SCOTUS

[MDlaxfan76]

Interesting case and decision today:

https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-me ... -colorado/

Yes, I was listening to a discussion of this...relevant in a variety of ways, but most on point to egregious cyber stalking, over and over again, recklessly, making threats of violence that are undoubtedly going to be understood by the receiver as scary...don't need to prove in such situations that the speaker intended for them to be understood as such, no need for a mind reader, rather that there was a provable reckless disregard for the receiver to get that intention.

Make sense?

Interesting that the writer thinks he agrees with the dissent.

[Seacoaster(1)]

Interesting case and decision today:

https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-me ... -colorado/

Yes, I was listening to a discussion of this...relevant in a variety of ways, but most on point to egregious cyber stalking, over and over again, recklessly, making threats of violence that are undoubtedly going to be understood by the receiver as scary...don't need to prove in such situations that the speaker intended for them to be understood as such, no need for a mind reader, rather that there was a provable reckless disregard for the receiver to get that intention.

Make sense?

Interesting that the writer thinks he agrees with the dissent.

Yes, that makes sense. But the decision is fractured, and the lower courts seem to have been handed a tough assignment in this sort of (increasingly common?) case. Read Sotomayor’s concurrence, in which Gorsuch joins.

[MDlaxfan76]

Interesting case and decision today:

https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-me ... -colorado/

Yes, I was listening to a discussion of this...relevant in a variety of ways, but most on point to egregious cyber stalking, over and over again, recklessly, making threats of violence that are undoubtedly going to be understood by the receiver as scary...don't need to prove in such situations that the speaker intended for them to be understood as such, no need for a mind reader, rather that there was a provable reckless disregard for the receiver to get that intention.

Make sense?

Interesting that the writer thinks he agrees with the dissent.

Yes, that makes sense. But the decision is fractured, and the lower courts seem to have been handed a tough assignment in this sort of (increasingly common?) case. Read Sotomayor’s concurrence, in which Gorsuch joins.

Haven't read it yet but will look. It's indeed a murky situation, between 'free speech' and actual damage, whether emotional or physical. How to draw a line between these, the standard to require...not so simple...if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, a lot... then reasonable to expect a duck to come around the corner?

I come down on wanting to curtail speech that clearly harms, but it needs to be intentional or recklessly likely to do so. How the latter is defined matters, but often it's egregiously obvious as reckless. But not so easy to prove intent of the speaker.

Shame does not appear to any longer to be a deterrent so there needs to be a deterrent available in court.

Layman view...

[Seacoaster(1)]

Interesting case and decision today:

https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-me ... -colorado/

Yes, I was listening to a discussion of this...relevant in a variety of ways, but most on point to egregious cyber stalking, over and over again, recklessly, making threats of violence that are undoubtedly going to be understood by the receiver as scary...don't need to prove in such situations that the speaker intended for them to be understood as such, no need for a mind reader, rather that there was a provable reckless disregard for the receiver to get that intention.

Make sense?

Interesting that the writer thinks he agrees with the dissent.

Yes, that makes sense. But the decision is fractured, and the lower courts seem to have been handed a tough assignment in this sort of (increasingly common?) case. Read Sotomayor’s concurrence, in which Gorsuch joins.

Haven't read it yet but will look. It's indeed a murky situation, between 'free speech' and actual damage, whether emotional or physical. How to draw a line between these, the standard to require...not so simple...if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, a lot... then reasonable to expect a duck to come around the corner?

I come down on wanting to curtail speech that clearly harms, but it needs to be intentional or recklessly likely to do so. How the latter is defined matters, but often it's egregiously obvious as reckless. But not so easy to prove intent of the speaker.

Shame does not appear to any longer to be a deterrent so there needs to be a deterrent available in court.

Layman view...

The State advocated an objective test: how reasonable observers would construe a statement or statements in context. Pretty broad.

The majority opinion held that that standard would also suppress speech that was not a true threat (speech that might otherwise be protected under the First Amendment), because people would not want to run the risk that their non-threatening speech would be misunderstood, leading to jail time. Sot the Majority held that a concluded that a more subjective, "recklessness standard," was appropriate. In cases involving so-called true threats, this means that the “speaker is aware that others could regard his statements as threatening violence and delivers them anyway.”

Sotomayor's concurrence (with Gorsuch along for the ride) thought that the Court shouldn't have decided whether the recklessness test should be used in all cases involving true threats. She suggested that a more stringent standard should apply to “true threat” prosecutions. “Especially in a climate of intense polarization,” she wrote, “it is dangerous to allow criminal prosecutions for heated words based solely on an amorphous recklessness standard.”

So the Court is plainly trying to find the line in a super-difficult area of the law -- where speech crosses invisible barriers for protection, or doesn't, and at a time when speech is amplified by both the social media platforms available to regular citizens on a regular basis, and the country is giving unfettered vent to its polarization. At this point, I like the recklessness standard -- because it may be enough of a check to may people think twice and thrice before they click send, and because it allows for a pretty broad body of content, including a fair amount of invective, to survive without being chilled. But tough call.

[MDlaxfan76]

Well put.

[youthathletics]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/suprem ... -rcna66770

Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action programs at Harvard and UNC
The ruling is the culmination of a decades-long effort to end the consideration of race in admissions.

[ggait]

Exactly right.

While the effectively overturned Grutter case was decided in 2003, AA really goes back to Bakke in 1978. So 45 years.

[MDlaxfan76]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/suprem ... -rcna66770

Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action programs at Harvard and UNC
The ruling is the culmination of a decades-long effort to end the consideration of race in admissions.

So...who is likely to actually benefit versus who assumes they will benefit?

I'm going to use generalized terms below, but obviously sentiments are not uniform, I'm just talking about the generalized demographics.

Certainly, for now Asians, who currently over 2.5X overrepresented in the most highly selective schools relative to share of US population, but hope to achieve an even greater share of admissions. That's who ostensibly sued.

But who backed those suits and are cheering, thinking they will gain a larger share going forward?
Whites...and particularly white men. Rich white men and their families financially backed the suit, lots of other white men were led to believe the current situation is unfair to them...so think they should cheer. https://www.boston.com/news/the-boston- ... tion-case/

Men receive the largest boost in admissions benefit on average, so...when does the challenge to gender-based admissions happen? Surely the targets of gender balance are discriminatory?

Women would hold way more admissions acceptances if we decided to only consider high school test scores and SAT's...close to 60:40.

Whites, whether rich or poor, think they are being discriminated again because some Blacks and Hispanics are accepted with lower scores than some white men who are rejected. And yet, Blacks and Hispanics remain under-respected proportionally in these schools.

So, what are these schools, which believe in their brains, hearts, and guts that a diverse campus improves the educational experience of all of the students going to do?

Are they just going to accept double, triple the number of Asian students and eliminate most Black and Hispanic and Native, etc acceptances? Are they going to accept 60% women, 40% men?

Nope, I think what we'll see is alternative ways to accomplish the various cultural and demographic balances that the schools are looking to achieve.

I think we'll see higher emphasis on socio-economic status and an elimination in legacy advantage. And yes, there will be increasing percentages of women versus men.

Asians will likely grow a little, but where the give-up will come is with Whites, and particularly white men.

Teeth gnashing to come...

[youthathletics]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/suprem ... -rcna66770

Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action programs at Harvard and UNC
The ruling is the culmination of a decades-long effort to end the consideration of race in admissions.

So...who is likely to actually benefit versus who assumes they will benefit?

I'm going to use generalized terms below, but obviously sentiments are not uniform, I'm just talking about the generalized demographics.

Certainly, for now Asians, who currently over 2.5X overrepresented in the most highly selective schools relative to share of US population, but hope to achieve an even greater share of admissions. That's who ostensibly sued.

But who backed those suits and are cheering, thinking they will gain a larger share going forward?
Whites...and particularly white men. Rich white men and their families financially backed the suit, lots of other white men were led to believe the current situation is unfair to them...so think they should cheer. https://www.boston.com/news/the-boston- ... tion-case/

Men receive the largest boost in admissions benefit on average, so...when does the challenge to gender-based admissions happen? Surely the targets of gender balance are discriminatory?

Women would hold way more admissions acceptances if we decided to only consider high school test scores and SAT's...close to 60:40.

Whites, whether rich or poor, think they are being discriminated again because some Blacks and Hispanics are accepted with lower scores than some white men who are rejected. And yet, Blacks and Hispanics remain under-respected proportionally in these schools.

So, what are these schools, which believe in their brains, hearts, and guts that a diverse campus improves the educational experience of all of the students going to do?

Are they just going to accept double, triple the number of Asian students and eliminate most Black and Hispanic and Native, etc acceptances? Are they going to accept 60% women, 40% men?

Nope, I think what we'll see is alternative ways to accomplish the various cultural and demographic balances that the schools are looking to achieve.

I think we'll see higher emphasis on socio-economic status and an elimination in legacy advantage. And yes, there will be increasing percentages of women versus men.

Asians will likely grow a little, but where the give-up will come is with Whites, and particularly white men.

Teeth gnashing to come...

If an application for a college does not, or cannot include race....how do you come to assume continued racial inequality? Seems the barometer would be entirely on grades, extra-curriculars, test scores, maybe financials. When I interview candidates for hire, I do not look at their CV until after the initial interview.

[jhu72]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/suprem ... -rcna66770

Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action programs at Harvard and UNC
The ruling is the culmination of a decades-long effort to end the consideration of race in admissions.

So...who is likely to actually benefit versus who assumes they will benefit?

I'm going to use generalized terms below, but obviously sentiments are not uniform, I'm just talking about the generalized demographics.

Certainly, for now Asians, who currently over 2.5X overrepresented in the most highly selective schools relative to share of US population, but hope to achieve an even greater share of admissions. That's who ostensibly sued.

But who backed those suits and are cheering, thinking they will gain a larger share going forward?
Whites...and particularly white men. Rich white men and their families financially backed the suit, lots of other white men were led to believe the current situation is unfair to them...so think they should cheer. https://www.boston.com/news/the-boston- ... tion-case/

Men receive the largest boost in admissions benefit on average, so...when does the challenge to gender-based admissions happen? Surely the targets of gender balance are discriminatory?

Women would hold way more admissions acceptances if we decided to only consider high school test scores and SAT's...close to 60:40.

Whites, whether rich or poor, think they are being discriminated again because some Blacks and Hispanics are accepted with lower scores than some white men who are rejected. And yet, Blacks and Hispanics remain under-respected proportionally in these schools.

So, what are these schools, which believe in their brains, hearts, and guts that a diverse campus improves the educational experience of all of the students going to do?

Are they just going to accept double, triple the number of Asian students and eliminate most Black and Hispanic and Native, etc acceptances? Are they going to accept 60% women, 40% men?

Nope, I think what we'll see is alternative ways to accomplish the various cultural and demographic balances that the schools are looking to achieve.

I think we'll see higher emphasis on socio-economic status and an elimination in legacy advantage. And yes, there will be increasing percentages of women versus men.

Asians will likely grow a little, but where the give-up will come is with Whites, and particularly white men.

Teeth gnashing to come...

... would largely agree but would add, given that the conservative grifters on the court have found ways around laws to get what they want, the colleges and universities who believe in diversity are equally capable of maintaining the status quo or extending it by going around the law.

There will be raising up in the streets I would suspect.

[MDlaxfan76]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/suprem ... -rcna66770

Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action programs at Harvard and UNC
The ruling is the culmination of a decades-long effort to end the consideration of race in admissions.

So...who is likely to actually benefit versus who assumes they will benefit?

I'm going to use generalized terms below, but obviously sentiments are not uniform, I'm just talking about the generalized demographics.

Certainly, for now Asians, who currently over 2.5X overrepresented in the most highly selective schools relative to share of US population, but hope to achieve an even greater share of admissions. That's who ostensibly sued.

But who backed those suits and are cheering, thinking they will gain a larger share going forward?
Whites...and particularly white men. Rich white men and their families financially backed the suit, lots of other white men were led to believe the current situation is unfair to them...so think they should cheer. https://www.boston.com/news/the-boston- ... tion-case/

Men receive the largest boost in admissions benefit on average, so...when does the challenge to gender-based admissions happen? Surely the targets of gender balance are discriminatory?

Women would hold way more admissions acceptances if we decided to only consider high school test scores and SAT's...close to 60:40.

Whites, whether rich or poor, think they are being discriminated again because some Blacks and Hispanics are accepted with lower scores than some white men who are rejected. And yet, Blacks and Hispanics remain under-respected proportionally in these schools.

So, what are these schools, which believe in their brains, hearts, and guts that a diverse campus improves the educational experience of all of the students going to do?

Are they just going to accept double, triple the number of Asian students and eliminate most Black and Hispanic and Native, etc acceptances? Are they going to accept 60% women, 40% men?

Nope, I think what we'll see is alternative ways to accomplish the various cultural and demographic balances that the schools are looking to achieve.

I think we'll see higher emphasis on socio-economic status and an elimination in legacy advantage. And yes, there will be increasing percentages of women versus men.

Asians will likely grow a little, but where the give-up will come is with Whites, and particularly white men.

Teeth gnashing to come...

If an application for a college does not, or cannot include race....how do you come to assume continued racial inequality? Seems the barometer would be entirely on grades, extra-curriculars, test scores, maybe financials. When I interview candidates for hire, I do not look at their CV until after the initial interview.

Why do I assume that people with high socio-economic status have superior test scores?

Because they do.

Test scores tend to measure prior opportunity, not potential.
How you grow up, with parents that read to their children, with clean water, good nutrition, no violence in the neighborhood, the quality of local school (mostly driven by tax base), extra tutoring, all skew test scores toward high socio-economic status.

Note, at these highly selective schools, no one gets admitted who doesn't have quite terrific prior demonstrated performance and potential...all meet the school's assessment that they can do the work and thrive academically. Prior preparation does matter.

But they don't simply take the top 2,000 test scores and admit them to achieve a class of say 1,200.

Rather, they have a wider aperture for potential success when looking at the say 30,000 initial applications. Note, that 30,000 actually felt they had a shot at such a school saying yes, so these aren't the rest of the 5 million applying each year. It's already the self-selected 1%. But at these schools, a say 6% acceptance rate from that 1% is typical. Some a little higher, some lower. But the overall trend is lower, as more super well qualified kids apply each year from not just all over the US but also from all over the world.

So, these schools then look at other factors so as to differentiate the students.

And this includes the various interests and passions of these students, as well as the experiences they can bring to share with fellow students.

These schools believe deeply that all students they end up admitting benefit educationally and developmentally from the myriad of opportunities to explore those interest and passions more deeply with others as well benefit from the wide diversity of prior experiences the students bring.

Homogeneity is the opposite of their goal, though they ARE looking for high aspiration and commitment, potential leadership attributes, as common features.

So, they have goals and targets each year so as to be sure to accomplish this diversity of students.

10 male lacrosse players...

So, my prediction is that they are going to more heavily weight factors that de facto help those who are disproportionately at the lower end of the socio-economic strata, based on grit, determination to overcome, known disadvantages such as broken family, parents dead or in jail, experiences of racial or gender discrimination...these factors are not race per se, but the current reality in the US today is that these factors are disproportionately landing black and brown.

Affluent Asian students, like affluent white students, will need to differentiate among themselves based upon their interests and passions beyond their test scores.

Just like now, plenty of perfect SAT, straight A students will get rejected each year because that's all they have demonstrated performance in.

Understand that this is what the suit claims, that very high performing academic students were not getting in because they didn't have other demonstrated desirable qualities, and specifically it was claimed that Asian students were being disproportionately disadvantaged by those other aspects. For instance, Harvard has some measures around how the student has demonstrated empathy for others, sociability, "niceness"...the claim is that the Asian students weren't, in general scoring well...though obviously, many were doing so as Asians have 2.5X the number of admissions as their proportional share of population at Harvard. Some of these kids did and do find ways to demonstrate these qualities...but if all you do in your high school life is grind at academics, with a tutor's help, then not so desirable..."we have plenty of perfect SAT's" at Harvard...

And then we have the women versus men issue...their scores are simply higher...

[ggait]

The schools have already tested the response to this. Thanks to Covid.

What you do is downgrade or eliminate standardized test scores. That eliminates most of the advantage that Asians and white women have. HS grades are a much squishier data point.

But going without tests does have multiple impacts.

Applications go way up. Because kids with good grades but meh test scores will now apply to selective schools.

Diversity also goes up.

But, the big one, financial aid has to go up too. Screening by test scores is a really good way to latch onto those kids who are most likely to be full payors. Since there is a strong correlation between high test scores and SES status. You only get diversity if the diverse admitted kids ultimately enroll. And enrollment (unlike acceptance) really comes down to ability to pay.

Without test scores, you will get more admitted kids who are non-minority, well qualified, but who are also lesser payors.

Most of the "tips" that get you into the selective schools are correlated with high pay status -- high test scores, legacy status, sports/recruited athlete. The minority "tip" is really the only one that goes the other way.

My guess is that HYPS level schools will still be able to afford to pay the larger need blind/full need tab if test scores go away.

TBD if the schools in the 10-25 band will be able to pay that. You could see those schools doing a lot of more admit/deny. Which would cut against diversity. Or they could re-direct merit money (i.e. buying high test scores) into need based FA.

Interestingly, MIT is the main selective school that went against the trend and reinstituted test scores.

[runrussellrun]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/suprem ... -rcna66770

Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action programs at Harvard and UNC
The ruling is the culmination of a decades-long effort to end the consideration of race in admissions.

So...who is likely to actually benefit versus who assumes they will benefit?

I'm going to use generalized terms below, but obviously sentiments are not uniform, I'm just talking about the generalized demographics.

Certainly, for now Asians, who currently over 2.5X overrepresented in the most highly selective schools relative to share of US population, but hope to achieve an even greater share of admissions. That's who ostensibly sued.

But who backed those suits and are cheering, thinking they will gain a larger share going forward?
Whites...and particularly white men. Rich white men and their families financially backed the suit, lots of other white men were led to believe the current situation is unfair to them...so think they should cheer. https://www.boston.com/news/the-boston- ... tion-case/

Men receive the largest boost in admissions benefit on average, so...when does the challenge to gender-based admissions happen? Surely the targets of gender balance are discriminatory?

Women would hold way more admissions acceptances if we decided to only consider high school test scores and SAT's...close to 60:40.

Whites, whether rich or poor, think they are being discriminated again because some Blacks and Hispanics are accepted with lower scores than some white men who are rejected. And yet, Blacks and Hispanics remain under-respected proportionally in these schools.

So, what are these schools, which believe in their brains, hearts, and guts that a diverse campus improves the educational experience of all of the students going to do?

Are they just going to accept double, triple the number of Asian students and eliminate most Black and Hispanic and Native, etc acceptances? Are they going to accept 60% women, 40% men?

Nope, I think what we'll see is alternative ways to accomplish the various cultural and demographic balances that the schools are looking to achieve.

I think we'll see higher emphasis on socio-economic status and an elimination in legacy advantage. And yes, there will be increasing percentages of women versus men.

Asians will likely grow a little, but where the give-up will come is with Whites, and particularly white men.

Teeth gnashing to come...

If an application for a college does not, or cannot include race....how do you come to assume continued racial inequality? Seems the barometer would be entirely on grades, extra-curriculars, test scores, maybe financials. When I interview candidates for hire, I do not look at their CV until after the initial interview.

and yet......Tom Hanks, in his remarks to Harvard grads......discussed this very topic.

Marlon Brando......the human race.......part.

Cut to the chase....Harvard and UNC were found to be in violation of the 14th. They broke the law.

We all know colleges lie about their acceptance standards in the first place.

Was it North Adams state MA and McDaniel MD that were named in that "college scandal" just before the lockdowns?

It may have been Yale......or schools similar to Yale. maybe.

just maybe.

dude. I have a 3.9 gpa and 1580 on the SAT's........let me in. Who cares what color I am.

apparently....Harvard does.

[DocBarrister]

California schools are good exemplars of what will likely happen. California banned affirmative action in the 1990s due to a White Supremacist backlash led by the racist Gov. Pete Wilson.

Result? Asians are vastly overrepresented and Hispanics are vastly underrepresented at the top universities like UC Berkeley while the demographic makeup is more representative of the state at less selective schools like UC Merced.

https://opa.berkeley.edu/campus-data/uc ... uick-facts

https://datausa.io/profile/university/u ... a%20Native.

At Harvard, I suspect Asian enrollment will jump. If Harvard wants to maintain diversity, the school will need to get rid of the ongoing bias favoring legacy admissions.

UNC will probably also see a jump in Asian enrollment, but I suspect White enrollment will jump the most.

Should note that the UC schools have never been able to fully restore diversity since the proposition passed in the 1990s.

This ruling is racist, just like the underlying lawsuit. Sad day in American history.

DocBarrister

[DocBarrister]

Harvard let down academia and affirmative action with their blatantly racist and subjective admissions system that systematically discriminated against Asian students, which resembled the subjective system used to keep out students of Jewish heritage a century ago. Absolutely lazy and moronic.

Harvard made it too easy to strike down affirmative action and failed in its leadership role. Today’s horrible SCOTUS action can largely be blamed on Harvard’s grotesque failure to learn from its past mistakes.

DocBarrister

[runrussellrun]

California schools are good exemplars of what will likely happen. California banned affirmative action in the 1990s due to a White Supremacist backlash led by the racist Gov. Pete Wilson.

Result? Asians are vastly overrepresented and Hispanics are vastly underrepresented at the top universities like UC Berkeley while the demographic makeup is more representative of the state at less selective schools like UC Merced.

https://opa.berkeley.edu/campus-data/uc ... uick-facts

https://datausa.io/profile/university/u ... a%20Native.

At Harvard, I suspect Asian enrollment will jump. If Harvard wants to maintain diversity, the school will need to get rid of the ongoing bias favoring legacy admissions.

UNC will probably also see a jump in Asian enrollment, but I suspect White enrollment will jump the most.

Should note that the UC schools have never been able to fully restore diversity since the proposition passed in the 1990s.

This ruling is racist, just like the underlying lawsuit. Sad day in American history.

DocBarrister

they can do what they want. and they have the money.

I would prefer that 40 percent of each class were essentially a "lottery" type system. Minimal requirements. An essay. A few recommendations and mandatory interview. You are placed in the pool. Lucky you, you are in. Oh....and, completely for free. Lord knows the "new" GI BILL only covers "public colleges. Berkeley doesn't receive federal tax dollars, anyway....

how many of those "Asians" are US citizens ?

exactly

For a bunch of "not for profits", they sure spend their time chasing them.....

[runrussellrun]

Harvard let down academia and affirmative action with their blatantly racist and subjective admissions system that systematically discriminated against Asian students, which resembled the subjective system used to keep out students of Jewish heritage a century ago. Absolutely lazy and moronic.

Harvard made it too easy to strike down affirmative action and failed in its leadership role. Today’s horrible SCOTUS action can largely be blamed on Harvard’s grotesque failure to learn from its past mistakes.

DocBarrister

proud of you DocB.

guess there IS some humanity in you.....good for you. Bashing those that need it.

when Harvard violated the "blind admissions" thing, when it came to financial aid, literally crapping on the poor......that wasn't a let down? Supremes ruled on that too. years ago.

shouldn't there be an operations cost cap on how much a "not for Profit" can hold as assets ?

Don't understand why the n$aa needs a billion in assets? Let alone, 40 billion, like Harvard has.

Harvard gives strokes, they don't get them.

[jhu72]

... After reading / listening to a lot of different folks, this will likely result in a loud cry on campuses for the abandonment of legacy admits. A number of the top schools, but not all have done this already. Those that have not are going to take a lot of grief. Likely athletic preference will take a hit as well. This is going to cause every group on campus to go after the sacred cows they object to most. This will result in questioning diversity well beyond the traditional race and ethnicity boxes. Why are we admitting international students, etc. This can do so much harm to the American educational system in the overreaction.

[youthathletics]

... After reading / listening to a lot of different folks, this will likely result in a loud cry on campuses for the abandonment of legacy admits. A number of the top schools, but not all have done this already. Those that have not are going to take a lot of grief. Likely athletic preference will take a hit as well. This is going to cause every group on campus to go after the sacred cows they object to most. This will result in questioning diversity well beyond the traditional race and ethnicity boxes. Why are we admitting international students, etc. This can do so much harm to the American educational system in the overreaction.

Counterpoint.... In short, a 'rising tide lifts all boats', and the current standard of admissions is a complete dump show. Admissions created this problem in the first place. The end goal should be that there are no stats based on race, ethnicity, creed, gender, etc. We needed those stats as we navigated our history these last 100 years, maybe....just maybe, we can move past all these silos and truly become symbiotic.

[NattyBohChamps04]

... After reading / listening to a lot of different folks, this will likely result in a loud cry on campuses for the abandonment of legacy admits. A number of the top schools, but not all have done this already. Those that have not are going to take a lot of grief. Likely athletic preference will take a hit as well. This is going to cause every group on campus to go after the sacred cows they object to most. This will result in questioning diversity well beyond the traditional race and ethnicity boxes. Why are we admitting international students, etc. This can do so much harm to the American educational system in the overreaction.

A number of schools are gonna tack hard and target a lot more international students. There are a ton of them that pay full price.