that the admissions office may rely on that factor, and any other number of alternatives that the schools are considering that are subject to judicial challenge. and again, today, universities have to be concerned about the whole person, and holistic analysis, and it is not fair for the majority of decision was to be a decision based on a number of different factors. and so, what is going to happen, i think that besides judicial challenges affected at unc and other places because of the essays, i think that you will begin to see the universities trying to raise more money for students so that they can provide scholarships to promote
because we are interested to hear the wording that you are saying from the majority opinion, and also to hear if any of the dissent is read from the bench as some are done on monumental cases. and elie, violates the clause of the 14th amendment, and give us a moment of what a big deal of this is, because it is 6-3, and it is no longer affirmative action in higher education is no longer. this is going to change the way about the way that colleges handle their admissions. jessica hit on one of the key nuances that we have to dig through and find out is what the supreme court says about race neutral processes, and this is a big discussion of oral argument in can colleges consider other factors than race. zip code. economic status. first-generation member of the fa family, and can those things be considered and this is a hot topic, and one thing that is
clear that the colleges can do to try to generate diverse classes for themselves, and for example, you can look at what is in the student s essay, and you cannot restrict what they say, and yes, the colleges can consider that, and other factors, economic background, and first-generation college students, and what is also interesting is that there is a recognition here, the majority striking it down, vase a virtue, and value and not saying it is bad thing or meaningless, but the question is what are the constitutional means to get there. and that is the dilemma they are grappling with here. and when is precedent not precedent? i mean, everyone says i am not going to change the precedent and the thing that has been around for 40 or 50 or 60 years, and then they do. so what s happening here? here is the real answer, precedent is precedent until five justices don t want it to
admissions process. and even though a student could not for example if it were to go to say you cannot consider race at all in admissions, what does that practically mean, everyone? you can t have a box of race. but what about a student who writes a essay about the lived experience as racial minority, and what about the holistic factors that jessica spoke about race as one of many factors and compare to say someone who is a veteran, someone who is a legacy student, whose parent went to the university, and mean for somebody who is a violinist or athlete or any number of factors that are played into the admissions process, and corporate america and military have had a hand in expressing views in this consequential decision, because they suggest what would be the parameters and impact on the greater atmosphere? it is likely and expected that the supreme court will continue to find the nuances of
that says a person s skin color may be assessed but not assessed to a person s diverse learning environment, and that indefensible reading of the law subverts the 14th equal protection. i think that many would look to sonya sotomayor who has spoken to herself as the model affirmative action recipient, and she and clarence thomas who have similar backgrounds, but she views it as sensitivity, and justice thomas as paternalism. and it is inconsistency when race can be used as a factor in some factors of the