Affirmative Action Ruling Forum

[lawschoolj1218]

The ruling (if changed from what it currently is) would impact 2016 applicants, correct?

[Emma.]

The ruling (if changed from what it currently is) would impact 2016 applicants, correct?

It's unlikely to affect folks unless they are applying to Texas. Abby didn't ask the Court to overturn Grutter, and I doubt the Court would do that with only 7 justices participating. I could see, however, an opinion that strikes down the Texas plan but has no immediate broader implications, and yet at the same time reiterates the Grutter durational limit -- telling schools that they should take the Court at its word and start planning for the end of race-conscious admissions regardless of whether they think it is still necessary.

[Troianii]

I hear ya. I think it's a sign that I am a relatively boring person, honestly.

But this one, is a good one..."the way to stop racial discrimination is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." I guess I fall for his "God speaking on Sinai" authority and tone. But, again, I'm boring.

I remember that specific one. That was absolutely fantastic.

From the oral arguments, I think that the court may rule against the school. The court has been hammering that universities must use race-neutral standards, which is why the court didn't take issue with the 10% plan, which at least nominally achieved some level of diversity. I'm positive that will stay, but the policies that UT has been using for the other 25% I think will be struck. One of the arguments used in court for UT's policy was that it's holistic process, which covered the 25% who didn't get in by being in the top 10% of their HS class, drastically increased minority enrollment. I think that the justices may well read between the lines on that and see that it still effectually amounted to a large racial preference.

I enjoyed reading and listening to this case. Anyone that is this much of a legal geek and wants to brush up:

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2012/11-345

[Emma.]

I hear ya. I think it's a sign that I am a relatively boring person, honestly.

But this one, is a good one..."the way to stop racial discrimination is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." I guess I fall for his "God speaking on Sinai" authority and tone. But, again, I'm boring.

I remember that specific one. That was absolutely fantastic.

From the oral arguments, I think that the court may rule against the school. The court has been hammering that universities must use race-neutral standards, which is why the court didn't take issue with the 10% plan, which at least nominally achieved some level of diversity. I'm positive that will stay, but the policies that UT has been using for the other 25% I think will be struck. One of the arguments used in court for UT's policy was that it's holistic process, which covered the 25% who didn't get in by being in the top 10% of their HS class, drastically increased minority enrollment. I think that the justices may well read between the lines on that and see that it still effectually amounted to a large racial preference.

I enjoyed reading and listening to this case. Anyone that is this much of a legal geek and wants to brush up:

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2012/11-345

You're giving bad advice all over TLS, huh?

[Troianii]

I hear ya. I think it's a sign that I am a relatively boring person, honestly.

But this one, is a good one..."the way to stop racial discrimination is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." I guess I fall for his "God speaking on Sinai" authority and tone. But, again, I'm boring.

I remember that specific one. That was absolutely fantastic.

From the oral arguments, I think that the court may rule against the school. The court has been hammering that universities must use race-neutral standards, which is why the court didn't take issue with the 10% plan, which at least nominally achieved some level of diversity. I'm positive that will stay, but the policies that UT has been using for the other 25% I think will be struck. One of the arguments used in court for UT's policy was that it's holistic process, which covered the 25% who didn't get in by being in the top 10% of their HS class, drastically increased minority enrollment. I think that the justices may well read between the lines on that and see that it still effectually amounted to a large racial preference.

I enjoyed reading and listening to this case. Anyone that is this much of a legal geek and wants to brush up:

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2012/11-345

You're giving bad advice all over TLS, huh?

Oh yeah, "here, if you want to listen to the case, you can hear it at this link." omg, such horrible advice!