I've posted this comment elsewhere, but I think it is something we ALL need to think about:
since many institutions supported affirmative action during this litigation, one presumes that the universities sending graduates their way want to be able to provide a diverse set of graduates. Can they find any find workarounds? One, which does seem still to be around, is financial ability. Right now it seems to be OK to consider whether an applicant is "eligible" for financial aid. Why not expand that to just "financial considerations.? And how about using "diverse culture" as a criteria--in other words, have a particular part of the application specifically ask the student how the specific aspects of the culture they grew up in has affected or will affect their lives, so that the part the court left open--the consideration of such a discussion in the student's essays--is highlighted.
One also would hope that high school guidance counselors will also encourage the students to stress that kind of thing in their essays whether or not there is a specific question about it.
Or, since "legacy" admissions are still allowed, how about considering "anti-legacy" admissions, too--a priority given to those who come from a particular economic background whose families have NOT been either to that college or perhaps to any college in past generations.
In sum, rather than use "race" as a criteria, strengthen the criteria that touch on the RESULTS of discrimination in the past or present that have prevented diversity in higher education.
Yes, it would be good to broaden the court, either in numbers or through mandatory retirement provisions. Stronger ethics laws that actually PREVENT receipt of the kind of goodies we've recently seen revealed, not just requiring reporting of them, would also be of great benefit. Specifically useful would be a law that DEFINES acceptance of such goodies as a "high crime or misdemeanor" to prevent the waffling on impeachment that we saw with the trump impeachments--the "they proved their case but I just didn't think it was an impeachable offense" that we saw from Senators in his first impeachment.
But that is a long-term haul. Don't we also have to think of ways to get AROUND the perversities of what comes down from the "highest" bench.
Really good MM, Dave. Thank you for including the remarks by K. Brown and Sotomayor/SCOTUS. These women are
true Justices.
I've posted this comment elsewhere, but I think it is something we ALL need to think about:
since many institutions supported affirmative action during this litigation, one presumes that the universities sending graduates their way want to be able to provide a diverse set of graduates. Can they find any find workarounds? One, which does seem still to be around, is financial ability. Right now it seems to be OK to consider whether an applicant is "eligible" for financial aid. Why not expand that to just "financial considerations.? And how about using "diverse culture" as a criteria--in other words, have a particular part of the application specifically ask the student how the specific aspects of the culture they grew up in has affected or will affect their lives, so that the part the court left open--the consideration of such a discussion in the student's essays--is highlighted.
One also would hope that high school guidance counselors will also encourage the students to stress that kind of thing in their essays whether or not there is a specific question about it.
Or, since "legacy" admissions are still allowed, how about considering "anti-legacy" admissions, too--a priority given to those who come from a particular economic background whose families have NOT been either to that college or perhaps to any college in past generations.
In sum, rather than use "race" as a criteria, strengthen the criteria that touch on the RESULTS of discrimination in the past or present that have prevented diversity in higher education.
Yes, it would be good to broaden the court, either in numbers or through mandatory retirement provisions. Stronger ethics laws that actually PREVENT receipt of the kind of goodies we've recently seen revealed, not just requiring reporting of them, would also be of great benefit. Specifically useful would be a law that DEFINES acceptance of such goodies as a "high crime or misdemeanor" to prevent the waffling on impeachment that we saw with the trump impeachments--the "they proved their case but I just didn't think it was an impeachable offense" that we saw from Senators in his first impeachment.
But that is a long-term haul. Don't we also have to think of ways to get AROUND the perversities of what comes down from the "highest" bench.