Posted on 10/17/2023 5:30:12 PM PDT by karpov
The University of Virginia is facing a choice of historic significance: namely, whether to embrace admissions policies based on our colorblind Constitution or to engage in mass resistance to the supreme law of the land.
In Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and UNC, the United States Supreme Court held that the admissions programs at Harvard and UNC violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court’s ruling is, of course, binding on the parties themselves. However, this was no narrow decision. The broad constitutional mandate of colorblindness underlying the majority opinion is applicable to the University of Virginia, as well.
On August 1, 2023, in response to the landmark decision, university leaders issued a statement outlining the institution’s new admissions procedures. “The Court has made it clear,” the statement read in part, “that colleges and universities may not consider race, for its own sake, in their admission decisions. […] We will follow the law.”
However, the statement went on: “We also will do everything within our legal authority to recruit and admit a class of students who are diverse across every possible dimension and to make every student feel welcome and included here at UVA.”
Henceforth, then, the following admissions policies will be in effect:
First, a commitment to merit-based admissions. “Our admission practices will continue to assess each candidate for their capacity to succeed academically at the University, and we will continue to offer admission only to candidates we believe to be academically qualified.”
Second, the shielding of racial or ethnic data from the view of admissions officers. “No one who assesses candidates for admission at UVA will have access to any self-disclosed “checkbox” information regarding the race or ethnicity of the candidates they are considering.”
(Excerpt) Read more at jamesgmartin.center ...
I am all but ashamed to be a UVA grad at this point.
The Constitution does not apply to private corporations and individuals, only the government. Colleges and universities cannot discriminate on the basis of race because of the Civil Rights Act, which is a law that was enacted by Congress, and can be repealed by a simple majority.
So to gain, err game, admission simple write an essay about all the challenges you overcame as a black, lesbian, transgender, immigrant that identifies as a furry.
If these universities STOP taking government funds they can do whatever in the hell they want HOWEVER they will NEVER get off of the government trough!!!
UVA has the largest DEI administrative staff of major any university in the US.
Nearly every college and university in America receive federal tax dollars. Most also receive state tax dollars. UVA should not be considered private. I pay taxes ergo I am the boss.
“No one who assesses candidates for admission at UVA will have access to any self-disclosed “checkbox” information regarding the race or ethnicity of the candidates they are considering.”
But will they have access to the applicants’ names? If so, Lakeisha will be chosen over Emma, Trayvon over David.
We will not discriminate in this discriminatory way.
You can fool the youngsters, but we old farts recognize bull shit.
Right! Let's hear it for Hillsdale. One way to have freedom of education.
I think Grove City college is another. Not quite as well known as Hillsdale.
“...“that colleges and universities may not consider race, for its own sake, in their admission decisions. “
The slope has risen. Now what do you do when sports competitors, those that are greatly contributory to making money for the colleges, have to be considered for something besides race and success as there is no major for football, basketball or any other sport. So if they can’t get people in not based upon K through 12 or JC scholastic success, where do they go from there?
And that also means if an incoming freshman doesn’t meet the grades, as that’s all can be looked at, then unless the colleges can get the incoming freshmen to commit to post grad, there goes that part of the college income. Like I said, slippery slope.
wy69
That I’m aware of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights say nothing at all about providing one a college education or a mortgage or health care or anything else at taxpayers expense.
UVa is a public university.
Jefferson owned slaves, so Marxism at UVA is OK.
Got it....
"In Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and UNC, the United States Supreme Court held that the admissions programs at Harvard and UNC violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment [??? emphasis added]."
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
Post-FDR era, institutionally indoctrinated Supreme Court justices got the Harvard and UNC admissions case wrong imo, probably because of a post-FDR era, institutionally indoctrinated understanding of the 14th Amendment's (14A) Equal Protections Clause (EPC).
More specifically, consider that when Virginia Minor, represented by her attorney husband, argued 14A's EPC to the Supreme Court to try to win the right for woman's suffrage in the 19th century, the Supreme Court disagreed with the Minors, noting that 14A did not add any new personal protections to the Constitution.
“3. The right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that amendment does not add to these privileges and immunities. It simply furnished an additional guaranty for the protection of such as the citizen already had [emphasis added].” —Minor v. Happersett, 1874.
So since the states had the constitutionally unchecked power to prohibit women from voting before 14A was ratified, they retained the still constitutionally unchecked power to prohibit women from voting after 14A ratification.
Likewise, since INTRAstate schools had constitutionally unchecked power to make discriminatory admissions policies before 14A was ratified, they retained the power to make such policies after its ratification.
In fact, when the states ratified the voting rights 15th Amendment, the first and only constitutional amendment to protect rights base on skin color, they prohibited themselves from making discriminatory policies based on skin color only in the context of voting rights.
"10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people [emphasis added]."
"15th Amendment:
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."
Following the example of 15A, the states would need to amend the Constitution to specifically prohibit school admissions policy based on skin color instead of the situation now where misguided justices base their interpretation of EPC, and other clauses, on their good intentions (axe to grind?) instead of the Constitution imo.
“3. The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters [emphasis added]; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning; where the intention is clear, there is no room for construction and no excuse for interpolation or addition [emphasis added].” —United States v. Sprague, 1931.
As a side note concerning Virginia Minor's fight for women's suffrage, consider that the Supreme Court did not suggest for Virginia Minor to claim to be a man in order to vote, the 19th Amendment effectively giving women that right.
"19th Amendment:The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."
"Every possible dimension"?
Does that include INTELLIGENCE?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.