I can now understand and appreciate. Invest in HBCUs!
So as much as I disagree with the court, as much contempt as I have for them as an anti-democratic body, I think we need to acknowledge that a system which creates such a brutally competitive environment around a resource as vital as education is foundationally broken. If we agree that the student from D.C. and the one from Georgia are both deserving of a good education, our goal should be giving them BOTH the best education we can. Education isn't a physical resource you can run out of - the scarcity of it is synthetic, maintained so that those who benefit from its scarcity financially can continue to do so. Harvard's endowment is larger than the GDP of many NATIONS. We cannot talk about safeguarding education without talking about reforming it as the inalienable right that it should be.
To make this clear, they do not solely use race to choose between students of similar academic standing, but rather to deny large swaths of qualified people in favor of those of the right color. “For example, an Asian American in the fourth-lowest decile has virtually no chance of being admitted to Harvard (0.9%); but an African American in that decile has a higher chance of admission (12.8%) than an Asian American in the top decile (12.7%).” *Deciles refers to a segment of 10%, and this is using Harvards own evaluation of applicants’ academics.
Yeah at 4:33 he shows the ivy league school are extremely white at 30-40% but America is 60-70% white. Yes, black and Hispanic students are also underrepresented but if they were to gain representation they would either be taking it from qualified Asian students or white students which are also underrepresented. In the table he shows nearly at each school 20% of the students are "other international" which if you factor in, explains the lower numbers in each group compared to the national percentage.
@@student2082 yeah idk what you’re talking about. The percentages in the data I cited are the acceptance rates for each race based on their academic skill level. It literally does not matter whatsoever what “percentage white” the school or america in general is, because we are looking at Academics. More specifically the chances an asian student and a black student have at being accepted to Harvard, given that they are of similar academic skill level (evaluated and scored by Harvard themselves).
@@student2082 Black applicants that are academically below average (again evaluated and scored by harvard) have a better chance of getting in THAN ASIANS IN THE TOP 10% How can you defend that which is clear and obvious racism?
Oh I just meant he presented white students as overrepresented and they're not so I agree that affirmative action would just be taking spots from Asian Americans.
@@student2082 Ahh I appreciate you clearing up that misrepresentation in the video. I honestly could not watch much of the video without skipping, so that’s why I didn’t understand your point lol.
Yeah I also disagree and think you should look at the numbers more. At 4:33 you called the schools extremely white at 30-40%, but America is 60-70% white so white students are also underrepresented. I don't think forcing representation is the best way to go about this. However, if legacy students have an unfair advantage, that's something we should try to minimize.
Counting on the fact that most European descendants won't describe their origins by color but by country or people, combine "Other/international" with white and you'll get the difference between the number stated and the ones you mentioned. Plus, the way I understood his comment about the number of "white people" in those colleges is that the percentage of Hispanics and Blacks compared to Whites is in the double digits difference. But I'd say that we are fighting for who is the most "underrepresented" while we have some that are over represented. 😮
Just to play devil's advocate for a second. I think a right-winger watching this video would say, "All that other stuff also shouldn't be considered. Where you're from and whether your parents went to college. Shouldn't matter in admissions. It should just be based on your individual achievement." Obviously they won't follow through on that vision, but I think it's important to address their argument as they present it.
Sometimes at the end of your videos, I get mad because I don't want it to end. There are people with two hour long videos who say NOTHING, but you share so much wisdom packed in a small amount of time, that I never want to stop learning. Thank you for that!!!!! 🤗
It makes me so angry of the direction Mr trumpet has taken this scotus, and panicky about the future of another potential term. This scotus does not represent the majority, and the current system is suppressing impeachment. It’s gross and disgraceful and time has come for it to change. Awesome video.
Great info and truth. Keep it up. My opinion is this, we have hbcu, we should all donate to them at this moment. Because it comes down to money, if we can improve every hbcu campuses to be the best in the country and diverse schools in the world, this is that moment.
If I remember the data correctly, the top 10% of Asian students by academics had the same chances of getting in as the Black students in the bottom half. I get we all want to help disadvantaged communities but that is absolutely ridiculous, and any informed person who supports Affirm Action supports federally sponsored racism.
I’m interested in looking at that data. Send the source! Also, calling a private institution’s admissions practices “federally sponsored” is a misnomer. I’ve seen this talking point all over social media and it just misses the mark. Especially since, as I explained, race was one of dozens of factors considered.
This isn't meant to be a "gotcha" question, I'm just curious. Do you think black or African Americans are capable of achieving the same academic requirements required to get into those top schools? I'm asking because at the end of the day, I feel like it's probably rare that 2 students are so much alike that you can't find any academic grounds to separate them. I will admit however, that I don't have evidence to support this besides personally experience. I really liked your argument because it give me a fresh perspective, especially since I agree with the sc decision. Thanks for the video!
Universities have a certain number or kids they can enroll every semester, that's not a secret, they can't enroll millions of people per year. And the people that are capable of going to college has gone up by insane numbers in the last 2 decades, specially with guaranteed student loans. This is how Millenials became the "over educated and undeemployed" generation. This means, that yes, there are in fact, that much more competition and higher likelihoods of students that look alike on paper. 4.0 GPA kids are not rare these days; 4.0 GPA kids with a million club participations and hundreds of community service hours and athletic participation--they all start to blend in. This is also why many, many colleges in America require you send in a personalized essay about you, so that hopefully your personality shines through and you differntiate yourself from thousands of others that have a very close high school transcript as yours. This is also why High School counselors tell kids to pick a "safety school" because your primary choice of University will not be a guarantee. Sometimes you pick a 3rd choice, and a fourth choice, and they all have different essays you must write. And if you read enough essays that all have the same prompt "Tell us of a time when you faced a challenge and overcame it," --even with that, the essays start to become the same copy and paste, and you start looking at other factors that make you stand out. Basically, the schools make a judgment on what you might be like based on EVERYTHING you send in--and grades are by and large, identical when it comes competitive schools, so in order to create a diverse student body, they consider all the things that make you different. The idea of a diverse student body is not new--the idea of Universities goes back to ancient Western World times where people of various backgrounds came together and shared ideas and knowledge in order be better. Unfortunately, some pundits have tried to destroy this core idea of higher university into an argument that schools should only let the absolute performing High Schoolers with the best grades, ignoring that grades can easily be inflated and one school's grading curriculum can be easier to get top status--and some teachers can be harder than others in a way that detriments and hides how bad/good/smart a High Schooler actually is. As the video kind of touched on, even location can make a difference--a poor school from West Virginia is compeeting against a school from Massachusets; Massachusets invests a lot more into education than West Virginia, but both kids can look exactly the same on paper; and on paper, there could 100 Massachusets kids applying while there's only 1 from West Virginia--so you have to look for various ways create a University that is diverse, as exposure to people that are different from our own background creates better education as we learn directly through contact about other social classes, races, nationalities, and even modes of thinking or approaching a problem. This type of exposure is beneficial inside and outside of the classroom at universities--as some people may never expose themselves to that type of varied diversity again all at once. Unfortunately, higher education has more than anything, become a gatekeeping tool for higher socio-economic status--because of this, it's become a sort of requirement for minorities if they want the best odds of overcoming poverty, and for legacy kids, it's expected they'll go as a form of prestige and family honor. The stats however, show that legacy kids in fact make up the largest population for University admissions; probably because Universities are receive donations from former graduates, and from the wealthiest graduates (family legacies) they receive entire buildings and full funding for research programs. Without some form of equity in place, the truth is only the wealthiest will afford certain universities (some of which are also the richest because of the large donations by the rich, thus have the most advanced programs for students in Science, math, etc.) This would turn into a situation where schools become homogenized because certain people will never be considered because they're from West Virginia, and their application was number 300, after 299 legacy kids, student athletes, and wealthy kids were considered without taking into account other factors besides grades. By removing race as a consideration for said inclusion, you can start to remove other factors such as income levels of parents (thus excluding more poor from universities), and gender (Women, particularly White Women benefitted the most from Afirmative action and allowed them to gain great financial independence from the 1980s til today). One of the things the US had done well in higher education was helping make sure it wasn't only available to the rich and elites by using equity recruitment practices such as Affirmative Action--this allowed more diverse groups that wouldn't usually have access to university education get into a higher socio-economic status; high schoolers earn more than non graduates accross their lifetimes, and university grauduates earn more than both previous groups, on average. It wasn't a perfect system,. but the advantages by White Women proved it was a system that did have positive outcomes.
@@jamjox9922 Thank you. I loved every one of your words and appreciate that at least one person in the comments has a brain and understands the _entirety_ of the issue.
Garrison....I appreciate your content that feeds my passion for social activism and historical contributions of black American . Your publications have enriched my mind, soul, and social consciousness with the following insights: - They highlight the struggles and achievements of black people in America, from slavery to civil rights, from politics to culture, from sports to science . - They challenge the dominant narratives and stereotypes that marginalize and oppress black people, and have offered alternative perspectives and voices that celebrate and empower black people . - They inspire me to learn more about the rich and diverse history of black people in America, and to appreciate their contributions to the nation and the world . - They motivate me to take action and join the movements for racial justice and equality, and to stand in solidarity with black people and other marginalized groups . - They shown me the beauty and creativity of black culture, and how it has influenced and enriched the American culture and beyond . As a Canadian, I'm delighted every time you post updated content to your feed. Keep pressing play brother. We are listening. We are learning. We are growing. Thank you Garrison
I wish you addressed some more of the majorities issues. Like when should we end affirmation action and acknowledgement of how the AA system did have negative impacts for some individuals.
Garrison, I like to watch your content, although I'm not from US. You are doing a great job, but I honestly think it's futile, based on most of the comments. From an outside perspective, sistematic rasism is obviuos and it hurts everyone, but the common people still fight against all the measures that try to fight it. Same as they fight against universal healthcare, reasonable gun legislation, women rights, etc., and blame everything on minorities, immigrants, etc. We (as humanity) will never learn...
What "unique attributes" should count positively towards college admissions? None, I say. Not legacy preferences, not race, not geography, nothing but academic factors such as grades and tests. The white girl from Appalachia shouldn't get in because she's from Appalachia. They should have found some other, relevant criteria. Maybe extracurricular activities. And "perspective" isn't tied to what region one is from.
So what then? A threshold and then a lottery system from qualified applicants? That sounds like a boring, static campus.. maybe it works for STEM.. but if the STEM folks were all that mattered, then get ready for the robot takeover lol.. I think a top university should be able to curate their student body as they see fit.. personally, I don’t care what their criteria is.. the institution is going to be judged by the product anyways.. so leave it up to them.. let them and their reputations sink or swim based off of their choices.. I think race/gender/location/legacy/orientation/socioeconomics/political leanings/etc. are all pretty bland, meaningless criteria to LEAD with or explicitly consider.. but at the end of my process, I’d definitely want my student body to have diversity in all of those areas.. and I’m pretty sure I’d get those results if I just chose the most awesome INDIVIDUALS I could find.. Genuineness, curiosity, individually, open-mindedness, thirst for knowledge, cooperation, independent thinking, ambition, talent (in anything), kindness/empathy, age-appropriate awareness, honesty, passion, etc.. No one has a monopoly on any of those areas.. and if you pass a certain threshold (GPA, test scores, recs), I would want to build a learning community comprised of people with those qualities.. and I’d even make some low test score exceptions for particularly interesting and/or motivated individuals.. If we’re just trying to fill up a predictable corporate ladder, ok, stick with test scores.. find some great employees lol.. but if we’re trying to stimulate and cross pollinate the people who can create a better world, then I think that requires a more rich tapestry.. especially at the top institutions.. I think there’s genius lying dormant all over the place.. and at least 9 types of intelligence.. but we can’t cultivate it if we don’t look for it.. it comes in all shapes and sizes and colors.. and we won’t even look for it unless we open our minds to believe it’s there.. to me, in a post affirmative action world, that should be our main focus..
@@gbmbg114 Not a lottery system. Just examine grades, tests, extracurriculars, and entry essays. And don't think that hard-working students aren't interesting. There's nothing bland about them.
@Nonamearisto .. I wasn’t suggesting that hard working students are bland.. I’m saying that when you reduce people to a number, the process itself is bland.. and I believe you get out what you put into it, from a curatorial perspective.. I mean, college itself isn’t just about taking tests and getting a degree (especially not at the upper echelon schools.. and I’m a product of one of those schools, so that’s what I can speak to).. it’s about the cross pollination of ideas, perspectives and personalities.. it’s meant to be enriching and mind-opening on multiple levels.. I want the student body academically capable at certain level, of course!.. but after that point, I would want to artificially mold the environment in a way that I think the students would get the most out of the experience.. and test scores and grades only speak to the entry point of consideration.. “smart” and “hard working” don’t stand out when everyone is smart and hard working lol.. Success at the highest levels in anything is about the details.. and being formulaic usually gets you a mid-level, top of the bell curve type product.. extreme attention to details is how you make a masterpiece.. and if that’s not what we’re shooting for, then what are we doing??
Says he read the case, but completely ignores everything the Majority opinion said, and focuses on Justice Thomas' concurrence, and the dissent, which the Majority has a response to...
The 4x likelihood is 90% because the parents obviously value education, they had good outcomes so they believe their kids would too and they are wealthy. I doubt it's them leveraging their connections or anything like that. To your point of "white people are the majority in university" sure but they're actually underrepresented in comparison to the overall population. 59% of the US is white yet only 31-48% of the college students are white. Can't remember the study but I believe they showed that students who were admitted through affirmative action were more likely to drop out, failed at a higher rate and overall had lower grades. It feels like a system that just makes unprepared students fail fast and hard. Affirmative action is a good idea in theory but when applied has some weird outcomes/implications. This seems like one of those issues that will be fixed with enough time however I can understand why people want to speed that process up.
The younger generation should be able to see things from a new perspective. Hayes is stuck in the past rehashing old ideas that have proven not to work.
Discovered your channel through this video. You have a great personality for TH-cam. And even though I don't really agree with you, I found myself glued to your video and enjoyed watching it. I agree with a lot of the things you presented in parts 1 and 2. Obviously, Students of Fair Admissions and Clarence Thomas both have impure political intentions in mind that dictate their moves in regards to this decision. Even as someone who leans towards the Right politically, no one can convince me that the GOP and its affiliates are doing this simply because they want fairness for college applicants. Yep, they're corrupt AF. Here's something I've thought a little bit about that I would hopefully like to hear your opinion of though. Obviously, I'm not as well-researched as you on this. So chances are, if you ever reply to me, you can present me with some thoughts that aren't as half-baked as mine. But I'm going to focus off of what I did learn from your video and try to make a logical argument. Let's take the example you used of the two young women applying to Harvard: Let's say, for arguments sake, Harvard has a whole lot of spare time on their hands and decides to set these two young women up with a Zoom meeting with a Harvard admissions officer. During that Zoom meeting, the officer starts off by explaining the situation to these two girls with full transparency. From there, one of the following three scenarios happens: Scenario 1: "Ladies, we'd like to give you two one last chance and allow us to make a better judgment on whom to accept. You each have 3 minutes to plead your case." (Sounds a little cruel, but wait till you hear about scenario 3) Scenario 2: "Ladies, you two are both great. But unfortunately, you two are so similar and there's no way for us to assess which of you would be better. Let's settle this with a fair coin toss. So... heads or tails, lady from Washington DC?" (If you think this sounds bad, you've not read scenario 3) Scenario 3: "Hey Georgia girl, you're in! DC girl, you're out! And DC girl, I don't want to hear any ifs, ands or buts from you. Because based off of the ZIP codes you two live in, I've made an assumption of who you've been as people for the past 18 years and who you will be as people for the next 4 years. And sorry, DC girl, but for some unknown campus diversity reason that you have no control over, we already have so many people from DC, and that's why we don't want you! But I feel SOOOOO GREAT that we have one less person from DC with "DC perspectives" and one more person from Georgia with "Georgia perspectives". Even though I really don't know what a “Georgia perspective" means or what benefit it brings Harvard!" Even if you dislike scenarios 1 and 2, I think you'd have an extremely hard case if you want to argue that scenario 3 is the most just outcome for these two applicants. Now take that whole scene and substitute ZIP code with skin color. I believe this is why a lot of people against race-based affirmative action support the admission process to become more MERIT-based. If two applicants have very similar levels of qualifications, I think that in an ideal world, there should be a system in place to further evaluate their qualifications as individuals (scenario 1). Or, if we don't have the time and resources to do further evaluations and determine a winner, the admissions process should make it so that the two applicants with the same level of merit have an equal chance (scenario 2). I don't think one applicant should have a leg up on another simply because of skin color, a factor that the applicants have no control over and has nothing to do with personal meritocracy. Yeah, by my logic, we'd have to do away with legacy based admissions as well. So I agree with you on the unfairness of admitting people in based on the legacy of their family. Overall, thank you for your well-made video. Keep up the good work and would love it if I can see more videos like this in the future. Would also love it if I can get a reply from you.
HI @brianchian2478, I just wanted to thank you for this in depth-commentary and analysis, because it puts into words some of the things that I too have been mulling over in my head! I can really see both sides of the situation, and I go back and forth on whether I am "for" or "against" race-based affirmative action -- I simply think it is more nuanced than the media likes to present it. I especially like what you said about how one applicant should not have a leg up on another simply because of skin color, but I also recognize the strongly valid argument that Blacks and Latinos have been disenfranchised for decades in this country and been systemically denied education and wealth-building opportunities, and I feel like there should be a way to somehow recognize those grievances within the college admissions process, but at the same time NOT hurt the chances of another equally qualified student, specifically White or Asian from also being admitted. And yes, I am in full agreement that the legacy based admissions would have to been thrown out as well, because that just perpetuates the systemic opportunity gap and creates inequalities. At the end of the day, I think what we all have to realize, no matter what your take is on race-based affirmative action, is that it is a band-aid solution to the systemic inequities that American society faces. It seems that affirmative action attempts to inefficiently correct the setbacks one might face in life at the END of their primary school years. Instead, I think the government needs to be looking at more funding and support for public schools in low-income neighborhoods, mentorship opportunities for students in high-crime areas, and more support for Black and Latino families who deserve some form of reparations. If all children were set on an equal opportunities path from the beginning, we wouldn't need affirmative action in the first place! And I'm not even going to get into the higher education reforms that need to take place because that is a WHOLE other discussion! Anyways, I just really wanted to thank you and say your comment was appreciated. I hope you have an amazing day!
@@Lt.Crackers360 Thanks for the reply. And since we've both written super long replies already, I'll keep this one short. I agree with your band-aid analogy and what you built off of that. A lot of people against AA have repeatedly stressed the importance of improving the K-12 education system to try and solve the issue from the root, so I'm not going to get into it too much here. In conclusion, if you're qualified, you shouldn't need AA, because you can get in there based on your merit alone. If you're unqualified, what you need is not AA. You either need resources to better equip yourself so that you become qualified in the future, or you find another environment where you can succeed in. If going to Harvard means taking on debt just to consistently fail in class, I'd rather go to a less prestigious school. Have a nice day.
Affirmative action based on location does not necessarily promote diversity either. For example, a rich kid from Appalachia probably has more in common with a rich kid from Georgetown, an affluent neighborhood of DC. On the other hand, a poor kid from Anacostia, an impoverished neighborhood of DC, is going to be very different from that rich kid from Georgetown, even though they are both from DC. Similarly, affirmative action based on race fails to promote true diversity because the black elites who benefit from affirmative action are ideologically similar to, if not the same as, the white elites who go to Harvard. The bottom line is that it is unfair to generalize people into categories like race or location.
This isn't controversial. You learn a skill because you're in a certain state. The state is enslavement. Then you can use that skill during or after your enslavement to make money. Money is in general considered a benefit Therefore you benefited from Slavery
Also this video keeps bringing in legacy admissions. There’s a reason why Asians are disproportionately in top colleges compared to their population. Instead of wanting to have discrimination and one race having it easier in admissions, “historically underrepresented” groups can work a bit harder at school instead of complaining.
Well unfortunately it's not in the Constitution that you can't discriminate based on past students... part of the reason they made the recent decision was because the constitution specifically protects against race-based discrimination. It would be much harder to make a case against legacy
I'd wager a MAJORITY of the reason that kids whose parents went to a college have a 4x chance of getting in is because of family culture and genetics; you're kids are essentially you and your partner repackaged and while not always true, will often have similar IQ, personality traits ect. The culture part is "We're a Brown/Harvard/ Stanford family!!". Sure there are the more rare and usually against the rules cases of bribery and greasing the wheels of the admission boards by rich doner parents who paid for the new athletic facilities, but they are RARE. This would be true of non-white families as well, obviously.
Nothing but respect for you man. Your editing, writing, and the speed in which you turn out videos is very impressive. I hope you get where you want to go with this channel, you deserve it.
🙏🏾🙏🏾🙏🏾
I was about to say the same thing! I am very impressed with Garrison's work, and am now following intently.
Man, you rolled this one out quick! Regardless of that, it was a super well put together discussion :) I really appreciate the factual arguments presented, especially the explanation of what has happened in states that banned race-based affirmative action before this supreme court decision. I also was super impressed that you actually looked into the groups involved in this case, and how this isn't some grassroots case; it's a conservative organization that has been bent on getting this precedent overturned for years now! It's really important added context that can really help in explaining what exactly was at play here. Here's hoping that this decision isn't as terrible as it seems for many, and thank you again for actually putting forth the effort to research and read on this opinion and the lead up to it!
This was a really thoughtful comment. Thanks for watching and engaging. I think proponents of affirmative action will have to find ways to claw back. I’ve been thinking of a few workarounds that could allow admissions professionals to give positive weight to factors that could serve as a proxy for race (like zip code, for example). There is a way forward if colleges and universities are willing to be strategic enough.
Again, thanks for being here my friend!
The basic argument in the video is: two wrongs make a right. Since it is wrong to discriminate against non-alumni children, then this wrong should be undone by discriminating against Asian children. The video also incorrectly assumes that Jim Crow can be undone with affirmative action, ignoring all the studies showing affirmative action is worse for the majority of Black people. For example, an affirmative action admittance is more likely to dropout with student loans and no degree to help pay those loans off. Also, the majority of Americans are against affirmative action, just look at Prop 16.
Yay i love when I find cool people I find on tiktok make longer form content. You're definitely a force for good mang
Thomas blamed his inability to get a job after law school on his belief that he was percieved as being admitted to Yale law school through affirmative action rather than on merit, instead of considering that racism may have played a role. He has been after affirmative action ever since. Which os hilarious, because the only reason he became a federal judge, and then a supreme court justice was that he was the only black conservative in lime of sight when Bush senior needed one.
Thank you so much for breaking this down and giving your perspective.
Wow! I watched this episode thinking I wouldn't hear anything new, but I was wrong. Your comments on the broader understanding of affirmative action and on the unfairness of legacy admissions was so insightful. Thank you, Garrison.
Phew! It's wild that you've been reading through the decision and Justice Thomas's opinion! So cool that you were able to read into his prose and see that he probably "started with the conclusions and then worked his way backwards."
Always enlightening! Stay excellent!
Thanks for watching, Christopher! Michael Harriot pointed out that Thomas didn’t write his first a judicial opinion until the Supreme Court started taking on affirmative action cases. Also, Harriot said that this affirmative action concurrence is the longest opinion Thomas has ever written.
That is called good writing. Only in mystery stories should you leave the reader guessing until the end.
Admissions through legacy/nepotism should definitely be banned. Diversity is absolutely beneficial to academic institutions. However, I strongly disagree with achieving diversity in universities through racial discrimination. Instead, I think it should be achieved through a more bottom-up approach. Ex: Funding and providing better K-12 education and opportunities for low to middle income families. Affirmative action also comes along with a stigma that people were only accepted because of their race.
I strongly agree with your point! It has been 50 years and affirmative action still has not fixed the racial disparity because it is not the right approach. Affirmative action mainly benefits a small group of black elites. The majority of black students growing up in impoverished black communities would not even get to the point of applying for college, let alone Harvard. Funding K-12 education in those neighborhoods is the real solution.
They could also still look at a person's economic situation if they want to help the underprivileged or diversify the place more
Good analysis. As a close to 80 year old, I feel we do a much better job at educating our own students. I as a nurse trained for Registered Nurse in the 1960s at Homer G. Phillips Hospital School of Nursing. My teachers, physicians, classmates were Black. The hospital was under funded, so we learned much about using resources available. The care received from staff was incredibly supportive. I learned Black medical history during this time.
Following graduation and entering the workforce, I could and still can run circles around my whyte counterparts, which created problems of its own, as things were still segregated during that time. Whyte people do not like to be out performed on any level…
My advanced degrees were in Michigan, whyte Christian college, very different environment. There is just too many more subtle advantages to being on a campus where the racial stress is not present for the development of young minds and worldviews, that I can now understand and appreciate. Invest in HBCUs!
So as much as I disagree with the court, as much contempt as I have for them as an anti-democratic body, I think we need to acknowledge that a system which creates such a brutally competitive environment around a resource as vital as education is foundationally broken.
If we agree that the student from D.C. and the one from Georgia are both deserving of a good education, our goal should be giving them BOTH the best education we can. Education isn't a physical resource you can run out of - the scarcity of it is synthetic, maintained so that those who benefit from its scarcity financially can continue to do so.
Harvard's endowment is larger than the GDP of many NATIONS. We cannot talk about safeguarding education without talking about reforming it as the inalienable right that it should be.
To make this clear, they do not solely use race to choose between students of similar academic standing, but rather to deny large swaths of qualified people in favor of those of the right color.
“For example, an Asian American in the fourth-lowest decile has virtually no chance of being admitted to Harvard (0.9%); but an African American in that decile has a higher chance of admission (12.8%) than an Asian American in the top decile (12.7%).”
*Deciles refers to a segment of 10%, and this is using Harvards own evaluation of applicants’ academics.
Yeah at 4:33 he shows the ivy league school are extremely white at 30-40% but America is 60-70% white. Yes, black and Hispanic students are also underrepresented but if they were to gain representation they would either be taking it from qualified Asian students or white students which are also underrepresented. In the table he shows nearly at each school 20% of the students are "other international" which if you factor in, explains the lower numbers in each group compared to the national percentage.
@@student2082 yeah idk what you’re talking about. The percentages in the data I cited are the acceptance rates for each race based on their academic skill level.
It literally does not matter whatsoever what “percentage white” the school or america in general is, because we are looking at Academics. More specifically the chances an asian student and a black student have at being accepted to Harvard, given that they are of similar academic skill level (evaluated and scored by Harvard themselves).
@@student2082 Black applicants that are academically below average (again evaluated and scored by harvard) have a better chance of getting in THAN ASIANS IN THE TOP 10%
How can you defend that which is clear and obvious racism?
Oh I just meant he presented white students as overrepresented and they're not so I agree that affirmative action would just be taking spots from Asian Americans.
@@student2082 Ahh I appreciate you clearing up that misrepresentation in the video. I honestly could not watch much of the video without skipping, so that’s why I didn’t understand your point lol.
8 black ceos among the fortune 500 list. Looks like they already have affirmative action in reverse.
I disagree with your conclusion, but I do respect the time and effort put in to justify your stance.
Thanks for watching 💪🏾💪🏾
Yeah I also disagree and think you should look at the numbers more. At 4:33 you called the schools extremely white at 30-40%, but America is 60-70% white so white students are also underrepresented.
I don't think forcing representation is the best way to go about this. However, if legacy students have an unfair advantage, that's something we should try to minimize.
Counting on the fact that most European descendants won't describe their origins by color but by country or people, combine "Other/international" with white and you'll get the difference between the number stated and the ones you mentioned. Plus, the way I understood his comment about the number of "white people" in those colleges is that the percentage of Hispanics and Blacks compared to Whites is in the double digits difference. But I'd say that we are fighting for who is the most "underrepresented" while we have some that are over represented. 😮
Just to play devil's advocate for a second. I think a right-winger watching this video would say, "All that other stuff also shouldn't be considered. Where you're from and whether your parents went to college. Shouldn't matter in admissions. It should just be based on your individual achievement." Obviously they won't follow through on that vision, but I think it's important to address their argument as they present it.
Sometimes at the end of your videos, I get mad because I don't want it to end. There are people with two hour long videos who say NOTHING, but you share so much wisdom packed in a small amount of time, that I never want to stop learning. Thank you for that!!!!! 🤗
So glad I found your channel, I love your depth of research and the way you explain things
It makes me so angry of the direction Mr trumpet has taken this scotus, and panicky about the future of another potential term. This scotus does not represent the majority, and the current system is suppressing impeachment. It’s gross and disgraceful and time has come for it to change.
Awesome video.
Great info and truth. Keep it up. My opinion is this, we have hbcu, we should all donate to them at this moment. Because it comes down to money, if we can improve every hbcu campuses to be the best in the country and diverse schools in the world, this is that moment.
Bless you for examining the documents.
Thanks for helping democracy.
If I remember the data correctly, the top 10% of Asian students by academics had the same chances of getting in as the Black students in the bottom half. I get we all want to help disadvantaged communities but that is absolutely ridiculous, and any informed person who supports Affirm Action supports federally sponsored racism.
It’s not racism if it helps black peoples and hurts asians
@@shakenbacon-vm4eu I can’t even tell if thats sarcasm since that is the accepted societal standard.
Sarcasm. Sorry if it wasn’t clear.
I’m interested in looking at that data. Send the source!
Also, calling a private institution’s admissions practices “federally sponsored” is a misnomer. I’ve seen this talking point all over social media and it just misses the mark. Especially since, as I explained, race was one of dozens of factors considered.
@@GarrisonHayes I could’ve sworn I replied like 30 minutes ago.. don’t tell me you removed it…
Absolutely nailed it with your opening statement that he started with his conclusion and then worked backwards.
This isn't meant to be a "gotcha" question, I'm just curious. Do you think black or African Americans are capable of achieving the same academic requirements required to get into those top schools?
I'm asking because at the end of the day, I feel like it's probably rare that 2 students are so much alike that you can't find any academic grounds to separate them. I will admit however, that I don't have evidence to support this besides personally experience.
I really liked your argument because it give me a fresh perspective, especially since I agree with the sc decision. Thanks for the video!
Universities have a certain number or kids they can enroll every semester, that's not a secret, they can't enroll millions of people per year.
And the people that are capable of going to college has gone up by insane numbers in the last 2 decades, specially with guaranteed student loans. This is how Millenials became the "over educated and undeemployed" generation.
This means, that yes, there are in fact, that much more competition and higher likelihoods of students that look alike on paper. 4.0 GPA kids are not rare these days; 4.0 GPA kids with a million club participations and hundreds of community service hours and athletic participation--they all start to blend in. This is also why many, many colleges in America require you send in a personalized essay about you, so that hopefully your personality shines through and you differntiate yourself from thousands of others that have a very close high school transcript as yours.
This is also why High School counselors tell kids to pick a "safety school" because your primary choice of University will not be a guarantee. Sometimes you pick a 3rd choice, and a fourth choice, and they all have different essays you must write. And if you read enough essays that all have the same prompt "Tell us of a time when you faced a challenge and overcame it," --even with that, the essays start to become the same copy and paste, and you start looking at other factors that make you stand out.
Basically, the schools make a judgment on what you might be like based on EVERYTHING you send in--and grades are by and large, identical when it comes competitive schools, so in order to create a diverse student body, they consider all the things that make you different.
The idea of a diverse student body is not new--the idea of Universities goes back to ancient Western World times where people of various backgrounds came together and shared ideas and knowledge in order be better. Unfortunately, some pundits have tried to destroy this core idea of higher university into an argument that schools should only let the absolute performing High Schoolers with the best grades, ignoring that grades can easily be inflated and one school's grading curriculum can be easier to get top status--and some teachers can be harder than others in a way that detriments and hides how bad/good/smart a High Schooler actually is.
As the video kind of touched on, even location can make a difference--a poor school from West Virginia is compeeting against a school from Massachusets; Massachusets invests a lot more into education than West Virginia, but both kids can look exactly the same on paper; and on paper, there could 100 Massachusets kids applying while there's only 1 from West Virginia--so you have to look for various ways create a University that is diverse, as exposure to people that are different from our own background creates better education as we learn directly through contact about other social classes, races, nationalities, and even modes of thinking or approaching a problem. This type of exposure is beneficial inside and outside of the classroom at universities--as some people may never expose themselves to that type of varied diversity again all at once.
Unfortunately, higher education has more than anything, become a gatekeeping tool for higher socio-economic status--because of this, it's become a sort of requirement for minorities if they want the best odds of overcoming poverty, and for legacy kids, it's expected they'll go as a form of prestige and family honor. The stats however, show that legacy kids in fact make up the largest population for University admissions; probably because Universities are receive donations from former graduates, and from the wealthiest graduates (family legacies) they receive entire buildings and full funding for research programs.
Without some form of equity in place, the truth is only the wealthiest will afford certain universities (some of which are also the richest because of the large donations by the rich, thus have the most advanced programs for students in Science, math, etc.) This would turn into a situation where schools become homogenized because certain people will never be considered because they're from West Virginia, and their application was number 300, after 299 legacy kids, student athletes, and wealthy kids were considered without taking into account other factors besides grades.
By removing race as a consideration for said inclusion, you can start to remove other factors such as income levels of parents (thus excluding more poor from universities), and gender (Women, particularly White Women benefitted the most from Afirmative action and allowed them to gain great financial independence from the 1980s til today).
One of the things the US had done well in higher education was helping make sure it wasn't only available to the rich and elites by using equity recruitment practices such as Affirmative Action--this allowed more diverse groups that wouldn't usually have access to university education get into a higher socio-economic status; high schoolers earn more than non graduates accross their lifetimes, and university grauduates earn more than both previous groups, on average. It wasn't a perfect system,. but the advantages by White Women proved it was a system that did have positive outcomes.
@@jamjox9922uh no affirmative action is totally wrong. It’s sad that it existed for so long. And all policies like it should also be struck down
@@jamjox9922 Thank you. I loved every one of your words and appreciate that at least one person in the comments has a brain and understands the _entirety_ of the issue.
Well said! Thank you for making and sharing this video. 🙂
Garrison....I appreciate your content that feeds my passion for social activism and historical contributions of black American . Your publications have enriched my mind, soul, and social consciousness with the following insights:
- They highlight the struggles and achievements of black people in America, from slavery to civil rights, from politics to culture, from sports to science .
- They challenge the dominant narratives and stereotypes that marginalize and oppress black people, and have offered alternative perspectives and voices that celebrate and empower black people .
- They inspire me to learn more about the rich and diverse history of black people in America, and to appreciate their contributions to the nation and the world .
- They motivate me to take action and join the movements for racial justice and equality, and to stand in solidarity with black people and other marginalized groups .
- They shown me the beauty and creativity of black culture, and how it has influenced and enriched the American culture and beyond .
As a Canadian, I'm delighted every time you post updated content to your feed. Keep pressing play brother. We are listening. We are learning. We are growing.
Thank you Garrison
Great analysis. Looking forward to hearing more. My only complaint is that these videos are too short.
Clark Thomas Garcia Larry Gonzalez William
I wish you addressed some more of the majorities issues. Like when should we end affirmation action and acknowledgement of how the AA system did have negative impacts for some individuals.
Why did Asian kids needed more in SAT compared to blacks?
Love how clear and thorough you are when discussing things
Nice work, Garrison - you always bring the receipts!
Well said
Great review 🎉🎉🎉
Garrison, I like to watch your content, although I'm not from US. You are doing a great job, but I honestly think it's futile, based on most of the comments. From an outside perspective, sistematic rasism is obviuos and it hurts everyone, but the common people still fight against all the measures that try to fight it. Same as they fight against universal healthcare, reasonable gun legislation, women rights, etc., and blame everything on minorities, immigrants, etc. We (as humanity) will never learn...
Thank you for the work that you do!! 🙏🏽
Thank you, Ev!
Hugs and love to you. Subscribed.
How this video gone have Eight thousand views & less than ONE thou likes? Ed Lover says Come On Son! 😗👈
Everyone is opinionated. The Supreme Court. And you.
The Supreme Court is supposed to uphold the constitution...not give their ideological opinion lol wtf?!?!
@@marktaylor3290 SCOTUS reconciles conflicts between different laws. This can only be done by opinion.
What "unique attributes" should count positively towards college admissions? None, I say. Not legacy preferences, not race, not geography, nothing but academic factors such as grades and tests. The white girl from Appalachia shouldn't get in because she's from Appalachia. They should have found some other, relevant criteria. Maybe extracurricular activities. And "perspective" isn't tied to what region one is from.
So what then? A threshold and then a lottery system from qualified applicants? That sounds like a boring, static campus.. maybe it works for STEM.. but if the STEM folks were all that mattered, then get ready for the robot takeover lol..
I think a top university should be able to curate their student body as they see fit.. personally, I don’t care what their criteria is.. the institution is going to be judged by the product anyways.. so leave it up to them.. let them and their reputations sink or swim based off of their choices..
I think race/gender/location/legacy/orientation/socioeconomics/political leanings/etc. are all pretty bland, meaningless criteria to LEAD with or explicitly consider.. but at the end of my process, I’d definitely want my student body to have diversity in all of those areas.. and I’m pretty sure I’d get those results if I just chose the most awesome INDIVIDUALS I could find..
Genuineness, curiosity, individually, open-mindedness, thirst for knowledge, cooperation, independent thinking, ambition, talent (in anything), kindness/empathy, age-appropriate awareness, honesty, passion, etc..
No one has a monopoly on any of those areas.. and if you pass a certain threshold (GPA, test scores, recs), I would want to build a learning community comprised of people with those qualities.. and I’d even make some low test score exceptions for particularly interesting and/or motivated individuals..
If we’re just trying to fill up a predictable corporate ladder, ok, stick with test scores.. find some great employees lol.. but if we’re trying to stimulate and cross pollinate the people who can create a better world, then I think that requires a more rich tapestry.. especially at the top institutions..
I think there’s genius lying dormant all over the place.. and at least 9 types of intelligence.. but we can’t cultivate it if we don’t look for it.. it comes in all shapes and sizes and colors.. and we won’t even look for it unless we open our minds to believe it’s there.. to me, in a post affirmative action world, that should be our main focus..
@@gbmbg114 Not a lottery system. Just examine grades, tests, extracurriculars, and entry essays. And don't think that hard-working students aren't interesting. There's nothing bland about them.
@Nonamearisto .. I wasn’t suggesting that hard working students are bland.. I’m saying that when you reduce people to a number, the process itself is bland.. and I believe you get out what you put into it, from a curatorial perspective.. I mean, college itself isn’t just about taking tests and getting a degree (especially not at the upper echelon schools.. and I’m a product of one of those schools, so that’s what I can speak to).. it’s about the cross pollination of ideas, perspectives and personalities.. it’s meant to be enriching and mind-opening on multiple levels..
I want the student body academically capable at certain level, of course!.. but after that point, I would want to artificially mold the environment in a way that I think the students would get the most out of the experience.. and test scores and grades only speak to the entry point of consideration.. “smart” and “hard working” don’t stand out when everyone is smart and hard working lol..
Success at the highest levels in anything is about the details.. and being formulaic usually gets you a mid-level, top of the bell curve type product.. extreme attention to details is how you make a masterpiece.. and if that’s not what we’re shooting for, then what are we doing??
you straight up said nothing
Says he read the case, but completely ignores everything the Majority opinion said, and focuses on Justice Thomas' concurrence, and the dissent, which the Majority has a response to...
The 4x likelihood is 90% because the parents obviously value education, they had good outcomes so they believe their kids would too and they are wealthy. I doubt it's them leveraging their connections or anything like that.
To your point of "white people are the majority in university" sure but they're actually underrepresented in comparison to the overall population. 59% of the US is white yet only 31-48% of the college students are white.
Can't remember the study but I believe they showed that students who were admitted through affirmative action were more likely to drop out, failed at a higher rate and overall had lower grades. It feels like a system that just makes unprepared students fail fast and hard.
Affirmative action is a good idea in theory but when applied has some weird outcomes/implications. This seems like one of those issues that will be fixed with enough time however I can understand why people want to speed that process up.
The younger generation should be able to see things from a new perspective. Hayes is stuck in the past rehashing old ideas that have proven not to work.
U desreve so much more views!!!
Hope this goes viral!
👀👀 thanks for watching!
Discovered your channel through this video. You have a great personality for TH-cam. And even though I don't really agree with you, I found myself glued to your video and enjoyed watching it.
I agree with a lot of the things you presented in parts 1 and 2. Obviously, Students of Fair Admissions and Clarence Thomas both have impure political intentions in mind that dictate their moves in regards to this decision. Even as someone who leans towards the Right politically, no one can convince me that the GOP and its affiliates are doing this simply because they want fairness for college applicants. Yep, they're corrupt AF.
Here's something I've thought a little bit about that I would hopefully like to hear your opinion of though. Obviously, I'm not as well-researched as you on this. So chances are, if you ever reply to me, you can present me with some thoughts that aren't as half-baked as mine. But I'm going to focus off of what I did learn from your video and try to make a logical argument. Let's take the example you used of the two young women applying to Harvard:
Let's say, for arguments sake, Harvard has a whole lot of spare time on their hands and decides to set these two young women up with a Zoom meeting with a Harvard admissions officer. During that Zoom meeting, the officer starts off by explaining the situation to these two girls with full transparency. From there, one of the following three scenarios happens:
Scenario 1: "Ladies, we'd like to give you two one last chance and allow us to make a better judgment on whom to accept. You each have 3 minutes to plead your case." (Sounds a little cruel, but wait till you hear about scenario 3)
Scenario 2: "Ladies, you two are both great. But unfortunately, you two are so similar and there's no way for us to assess which of you would be better. Let's settle this with a fair coin toss. So... heads or tails, lady from Washington DC?" (If you think this sounds bad, you've not read scenario 3)
Scenario 3: "Hey Georgia girl, you're in! DC girl, you're out! And DC girl, I don't want to hear any ifs, ands or buts from you. Because based off of the ZIP codes you two live in, I've made an assumption of who you've been as people for the past 18 years and who you will be as people for the next 4 years. And sorry, DC girl, but for some unknown campus diversity reason that you have no control over, we already have so many people from DC, and that's why we don't want you! But I feel SOOOOO GREAT that we have one less person from DC with "DC perspectives" and one more person from Georgia with "Georgia perspectives". Even though I really don't know what a “Georgia perspective" means or what benefit it brings Harvard!"
Even if you dislike scenarios 1 and 2, I think you'd have an extremely hard case if you want to argue that scenario 3 is the most just outcome for these two applicants. Now take that whole scene and substitute ZIP code with skin color.
I believe this is why a lot of people against race-based affirmative action support the admission process to become more MERIT-based. If two applicants have very similar levels of qualifications, I think that in an ideal world, there should be a system in place to further evaluate their qualifications as individuals (scenario 1). Or, if we don't have the time and resources to do further evaluations and determine a winner, the admissions process should make it so that the two applicants with the same level of merit have an equal chance (scenario 2). I don't think one applicant should have a leg up on another simply because of skin color, a factor that the applicants have no control over and has nothing to do with personal meritocracy.
Yeah, by my logic, we'd have to do away with legacy based admissions as well. So I agree with you on the unfairness of admitting people in based on the legacy of their family.
Overall, thank you for your well-made video. Keep up the good work and would love it if I can see more videos like this in the future. Would also love it if I can get a reply from you.
HI @brianchian2478, I just wanted to thank you for this in depth-commentary and analysis, because it puts into words some of the things that I too have been mulling over in my head! I can really see both sides of the situation, and I go back and forth on whether I am "for" or "against" race-based affirmative action -- I simply think it is more nuanced than the media likes to present it.
I especially like what you said about how one applicant should not have a leg up on another simply because of skin color, but I also recognize the strongly valid argument that Blacks and Latinos have been disenfranchised for decades in this country and been systemically denied education and wealth-building opportunities, and I feel like there should be a way to somehow recognize those grievances within the college admissions process, but at the same time NOT hurt the chances of another equally qualified student, specifically White or Asian from also being admitted.
And yes, I am in full agreement that the legacy based admissions would have to been thrown out as well, because that just perpetuates the systemic opportunity gap and creates inequalities.
At the end of the day, I think what we all have to realize, no matter what your take is on race-based affirmative action, is that it is a band-aid solution to the systemic inequities that American society faces. It seems that affirmative action attempts to inefficiently correct the setbacks one might face in life at the END of their primary school years. Instead, I think the government needs to be looking at more funding and support for public schools in low-income neighborhoods, mentorship opportunities for students in high-crime areas, and more support for Black and Latino families who deserve some form of reparations. If all children were set on an equal opportunities path from the beginning, we wouldn't need affirmative action in the first place! And I'm not even going to get into the higher education reforms that need to take place because that is a WHOLE other discussion!
Anyways, I just really wanted to thank you and say your comment was appreciated. I hope you have an amazing day!
@@Lt.Crackers360 Thanks for the reply. And since we've both written super long replies already, I'll keep this one short.
I agree with your band-aid analogy and what you built off of that. A lot of people against AA have repeatedly stressed the importance of improving the K-12 education system to try and solve the issue from the root, so I'm not going to get into it too much here.
In conclusion, if you're qualified, you shouldn't need AA, because you can get in there based on your merit alone. If you're unqualified, what you need is not AA. You either need resources to better equip yourself so that you become qualified in the future, or you find another environment where you can succeed in. If going to Harvard means taking on debt just to consistently fail in class, I'd rather go to a less prestigious school.
Have a nice day.
Why would a person from Appalachia get selected over someone from DC? Same grades and admission presentation for activities?
muh diversity
Affirmative action based on location does not necessarily promote diversity either. For example, a rich kid from Appalachia probably has more in common with a rich kid from Georgetown, an affluent neighborhood of DC. On the other hand, a poor kid from Anacostia, an impoverished neighborhood of DC, is going to be very different from that rich kid from Georgetown, even though they are both from DC.
Similarly, affirmative action based on race fails to promote true diversity because the black elites who benefit from affirmative action are ideologically similar to, if not the same as, the white elites who go to Harvard. The bottom line is that it is unfair to generalize people into categories like race or location.
The court's decision is grounded in the 14th amendment, and the fact that two wrongs don't make a right.
If the Appalachian example was supposed to convince anyone, I don't think it worked.
Race should be taken off every employment and college admissions applications. To admit or refuse someone based on race is discriminations.
This isn't controversial. You learn a skill because you're in a certain state. The state is enslavement. Then you can use that skill during or after your enslavement to make money. Money is in general considered a benefit
Therefore you benefited from Slavery
Also this video keeps bringing in legacy admissions. There’s a reason why Asians are disproportionately in top colleges compared to their population. Instead of wanting to have discrimination and one race having it easier in admissions, “historically underrepresented” groups can work a bit harder at school instead of complaining.
Maybe someone should sue for legacy as n affirmative action No schools should be allowed to give former students kids to attend
I wouldn’t be surprised to see something like that come up in the next few years!
Well unfortunately it's not in the Constitution that you can't discriminate based on past students... part of the reason they made the recent decision was because the constitution specifically protects against race-based discrimination. It would be much harder to make a case against legacy
I'd wager a MAJORITY of the reason that kids whose parents went to a college have a 4x chance of getting in is because of family culture and genetics; you're kids are essentially you and your partner repackaged and while not always true, will often have similar IQ, personality traits ect. The culture part is "We're a Brown/Harvard/ Stanford family!!". Sure there are the more rare and usually against the rules cases of bribery and greasing the wheels of the admission boards by rich doner parents who paid for the new athletic facilities, but they are RARE. This would be true of non-white families as well, obviously.
Your title sucks. Consider making it the what the Supreme Court got wrong
So glad that racist policy is gone now. We need more of this from the Supreme Court.