Why the Champions of Affirmative Action Had to Leave Asian Americans Behind

> Asian Americans, the group whom the suit was supposedly about, have been oddly absent from the conversations that have followed the ruling.

This isn’t true from what I’ve seen. The major talking point was “this is great for asians!”

Which I think is a problematic take. This ruling is precisely NOT about giving people “their due” based off their race. Why not also say “this is great news for whites!” Ostensibly because people dont think whites “need” it but doleing out favor based off a supposed “need” by race is the problem.

This is good for absolutely everyone. No one actually benefits from institutionalized racism.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Ignoring race and focusing on class would probably be better for the US in the long run, especially considering the demographics of the poor.

I dont think it should even be legal to ask for the applicant’s race nor track their students race. I think the most appropriate response to “How many black people are at your college?” would be “I dont know we dont count them.”

Race conscious admissions gave the white people who run these universities perverse power over racial minorities. It enabled them to create an “It’s a Small World” atmosphere that effectuated the vision of diversity favored by white people. I can’t help but think that the admissions people at Harvard and Yale regard Obama as a success of “diversity” but don’t feel the same way about Justice Clarence Thomas. Minorities groveling to prove to white ladies that they’re the right kind of minority to “represent” their race is a practice that needs to be confined to the dustbin of history.

Asian Americans have been slandered by some on the left as the "ideal minority" and not worthy of extra consideration or support.

"The repetitiveness of the affirmative-action debate has come about, in large part, because both the courts and the media have mostly ignored the Asian American plaintiffs and chosen, instead, to relitigate the same arguments about merit, white supremacy, and privilege."

"the commentators defending affirmative action ...dismissed the plaintiffs as pawns who had been duped by a conservative legal activist."

Affirmative action is a political weapon and its effect has had a damaging effect on innocent people, particularly Asians. The media, the left, and just about everyone in between discounted Asians in the name of reducing "white, etc." acceptance at university.

> race-conscious admissions allow Asian American applicants “who would be less likely to be admitted without a comprehensive understanding of their background” to “explain the value of their unique background heritage, and perspective” and allow colleges to “consider the vast differences within [that] community.”

If I read that correctly, she (Alito) is suggesting that instead of going for academic merit they should emphasize how disadvantaged they are in their essay and hope for the best.

Doesn’t that open the door for corruption and cheating? ChatGPT will write tear jerking essays maximizing victimhood points. People pretending they are a different race or nationality to game the system. Otherwise looking for a way to slip a bribe in to the admissions committee members to “grease the wheels”.

Even if you don't agree with affirmative action in college admissions, I've never understood the focus on its impact on Asian American applicants as a reason to reject the idea.

The premise behind affirmative action is to balance out racial factors that lead to minority demographics being underrepresented, in this case in elite colleges. If some minority demographics are not underrepresented, that's great, but not obviously a reason to scrap the idea for those that are...why does it have to be all or nothing? You could argue that Asian American college attendance success is proof that there are no racial factors to balance out, but that seems silly as not every minority demographic in the US faces identical situations.

It’s interesting that universities have already announced that they intend to effectively ignore the rules. I wonder how the courts will deal with massive resistance II.

Absolutely shameful. SCOTUS finally got this one right.

This isn't great for Asians at all. But honestly, it worse for those minority groups that are discriminated against to a far greater degree. It is not looked over that Asians are discriminated against in this country, nor isn't it irrelevant that far too many biases exist against any and all groups, but imagine Asian Americans being denied for loans at the rate of Blacks and Latinos or being shot & killed at the rate as those groups. Imagine Asian communities being burned down for having any success and then buried under lakes. This landmark decision didn't help much for the Asian community as far as college admissions, but so many aren't recognizing how much it set back those communities that are exponentially being targeted to a greater degree by discriminatory practices. Many think that things will revert to "merit" going forward. Yes, in some society that is not America, that happens. In this society where financial institutions and so many other institutions still close the books on people as soon as they walk in the door based off of just the color of their skin, it does not. And how else are actions based of denying entry, services or goods supposed to be countered now? it didn't help or hurt Asians to have this Affirmative Action struck down in this case. It very much so hurt the groups that are discriminated against more so.

the comments here seem to continue to rage about how horrible, HORRIBLE it was that private colleges were trying to help counteract the effects of centuries of institutionalized anti-Black racism, a clear and succinct take is from TPM's Josh Marshall:

"First, on its internal logic, the decision can appear compelling. But step back and you see that a specific class of Americans who were enslaved for two centuries and then mostly lived under a system of legal apartheid for another century somehow still remain largely excluded from social and economic preferment. And we’re told that the constitution not only bars the government from doing anything about that but also bars private institutions from attempting to do anything about that. Judged from that more holistic perspective it’s very hard to see how that can possibly be right whatever the internal logic of “color blindness.”"

"Second, the same people who wrote the amendments that undergird this decision also passed various laws specifically to raise Black social and economic power to the level of white people. So the Court’s definition of “color blindness” simply cannot have been the intent of the authors of the amendment. The history is open and shut."

"Third, the question of whether the constitution requires or looks favorably on racial diversity is a complex question and it’s not entirely clear that it does, at least if we’re limiting our analysis tightly to the intent of the people who wrote the relevant amendments. But if originalism or history plays any role in your jurisprudence, African-Americans represent a unique class which the constitution specifically intends to raise to the level of white people. One could argue that that task is done somehow, or that society has changed in some respect that makes the original injunction operate differently or that affirmative and compensatory educational preferment is somehow uniquely damaging and thus a disallowed means of achieving that aim. But again, specifically for African-Americans, the “color blindness” constitutional argument doesn’t add up. "