What happens after the end of Affirmative Action?

[edjr 6,580]

The Supreme Court is expected to rule that colleges can no longer rig for racial diversity. Some say ‘that’s dangerous and cruel.’ Others say it’s about time.

 

https://www.thefp.com/p/what-happens-after-the-end-of-affirmative?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=260347&post_id=131325119&isFreemail=true&utm_medium=email

 

Quote

 

When he was growing up outside San Francisco in the seventies and eighties, David Malcolm Carson almost never thought about race or affirmative action.

Carson’s mother is Jewish; his father, black. His friends were a racial and ethnic smorgasbord. 

In high school he started to cast about for an identity, and became more aware of his blackness. 

“I began to understand that in societal terms I would be considered ‘black,’ that America had had a ‘one-drop rule’ for centuries,” Carson told me. 

He read Alex Haley’s Autobiography of Malcolm X, and matriculated at the historically black Howard University in Washington, D.C. He stopped going by David, and started going by Malcolm: “Part of it was that it referenced Malcolm X and all that he represented, part of it was just wanting to declare some independence.” He got into “old-school hip-hop, Public Enemy, A Tribe Called Quest, De La Soul.” He wrote his senior thesis on the FBI’s counterintelligence program targeting the Black Panthers.

After college, Carson applied to Stanford Law School and got in. At the end of his second year, he transferred to the University of California at Berkeley’s Boalt Hall, because he wanted to do a joint degree in city planning. Berkeley said yes.

“It’s likely that I benefited from affirmative action in applying to Stanford and Berkeley,” Carson said, but he noted that he had straight As at Howard and that, when he took the LSAT, he was in the top 1 percent. At a time of growing skepticism around race-based admissions—President Bill Clinton called to “mend, not end” the policy—Carson demonstrated in defense of it. He also joined the staff of the Black Law Journal.

But in 1995, policy at the University of California—the biggest public university system in the country—changed when the Board of Regents barred race-based admissions on its nine campuses.

In response, Boalt convened an Admissions Policy Task Force, and Carson was invited to take part. Berkeley, like many universities, had embraced diversity, and it wasn’t about to give that up. 

So, it looked for a workaround.

Ultimately, the task force concluded that, to achieve racial diversity and not violate University of California policy, it had to deemphasize quantitative yardsticks like grades and test scores and focus on other things. “The prevailing opinion was that if we focused on these qualitative assessments of a person’s interests, lived experience, that would contribute to the diversity of students,” Carson said.

The task force’s conclusion was borne out when, in the spring of 1997—after affirmative action had been prohibited at the University of California but before Boalt could implement the task force’s recommendations—the numbers of minority students admitted to the law school plummeted. 

That year, the number of black students admitted to Boalt declined from 9.2 percent the year before to 1.8 percent. Latino admits dropped from 4.2 percent to 2 percent. Meanwhile, the proportion of Asian American students jumped from 15.5 percent to nearly 19 percent, and that of white students, from 57.3 percent to nearly 68 percent. 

Which made the task force’s proposal all the more urgent.

Within a few years, admissions officers across the country started to call the new ideas “holistic admissions” or “holistic review.” It sounded more palatable than affirmative action, but really it was a way of achieving the same outcome without saying so explicitly. 

Over the past three decades, colleges across the country—public and private—have adopted this approach in an effort to boost their student bodies’ racial diversity.

And it’s worked. At Harvard, for example, the class of 2000 was 9.4 percent black, and the class of 2026 is just over 15.2 percent black—a more than 50 percent rise.

But that increase, according to critics, has come at the expense of more competitive Asian and white students. 

The tension exploded in 2012, when Abigail Fisher, a white woman who had been rejected by the University of Texas as a high school senior, sued the university on the grounds that its race-based admissions policy hurt not only white but Asian American applicants—exposing a growing rift in the Asian American community. Fisher’s legal battle was financed by a wealthy family friend: the conservative activist Edward Blum, a University of Texas alum who lived in Austin. Even though Fisher and Blum lost their case against Texas, that battle gave rise to a new organization, Students for Fair Admissions, or SFFA, which was committed to dismantling affirmative action.

Two years later, in November 2014, SFFA filed lawsuits against the oldest private and public universities in the country: Harvard and the University of North Carolina. SFFA says both schools’ admission policies violate Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and that North Carolina, as a state university, also violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection clause.

The Supreme Court is expected to issue its opinion in the companion cases this week, possibly as soon as today. And it is likely—given the Court is dominated 6 to 3 by justices skeptical of, if not hostile to, race-based admissions—to rule against both schools.

This time, Malcolm Carson isn’t sure where he stands—on Harvard, North Carolina, and on the affirmative action policy that may have given him a critical boost so many years ago.

“When affirmative action was conceptualized, it was to right past wrongs,” he said. “Then, it became sort of endless. It wasn’t just African Americans. It was Native Americans and Hispanics. And then it was women, LGBT, etc., and that wiped out the moral imperative of it a little, because diversity is not quite as strong a claim as correcting past wrongs.” 

Being black in America today, he continued, is not like it once was: “Society has evolved.” 

He sounded like he was at pains to support something he no longer supported. “At Berkeley Law School, we responded by employing a race-neutral, more qualitative process to express those same desires,” he said. “Is that still ‘affirmative action’? It certainly could be.”
We’ve seen this movie before, Edward Blum, the activist spearheading the Supreme Court cases, told me.

In the 1920s, he recalled, Ivy League schools introduced “holistic admissions” to keep out high-achieving Jewish newcomers—only then they simply called them quotas. The much revered Harvard Man (or, for that matter, the Yale Man or Princeton Man) was a type: WASPy, athletic, well-connected, well to do.

After World War II, the old antisemitism gave way to the new meritocracy, which emphasized quantitative metrics like the SAT and grade point average to ensure that discrimination against Jews or any other unwanted minority wouldn’t rear its ugly head.

“Today,” Blum said, “the abandonment of standardized tests and the diminished importance of grades in the admissions process is a veiled attempt to limit the number of high-achieving Asian Americans.” In other words, as Blum sees it, the current policies are hardly progressive but have rewound the clock—all the way back to pre-war America, with Asians now playing the role of Jews.

The SFFA targeted Harvard, Blum explained, because it had the “most discriminatory, troublesome data when it came to the ratio of Asians that were applying to Harvard and the number of Asians Harvard was admitting.” It targeted North Carolina because, the lawsuit asserted, race was “a dominant factor” in its admissions process when “race-neutral alternatives”—such as household income—would have sufficed to achieve diversity.

Calvin Yang, 21, is an SFFA member and party to the lawsuit against Harvard.

Yang’s résumé was something else: he was a varsity swimmer and varsity rugby player, and he’d been in debate club and No. 1 in his school’s International Baccalaureate program. He’d even launched his own initiative—the Canadian Youth Alliance for Climate Action—and it had organized the biggest climate protest in North American history. Over 300,000 people showed up, including Greta Thunberg. In 2021, he made Canada’s Top 30 Under 30. He speaks six languages (including Icelandic and Chinese). Oh, and he scored a 1550 out of 1600 on his SAT.

But when he applied to Harvard, he was rejected. Same with Yale.

“I think there’s definitely a lot of prejudice and stereotypes against the Asian American community,” Yang said in an interview. 

Eventually, Yang wound up at Berkeley, where he’s now a rising junior. But he was still angry. “I’m fighting on behalf of Asian Americans, and, I guess, Asian communities all around the world,” he said.

He’d done everything right. Harvard didn’t agree.

Perhaps they thought the problem was Yang’s “personality.” A 2018 analysis of 160,000 applicant records uncovered during discovery in the suit showed that Asian Americans, while outperforming every other group on academics and extracurriculars, received low marks from Harvard admissions officers when it came to personality traits—lowering their odds of admission. Asian American students were consistently deemed less “likable, courageous, kind, and respectable.”

Calvin Yang is going to be fine. The lawsuit has raised his profile considerably, and in recent years he’s ramped up his involvement in conservative politics. (He was on staff at the Berkeley Political Review, and he belonged to the group Young Conservatives, in Ottawa.) The more important point, as far as Yang is concerned, is that this is unfair. And that it will quietly hurt a lot of people—those who don’t sign on to high-profile lawsuits or wind up at top-tier schools like Berkeley. “Even though I got into a good school, not everyone does,” Yang said. 

Kenny Xu, 25, who also had stellar grades and test scores in high school but was nonetheless rejected from Princeton and the University of Pennsylvania, said he hadn’t even bothered to apply to Harvard. “It was an open secret in the Chinese American community that Harvard discriminated against Asian Americans,” Xu told me. (Xu is on SFFA’s board, but he’s not a party to either lawsuit.)

Xu wound up at Davidson College in North Carolina, and then he wrote a book about the lawsuit—An Inconvenient Minority: The Harvard Admissions Case and the Attack on Asian American Excellence. That came out in late 2022. (Getting rejected from Harvard may have been the best thing to happen to Xu. He has another book coming out this summer, School of Woke, about Critical Race Theory.)

“What Harvard is doing is antithetical to the American dream,” Xu said. 

Swan Lee, co-founder of the Asian American Coalition for Education poses for a portrait in Brookline, Mass. (Sophie Park for The Free Press)
Swan Lee, a co-founder of the Asian American Coalition for Education, in Boston, agreed. She told me that this way of thinking about race “is actually very racist” and it was incredible to her that others didn’t see it that way.

“Race is an immutable factor. We have no personal choice in it,” she added. “People should be evaluated on the results of their personal choices, their efforts.”

Lee expects the Court to rule against the universities, and she is looking forward to the Court putting an end to affirmative action once and for all. “Racial consideration in education is blatant racial profiling and racial discrimination. It’s inhumane and counterproductive,” and, she said, it doesn’t matter “whether it wears the cloak of ‘race-based affirmative action’ or some other costume.” 

 

The article continues on the website. THE #1 best website on the web. I love Bari Weiss (she did not write the article. she started the website)

 

[zsasz 369]

Prediction?  Conservatives will build up some other golem to bilk the rubes out of money for their political campaigns.  It's no secret that "OMG THE TRANSS!!!" starting really popping once abortion became settled on the national level.  

[RLLD 4,230]

I think AA is a net good so long as it does not displace others who have earned their place at a school.  So if these schools want to set aside some space for less-capable kids I am all for that.

AA action certainly must have benefitted deserving people over the years. So keep it, but do not boot worthy minorities from other groups who do not pretend the world is too hard for them. 

[JustinCharge 2,397]

3 minutes ago, zsasz said:

Prediction?  Conservatives will build up some other golem to bilk the rubes out of money for their political campaigns.  It's no secret that "OMG THE TRANSS!!!" starting really popping once abortion became settled on the national level.  

so you believe in a vast right wing conspiracy.

[JustinCharge 2,397]

4 minutes ago, RLLD said:

I think AA is a net good so long as it does not displace others who have earned their place at a school.  So if these schools want to set aside some space for less-capable kids I am all for that.

AA action certainly must have benefitted deserving people over the years. So keep it, but do not boot worthy minorities from other groups who do not pretend the world is too hard for them. 

nothing good comes from AA.  it just generates more resentment and hatred.

[zsasz 369]

3 minutes ago, JustinCharge said:

so you believe in a vast right wing conspiracy.

 

I believe in the desire for politicans, policy makers and leaders to try to hold onto people for as long as possible. The Left does it too; as evident by their hypocritical stances on gun ownership.  

 

[RLLD 4,230]

2 minutes ago, JustinCharge said:

nothing good comes from AA.  it just generates more resentment and hatred.

Nothing is perfect. When you give to one thing it is often at the expense of something else. If instead they maintained access as before, but expanded availability for underperforming people to gain access to what they did not earn or deserve, then that is just fine. It was the denial of access to those which had earned it that I found unpalatable. 

[Sean Mooney 1,983]

It served its purpose. It is time for it to be put to pasture. 

[listen2me 23 1,873]

AA is racist.  Not sure why reverse racism no one bats an eye at.  Racism is great just depends what teams people are on.  Very weird.  

Like the students at NYU and other colleges wanting black only dorms. Meh, got very very light pub.  If a white group said they wanted a white only dorm it would be blown up all over the news and the left would go off the rails.  Kids would probably be kicked out for the suggestion.   

[zsasz 369]

5 minutes ago, JustinCharge said:

nothing good comes from AA.  it just generates more resentment and hatred.

 

 

Meh. It's red meat for the "Uncle Rico" types...."if only the coach played me...I would have made it to the pros".  Obviously there are some hard and fast examples in which AA shouldn't be used ( I don't really know anyone who would want to have a fireman not be able to carry X amount of weight)...but I think most sensible people do realize that, at least in the case of children,.... smart and capable people exist in this world in crappy situations; and if given a chance....could do great things.  I think expanding AA out (making is as much economic level as race/gender/sexual prefrence) to places like Appalachia and the Opioid Belt would be a net + for society. 

[edjr 6,580]

7 minutes ago, listen2me 23 said:

AA is racist.  Not sure why reverse racism no one bats an eye at.  Racism is great just depends what teams people are on.  Very weird.  

Was never the intent, but it sure has turned out that way

[Voltaire 5,316]

It won't stay dead, it'll have many many tentacles.

[listen2me 23 1,873]

1 minute ago, edjr said:

Was never the intent, but it sure has turned out that way

Poor white kids with less hope than those who live in the ghetto really get the short end of the stick.   

But I am pretty sure a lot of people think minorities are the only ones who live in poverty here.  

[edjr 6,580]

13 minutes ago, zsasz said:

( I don't really know anyone who would want to have a fireman not be able to carry X amount of weight)...

Sadly it takes 2 fireman or more to carry most crapper busting fatties nowadays.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,421]

Prediction: Plenty of stupid rich kids and stupid kids of the powerful and connected will still get into the best schools. That’s the real affirmative action. Hunter went to Yale and Georgetown.  Bush the dumber went to Harvard and Yale. So many more.  

[jerryskids 6,792]

I understand the idea behind the admissions, but societally, I think it is a mistake to lower standards for elite universities.  A place like MIT, for instance, needs to have the brightest scientific minds in the world.  That is its purpose.  An underprivileged kid with "potential" might be successful, or more likely will either (1) fail out, or (2) have standards lowered, thus dragging down the entire student body.  IMO such kids should go to any one of hundreds of other very good STEM schools.  They can be successful, have kids, give those kids the opportunities they didn't have, and those kids can go to MIT.

This is keeping with my multi-generational theme in the other thread.   

[iam90sbaby 2,610]

Can we get rid of diversity hires while we're at it?

[jonmx 2,429]

4 hours ago, edjr said:

The Supreme Court is expected to rule that colleges can no longer rig for racial diversity. Some say ‘that’s dangerous and cruel.’ Others say it’s about time.

 

https://www.thefp.com/p/what-happens-after-the-end-of-affirmative?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=260347&post_id=131325119&isFreemail=true&utm_medium=email

 

The article continues on the website. THE #1 best website on the web. I love Bari Weiss (she did not write the article. she started the website)

 

It does not end anything.  California has already ended affirmative action, only to replace it by policies which stealthily accomplish the same thing.   They move away from objective standards and replace them with subjective standards.  Regardless of the rules, the universities are overrun by the woke who would not hire a conservative professor or admit a conservative student even with a gun pointed at their head 

[RLLD 4,230]

1 hour ago, iam90sbaby said:

Can we get rid of diversity hires while we're at it?

Why do hate Kamala Harris?

[EternalShinyAndChrome 4,099]

13 hours ago, RLLD said:

I think AA is a net good so long as it does not displace others who have earned their place at a school.  So if these schools want to set aside some space for less-capable kids I am all for that.

AA action certainly must have benefitted deserving people over the years. So keep it, but do not boot worthy minorities from other groups who do not pretend the world is too hard for them. 

less capable doesn't always mean race.  that's the point.  It should NEVER be about race.

[EternalShinyAndChrome 4,099]

12 hours ago, listen2me 23 said:

AA is racist.  Not sure why reverse racism no one bats an eye at.  Racism is great just depends what teams people are on.  Very weird.  

Like the students at NYU and other colleges wanting black only dorms. Meh, got very very light pub.  If a white group said they wanted a white only dorm it would be blown up all over the news and the left would go off the rails.  Kids would probably be kicked out for the suggestion.   

Funny that the ones always complaining that everything is racist are the ones advocating for more racism.  Shouldn't be surprised that the ones (Democrats) that fought to keep slavery, started the KKK, gave us Jim Crowe and Margarete Sanger would do this.

[dogcows 1,030]

11 hours ago, jerryskids said:

I understand the idea behind the admissions, but societally, I think it is a mistake to lower standards for elite universities.  A place like MIT, for instance, needs to have the brightest scientific minds in the world.  That is its purpose.  An underprivileged kid with "potential" might be successful, or more likely will either (1) fail out, or (2) have standards lowered, thus dragging down the entire student body.  IMO such kids should go to any one of hundreds of other very good STEM schools.  They can be successful, have kids, give those kids the opportunities they didn't have, and those kids can go to MIT.

This is keeping with my multi-generational theme in the other thread.   

The whole point of college admissions is to assess potential. If I can draw a parallel to the NFL draft. Not every player gets to play for a top-25 college team, which is why teams have to try and take a chance on a player from a smaller school sometimes, and hope he can keep up when he goes against elite competition.

If you see a kid who went to a crappy school but clearly has that potential, will you let them get away from your school because the kids with rich parents who went to private schools and had tutors for their SATs might look better on paper? MIT won’t find the best scientific minds if they restrict themselves to the usual pipelines. Getting recruiters out to non-elite schools to find some undiscovered talent is a good idea for the school if they want to find diamonds in the rough.

There is one point I agree on though - if these less-advantaged students went to a sub-par school, it can be easy for them to fall behind at a tough school since they start out behind. Maybe a pre-freshman summer program or a lighter class load the first 2 semesters?

[dogcows 1,030]

12 hours ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Prediction: Plenty of stupid rich kids and stupid kids of the powerful and connected will still get into the best schools. That’s the real affirmative action. Hunter went to Yale and Georgetown.  Bush the dumber went to Harvard and Yale. So many more.  

Absolutely. This is the real problem, has been for a long time, and will continue to be.

[BunnysBastatrds 2,438]

 Prepare 

[Wade Garrett 155]

20 hours ago, Sean Mooney said:

It served its purpose. It is time for it to be put to pasture. 

This is the answer.  Was needed, now it's not.

Actually need AA now for white, male cultist since hardly any of them are smart enough to get into college.  But of course no college actually wants white, male cultist so this will be known as Affirmative No-Action...

LOLOLOLOLOL

[EternalShinyAndChrome 4,099]

34 minutes ago, Wade Garrett said:

This is the answer.  Was needed, now it's not.

Actually need AA now for white, male cultist since hardly any of them are smart enough to get into college.  But of course no college actually wants white, male cultist so this will be known as Affirmative No-Action...

LOLOLOLOLOL

You know who the "cultist" is?  Yeah, it's the one talking about "cultists" all day long and pointing fingers.  

You try so hard to deny it, but it's as clear as day.   

[RLLD 4,230]

8 hours ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

less capable doesn't always mean race.  that's the point.  It should NEVER be about race.

True, but liberals are relentless racists......it distinguishes them.

[avoiding injuries 1,580]

When AA and DEI are eventually removed, the most qualified will win out. 

[peenie 1,915]

It has already been removed in many states. I think everyone will be fine. It’s a new day. The internet and online college and all the other opportunities available will help those that didn’t get to reap the benefits of Affirmative Action. I’d like racial classifications eliminated as well.

[jerryskids 6,792]

12 hours ago, dogcows said:

The whole point of college admissions is to assess potential. If I can draw a parallel to the NFL draft. Not every player gets to play for a top-25 college team, which is why teams have to try and take a chance on a player from a smaller school sometimes, and hope he can keep up when he goes against elite competition.

If you see a kid who went to a crappy school but clearly has that potential, will you let them get away from your school because the kids with rich parents who went to private schools and had tutors for their SATs might look better on paper? MIT won’t find the best scientific minds if they restrict themselves to the usual pipelines. Getting recruiters out to non-elite schools to find some undiscovered talent is a good idea for the school if they want to find diamonds in the rough.

There is one point I agree on though - if these less-advantaged students went to a sub-par school, it can be easy for them to fall behind at a tough school since they start out behind. Maybe a pre-freshman summer program or a lighter class load the first 2 semesters?

Sorry but your NFL analogy doesn't work.  Those are 32 fundamentally equivalent teams competing for the same resources.  Some may take more risks than others, some will work out, some won't, and the power teams vary every year as a result.

A better analogy would be college football where the power teams are less volatile.  Take Georgia.  For a QB recruit will they take the 5 star recruit from a top football program with a cannon arm, or some kid who barely played football on a team that mostly ran, but there is an Instagram video of him throwing the ball far?

We need to define "clearly has that potential."  If a student never took a rigorous class, how would you identify "clear potential" to either complete a rigorous curriculum or process advanced STEM concepts?

Your crappy school is a bit of a false dichotomy.  A kid could go to a crappy school, but also:  take advanced courses at the local college, run a community competitive robotics club, start a tech business, volunteer at the local food bank, ace the SATs, and otherwise have an exemplary resume.  THAT would be a helluva candidate, but note that they proved their potential.

On your last point, there are summer programs for such people, and they already have a (relatively) easy first year at MIT, from a grading perspective anyway.  The historical reasoning was that most of the kids are used to being #1 in their class, and now in a group of 1000, 999 are no longer #1.  That's a difficult pyschological issue for kids who often aren't the most skilled in coping skills coming in.  Anyway, to make it even easier for one subset of students would be to set them up for failure in future classes, presuming those classes maintain their same rigor.

There is no shame in going to a lesser school.  All 3 of my kids graduated from ASU.  Two are engineers, and both have good jobs making six figures in their mid 20s.  Despite its party reputation, ASU has a good engineering school:

Quote

Five programs in the Ira A. Fulton Schools of Engineering at Arizona State University now rank among the top 25 undergraduate engineering programs in the nation, according to U.S. News & World Report.

ASU’s undergraduate programs in civil, computer, electrical, environmental and mechanical engineering are rated among the best nationally. In addition, out of 210 universities included in the survey, the Fulton Schools of Engineering ranks No. 36 overall for undergraduate engineering programs. 

https://news.asu.edu/20210912-university-news-asu-fulton-schools-engineering-five-undergraduate-programs-top-25

There are many such schools around the country which are more inclusive and provide great opportunities for thousands of kids.   

[dogcows 1,030]

8 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

Your crappy school is a bit of a false dichotomy.  A kid could go to a crappy school, but also:  take advanced courses at the local college, run a community competitive robotics club, start a tech business, volunteer at the local food bank, ace the SATs, and otherwise have an exemplary resume.  THAT would be a helluva candidate, but note that they proved their potential.

 

No, that’s what I’m talking about. I think the pipeline from private high schools to “elite” colleges is well-established, and those not in that pipeline, even with resumes like you mention above, usually don’t make the cut.

I do agree that students don’t need to attend the Ivy League schools to be successful. My point was more about how these elite schools are doing themselves a disservice if they don’t actively look at the top 1% of students from smaller and/or disadvantaged schools.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,421]

If the elite schools can find a kid in Baltimore that can read and write at grade level they should give them a fee ride. That kids a unicorn.  

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,348]

It’s over!!!  

[RLLD 4,230]

22 hours ago, dogcows said:

No, that’s what I’m talking about. I think the pipeline from private high schools to “elite” colleges is well-established, and those not in that pipeline, even with resumes like you mention above, usually don’t make the cut.

I do agree that students don’t need to attend the Ivy League schools to be successful. My point was more about how these elite schools are doing themselves a disservice if they don’t actively look at the top 1% of students from smaller and/or disadvantaged schools.

Some individuals have advantages.  Sometimes its athletic, sometimes its academic and sometimes its the family they were born in to.

This will be true no matter how much you want to change it. 

Sometimes good people fail, and its not their fault, and that is life. The best we can hope for is to try to get people equal access, and even then you will not have "equity" because each of us will still posess varying levels of ability.

[Voltaire 5,316]

Good riddance.

 

[RLLD 4,230]

7 minutes ago, Voltaire said:

Good riddance.

 

Don't be too happy.  Rest assured that the universities and companies are well-populated with the disciples of Liberal cultism. They will simply do it in the shadows as much as possible.

What I see here is that lawsuits will perhaps be more effective. Asians in particular should be tearing after these entities. They have been unfairly impacted by the ruthless nature of AA. 

[Voltaire 5,316]

12 minutes ago, RLLD said:

Don't be too happy.  Rest assured that the universities and companies are well-populated with the disciples of Liberal cultism. They will simply do it in the shadows as much as possible.

What I see here is that lawsuits will perhaps be more effective. Asians in particular should be tearing after these entities. They have been unfairly impacted by the ruthless nature of AA. 

I imagine there's going to be dozens of tentacles in need of sunshine and litigation.

[squistion 2,197]

 

[dogcows 1,030]

Just now, squistion said:

 

When a college only allowed white people for centuries, and then has a “legacy” admission program, that is de facto affirmative action for white people.

[Tree of Knowledge 1,855]

Do I get reparations?