-----Original Message-----
From: New York Sun <editor@nysun.com>
To: add1dda@aol.com
Sent: Thu, Jan 27, 2022 8:50 a.m.
Harvard President Defiant in Admissions Fight
Harvard President Defiant in Admissions Fight Harvard President Defiant in Admissions Fight By A.R. HOFFMAN, Special to the Sun | January 26, 2022
Harvard is holding firm in its fight to use race in its admissions process, the university's president announced in an email delivered yesterday to students, alumni, and faculty on Tuesday. The missive from Lawrence Bacow came just one day after the Supreme Court agreed to hear a challenge to that very policy.
Mr. Bacow wrote that he wished the Supreme Court "would have decided differently," but his note makes clear that Harvard will do nothing differently absent a high court order.
| | | |
“Our admissions process, in which race is considered as one factor among many, makes us stronger.”
ReplyDeleteGRA:Who,specifically,is "US"?Not the country,or the school--or the businesses who get a Hahhvard negro grad who can't do what an Asian or White can do--probably read and write.
However,if Hahhvard gets money for every nig they bring in--like hospitals receive for Covid patients,supposedly--then yes,it will make them weaker--financially.Is that the crux of it?It'd be my laugh of the day to hear Hahhvard only wants diversity because of the money from the government.
--GRA
>Racism
ReplyDeleteWhat is it with the word 'racism'? -- you're never going to win a 'racism' contest.
While I'm not familiar with all the legal fine points, particularly how this affirmative action case differs from previous ones, on the surface it does appear there is a conflict between the ruling in Gratz v. Bollinger (2003), where the court ruled affirmative action in undergrad admissions was unlawful, and the ruling in Grutter v. Bollinger (2003), where the court ruled affirmative action in admissions to a professional school (law) was legal, in large part because the state has a ‘compelling interest’ in achieving diversity — the majority opinion in the latter case was written by midwit justice Sandra Day O’Connor (now retired), who also famously (and stupidly) said affirmative action would only be necessary for another 25 years or so -- she was widely ridiculed for that.
Given the above precedent in Gratz v. Bollinger, it seems plausible the court could find in favor of plaintiffs, since both cases are about undergrad admissions.
If so, leaving the seemingly incongruous ruling in Grutter v. Bollinger in place would seem even more untenable — yet to void it would be an explicit rebuke of the claim that society has a ‘compelling interest’ in diversity, which justifies affirmative action — it’s difficult to see the court taking such a politically controversial stance.
It's hard to see how the current SCOTUS could be less suitable to decide such a potentially momentous case; it is itself full of affirmative action mediocrities, with Sotomayor perhaps being the worst -- if you need further proof that superficial political and ethnic litmus tests are being used to shoehorn mediocrities onto the court, the famous and accomplished legal scholar Kamala Harris is being mentioned as a possible replacement for Breyer.
This Bacow could be summoned to appear in person before the court [they have the power to do this] and be told not to make such intemperate remarks during a time of deliberation by the court.
ReplyDelete