I don't like the decision. However, I also note that the plaintiffs were, cleverly, not white, but rather also people of color. David French, in his NYT editorial, noted that Harvard, at least, set themselves up for failure by incorporating so many preferences, so much implicit (and explicit bias), and so much sloppiness as to put their whole process under a microscope. And, the plaintiff strategy of setting one disfavored group against another has its own dark history.
That's true. It was shrewd on their part. It should also be noted that Asian American views on affirmative action are mixed and by no means a consensus. For instance, "69% of Asian American registered voters surveyed favor affirmative action. In 2022, Asian American registered voters favor “affirmative action policies designed to help Black people, women, and other minorities gain better access to higher education.” By more than a 3-to-1 margin, Asian Americans favor affirmative action in higher education, and their support for the policy has remained consistent since 2014." http://aapidata.com/blog/affirmative-action-aavs-2022/
What I think David French has consistently missed is that while it seems likely that Harvard was “invidiously” discriminating against Asian students, there are means to address that discrimination that were already within the current civil rights laws.
Removing affirmative action (but leaving legacy programs) was a choice.
David French opposes discrimination, and acknowledges its reality but doesn’t think the Harvard or UNC methods are appropriate.
I think there is value in class based affirmative action programs on their own terms, but that doesn’t necessarily address the racial history on its own.
I don't like the decision. However, I also note that the plaintiffs were, cleverly, not white, but rather also people of color. David French, in his NYT editorial, noted that Harvard, at least, set themselves up for failure by incorporating so many preferences, so much implicit (and explicit bias), and so much sloppiness as to put their whole process under a microscope. And, the plaintiff strategy of setting one disfavored group against another has its own dark history.
That's true. It was shrewd on their part. It should also be noted that Asian American views on affirmative action are mixed and by no means a consensus. For instance, "69% of Asian American registered voters surveyed favor affirmative action. In 2022, Asian American registered voters favor “affirmative action policies designed to help Black people, women, and other minorities gain better access to higher education.” By more than a 3-to-1 margin, Asian Americans favor affirmative action in higher education, and their support for the policy has remained consistent since 2014." http://aapidata.com/blog/affirmative-action-aavs-2022/
What I think David French has consistently missed is that while it seems likely that Harvard was “invidiously” discriminating against Asian students, there are means to address that discrimination that were already within the current civil rights laws.
Removing affirmative action (but leaving legacy programs) was a choice.
David French opposes discrimination, and acknowledges its reality but doesn’t think the Harvard or UNC methods are appropriate.
I think there is value in class based affirmative action programs on their own terms, but that doesn’t necessarily address the racial history on its own.
On the left hand.. I agree with everyone hear..
On the right hand.. unless the church begins leaning into Jesus Christ, how can we expect justice to flow like Micah prophesied?
Heal our land.. but help us to put aside our idols.. even our own power .. our might.. to fill with your spirit-to-overflowing...
Then will I hear from heaven.. and heal our land..
-sayeth His word
Come! Lord Jesus.
Perfect love(💙). Come!
❤️💚💙💫
,-w
Keep pressing on.. and may our idols.. starting with mine.. be shattered..
*here
I find this essay very helpful in explaining in clear terms what was wrong with these decisions. Thank you!