Affirmative Action ruling on College Lacrosse recruiting

[laxrules]

Does this ruling change recruiting at places that have "slots" for some “lower socioeconomic status" or "under represented communities" recruits?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/educatio ... ve-action/

[runrussellrun]

Does this ruling change recruiting at places that have "slots" for some “lower socioeconomic status" or "under represented communities" recruits?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/educatio ... ve-action/

dude....the Post and its paywall...really ?

find another source, like the Surpeme court website.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/2 ... 9_hgdj.pdf

[laxrules]

Dude it worked for me. I opened it and read it Dude

[runrussellrun]

Dude it worked for me. I opened it and read it Dude

Either way, the actual decision was posted.

Post lame attempt to read like "twatter", we guess. Not a whole lot to "read".

The Supreme court already "ruled" on "cabal" this is the IVy and friends in that "needs blind" admissions lie.

So, to answer your question....NO.......this will not help the poor, regarding lacrosse recruiting and getting slots.

The "prefferred walkon" status won't go to a poor person. ISn't that what scholarships are for, anyway ? The poor ?

[laxrules]

[quote=laxrules post_id=478552 time=<a href="tel:1688055259">1688055259</a> user_id=684]
Dude it worked for me. I opened it and read it Dude

Either way, the actual decision was posted.

Post lame attempt to read like "twatter", we guess. Not a whole lot to "read".

The Supreme court already "ruled" on "cabal" this is the IVy and friends in that "needs blind" admissions lie.

So, to answer your question....NO.......this will not help the poor, regarding lacrosse recruiting and getting slots.

The "prefferred walkon" status won't go to a poor person. ISn't that what scholarships are for, anyway ? The poor ?
[/quote]

Wow was that hard for you?

I asked a question and you complained about the link I shared. Then you have some good insight/opinion but after you continue to be an A-hole with your criticism.

The link was to introduce the topic and start dialogue.

[runrussellrun]

[runrussellrun]

North

[The Orfling]

We will have to wait for this to play out, but:

1. I would not be surprised to see many more selective schools eliminate legacy preference, which is unpopular with the broader public and could be seen as giving an advantage to a demographic group (white Protestants) who were the dominant college demographic at your Ivy type university until the gates opened up more starting in the 1950s.

2. Sports perceived to have a “country club” demographic (which would include lacrosse) could see downward pressure on their admissions slots so as to lessen the impact of practices (legacy, athletic preferences for expensive sports) that would limit the number of spots open to all comers.

[44WeWantMore]

JHU is already ahead of the curve, discriminating against legacies.

[OCanada]

I do not anticipate Daniels will reverse course. He will stay the course in all likelihood

[The Orfling]

JHU is already ahead of the curve, discriminating against legacies.

JHU ended the legacy preference, I take it? Cal Tech was out front on that and has gotten pretty good reviews on how it played out for them. The American public at large HATES legacy preferences, so I think pressure will build at more selective colleges/universities to end it now that the affirmative action decision is in the books.

I would argue that at a lot of the Ivies the legacy preference has been functionally highly minimized for a while (at least as compared to 1-2 generations ago), and they haven't formally announced it is over because (a) they don't want the alumni blowback; (b) they like the flow of alumni money from people still hoping Junior will be admitted -- 18 to 20 years of donations before the thin envelope comes to end the hope of the next generation attending the Ivy; and (c) they want to be able to keep admitting 8 figure donors and it's easier to do that in terms of the optics of it all under the camouflage of "regular" legacy admissions.

I can see it both ways; I was first in my family to attend my alma mater and am glad there was room for me; at the same time, the schools rely on $$ from loyal alums and multi-generational families have been and most likely will continue to be extremely generous.

[DocBarrister]

Don’t know the impact on Johns Hopkins lacrosse recruiting.

But I expect more of their classmates will be Asian. Asians are currently about 30% of students at Hopkins (quite low, really). White students are 16%. If I had to guess, I would expect Asian students to comprise 40% or more of the students at Hopkins moving forward, with White students remaining the same, and about a 5-10% drop among other minority groups.

https://apply.jhu.edu/fast-facts/

DocBarrister

[DocBarrister]

JHU is already ahead of the curve, discriminating against legacies.

Favoring legacies is just an affirmative action program for White people and the already elite.

DocBarrister

[faircornell]

Personally, I can't see the Ivies having materially altered racial profiles. There are socioeconomic measurements that are, effectively, proxies for underrepresented minority students.

If universities go deeper into socioeconomic diversity analysis to keep ratios where they are, thar could hurt lacrosse admissions in some schools due to the generally privileged background of many lacrosse player's.

[bearlaxfan]

There's a cutout: the service academies can still consider race for admission, so I guess past and present discrimination can be considered only as long as you're willing to die for your discriminating nation?
How can I reformulate that sentence to sound less cynical?

The private money boyz that sponsored this lawsuit all the way to the USSC will take on legacy admission next, right? Hello? Bueller? Bueller?

[blue angels]

There's a cutout: the service academies can still consider race for admission, so I guess past and present discrimination can be considered only as long as you're willing to die for your discriminating nation?
How can I reformulate that sentence to sound less cynical?

The private money boyz that sponsored this lawsuit all the way to the USSC will take on legacy admission next, right? Hello? Bueller? Bueller?

Please explain who the "Private Money Boyz" who sponsored this lawsuit are? I thought an Asian kid brought the suit against Harvard. The ruling defintely impacts the non white and Asian communities in opposing ways. I am less certain how it will impact the white applicant but we will see.

[Typical Lax Dad]

There's a cutout: the service academies can still consider race for admission, so I guess past and present discrimination can be considered only as long as you're willing to die for your discriminating nation?
How can I reformulate that sentence to sound less cynical?

The private money boyz that sponsored this lawsuit all the way to the USSC will take on legacy admission next, right? Hello? Bueller? Bueller?

Please explain who the "Private Money Boyz" who sponsored this lawsuit are? I thought an Asian kid brought the suit against Harvard. The ruling defintely impacts the non white and Asian communities in opposing ways. I am less certain how it will impact the white applicant but we will see.

In what way will each group be impacted and why?

[runrussellrun]

There's a cutout: the service academies can still consider race for admission, so I guess past and present discrimination can be considered only as long as you're willing to die for your discriminating nation?
How can I reformulate that sentence to sound less cynical?

The private money boyz that sponsored this lawsuit all the way to the USSC will take on legacy admission next, right? Hello? Bueller? Bueller?

Please explain who the "Private Money Boyz" who sponsored this lawsuit are? I thought an Asian kid brought the suit against Harvard. The ruling defintely impacts the non white and Asian communities in opposing ways. I am less certain how it will impact the white applicant but we will see.

In what way will each group be impacted and why?

[bearlaxfan]

There's a cutout: the service academies can still consider race for admission, so I guess past and present discrimination can be considered only as long as you're willing to die for your discriminating nation?
How can I reformulate that sentence to sound less cynical?

The private money boyz that sponsored this lawsuit all the way to the USSC will take on legacy admission next, right? Hello? Bueller? Bueller?

Please explain who the "Private Money Boyz" who sponsored this lawsuit are? I thought an Asian kid brought the suit against Harvard. The ruling defintely impacts the non white and Asian communities in opposing ways. I am less certain how it will impact the white applicant but we will see.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/whos-who- ... 023-06-29/

https://www.aclu.org/news/racial-justic ... ion-higher

[The Orfling]

There's a cutout: the service academies can still consider race for admission, so I guess past and present discrimination can be considered only as long as you're willing to die for your discriminating nation?
How can I reformulate that sentence to sound less cynical?

The private money boyz that sponsored this lawsuit all the way to the USSC will take on legacy admission next, right? Hello? Bueller? Bueller?

The Court didn't give its substantive reasoning for not including the service academies -- it merely said that the academies might have interests distinct from those raised by UNC and Harvard so that this particular decision would not apply to the service academies -- however, there would most likely be two factors at play:

• First, I believe the academies do NOT argue that they consider race as a remedy for past/present discrimination. Instead, I believe the major rationale is to have an officer corps that matches up more closely with the demographics of the enlisted ranks of the armed services. As of about 5 years ago, the overall demographics of active duty servicepeople were 57% white; 16% Latino; 16% Black; 4% Asian; and 6% "other/unknown" (Pew Research Center). As most who follow the military know, the period in the 1970s following Vietnam was a difficult time period for the U.S. military with drug use, discipline problems etc. at a higher level, as well as issues with racial conflict in units. Service leaders felt that having more officers from underrepresented racial/ethnic groups would help with discipline/cohesion.

• Second, and relatedly, the military is traditionally afforded significant (although not unlimited) deference from the courts in a way that "regular college" administrators are not. So if a case is brought challenging consideration of race in admissions at the service academies, if the leadership stands behind the current practices they might be upheld.

If folks are interested in the history of the service academies and their admission practices (affirmative action, admission of women), a very readable book on the Naval Academy from 1949 - 2000 that's available on Amazon is called "A Sea Change at Annapolis" by Michael Gelfand. At USNA, deliberate outreach to members of underrepresented racial groups (and ultimately affirmative action in admissions) appears to go back to 1965, when President Johnson became aware that only 9 out of 4100 midshipmen in the Brigade were black and instructed the Secretary of the Navy to work with USNA to encourage more Black applicants.

Even without consideration by the Courts specifically of the issue in the context of the service academies, Congress, of course, could ban affirmative action at service academies; it's possible with a Republican Congress they might go that route (although with the filibuster they might need 60 senators who would support it).