I think Laurence Tribe has made it very clear, throughout his career, that his goal is to circumvent the constitution; his political views have always been hard to the left, and the hard left is not know for its protections of individual rights; they are very willing to pummel merit and individuality into submission if it requires achieving a particular outcome, which in this case happens to be a student body predicated upon skin color instead of academic qualifications.
California's universities have been ignoring the rule of law on affirmative action by engaging in DEI and denying it for years-even if SCOTUS rules against Harvard, you can rest assured that Harvard andCo., will devise an affirmative action scheme that claims it is not affirmative action but in reality is a quota
The article raises concerns about the use of race as an admission criterion in universities and argues that if this use is prohibited, universities will seek ways to circumvent the decision and maintain existing racial quotas. I will now present an organized, coherent, and persuasive refutation of the main and supporting ideas of the article:
Numerical quotas: The article claims that many universities have "goals" or "targets" that equate to quotas. However, it does not provide concrete evidence to support this claim. It is important to distinguish between setting diversity goals and having strict quotas based solely on race. Diversity goals are legitimate and can aim to create an enriching academic environment by considering a wide range of factors, including race, along with other aspects such as academic performance, socioeconomic backgrounds, and individual experiences.
Elimination of objective criteria: The article suggests that some universities are circumventing the prohibition on the use of race by eliminating objective criteria, such as test scores. However, this claim lacks substantiation and does not provide specific examples. The elimination of certain objective criteria may be part of a more holistic approach in evaluating applicants, where multiple aspects of their academic and personal profiles are considered. This does not necessarily imply an intention to evade legal prohibitions but rather a search for a more equitable and comprehensive admission process.
Race substitutes: The article argues that admissions officers may use subjective factors as substitutes for race. However, it does not present concrete evidence to support this claim. It is important to recognize that considering race as a factor in admissions does not necessarily imply discrimination or the exclusive use of this criterion. Race can be a relevant factor in fostering diversity and inclusion in the university environment but should not be the sole determining factor.
Subterfuge and discrimination: The article compares the current situation with how some universities in the past employed subterfuge to discriminate against specific groups. However, setting diversity goals and considering multiple factors in admissions does not equate to discrimination. The goal is to create an inclusive environment that reflects the diversity of society and provides opportunities for those who have historically faced inequalities.
Constitutional protections: The article raises concerns about the impact on constitutional protections. However, affirmative action policies and the consideration of race as a factor in admissions have been supported by judicial decisions, including those of the United States Supreme Court. These policies seek to remedy historical inequalities and promote a fairer and more equitable society.
In summary, the refutation of the article is based on the following points:
Concrete evidence is not provided for the existence of numerical quotas in universities. Considering diversity as a legitimate goal does not necessarily imply the imposition of strict quotas based solely on race.
The elimination of objective criteria in the admissions process does not necessarily indicate an intention to evade legal prohibitions but can be part of a more holistic and equitable approach in evaluating applicants.
Concrete evidence is not provided for admissions officers using subjective factors as discriminatory substitutes for race. Considering multiple aspects in evaluating applicants is a common practice and does not necessarily imply race-based discrimination.
The comparison between the current situation and past discriminatory practices lacks foundation. Setting diversity goals and considering multiple factors in admissions does not equate to discrimination but aims to promote equal opportunities and inclusion.
Affirmative action policies and the consideration of race as a factor in admissions have been supported by judicial decisions and seek to remedy historical inequalities and promote a fairer and more equitable society.
In conclusion, the article raises unfounded concerns and exaggerated generalizations about the use of race as an admission criterion in universities. It is important to recognize that promoting diversity and inclusion does not necessarily imply discrimination, and affirmative action policies have been legally supported as a means to address historical inequalities.
The article raises concerns about the use of race as an admission criterion in universities and argues that if this use is prohibited, universities will seek ways to circumvent the decision and maintain existing racial quotas. I will now present an organized, coherent, and persuasive refutation of the main and supporting ideas of the article:
Numerical quotas: The article claims that many universities have "goals" or "targets" that equate to quotas. However, it does not provide concrete evidence to support this claim. It is important to distinguish between setting diversity goals and having strict quotas based solely on race. Diversity goals are legitimate and can aim to create an enriching academic environment by considering a wide range of factors, including race, along with other aspects such as academic performance, socioeconomic backgrounds, and individual experiences.
Elimination of objective criteria: The article suggests that some universities are circumventing the prohibition on the use of race by eliminating objective criteria, such as test scores. However, this claim lacks substantiation and does not provide specific examples. The elimination of certain objective criteria may be part of a more holistic approach in evaluating applicants, where multiple aspects of their academic and personal profiles are considered. This does not necessarily imply an intention to evade legal prohibitions but rather a search for a more equitable and comprehensive admission process.
Race substitutes: The article argues that admissions officers may use subjective factors as substitutes for race. However, it does not present concrete evidence to support this claim. It is important to recognize that considering race as a factor in admissions does not necessarily imply discrimination or the exclusive use of this criterion. Race can be a relevant factor in fostering diversity and inclusion in the university environment but should not be the sole determining factor.
Subterfuge and discrimination: The article compares the current situation with how some universities in the past employed subterfuge to discriminate against specific groups. However, setting diversity goals and considering multiple factors in admissions does not equate to discrimination. The goal is to create an inclusive environment that reflects the diversity of society and provides opportunities for those who have historically faced inequalities.
Constitutional protections: The article raises concerns about the impact on constitutional protections. However, affirmative action policies and the consideration of race as a factor in admissions have been supported by judicial decisions, including those of the United States Supreme Court. These policies seek to remedy historical inequalities and promote a fairer and more equitable society.
In summary, the refutation of the article is based on the following points:
Concrete evidence is not provided for the existence of numerical quotas in universities. Considering diversity as a legitimate goal does not necessarily imply the imposition of strict quotas based solely on race.
The elimination of objective criteria in the admissions process does not necessarily indicate an intention to evade legal prohibitions but can be part of a more holistic and equitable approach in evaluating applicants.
Concrete evidence is not provided for admissions officers using subjective factors as discriminatory substitutes for race. Considering multiple aspects in evaluating applicants is a common practice and does not necessarily imply race-based discrimination.
The comparison between the current situation and past discriminatory practices lacks foundation. Setting diversity goals and considering multiple factors in admissions does not equate to discrimination but aims to promote equal opportunities and inclusion.
Affirmative action policies and the consideration of race as a factor in admissions have been supported by judicial decisions and seek to remedy historical inequalities and promote a fairer and more equitable society.
In conclusion, the article raises unfounded concerns and exaggerated generalizations about the use of race as an admission criterion in universities. It is important to recognize that promoting diversity and inclusion does not necessarily imply discrimination, and affirmative action policies have been legally supported as a means to address historical inequalities. Atte. Luis David Fernández Zambrano (UBA-Argentina).
Just beginning the college search for my son right now and this is already true. They will not change a thing because they do not admit to the quotas in the first place. As always your integrity and devotion to our Constitution does you credit!
DEI installations will assume affirmative action duties, to the extent that they have not done so already. This much has been clear for some time.
What is more interesting is the notion that the SFFA cases will result in affirmative action being laid to rest for all time. With decades of incrementalism in this area, I am not as certain as others and am waiting until the fat lady sings, by way of opinions, which I suspect will be as close to the Court's summer recess as possible.
I think Laurence Tribe has made it very clear, throughout his career, that his goal is to circumvent the constitution; his political views have always been hard to the left, and the hard left is not know for its protections of individual rights; they are very willing to pummel merit and individuality into submission if it requires achieving a particular outcome, which in this case happens to be a student body predicated upon skin color instead of academic qualifications.
California's universities have been ignoring the rule of law on affirmative action by engaging in DEI and denying it for years-even if SCOTUS rules against Harvard, you can rest assured that Harvard andCo., will devise an affirmative action scheme that claims it is not affirmative action but in reality is a quota
Thank you, Mr. Dershowitz. I always appreciate your commentaries even though you & I probably will never vote alike.
You are consistently a true constitutionalist; politically we may agree on little to none.
Would that more liberals would/could follow your pattern.
What happens when liberals get their wish & finish off our U.S. Constitution?
The article raises concerns about the use of race as an admission criterion in universities and argues that if this use is prohibited, universities will seek ways to circumvent the decision and maintain existing racial quotas. I will now present an organized, coherent, and persuasive refutation of the main and supporting ideas of the article:
Numerical quotas: The article claims that many universities have "goals" or "targets" that equate to quotas. However, it does not provide concrete evidence to support this claim. It is important to distinguish between setting diversity goals and having strict quotas based solely on race. Diversity goals are legitimate and can aim to create an enriching academic environment by considering a wide range of factors, including race, along with other aspects such as academic performance, socioeconomic backgrounds, and individual experiences.
Elimination of objective criteria: The article suggests that some universities are circumventing the prohibition on the use of race by eliminating objective criteria, such as test scores. However, this claim lacks substantiation and does not provide specific examples. The elimination of certain objective criteria may be part of a more holistic approach in evaluating applicants, where multiple aspects of their academic and personal profiles are considered. This does not necessarily imply an intention to evade legal prohibitions but rather a search for a more equitable and comprehensive admission process.
Race substitutes: The article argues that admissions officers may use subjective factors as substitutes for race. However, it does not present concrete evidence to support this claim. It is important to recognize that considering race as a factor in admissions does not necessarily imply discrimination or the exclusive use of this criterion. Race can be a relevant factor in fostering diversity and inclusion in the university environment but should not be the sole determining factor.
Subterfuge and discrimination: The article compares the current situation with how some universities in the past employed subterfuge to discriminate against specific groups. However, setting diversity goals and considering multiple factors in admissions does not equate to discrimination. The goal is to create an inclusive environment that reflects the diversity of society and provides opportunities for those who have historically faced inequalities.
Constitutional protections: The article raises concerns about the impact on constitutional protections. However, affirmative action policies and the consideration of race as a factor in admissions have been supported by judicial decisions, including those of the United States Supreme Court. These policies seek to remedy historical inequalities and promote a fairer and more equitable society.
In summary, the refutation of the article is based on the following points:
Concrete evidence is not provided for the existence of numerical quotas in universities. Considering diversity as a legitimate goal does not necessarily imply the imposition of strict quotas based solely on race.
The elimination of objective criteria in the admissions process does not necessarily indicate an intention to evade legal prohibitions but can be part of a more holistic and equitable approach in evaluating applicants.
Concrete evidence is not provided for admissions officers using subjective factors as discriminatory substitutes for race. Considering multiple aspects in evaluating applicants is a common practice and does not necessarily imply race-based discrimination.
The comparison between the current situation and past discriminatory practices lacks foundation. Setting diversity goals and considering multiple factors in admissions does not equate to discrimination but aims to promote equal opportunities and inclusion.
Affirmative action policies and the consideration of race as a factor in admissions have been supported by judicial decisions and seek to remedy historical inequalities and promote a fairer and more equitable society.
In conclusion, the article raises unfounded concerns and exaggerated generalizations about the use of race as an admission criterion in universities. It is important to recognize that promoting diversity and inclusion does not necessarily imply discrimination, and affirmative action policies have been legally supported as a means to address historical inequalities.
The article raises concerns about the use of race as an admission criterion in universities and argues that if this use is prohibited, universities will seek ways to circumvent the decision and maintain existing racial quotas. I will now present an organized, coherent, and persuasive refutation of the main and supporting ideas of the article:
Numerical quotas: The article claims that many universities have "goals" or "targets" that equate to quotas. However, it does not provide concrete evidence to support this claim. It is important to distinguish between setting diversity goals and having strict quotas based solely on race. Diversity goals are legitimate and can aim to create an enriching academic environment by considering a wide range of factors, including race, along with other aspects such as academic performance, socioeconomic backgrounds, and individual experiences.
Elimination of objective criteria: The article suggests that some universities are circumventing the prohibition on the use of race by eliminating objective criteria, such as test scores. However, this claim lacks substantiation and does not provide specific examples. The elimination of certain objective criteria may be part of a more holistic approach in evaluating applicants, where multiple aspects of their academic and personal profiles are considered. This does not necessarily imply an intention to evade legal prohibitions but rather a search for a more equitable and comprehensive admission process.
Race substitutes: The article argues that admissions officers may use subjective factors as substitutes for race. However, it does not present concrete evidence to support this claim. It is important to recognize that considering race as a factor in admissions does not necessarily imply discrimination or the exclusive use of this criterion. Race can be a relevant factor in fostering diversity and inclusion in the university environment but should not be the sole determining factor.
Subterfuge and discrimination: The article compares the current situation with how some universities in the past employed subterfuge to discriminate against specific groups. However, setting diversity goals and considering multiple factors in admissions does not equate to discrimination. The goal is to create an inclusive environment that reflects the diversity of society and provides opportunities for those who have historically faced inequalities.
Constitutional protections: The article raises concerns about the impact on constitutional protections. However, affirmative action policies and the consideration of race as a factor in admissions have been supported by judicial decisions, including those of the United States Supreme Court. These policies seek to remedy historical inequalities and promote a fairer and more equitable society.
In summary, the refutation of the article is based on the following points:
Concrete evidence is not provided for the existence of numerical quotas in universities. Considering diversity as a legitimate goal does not necessarily imply the imposition of strict quotas based solely on race.
The elimination of objective criteria in the admissions process does not necessarily indicate an intention to evade legal prohibitions but can be part of a more holistic and equitable approach in evaluating applicants.
Concrete evidence is not provided for admissions officers using subjective factors as discriminatory substitutes for race. Considering multiple aspects in evaluating applicants is a common practice and does not necessarily imply race-based discrimination.
The comparison between the current situation and past discriminatory practices lacks foundation. Setting diversity goals and considering multiple factors in admissions does not equate to discrimination but aims to promote equal opportunities and inclusion.
Affirmative action policies and the consideration of race as a factor in admissions have been supported by judicial decisions and seek to remedy historical inequalities and promote a fairer and more equitable society.
In conclusion, the article raises unfounded concerns and exaggerated generalizations about the use of race as an admission criterion in universities. It is important to recognize that promoting diversity and inclusion does not necessarily imply discrimination, and affirmative action policies have been legally supported as a means to address historical inequalities. Atte. Luis David Fernández Zambrano (UBA-Argentina).
If it would induce admissions officers to ditch reliance on standardized test scores, banning "affirmative action" would be a catastrophic misstep.
Just beginning the college search for my son right now and this is already true. They will not change a thing because they do not admit to the quotas in the first place. As always your integrity and devotion to our Constitution does you credit!
DEI installations will assume affirmative action duties, to the extent that they have not done so already. This much has been clear for some time.
What is more interesting is the notion that the SFFA cases will result in affirmative action being laid to rest for all time. With decades of incrementalism in this area, I am not as certain as others and am waiting until the fat lady sings, by way of opinions, which I suspect will be as close to the Court's summer recess as possible.