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on the basis of race because of the Civil Rights Act, which is a law that was enacted by Congress, and can be repealed by a simple majority.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.
UVA has the largest DEI administrative staff of major any university in the US.
“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.
“...“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
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?