admissions process, so long as they considered one of many factors or while conservatives, of course, to outrage and spent decades shopping for the perfect self-described victim of affirmative action to bring future challenges. 2003, for example, conservative activists conservative activists seized upon white people who were denied admissions to the university of michigan, and presented a case before the court. those decisions narrowed affirmative action policies slightly, making it illegal to use point based systems with regard to race in college admissions. you get, in the end, a court again reaffirmed the constitutionality of the broader policy. so, conservatives tried in 2013. and in 2016, a white woman named abigail fischer, who was denied admission to the university of texas, again and again, the court ruled affirmative action was constitutional. justice kennedy, writing for the majority at the time, stated that the attainment of a
Transcripts for CNN CNN Tonight 20240604 07:01:15
archive.org - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from archive.org Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
litigation, but mostly, this notion of the dynamic, the hypocrisy to some, and the just overarching uncertainty of how this could be enforced, implemented and followed. professor, let me read the citation that laura was talking about there from the chief justice who wrote nothing in this opinion should be construed from universities from considering an applicant s discussion of how race affected his or her life be it through discrimination, inspiration, otherwise. a student must be treated based on her experiences as an individual, not on the basis of race. so that s how race can play into the admissions process, yet any sense of how that would work and what now colleges and universities will do with this issue? yeah, absolutely. i think it s a really big loophole. so don t get me wrong. i think this is a hugely momentous decision. but that quote that you just read i think suggests how applicants can still get their race on the table and have it
he later elaborated on this on msnbc. you said this court is not normal. what did you mean? what i meant by that is, it s done more to unravel basic rights and basic decisions than any court in recent history. and that s what i meant by not normal. laura: devin, when a case has been decided in an unconstitutional manner the court has always held that precedent does not stand. obviously, it would make no sense and we ve seen that time and again and the left has been very happy when precedent has been overturned but not in this case. yes, no, actually one of the things that i think is really interesting in these cases that i haven t heard much talk about today is that the court had the opportunity to overturn the harvard and unc admissions process sees through title six which is a civil rights law. that very unambiguously says schools that receive school funding can t discriminate.
democracy with some promise and hope as opposed to division and hate. i get i mean i agree with you in terms of where culture is, where consumers are at, which is obviously where business is going to be responsive, but, you know, from a legal perspective what are the kind of you say we have opportunities, that we have leverage, where do you see that opportunity and that leverage given what the supreme court did today? so first it s so important to recognize what this decision does, who it impacts directly and who it doesn t. so in this case we are talking about admissions processes between two institutions, harvard and unc. so every college and university needs to think about their admissions process and how similar to harvard s and unc s it is and how different it is and weather based on the interpretation of that decision their admissions process is legal or not. so that s the first step, and those are the only entities who
vimarsana © 2020. All Rights Reserved.