[Politics_Observer]

Well looks like legacy admissions is now getting targeted by lawsuits given the U.S. Supreme Court ruling over affirmative action. How will the courts, and possibly the U.S. Supreme Court, rule in this case?

Three minority advocacy groups are suing Harvard University’s governing body, accusing the school of discrimination by giving preferential treatment to children of wealthy donors and alumni, and are citing the recent US Supreme Court ruling that gutted affirmative action to bolster their lawsuit.

The lawsuit, filed by the Lawyers for Civil Rights group on behalf of the Chica Project, the African Community Economic Development of New England, and the Greater Boston Latino Network, alleges the students who receive that preferential treatment are “overwhelmingly White,” and make up as much as 15% of admitted students.

“This preferential treatment has nothing to do with an applicant’s merit. Instead, it is an unfair and unearned benefit that is conferred solely based on the family that the applicant is born into,” Lawyers for Civil Rights said in a news release. “This custom, pattern, and practice is exclusionary and discriminatory. It severely disadvantages and harms applicants of color.”

The lawsuit comes less than a week after the Supreme Court gutted affirmative action in college admissions, ruling schools can no longer take race into consideration as a specific basis for accepting a candidate.

The lawsuit cited that ruling and quoted the Supreme Court’s majority, which said, “College admissions are zero-sum, and a benefit provided to some applicants but not to others necessarily advantages the former at the expense of the latter.”

The plaintiffs in this new lawsuit allege a portion of the White students admitted to the school because of donor and legacy preferences would not be admitted otherwise, which would increase admissions opportunities for applicants of color.

“The need for the Department of Education to put a stop to this discriminatory practice is particularly acute now that the Supreme Court has severely limited the use of race as a factor in higher education admissions processes, which is expected to have a negative impact on campus diversity,” the lawsuit said.

According to the plaintiffs, “Black, Latinx, and Asian American applicants are all dramatically under-represented among those who receive Donor or Legacy Preferences.”

According to Harvard College statistics for the class of 2027, African American and Black students made up 15.3% of accepted undergraduates, Asian Americans made up 29.9% and Latinx students made up 11.3%. Native American and Native Hawaiian students made up 2.7% of accepted undergraduates.

The rest, roughly 40.8% of accepted undergraduates, are presumed to be White.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/03/us/harva ... index.html

[Pants-of-dog]

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.117 ... 4221122889

Abstract
When screening candidates, organizations often give preference to certain applicants on the basis of their familial ties. This “legacy preference,” particularly widespread in college admissions, has been criticized for contributing to inequality and class reproduction. Despite this, studies continue to report that legacies are persistently admitted at higher rates than non-legacies. In this article, we develop a theoretical framework of three distinct sense-making strategies at play when decision-makers screen applicants into their organizations—the meritocratic, material, and diversity logics. We then apply this framework to investigate how legacy preferences either support or undermine each organizational logic using comprehensive data on the population of applicants seeking admission into one elite U.S. college. We find strong support for the material logic at the cost of the other two organizational logics: legacies make better alumni after graduation and have wealthier parents who are materially-positioned to be more generous donors than non-legacy parents. Contrary to the meritocratic logic, we find that legacies are neither more qualified applicants nor better students academically. From a diversity standpoint, legacies are less racially diverse than non-legacies. We conclude with a discussion of our study’s implications for understanding the role of family relationships and nepotism in today’s organizational selection processes.

Something tells me Harvard will fight a lot harder, and that the conservative fundraising group will not pay for lawyers to take this all the way to SCOTUS.

[Politics_Observer]

Given that affirmative action was tossed out by the Supreme Court, it only serves the interest of justice to force Harvard by law to get rid of legacy admissions and any possible preferential treatment given to the wealthy in regard to admissions. Every applicant is judged by merit and that is in the interest of justice.

[wat0n]

Well looks like legacy admissions is now getting targeted by lawsuits given the U.S. Supreme Court ruling over affirmative action. How will the courts, and possibly the U.S. Supreme Court, rule in this case?



https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/03/us/harva ... index.html

As I said in the other thread, LET'S FUCKING GO!

I am hoping they will at least stop the farce of those admission purchases passing as "charitable donations" and such. If schools are gonna sell admits to the rich, just say so publicly and stop evading taxes.

[Rugoz]

It's a conservative court so the outcome is obvious .

[wat0n]

Gorsuch at least criticized legacies in the affirmative action ruling. I wouldn't assume they're safe, at least not as they're currently practiced.

[Pants-of-dog]

Many (perhaps most) of the SCOTUS has either benefited directly from legacy admissions, or their children stand to.

[Rugoz]

Gorsuch at least criticized legacies in the affirmative action ruling. I wouldn't assume they're safe, at least not as they're currently practiced.

The judicial activism of the SCOTUS will be the downfall of American democracy.

[Saeko]

Gorsuch at least criticized legacies in the affirmative action ruling. I wouldn't assume they're safe, at least not as they're currently practiced.

Oh, well it's a good thing the current court is not known for going against centuries of precedent and even its own rulings and opinions. /sarcasm

[wat0n]

Oh, well it's a good thing the current court is not known for going against centuries of precedent and even its own rulings and opinions. /sarcasm

Is there any precedent on legacies?

Social class isn't a protected class so I don't think it'll be as easy to use the 14th to get rid of them completely.

But I can imagine the SCOTUS banning some of the more aberrant practices by (at least) ordering the IRS to stop counting quid pro quo "donor" admits as charitable donations with their respective tax deduction. I can also imagine it restricting it only for cases where the legacy admit can be shown to have a business justification under some disparate impact theory.

In other words, just like affirmative action in admissions wasn't completely banned but very much gutted I can imagine legacies not being completely banned but gutted in relevant ways.

I'll settle with having schools explicitly set aside spots to be sold to the highest bidders, which is what they do with donors anyway.

[Beren]

The judicial activism of the SCOTUS will be the downfall of American democracy.

As a matter of fact their ruling regarding affirmative action isn't against the popular will. It would actually fail in a referendum in each state most likely, as well as nationally.

California is an important state to note because voters there faced a 2020 ballot measure to consider the use of race, sex or ethnicity in government institutions (such as education). A clear majority, 57%, voted against allowing state and local entities to consider such factors in public education, employment and contracting decisions.

When a state that voted for Biden by nearly 30 points is against affirmative action, it shouldn’t be surprising that the nation as a whole is.

A Pew Research Center poll released last month found that 50% of Americans disapproved of certain colleges and universities taking race and ethnicity into account in admissions decisions to increase diversity. Only 33% approved of the practice.

This Pew poll is no outlier. An ABC News/Ipsos poll conducted after the court decided its case showed that 52% of Americans approved of the decision, while 32% were opposed.

Some polling before the ruling had shown even more opposition: 70% of Americans in a recent CBS News/YouGov survey indicated that the Supreme Court should not allow colleges to consider race and ethnicity in admissions.

Biden's student loan forgiveness plan also divides the nation.

The same holds true for Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan that the court blocked. A USA Today/Ipsos poll from April indicated that 52% of Americans were familiar with the case and a mere 16% were very familiar with it. (Those who had student loans were more familiar at 71%, though that’s a fairly low percentage for something that could affect them directly.)

Possibly because of that low familiarity, the percentage of Americans who favor or oppose canceling certain student debt differs greatly depending on how the question is worded. When Marquette didn’t mention Biden or the government specifically in its May poll, a majority (63%) said they favored forgiveness of up to $20,000. It was a much lower 47% in the Ipsos poll.

The ABC News/Ipsos poll showed that 45% approved of the court striking down Biden’s student debt plan, with 40% disapproving. About a sixth (16%) of the public was undecided.

This jibes with polling before the court’s decision was announced. An NBC News poll from last year showed that 43% said Biden’s plan was a good idea compared with 44%, who said it was a bad idea. Just over 10% had no opinion.

The USA Today/Ipsos survey found that 43% of Americans wanted the Supreme Court to allow the government’s student loan forgiveness plan to move forward, while 40% did not. Another 17% had no opinion.

I also don't see if how it's so undemocratic to let states decide it for themselves if they legalise abortion or not.

[wat0n]

And if left to a vote, legacies would also be out. And far more clearly, with larger majorities, than affirmative action at that - which makes perfect sense.

[Rugoz]

As a matter of fact their ruling regarding affirmative action isn't against the popular will. It would actually fail in a referendum in each state most likely, as well as nationally.


Biden's student loan forgiveness plan also divides the nation.


I also don't see if how it's so undemocratic to let states decide it for themselves if they legalise abortion or not.

I agree with all 3 decisions politically, but that's not the point. The only reason those decisions were made, is because the court is conservative. Especially the 1. and the 3. were upheld by the court for decades.

A political court cannot claim to be impartial, and that's a problem if the system is at stake.

[Beren]

I agree with all 3 decisions politically, but that's not the point. The only reason those decisions were made, is because the court is conservative. Especially the 1. and the 3. were upheld by the court for decades.

A political court cannot claim to be impartial, and that's a problem if the system is at stake.

SCOTUS justices were chosen/appointed by democratically elected officials such as the POTUS and the Senate, so they're part of the democratic system. They don't need to be impartial but they're free to have their own interpretations. It's not the system at stake, it's just some liberal/progressive holy cows.

[Rugoz]

SCOTUS justices were chosen/appointed by democratically elected officials such as the POTUS and the Senate, so they're part of the democratic system. They don't need to be impartial but they're free to have their own interpretations. It's not the system at stake, it's just some liberal/progressive holy cows.

The very reason the SCOTUS is an undemocratic institution, comparatively speaking, is because it is supposed to be above politics, i.e. impartial.

[Rugoz]

I also don't see if how it's so undemocratic to let states decide it for themselves if they legalise abortion or not.

By the way, that decision made the court less activist since it left the issue to politics. But with the affirmative action ruling it basically proved it doesn't give a damn about that.

[Beren]

The very reason the SCOTUS is an undemocratic institution, comparatively speaking, is because it is supposed to be above politics, i.e. impartial.

It's supposed to be balanced rather than impartial or above politics, which would be quite an irrealistic demand or expectation anyway. And it's supposed to be balanced in the long term. I guess it used to be rather liberal/progressive earlier, now it's conservative --> long-term balance.

By the way, that decision made the court less activist since it left the issue to politics. But with the affirmative action ruling it basically proved it doesn't give a damn about that.

If affirmative action is racist, it can't be left to politics. However, abortion is legalised murder actually, just like someone's execution is, the legality of which is a matter of political decision.

[Rugoz]

It's supposed to be balanced rather than impartial or above politics, which would be quite an irrealistic demand or expectation anyway. And it's supposed to be balanced in the long term. I guess it used to be rather liberal/progressive earlier, now it's conservative --> long-term balance.

It might be an "unrealistic demand", that's why many countries don't have constitutional courts to begin with. But the US has one, and it's supposed to be above politics.

If affirmative action is racist, it can't be left to politics. However, abortion is legalised murder actually, just like someone's execution is, the legality of which is a matter of political decision.

The decision whether affirmative action is racist or not should be left to politics. The court made that decision instead.

[Beren]

It might be an "unrealistic demand", that's why many countries don't have constitutional courts to begin with. But the US has one, and it's supposed to be above politics.

Is it in the US constitution that it is supposed to be above politics? Which is pretty much a vague term, by the way. What does it mean anyway? Anyone can pretend to be above politics any time, I guess, how do you question it?

How could anyone with political opinions and attitudes be above politics at all? It's just a nerdish idea, I'm afraid.

The decision whether affirmative action is racist or not should be left to politics. The court made that decision instead.

How should it be left to politics to decide if an institution is racist or not? Being a racist institution is unconstitutional, which should be decided/handled by the highest court.

[Robert Urbanek]

If legacy admissions are inherently racist, why did the progressives wait until now to rage against them? The answer, most likely, is that they thought the threat against legacy privilege was some kind of leverage to retain affirmative action. But it was apparently a pointless threat. Even the far right, from what I can see, isn’t defending legacy admissions.