Tournament complete!
Thanks for participating. Read about the results, or continue betting on Manifold.
đŹ Proven correct
It seems like I'm interpreting the resolution criteria differently from everyone else. I really hope I'm right. It will be pretty frustrating if this is what takes me out of the game after a year of hard work.
guyin2ndplace made S$980!
FWIW, Thomas understands it as a blanket ban on considering race.
Grutter recognized âonly oneâ interest sufficiently compelling to justify race-conscious admissions programs: the âeducational benefits of a diverse student body.â 539 U. S., at 328, 333. Expanding on this theme, Harvard and UNC have offered a grab bag of interests to justify their programs, spanning from ââtraining future leaders in the public and private sectorsââ to ââenhancing appreciation, respect, and empathy,ââ with references to ââbetter educating [their] students through diversityââ in between. Ante, at 22â23. The Court today finds that each of these interests are too vague and immeasurable to suffice, ibid., and I agree.
Gorsuch also thinks so:
"For some time, both universities have decided which applicants to admit or reject based in part on race. Today, the Court holds that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not tolerate this practice. I write to emphasize that Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not either."
I've changed my mind like 4 times
BECAUSE HARVARD AND UNCS PROGRAMS LACK SUFFICIENTLLY FOCUSED AND MEASURABLE OBJECETIVES. They applied strict scrutiny, and it failed. Another university could have a program that is sufficiently focused with measurable objectives.
@50P Many universities have for too long wrongly concluded that the touchstone of an individualâs identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned, but the color of their skin. This Nationâs constitutional history does not tolerate that choice.
Two universities is not many. This clearly implies that this decision applies to other public universities (like UNC) or private universities (like Harvard).
"Because Harvardâs and UNCâs admissions programs lack sufficiently focused and measurable objectives warranting the use of race, unavoidably employ race in a negative manner, involve racial stereotyping, and lack meaningful end points, those admissions programs cannot be reconciled with the guarantees of the Equal Protection Clause. At the same time, nothing prohibits universities from considering an applicantâs discussion of how race affected the applicantâs life, so long as that discussion is concretely tied to a quality of character or unique ability that the particular applicant can contribute to the university." Nothing about this decision indicates it is specific to Harvard and UNC.
@HenryALong except for the 2nd and 4th wordf
@50P no other universities were parties to the lawsuits.
Its a no. Was specific to Harvard and UNC
@50P that's how American court cases work. Case and controversy requirement (Article III). But the decision doesn't leave the door open for colleges to consider race in any way. It does say that colleges can take into account applicants' individual stories about how race affected their lives, but the colleges can't do any sort of quotas, point systems, rankings, etc. using race as a criterion.
@PPPP it does not invalidate or overrule Grutter
@50P the question does not hinge on overruling Grutter. Hanania has a JD. If he wanted to ask "Will the Supreme Court overrule Grutter?" he could have.
@PPPP The thing about military institutions kinda makes me reconsider this. If we didn't have that footnote, I would still be buying Y
@50P In other words, the student must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individualânot on the basis of race
@zubbybadger interesting. Jurisprudentially, though, I'd characterize that as just saying "this is an issue not before the Court" rather than carving out an execption.
Sotomayor's dissent: Today's decision "rolls back decades of precedent and momentous progress. It holds that race can no longer be used in a limited way in college admissions to achieve such official benefits"
...Seems pretty clear!
"Because Harvardâs and UNCâs admissions programs lack sufficiently focused and measurable objectives warranting the use of race,
unavoidably employ race in a negative manner, involve racial stereotyping, and lack meaningful end points, those admissions programs
cannot be reconciled with the guarantees of the Equal Protection
Clause. At the same time, nothing prohibits universities from considering an applicantâs discussion of how race affected the applicantâs life,
so long as that discussion is concretely tied to a quality of character or
unique ability that the particular applicant can contribute to the university. Many universities have for too long wrongly concluded that
the touchstone of an individualâs identity is not challenges bested,
skills built, or lessons learned, but the color of their skin. This Nationâs
constitutional history does not tolerate that choice."
The reference to the Equal Protection Clause and the last 2 sentences make this PRETTY CLEAR to me. The sentence above the last 2 sentences literally word for word matches the clarification posted above. However, Mr. Hanania who will decide is going to come to his own conclusion about this and we'll just have to deal with it I guess.
@zubbybadger agreed. The decision leaves no room for colleges to consider applicants' race.
@zubbybadger because they referenced the Law theyre applying it's universal? Notice 'THOSE PROGRAMS"
It seems like I'm interpreting the resolution criteria differently from everyone else. I really hope I'm right. It will be pretty frustrating if this is what takes me out of the game after a year of hard work.
@RobertGrosse The decision held that Harvard and UNCâs policies specifically are unlawful but there is no blanket ban on the use of race in college admissions, so Iâm interpreting this as a No.
But this is going to come down to interpretation. I wouldnât be opposed to unwinding all trades done today because it does seem iffy that the whole outcome of the contest could turn on this interpretation.
Ideally, applications would be demographically blind. No race, age, gender and so on. Diversity is no substitute for quality.
Oral arguments for both SFFA v. UNC and SFFA v. Harvard are on October 31st, so a decision will almost certainly be released before the market resolution. YES should be 90+ imo, Roberts has consistently ruled and written against AA. No reason why his even more conservative colleagues on the court will rule for AA that I can see. Court will definitely rule against UNC and unless they plan on significantly weakening Title VI, they'll rule against Harvard, too.
Play-money betting
Mana (S$) is the play-money used by our platform to keep track of your bets. It's completely free for you and your friends to get started!