Posted on 08/21/2025 1:26:55 PM PDT by karpov
In Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (2023), the Supreme Court reaffirmed that every college applicant deserves to be judged as an individual, not as a member of a racial group. The justices struck down the use of race in admissions, ending decades of officially sanctioned discrimination.
But as legal advocates know, a court victory is only the first step. Without transparency, rules can be quietly undermined. Since the court’s decision, many universities have claimed that race no longer plays a role in admissions. Yet some have adopted opaque scoring systems that appear to use racial proxies—seemingly neutral factors that effectively correlate with race and can be used to achieve the same racial outcomes as explicit preferences.
Examples include giving extra weight to ZIP Codes or census blocks with heavily minority populations or awarding large boosts for attending certain majority-minority high schools. Other proxies include “neighborhood wealth index” scores and targeted recruitment from racially homogeneous areas.
President Trump last week issued a memorandum to the education secretary that addresses this problem directly. Every federally funded college will be required to disclose publicly exactly how its admissions process works. All undergraduate and graduate schools must report detailed data for each stage of the admissions process broken down by race and ethnicity.
Schools must include standardized test scores, grade-point averages and other academic measures for each group. They must also explain whether they use any “race-neutral” tools that may act as racial proxies. This data will be published in a database so students and parents can compare institutions. The Education Department will have the power to impose penalties for noncompliance.
In the Harvard case, it took years of litigation to uncover that the school consistently downgraded Asian-American applicants on subjective “personality” ratings
(Excerpt) Read more at wsj.com ...
The 2023 ruling was the right way to do the wrong thing.
Although I agree with the rationale, the feds do not have constitutional authority to fund, commandeer, regulate, or adjudicate private colleges just like they don’t with private enterprise or private individuals.
The college admissions is where not only undocumented people come in- it is from where we get govt officials. Even elected ones-
It’s open border for execs
Agreed. Go further. Get rid of fed funding for college...period. Private or public. If a state pays for a public college that’s not the fed’s business, just like, as you correctly point out, it’s not the fed’s business to pay or interfere with a private college.
They take federal money, which leaves them open to federal rules.
Also it is against federal law to discriminate on the basis of race.
If they are violating the law, they are guilty.
“...the feds do not have constitutional authority to fund, commandeer, regulate, or adjudicate private colleges just like they don’t with private enterprise or private individuals.”
Right. The Constitution does not delegate that to the feds, therefore, it is unconstitutional for the feds to pay or interfere with a private college.
This is based on an individual’s achievements not on what color the person is. That time is long past.
Bingo. If they can overturn Roe v. Wade, they can strike down and void the unconstitutional federal law of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1965.
Which is EXACTLY what needs to happen, and I think there's a good chance it will be struck down.
As Reagan once said, “I don’t care if every seat is taken by an Asian, if they’ve earned the right to be there.”
Jim W N wrote: “Although I agree with the rationale, the feds do not have constitutional authority to fund, commandeer, regulate, or adjudicate private colleges just like they don’t with private enterprise or private individuals.”
Where does the US Constitution and Bill of Rights state that it does not apply to the states? I
The Supremacy Clause (US Const., Art. VI, Cl. 2) invalidates that federal law because the Constitution gives the feds NO authority to regulate individual, personal choices ("discrimination").
They don’t have to comply.
But they can’t take federal money.
There is exactly one school that takes no federal money: Hillsdale.
The feds who are under the Rule of Law of the Constitution, unconstitutionally extort and force their "funding" all the time.
The Constitution gives the feds NO authority to fund or meddle with private colleges just like with private enterprise or private individuals.
Correction to my own post. There are a couple more:
Grove City College
Christendom College
Patrick Henry College
Pensacola Christian College
Wyoming Catholic College
Gutenberg College
Principia College
Deep Springs College
“The Constitution gives the feds NO authority to fund or meddle with private colleges just like with private enterprise or private individuals.”
I might agree with you, but the SCOTUS does not, notably in Grove City College v. Bell, which imposed federal regulations on institutions where students received federal aid.
The feds who are under the Rule of Law of the Constitution, unconstitutionally extort and force their "funding" all the time.
Hillsdale has had to spend time and money fighting the feds' coercion about taking their funds.
The Constitution gives the feds NO authority to fund or meddle with private colleges just like with private enterprise or private individuals.
Private or not, there are antidiscrimination laws on the books. If Harvard discriminated against Asians, they are guilty of discrimination. Private or not.
They are public accommodation so antidiscrimination laws apply to them.
I think there’s a good chance it will be struck down.
Actually Wickard v Filburn would, IMHO be a better place to cut Federal overreach down.
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.