This should be obvious, but I can't find it. I can't find a reference to
why "Equal Protection" applies to prevent "Affirmative Action" at Harvard,
as Harvard is not a government.
I thought I read, somewhere, that "Equal Protection" informs the Title VI >non-discrimination regulations for universities that accept government >funding, but I can't find it in the decision.
This should be obvious, but I can't find it. I can't find a reference
to why "Equal Protection" applies to prevent "Affirmative Action" at
Harvard, as Harvard is not a government.
I thought I read, somewhere, that "Equal Protection" informs the Title
VI non-discrimination regulations for universities that accept
government funding, but I can't find it in the decision.
This should be obvious, but I can't find it. I can't find a reference to why "Equal Protection" applies to prevent "Affirmative Action" at Harvard, as Harvard is not a government.
I thought I read, somewhere, that "Equal Protection" informs the Title VI non-discrimination regulations for universities that accept government funding, but I can't find it in the decision.
This should be obvious, but I can't find it. I can't find a reference to why "Equal Protection" applies to prevent "Affirmative Action" at Harvard, as Harvard is not a government.
I thought I read, somewhere, that "Equal Protection" informs the Title VI non-discrimination regulations for universities that accept government funding, but I can't find it in the decision.
On 7/18/2023 5:53 PM, Arthur Rubin wrote:
This should be obvious, but I can't find it. I can't find a reference to
why "Equal Protection" applies to prevent "Affirmative Action" at
Harvard, as Harvard is not a government.
I thought I read, somewhere, that "Equal Protection" informs the Title VI
non-discrimination regulations for universities that accept government
funding, but I can't find it in the decision.
The principle text of Title IX reads:
No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from >participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to >discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal >financial assistance.
At one time this was interpreted to apply to (1) the school's financial >assistance programs (which are partly funded by the Federal Government) and >(2) athletics (which also seems to get some federal money somehow).
But I think this has been broadened on the basis that federal funding >benefits the whole school. Even then, I think that if a college or other >school refuses all federal funding they should be exempt. Whether Harvard
is willing to do that is another question.
And I'll note that there are other means of "correcting" the current >admissions imbalance without using race/religion/etc. as a criterion.
One (which was used by the U. of California after an initiative banned
racial preferences) would be to give preference to those who do well (e.g., >grades and/or standardized tests) even though the high school they attended >had an overall record that is worse than the median. Another is to give >preference to those with identifiable ancestors who were enslaved. >(Compensating for the effects of slavery rather than explicitly for race.)
A third is to eliminate the "legacy" admissions, which overwhelmingly favor >white students.
If they didn't tax us so much, maybe Harvard could raise the money on
its own. Or through the state of Massechusettes,
According to micky <misc07@fmguy.com>:
If they didn't tax us so much, maybe Harvard could raise the money on
its own. Or through the state of Massechusettes,
Harvard has a endowment worth over $50,000,000,000. They're not hurting.
They could probably get by without Federal grant money but the optics
of turning it down so they can continue admission practices that are
widely (if not totally accurately) seen as discriminatory would be
dreadful.
As someone else noted, Roberts said it's OK to take into account
applicants statements about their experience as members of various
racial groups. On the one hand, sheesh, on the other hand, if this
means fewer children of diplomats who went to finishing school but
happen to be black, and more smart poor kids, that wouldn't be bad.
FWIW I wasn't actually recommending they turn down grants. I was
describing how independant universites that should be free to run their
own show were made subject to the rules of the government.
First they tax, then they give the money back, but with strings. IIRC,
this is
how the feds manipulate the states too.
Now most** of that
manipulation is for good purposes, but if the government changes
dramatically and the goals change, that might not be true anymore.
"micky" wrote in message
news:u3gibihdqb6ajca5u48c9rkce0kqp3j4hf@4ax.com...
FWIW I wasn't actually recommending they turn down grants. I was
describing how independant universites that should be free to run their
own show were made subject to the rules of the government.
They ARE free to run their own show, but if they choose to accept money
from the government, then it makes sense they must abide by the
government's rules.
First they tax, then they give the money back, but with strings.
IIRC, this is
how the feds manipulate the states too.
I'm not sure I would call this manipulation. Remember that the federal government is ultimately elected by the people. In theory, the
government is doing what the people who elected it want it to do. If
people aren't satisfied with their government, they can always elect a
new one.
Now most** of that
manipulation is for good purposes, but if the government changes
dramatically and the goals change, that might not be true anymore.
Well what you call "good purposes" would be in the eye of the beholder. Obviously, if the government changes, that means the people decided to
put a new government in place, which suggests that people collectively endorse whatever those new goals might be
I read a novel set in an alternate world, where there are no "elections"
as we think of them. A voter gives a congressperson their proxy. And
can withdraw that proxy at any time. So the number of votes a
congressperson can cast can change. If they take a stand that is popular
with half their constituents, they will suddenly find that (for that particular bill/amendment/motion) they only have half as many votes as
they did on some other bill that all their constituents liked.
On 7/20/2023 12:11 PM, Rick wrote:
"micky" wrote in message
news:u3gibihdqb6ajca5u48c9rkce0kqp3j4hf@4ax.com...
FWIW I wasn't actually recommending they turn down grants. I was
describing how independant universites that should be free to run
their own show were made subject to the rules of the government.
They ARE free to run their own show, but if they choose to accept money
from the government, then it makes sense they must abide by the
government's rules.
First they tax, then they give the money back, but with strings.
IIRC, this is how the feds manipulate the states too.
I'm not sure I would call this manipulation. Remember that the federal
government is ultimately elected by the people. In theory, the
government is doing what the people who elected it want it to do. If
people aren't satisfied with their government, they can always elect a
new one.
Now most** of that manipulation is for good purposes, but if theWell what you call "good purposes" would be in the eye of the
government changes dramatically and the goals change, that might not
be true anymore.
beholder.
Obviously, if the government changes, that means the people decided to
put a new government in place, which suggests that people collectively
endorse whatever those new goals might be
Well, this is getting a bit more into political philosophy than law, but
one of the problems I see with our (USA) system is that when you elect someone, you get EVERYTHING about them.
I read a novel set in an alternate world, where there are no "elections"
as we think of them. A voter gives a congressperson their proxy. And can withdraw that proxy at any time. So the number of votes a congressperson
can cast can change. If they take a stand that is popular with half
their constituents, they will suddenly find that (for that particular bill/amendment/motion) they only have half as many votes as they did on
some other bill that all their constituents liked.
Currently a lot of people vote based on a single issue, e.g., abortion.
So they elect somebody who will consistently vote to ban abortion or to protect abortion rights, as the case may be. But that congressperson may
be a self-aggrandizing liar (cf. George Santos) or vote to favor
corporations that pollute the air and his/her constituents tolerate that because of his position on that single issue.
In the system I described, he might be able to cast 500,000 votes on abortion, but on pollution bills he might have only 20,000 votes.
I think I would like that system a lot more, and we would get a lot less extremism in our legislatures. [It also eliminates gerrymandering, as
there are no more districts -- you can choose anybody who is willing to
spend a lot of time evaluating and voting on various issues.]
On 7/20/2023 12:11 PM, Rick wrote:
"micky" wrote in message
news:u3gibihdqb6ajca5u48c9rkce0kqp3j4hf@4ax.com...
FWIW I wasn't actually recommending they turn down grants. I
was describing how independant universites that should be free
to run their own show were made subject to the rules of the
government.
They ARE free to run their own show, but if they choose to accept
money from the government, then it makes sense they must abide by
the government's rules.
First they tax, then they give the money back, but with strings.
IIRC, this is
how the feds manipulate the states too.
I'm not sure I would call this manipulation. Remember that the
federal government is ultimately elected by the people. In
theory, the government is doing what the people who elected it
want it to do. If people aren't satisfied with their
government, they can always elect a new one.
Now most** of that
manipulation is for good purposes, but if the government changes
dramatically and the goals change, that might not be true
anymore.
Well what you call "good purposes" would be in the eye of the
beholder. Obviously, if the government changes, that means the
people decided to put a new government in place, which suggests
that people collectively endorse whatever those new goals might
be
Well, this is getting a bit more into political philosophy than
law, but one of the problems I see with our (USA) system is that
when you elect someone, you get EVERYTHING about them.
I read a novel set in an alternate world, where there are no
"elections" as we think of them. A voter gives a congressperson
their proxy. And can withdraw that proxy at any time. So the
number of votes a congressperson can cast can change. If they take
a stand that is popular with half their constituents, they will
suddenly find that (for that particular bill/amendment/motion)
they only have half as many votes as they did on some other bill
that all their constituents liked.
Currently a lot of people vote based on a single issue, e.g.,
abortion. So they elect somebody who will consistently vote to ban
abortion or to protect abortion rights, as the case may be. But
that congressperson may be a self-aggrandizing liar (cf. George
Santos) or vote to favor corporations that pollute the air and
his/her constituents tolerate that because of his position on that
single issue.
In the system I described, he might be able to cast 500,000 votes
on abortion, but on pollution bills he might have only 20,000
votes.
I think I would like that system a lot more, and we would get a
lot less extremism in our legislatures. [It also eliminates
gerrymandering, as there are no more districts -- you can choose
anybody who is willing to spend a lot of time evaluating and
voting on various issues.]
Well, this is getting a bit more into political philosophy than law, but
one of the problems I see with our (USA) system is that when you elect >someone, you get EVERYTHING about them.
I read a novel set in an alternate world, where there are no "elections"
as we think of them. A voter gives a congressperson their proxy. And
can withdraw that proxy at any time. So the number of votes a
congressperson can cast can change. If they take a stand that is popular
with half their constituents, they will suddenly find that (for that >particular bill/amendment/motion) they only have half as many votes as
they did on some other bill that all their constituents liked.
While this may sound like a good idea, if you look at the results in California, the results have been decidedly mixed. About 50 years ago
people realized that with sufficiently vigorous and disingenuous
advertising you can get voters to vote for all sorts of stuff.
The state has a crazy quilt of laws, some quite pernicious like the
one that says they can't raise the property tax on a house more than a nominal amount except when it's sold, a huge subsidy to old house
owners at the expense of younger people and tenants.
Roberts also gave them another option by saying you can't use race per se as an admissions criterion, but it would be okay to give points for a well-written essay which describes the student's experience as a minority student battling discrimination in their prior schooling. As an example, if
a student has less than stellar grades but can explain that by discussing
the discrimination they may have encountered from teachers and other
students in their admission essay, Roberts seemed to hint that was a way to give minority candidates an edge.
On July 19, Rick wrote:
Roberts also gave them another option by saying you can't use race per se
as
an admissions criterion, but it would be okay to give points for a
well-written essay which describes the student's experience as a minority
student battling discrimination in their prior schooling. As an example,
if
a student has less than stellar grades but can explain that by discussing
the discrimination they may have encountered from teachers and other
students in their admission essay, Roberts seemed to hint that was a way
to
give minority candidates an edge.
That's a gaping hole, is it not?
You can probably find Associate Justice Jackson's arguments that the
14th Amendment was passed to redress the wrongs done to black people,
and not to perpetuate them by baqnning race-based legislation. Part of
that is that the same Congress that passed the 14th Amendment also
passed some/much legislation that did indeed favor Negro people, so apparently they weren't against it. (My perhaps very poor paraphrasing
of what she and others say.)
Roberts also gave them another option by saying you can't use race per se >> as an admissions criterion, but it would be okay to give points for a
well-written essay which describes the student's experience as a minority >> student battling discrimination in their prior schooling. As an example, >> if a student has less than stellar grades but can explain that by discussing
the discrimination they may have encountered from teachers and other
students in their admission essay, Roberts seemed to hint that was a way >> to give minority candidates an edge.
That's a gaping hole, is it not?
Yes, it is, which is why I think Roberts actually may have wanted to side with the minority on this. But even with his vote, it still would have been 5-4, so I think he switched to the majority (making it 6-3) so he could
write the majority opinion and put that little workaround in there.
The American College of Nurses is defiant: "We won't let this decision >interfere with our diversity mission, in order to provide the best health care"
Yes folks, the germs care about the nurse's skin color, they retreat faster >when race quotas are met -
On July 28, Rick wrote:
Roberts also gave them another option by saying you can't use race per se
as an admissions criterion, but it would be okay to give points for a
well-written essay which describes the student's experience as a minority
student battling discrimination in their prior schooling. As an example, >> if a student has less than stellar grades but can explain that by discussing
the discrimination they may have encountered from teachers and other
students in their admission essay, Roberts seemed to hint that was a way >> to give minority candidates an edge.
That's a gaping hole, is it not?
Yes, it is, which is why I think Roberts actually may have wanted to side with the minority on this. But even with his vote, it still would have been 5-4, so I think he switched to the majority (making it 6-3) so he could write the majority opinion and put that little workaround in there.WSJ yesterday notes this has already begun. Stanford and Rice have
changed their admission essay prompts to "Tell us what adversity you
have overcome (race/sexuality/immigration discrimination)... "
The American College of Nurses is defiant: "We won't let this decision interfere with our diversity mission, in order to provide the best health care"
Yes folks, the germs care about the nurse's skin color, they retreat faster when race quotas are met -
Didn't lose much time, did they?
According to RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com>:
The American College of Nurses is defiant: "We won't let this decision
interfere with our diversity mission, in order to provide the best health care"
Yes folks, the germs care about the nurse's skin color, they retreat faster >> when race quotas are met -
I realize this may be hard for us snarky old white guys to imagine,
but do you suppose there's any possibility that patients (of any
background) do better when the nurses look and sound like they do?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 407 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 14:23:16 |
| Calls: | 8,554 |
| Calls today: | 6 |
| Files: | 13,219 |
| Messages: | 5,925,572 |