|
yronic heroism posted:Is it based on private colleges receiving federal funds? Or Title VI? they are - there’s only a small handful of ideologically driven schools which may be immune to this because rhey don’t receive federal funding
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2023 17:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 15:34 |
|
|
Riptor posted:it also has a very specific cultural niche, being popular in many places where the US military was heavily present during and after WWII (Hawaii, Guam, Okinawa, South Korea, the Philippines) Is that it for them? Are we getting a bonus Friday or are they done for this session?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2023 17:46
|
|
|
Pants Donkey posted:Ah yes, the hogemony The final 3 cases will be announced tomorrow, and will include the ruling on the legality of student debt forgiveness, so likely to be another day of tumult
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2023 17:51
|
|
|
Youth Decay posted:https://twitter.com/quantian1/status/1674426191162515463 hahaha gently caress
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2023 17:54
|
|
|
Pants Donkey posted:Ah yes, the hogemony Looks like there are three cases left: Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic Int'l, about international enforcement of trademarks, and the two student-debt relief cases, Biden v. Nebraska and DoE v. Brown.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2023 17:55
|
|
|
I'm guessing the student loan case will be terrible too.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2023 18:23
|
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:I'm guessing the student loan case will be terrible too. I'm less worried about the outcome, which we all know in advance, than how they can square getting to the merits with the completely spurious standing issue first.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2023 18:37
|
|
|
rjmccall posted:Looks like there are three cases left: Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic Int'l, about international enforcement of trademarks, and the two student-debt relief cases, Biden v. Nebraska and DoE v. Brown. Did they issue the 303 Creative (gay wedding website case) decision?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2023 18:44
|
|
|
haveblue posted:That supports what I was getting at earlier- in practical terms, race will still be a factor in admissions, but there will be no way to document or verify that how would this work, exactly? in these cases, the trial courts had years of documents gathered from harvard and UNC: emails, training materials, reader notes on files, Slack messages. is the idea that colleges and universities will simply project these practices telepathically through the luminiferous aether? Crazy Joe Wilson posted:Factoring in income levels and residential location of students would do pretty much the same thing factoring in race or lived experiences does now. No it does not. https://blueprintlabs.mit.edu/resea...s-exam-schools/ quote:Several public K-12 and university systems have recently shifted from race-based affirmative action plans to race-neutral alternatives. This paper explores the degree to which race-neutral alternatives are effective substitutes for racial quotas using data from the Chicago Public Schools (CPS), where a race-neutral, place-based affirmative action system is used for admissions at highly competitive exam high schools. We develop a theoretical framework that motivates quantifying the efficiency cost of race-neutral policies by the extent admissions decisions are distorted more than needed to achieve a given level of diversity. According to our metric, CPS’s race-neutral system is 24% and 20% efficient as a tool for increasing minority representation at the top two exam schools, i.e. about three-fourths of the reduction in composite scores could have been avoided by explicitly considering race. Even though CPS’s system is based on socioeconomic disadvantage, it is actually less effective than racial quotas at increasing the number of low-income students. We examine several alternative race-neutral policies and find some to be more efficient than the CPS policy. What is feasible varies with the school’s surrounding neighborhood characteristics and the targeted level of minority representation. However, no race-neutral policy restores minority representation to prior levels without substantial inefficiency, implying significant efficiency costs from prohibitions on affirmative action policies that explicitly consider race. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004727272300021X quote:As affirmative action loses political feasibility, many universities have implemented race-neutral alternatives like top percent policies and holistic review to increase enrollment among disadvantaged students. I study these policies’ application, admission, and enrollment effects using University of California administrative data. UC’s affirmative action and top percent policies increased underrepresented minority (URM) enrollment by over 20 percent and less than 4 percent, respectively. Holistic review increases implementing campuses’ URM enrollment by about 7 percent. Top percent policies and holistic review have negligible effects on lower-income enrollment, while race-based affirmative action modestly increased enrollment among very low-income students. These findings highlight that the most common race-neutral alternatives to affirmative action increase Black and Hispanic enrollment far less than affirmative action itself and reveal that none of these policies substantially affect universities’ socioeconomic composition. https://record.umich.edu/articles/u-m-files-amicus-brief-in-support-of-harvard-and-unc/ quote:“Despite persistent, vigorous, and varied efforts to increase student-body racial and ethnic diversity by race-neutral means...the admission and enrollment of underrepresented minority students have fallen precipitously...especially among the most-underrepresented groups, Black and Native American students, whose enrollment has fallen by 44% and 90%, respectively...fully one quarter of underrepresented minority students surveyed indicated they felt they did not “belong” at U-M, a 66% increase over the last decade...U-M’s more than 15-year-long experiment in race-neutral admissions helps to establish that racial diversity in student enrollment, and the compelling government interest in the resulting educational benefits, cannot be adequately realized at selective institutions without taking race into account as one factor among many in admissions decisions.” and even if they did, the majority opinion specifically says you cannot adopt so-called race-neutral alternatives for the purposes of pursuing racial diversity: https://twitter.com/danepps/status/1674421201027104769?s=46&t=b23kGbnuFi54qJQa-UIGzw Upgrade posted:surprising nobody they’ve ruled against race based admissions - opinion does include some language that still allows consideration of race, so I’m not sure where this leaves colleges. I work in this space and the big fear is that colleges won’t even be allowed to track race and ethnicity, and this is clearly short of that. the room for maneuver here is something like: resilience is an acceptable character trait to select for. there are many ways to demonstrate resilience, including (but not limited to) overcoming specific and individualized experiences of racism. however, you cannot value only the kind of resilience demonstrated by overcoming individualized racism, and you cannot give people an advantage for overcoming structural racism solely by being members of a broad category. (in fact you already could not do this; giving people an advantage for overcoming structural racism has been outlawed by SCOTUS for more than 50 years. this is part of the supreme court shadowboxing disingenuously) **** most people don't understand what affirmative action or race conscious admissions are, why they are permitted, how it works. this is the product of extremely intentional gaslighting (a word i do not usually use but is appropriate here) to confuse people about how it works in order to make them hate it more. if you're not someone who is really in the policy weeds here, i would recommend reading https://mitadmissions.org/blogs/entry/reaffirming-our-commitment-to-diversity/, particularly footnotes 3, 4, 5, 8, 10, 11, 13, 16, and 17, for the best short and shareable guide to this area I've seen Petey fucked around with this message at 18:57 on Jun 29, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2023 18:45
|
|
|
"you do not under any circumstances gotta hand it to 'em" but at least thomas is consistent and explicit in his longstanding belief (noted in Robin's biography) that segregation was better https://twitter.com/CoreyRobin/status/1674461569051242499
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2023 18:49
|
|
|
The X-man cometh posted:Did they issue the 303 Creative (gay wedding website case) decision? Oops, no, I missed that one, it’s still outstanding.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2023 18:50
|
|
|
Petey posted:"you do not under any circumstances gotta hand it to 'em" but at least thomas is consistent and explicit in his longstanding belief (noted in Robin's biography) that segregation was better Somehow his JD is from Yale and not a HBCU, however.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2023 18:55
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:Is it based on private colleges receiving federal funds? Or Title VI? Harvard receives something like $600 million a year in federal research grants alone. My dad, when he was an untenured professor at MIT got research grants from the National Institute of Health to fund his research, hire people, buy lab equipment, and also teach once in a while etc. There's very few, if any, truly 'private' universities (i think there's one that explicitly rejects any federal money). Basically if you receive any public money, you can't discriminate based on race/sex/etc.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2023 19:02
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:Somehow his JD is from Yale and not a HBCU, however. Also his undergrad.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2023 19:12
|
|
|
Petey posted:
I don't presume to know every single minutia about how colleges use affirmative action, but i did read the documents in this particular case. In the case of Harvard, they weighted the academic performance between asian and black students in such a lopsided way that asians in the top academic decile (90th-100% of the academic index) had as much of a chance of getting into harvard as a black applicant in the 40th percentile. I'm all for giving tips to URMs who are roughly equal in academic achievement, but that's just an insane policy to have.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2023 19:18
|
|
|
rjmccall posted:Looks like there are three cases left: Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic Int'l, about international enforcement of trademarks, and the two student-debt relief cases, Biden v. Nebraska and DoE v. Brown. Abitron came out today; short version, trademark law doesn’t apply extraterritorially.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2023 19:19
|
|
|
There's a interesting point in the opinion whether giving an advantage to one group is, in legal colour, equivalent to giving a disadvantage to another group: the majority says obviously yes ("College admissions are zero-sum"), the dissent claims otherwise (whether or not college admissions are zero-sum is not obvious to me: one could, e.g., expand the cohort intake, in an instance where one would not do so otherwise, in order to obtain the benefits of diversity... Grutter does not imply that a critical mass is a proportionate one. That is, Harvard really only needed to switch its second and third admissions steps around) MIT may come to regret the phrasing of "underrepresented minority" in its public rationale, in a post-SFFA universe, where SCOTUS seems wont to call bullshit and argue that this implies the existence of overrepresented minorities who are necessarily penalized ronya fucked around with this message at 19:26 on Jun 29, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2023 19:20
|
|
|
Mister Fister posted:I don't presume to know every single minutia about how colleges use affirmative action, but i did read the documents in this particular case. In the case of Harvard, they weighted the academic performance between asian and black students in such a lopsided way that asians in the top academic decile (90th-100% of the academic index) had as much of a chance of getting into harvard as a black applicant in the 40th percentile. I'm all for giving tips to URMs who are roughly equal in academic achievement, but that's just an insane policy to have. not here to defend harvard admissions but consider the difference in “equal achievement” (on an arbitrary scale) vs “sufficiently well prepared” (one of the distinctions drawn in the MIT blog post footnotes)
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2023 19:26
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:So like, what actually is the deal with SPAM? SPAM is bad. It is low quality meat that tastes terrible in comparison even to inexpensive fresh meat (I know of what I speak, i grew up eating plenty of USDA select and never had prime anything outside of a restaurant until I was an adult). But some people claim to love it and is widely consumed by people who can definitely afford something better. Does it grow on you? Why do people question what food you eat? Why do you even care. Eat your own food.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2023 19:28
|
|
|
Eventually there's gonna be a case about the male vs female admission standards, right? When I was applying to colleges a decade ago it was an open secret that many schools were desperate to balance their gender ratios and letting the below-average dudes through, though looking at national numbers (60:40 women:men) whatever they are doing hasn't had much of an impact.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2023 19:28
|
|
|
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/clarence-thomas-long-battle-against-affirmative-action/ There's a special place in hell for people like Thomas. He can't get there soon enough. How long till this ruling also effects people looking for jobs?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2023 19:40
|
|
|
Youth Decay posted:Eventually there's gonna be a case about the male vs female admission standards, right? When I was applying to colleges a decade ago it was an open secret that many schools were desperate to balance their gender ratios and letting the below-average dudes through, though looking at national numbers (60:40 women:men) whatever they are doing hasn't had much of an impact. Because of the ERA failure sex discrimination is only held to intermediate scrutiny. I think you could see Gorsuch using the language in Bostock to try to go after that under Title 6 but I don’t know if you would get a majority. It’s also historically the case that men benefitted from much lower standards. Charles Petersen’s dissertation on the history of Stanford admissions — he got access to like a century of archives — shows that there was a cap on Stanford being 10% women (the Stanfords didn’t want a school named after their son to have too many women), and that all of the women admitted were strongly outperforming all the men. So men have had a lower standard for most of the 20th century.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2023 19:42
|
|
|
Jiro posted:How long till this ruling also effects people looking for jobs? It is already formally illegal to consider race in hiring. https://www.eeoc.gov/prohibited-employment-policiespractices edit: unless you mean downstream, which will be a factor. https://cshe.berkeley.edu/publications/affirmative-action-mismatch-and-economic-mobility-after-california%E2%80%99s-proposition-209 quote:
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2023 19:43
|
|
|
Petey posted:not here to defend harvard admissions but consider the difference in “equal achievement” (on an arbitrary scale) vs “sufficiently well prepared” (one of the distinctions drawn in the MIT blog post footnotes) I tried control-F'ing those phrases and didn't see what you're referring to, but in any case, the other problem i had with affirmative action is the opaqueness of the process. Prior to the original SFFA vs Harvard case, i had very little idea about how much of a tips these colleges were giving wrt race, but now i can see why colleges aren't open about it, and Harvard fought tooth and nail to hide their process from the courts claiming it was their 'secret sauce' and it would put them at a competitive disadvantage as if their admissions process was the source code to ChatGPT or something. Opaqueness is almost never a good policy for big institutions to have. Also, freddie deboer probably articulates the other problem i have with (especially elite) schools like harvard better than most, they're literally not helping the kids affirmative action was purportedly meant to help. They're self interested institutions who care more about themselves more than anything else, yet i'm supposed to pretend that them admitting the kids of a Nigerian doctor is the same thing as helping a black kid who is directly descendent of slavery living in the projects of Baltimore, it's insulting to everyone's intelligence: https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/why-the-gently caress-do-you-trust-harvard I'd rather they just tax the ever living gently caress out of Harvard's gigantic endowment fund and give it to inner city schools rather than having elite institutions playing charades and pretending that they're fighting centuries of systemic racism.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2023 19:43
|
|
|
Petey posted:
I did mean downstream thank you for that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2023 20:11
|
|
|
Jiro posted:I did mean downstream thank you for that. It will absolutely be a factor although this is in *some* respects on the company side, and the product of 1) limited recruiting and 2) the broader withdrawal of on-the-job training. See e.g. https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/97992, a study of tech industry hiring practices that shows while Blacks and Hispanics are *overrepresented* in majoring in technical fields, they tend to do so at colleges that tech companies do not generally recruit from. This was exacerbated by Prop 209 in California: the Bleemer study I linked above shows that similarly qualified Black students “cascaded” from Berkeley and UCLA to Riverside and Merced after the ban, and recruiters historically did not frequent those colleges as much. The fundamental insight that Thomas does have is that affirmative action has allowed certain institutions and communities to feel diverse and be blind to broader structural inequalities. However, I am not optimistic that this ruling will force a confrontation with that reality; after all, it hasn’t in the many states. And Thomas isn’t even interested in that reform as much as a return to self-determination (as it were).
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2023 20:58
|
|
|
Pook Good Mook posted:I'm less worried about the outcome, which we all know in advance, than how they can square getting to the merits with the completely spurious standing issue first. They could strike it down with "no comment" or "because we say so" and it'd still be just as dead. It's not like there's any political will among Dems, let alone Biden, to call out the SCOTUS as being stacked with illegitimate political hacks whose rulings should be ignored either.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2023 21:24
|
|
|
I mean, the guy who said he didn't think he could do it all along, then finally bowed to heavy nagging from the more liberal part of his court to Do Something found a way to do something that he knew was going to lead into legal trouble and likely be denied. I don't think he's going to push hard to have the thing he didn't think he could do all along, then was told he couldn't do after all once he reluctantly did it, actually go through.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2023 21:44
|
|
|
Mister Fister posted:
Coney Barrett made an offhand comment during oral argument that it had been 20 years since Grutter, which had come 25 years after Bakke, and it didn't look like affirmative action has done much to meaningfully affect academic opportunities for POC over 45 years. She almost got it, maybe next time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2023 22:11
|
|
|
What are your blokes thoughts on the Supreme Court ruling against Affirmative Action
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2023 22:12
|
|
|
Cimber posted:Doesn't that invite venue shopping though? What if someone who lives in say, Maine wants to sue a 'woke' company and decides to sue them in a very friendly district like North East Texas where the whole abortion pill thing went down? The guy suing the railroad did live in Pennsylvania at one point, but wasn't living there at either the time he filed the suit or the time he was exposed to carcinogens. All the exposures were also outside the state. The only connection to PA is that the railroad agreed to be sueable there for all causes (because the state requires that for a local business license)
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2023 22:15
|
|
|
Wizard Master posted:What are your blokes thoughts on the Supreme Court ruling against Affirmative Action Read the posts made ITT in the hours since the decision was released.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2023 22:15
|
|
|
Wizard Master posted:What are your blokes thoughts on the Supreme Court ruling against Affirmative Action I thought it was a garbage ruling, personally.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2023 22:42
|
|
|
The X-man cometh posted:Coney Barrett made an offhand comment during oral argument that it had been 20 years since Grutter, which had come 25 years after Bakke, and it didn't look like affirmative action has done much to meaningfully affect academic opportunities for POC over 45 years. What did ACB "almost get"? I don't follow you here.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2023 22:46
|
|
|
Cross-posting, but of interest to the thread. Panfilo posted:https://twitter.com/AngryBlackLady/status/1674411961935863815?t=mDU-seh4GcRrleLe45RMpg&s=19
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2023 22:56
|
|
|
trevorreznik posted:What did ACB "almost get"? I don't follow you here. That America is built on a system of white supremacy and that we need major structural changes, not just affirmative action at highly ranked colleges like Harvard and UNC and Michigan and Berkeley
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2023 22:58
|
|
|
Republicans all taking a victory lap, saying they defeated systemic racism, which they also said doesn't exist
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2023 23:47
|
|
|
The X-man cometh posted:That America is built on a system of white supremacy and that we need major structural changes, not just affirmative action at highly ranked colleges like Harvard and UNC and Michigan and Berkeley Yeah to some degree elite university AA arguments are a very tiny slice of the problem, but I think there are issues with AA at less selective colleges too: https://www.pjstar.com/story/news/e...squo/114362648/ https://prairiestatewire.com/stories/512415627-analysis-6-in-10-black-students-failing-out-of-illinois-4-year-universities You really need interventions way earlier than college... even earlier than high school/middle school to fix this problem. "College dropout" is probably the worst possible outcome you could have: no degree premium to increase your earnings potential AND loaded up on debt. Progressives are really annoying me on this issue because it feels like they care more about the aesthetics of having black kids being represented in college so they can show them off on brochures and campus tours but don't care all that much about their outcomes afterwards. In fact, i would go one further, the majority of people (POC or not) shouldn't even go to college, it's becoming a complete scam, even if you do graduate. I'm mentoring a Hispanic kid at my gym who's going to be a senior in HS next year and I'm pushing him to go into the trades instead of college since he's really not passionate about academics. I know a kid who started making $48 an hour right after doing 2 years of plumbing at a trade school with 0 debt. The opportunity cost of college makes 0 sense for a lot of majors/schools. Mister Fister fucked around with this message at 00:10 on Jun 30, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 00:05
|
|
|
PharmerBoy posted:Cross-posting, but of interest to the thread. How does a case make it to the loving SCOTUS without someone confirming that the discrimination at the core of the suit actually happened? Nobody contacted the person that the plaintiff discriminated against that kicked off this lawsuit to ask "hey can you confirm this event happened and if so is this how it went down?" That we're almost certainly about to see a(nother) ruling that says it's ok to discriminate against others in business and the plaintiff (and their lawyers) likely committed perjury to do so should be a huge loving deal.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 01:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 15:34 |
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:How does a case make it to the loving SCOTUS without someone confirming that the discrimination at the core of the suit actually happened? Nobody contacted the person that the plaintiff discriminated against that kicked off this lawsuit to ask "hey can you confirm this event happened and if so is this how it went down?" Because trusting some random Twitter podcaster to sum up an article for you instead of reading the article yourself is a bad move. Contrary to her statement, that supposed request did not "form the basis of the case", and the case doesn't have anything to do with any actual instance of discrimination. The plaintiff didn't even offer wedding design services at all when the case was first filed; she was suing preemptively to dismantle the state's anti-discrimination law because of the possibility that she might get a gay marriage request in the future. Given all that, this supposed request didn't creep into the court filings until several months into the case, and it was never anything more than a minor detail that received little attention from both the courts and the lawyers. Even when the courts took notice of it, they didn't really give it any credibility: quote:Whatever value the inquiry had, in September 2017, when the federal court ruled on the case, it seemed to dismiss it. The evidence presented as a whole, the ruling stated, did not allow the court to “determine the imminent likelihood that anyone, much less a same-sex couple, will request Plaintiff’s services.” Of the inquiry itself, the court said it was “too imprecise” and that “assuming it indicates a market for Plaintiff’s services, it is not clear that Stewart and Mike are a same-sex couple (as such names can be used by members of both sexes).”
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 02:35
|
|