Re: "seven universities -- Stanford, University of California Berkeley, California State Universities at East Bay, Sacramento, San Francisco, San Jose and San Diego"

All except Stanford are unaffected by the Supreme Court Ruling as they have already been operating without racial preferences for more than 25 years - why are students from those schools protesting?

This SCOTUS will not consider their jobs finished until they wipe out all of the civil rights legislation that was the only foothold for people who are systemically marginalized. I think the number of justices should be increased by four, and let Biden pick them. There is nothing new under the sun for the current regime, so they keep reaching back into history to undo everything good that was ever done by previous SCOTUS justices. Uncle Tom, er... uh .... Clarence Thomas, shouldn't even be sitting there. Let's review his approach to being Black, and being held to account for his wrongdoings before being appointed to SCOTUS: "From my standpoint, as a black American, as far as I'm concerned, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas. And it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you. You will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S. Senate, rather than hung from a tree." Boy, he sure outdid himself defending himself from his accuser, Anita Hill, and using his now-protected color to do it. If it weren't for affirmative action, he wouldn't have even been considered for the job. "Do as I say, not as I do". He got what he got, and doesn't care if other POC ever get theirs.

The whole point of affirmative action is to evolve into a different approach. Do you ever take a win? I think at this point all of the public schools have made the approach to student achievement possible. It is time to recognize that all students need to work to get ahead. The amount of attention to this topic shows that everyone is aware of it and is actively working to make the end goals possible.

These students are misinformed. They should look at the years of applications of black and brown students as well as their transcripts while at Stanford. Since it’s not a meritocracy, they are accepting blacks and browns who have lower test scores and lower grades. Then, at Stanford, they continue to earn lower grades than other students. This hurts the smart blacks and browns who are successful due to meritocracy because everyone assumes they are successful only due to affirmative action, not due to meritocracy. My husband’s best friend is black and extremely intelligent, highly successful and he despises affirmative action.

Asians are a minority in the U.S. yet they are disqualified from affirmative action because they are over represented in college applications. That’s racist.

Although the Supreme Court claims the colleges cannot consider race in admissions, it will continue based upon the surnames. The blacks and browns will also likely mention their race in their essays or somewhere on their applications. The Supreme Court decision won’t change anything.

Shiela E: regarding your comment,
"My husband’s best friend is black and extremely intelligent, highly successful and he despises affirmative action. " Just curious, do your friends who were accepted due to legacy or their family's donations also despise those special considerations?

Is this all generational? I grew up in LA. Tom Bradely was Chief of Police and then Mayor. He ran for Governor. He graduated from UCLA and Southwestern Law Schol. In SF Wilie Brown was mayor and the Speaker of the CA Assembly. He was the longest running speaker.

West Hollywood is an affluent city with great neighborhoods, good restaurants, and well dressed people who are the backbone of the film industry. It is a predominant gay community. Also in LA is China town, Olivera Street, and the BBQ section. Everyone goes everywhere and eats everywhere. But everyone knows where to go to get their festivity cakes and food. It all worked. Until politics decided that it shoud not work.

"...they are accepting blacks and browns who have lower test scores and lower grades. Then, at Stanford, they continue to earn lower grades than other students."

If one cannot meet the minimum academic entrance requirements, they should not be admitted. And why is the Affirmative Action emphasis always on getting into the big name colleges and universities?

Consider attending a lower-tier state university or first completing a two-year JC transfer program if not academically qualified to attend an Ivy League University or UC as a freshman.

Prestigious college diplomas are not designer handbags and should not be viewed as status symbols.

"Asians are a minority in the U.S. yet they are disqualified from affirmative action because they are over represented in college applications. That’s racist."

Concurring. Top-flight Asian and Jewish students (though also minorities) have always been excluded from Affirmative Action acceptance considerations

As an experienced PAUSD parent/alum, elite college admissions consultant with a highly successful national practice, retired lawyer and Harvard/Stanford alum, I would like to add the following points to the conversation:

1. Harvard has now been sued over legacy preferences predominantly benefiting white students. Web Link

2. Due to the highly competitive nature of college admissions to elite schools, students need to have more than grades and test scores. These are a pure commodity and should be viewed as a mere gate for admissibility consideration. Schools publish their range of test scores through the Common Data set. For an admissible student within the range to be admitted, they need to go above and beyond to stand out. There are students of all backgrounds who stand out in different ways -- through STEM, the arts, etc.

3. Because of the limited number of spots at these highly selective schools, and the high yield rates they enjoy (meaning if admitted, students will come), these schools can only admit a very limited number of students out of the tens of thousands of applications. Therefore, regardless of any changes around holistic admissions concerning race, legacy, or otherwise, what remains is still how an individual student will stand out, especially from their peers, as students are considered in the context of their school.

4. As we work with seniors applying this year, we will be taking careful note of changes to the Common Application and individual schools questions and essay requirements. Regardless, it will remain imperative for students to tell their best story of who they are and why are they doing all this stuff. To be successful, a college application should convey the student's purpose and passion, showing their intellectual vitality and vision for contributing to the larger society.

The most qualified and accomplished applicants should always get first priority in hiring and school admissions regardless of their ethnicity and socio-economic backgrounds.

That is the true meaning of Affirmative Action.

From a different thread (the comment was probably mis-posted)...

"Another consideration...there are many outstanding and predominantly black colleges and universities to attend including Howard University, Grambling University, Tuskeegee Institute, Alcorn State University and others."

Add Morehouse State and Affirmative Action becomes a non-issue.

Not everyone needs to attend UC, Stanford, Harvard etc.

• Prestigious college diplomas are not designer handbags and should not be viewed as status symbols.

This is the crux of the Affirmative Action issue/conflict and it has nothing to do with systemic racism or discrimination.

'Harvard-educated' and 'Stanford-educated' are merely snob appeal designations no different than the pursuit of status symbol labels and designer brands.

How often does one hear San Jose State educated or 'Foothill College-educated being commonly used?

A similar situation occurred in San Francisco when black activists complained that only the brightest students (Asians and whites) were being admitted to Lowell High School, the most prestigious public high school in The City.

They insisted on a lottery system to encourage diversity and three 'progressive' school board members were
voted out by referendum for their racist commentaries against Asian students and parents.

As another poster noted, there are many fine colleges and alternatives which do not warrant Affirmative Action entitlements

Why is it either/or:
Affirmative action for select minorities OR the assumption others got in via big donations or legacy??

Plenty of us regular people get in to many universities without either one scheme or the other. No special dispensation of any sort given. May be accepted at some universities, rejected at others…

I think both of these schemes: so-called Affirmative Action AND insider legacy/big donor admissions preferences should be minimized and disclosed.

Also…remember that silly (in effect hired) “student” athletes getting in to UCLA (usually with LOW GPA) where regular applicants need a 4.4 GPA last I heard!! A real applicant serioisly wanting to study four years was rejected so a team player could go for one or two years!

A few years ago Harvard athletes caught in systematic cheating.

The all-black universities were founded in the southern states due to segregation and today, the African American student population comprises roughly 40% at these colleges and universities. White and Hispanic students account for the other 60%.

College-bound African American students deserve special admission considerations to prestige Ivy League universities because they were deprived of attending these universities for over 250+ years while enslaved by the racist southern whites and/or subjected to discrimination by racist northern whites.

Given these timeless exclusions, Affirmative Action policy should ensure that ANY African American be entitled to attend ANY Ivy League university free of charge and sans ANY academic admissions requirements.

Stanford University should be exempt from Affirmative Action because California was not a slave state with Jim Crow adherences.

On the other hand, Stanford University should accept all indigenous California Indian and Cantonese Chinese student applicants to amend for the 19th century racism of its founder.

It is time to move forward and to ensure a level playing field for all American people of color.

"remember that silly (in effect hired) “student” athletes getting in to UCLA (usually with LOW GPA) where regular applicants need a 4.4 GPA last I heard!! A real applicant serioisly wanting to study four years was rejected so a team player could go for one or two years!"

@Anonymous: Gifted 'student-athletes' regardless of their GPA & SAT test scores are prized because collegiate football and basketball are major revenue-generating streams.

Incoming straight A students who choose to major in the Liberal Arts contribute far less to the universities as many will most likely end-up working as Starbucks baristas following graduation.

Collegiate football and basketball provide a launching pad for a lucrative pro-sports career and some prep 'student athletes' like Lebron James and the late Kobe Bryant went directly from high school into the pros. Antioch High's Najee Harris played only two football seasons at Alabama prior to getting drafted by the Pittsburg Steelers at 20.

So when it comes to value-added, these short-term student athletes contribute far more to their respective colleges and universities compared to some undergraduate student majoring in the humanities.

In some ways, student-athletes should get admissions preference over conventional students because many of the subjects and careers being taught will be replaced by AI.

There is no AI replacement for a gifted college football or basketball player and their athletic endeavors provide the fiscal resources so that university's can provide useless majors like Philosophy (including the erudite professors).