You're in Texas! The top 10% of each high school's graduating class thing they came up with is working pretty well, right? It relies on educational segregation, which is bad in itself, but if the segregation went away, arguably the affirmative action would be less necessary.

That's true! They've diluted it a touch. It's now that the top 10% is guaranteed a place in the UT system, and then you can transfer to UT-Austin after two years if you're so inclined. But it's still a pretty strong offer.

Time for an unaccustomed chorus of Yay, Texas!

This happened in California, like, two decades ago. No, I do not have any facts or analyses at hand.

Gonna be absolutely wild when affirmative action is banned but legacy preferences (and, as at Harvard, "dean's exceptions", which is to say, "the children of absurdly wealthy non-alumni") continue to hoover up all those spots at elite schools that the Abigail Fishers of the world believe are rightly due to them.

Yes, I was coming to say, California banned public affirmative action by ballot measure with Prop 209 (1996).

In 2020, the legislature by 2/3 of the vote (in fact with 75%) referred a repeal of Prop 209 to the voters. They rejected it 57-43.

So I think it would look a lot like the present day.

Really wet?

So did California implement an alternate system to address inequality, or just let the chips fall where they may?

Because that repeal (Prop 16) was a pretty clean statement of principles (it didn't require affirmative action of a particular kind, just allowed it), we got some detailed polling on the issue.

A September poll where it got 33% for, 41% against, and 26% undecided had the following crosstabs:

Democrats: +29
Republicans: -69
Other: -14

Male: -15
Female: Even

18-29: -8
30-39: -2
40-49: +3
50-64: -13
65+: -11

White non-Hispanic: -18
Latino: +7
Asian/Pacific Islander: +9
Black: +23

At some point you have to accept that you live in a democracy and that means you have to give up on wildly unpopular ideas, even if you think they're abstractly good. Affirmative action is just too unpopular to survive, and honestly should have been given up on long ago. The Texas plan makes a lot of sense, even if rich parents game it by sending their kids to different schools that's also good in the long run.

That said, you can't actually make private schools change their policies in practice. It's just impossible to enforce, and schools don't seem to be worried about it at all. A department I know people at recently got explicitly told by the Dean "you may only accept graduate students who are women, URM, or in applied math." This is just already not legal in the US, but they do it anyway. Hell I'm at a public school and our old dean once wrote in all caps in an email "under no circumstances will you be allowed to hire a man for this position." Private schools will just keep doing the affirmative action in the same way they have, they'll just be slightly more secretive about it.

9: Pretty surprising to me that Prop 16 managed to pull a majority of Asians.

even if rich parents game it by sending their kids to different schools that's also good in the long run.

FWIW, I see absolutely zero of this, and only see frantic scrambling in the opposite direction.

11: They're pretty Democratic! Media likes to focus on the conservative or contrarian among them for novelty's sake (see also criminal justice reform), in such a way as to give the impression they're swinging right on average. That may be happening to some degree, but only compared to the past, not changing the majority: exit polls had Asian-American presidential vote +27 D in 2008, +47 in 2012, +38 in 2016, +27 in 2020.

8: Not sure. Nothing as visible as Texas's 10%. The usual outreach and financial aid, I think.

exit polls had Asian-American presidential vote +27 D in 2008, +47 in 2012

That is an interesting shift! What on earth happened in Obama's first term to virtually wipe out the Republican vote among Asian-Americans?

The Republican Party went openly racist.

I think part of the answer has to be making elite schools less important.

Harvard has done nothing but churn out a series of sociopaths who mismanage the country on behalf of the rich. Yale is even worse. Theses are places where promising young people are absorbed by the Borg. More people should understand this!

Making these institutions more diverse doesn't help much. But making them unimportant would do amazing things to diversify the people who end up running the show.

CA has a similar program to Texas where graduating top 9% in your class guarantees you admission to some UC. It's called the "local guarantee (ELC)." There's also a similar program ("statewide guarantee") if you're in the top 9% of the state. But this is UC-wide, at Berkeley you just don't get anything close to representative demographics (https://opa.berkeley.edu/uc-berkeley-fall-enrollment-data-new-undergraduates). Though keep in mind here that CA has a pretty low percentage of Black residents (6% or so). The main effects at Berkeley are that Mexican-Americans are wildly under-represented, many Asian ethnicities wildly over-represented, and White people somewhat underrepresented.

As I've mentioned before, in my highly anecdotal familial experience, my once conservative or centrist Taiwanese relatives have mostly shifted Democratic in the last 10-15 years. The more recent ones were reacting to a few years of Trump (a couple may have even voted for him), but arguably all were reacting to the trends in the Republican party and "conservative" movement that led to Trump winning.

17: Special tax on endowment per student. Either give us your endowment or start taking more students! It's ridiculous, more and more students go to college and Harvard just stays the same size.

Either give us your endowment or start taking more students!

That's what she said.

19: The same thing happened to my white relatives, mostly.

I wasn't surprised that Asians in CA vote Democratic, I was surprised that they voted for Prop 16!

(Separately there was a big move towards Trump in 2020 among a lot of Asian groups, parallel to similar moves among Hispanic groups, especially from communist countries. Speculated to mostly be BLM backlash and/or about socialism fears.)

I wasn't surprised that Asians in CA vote Democratic, I was surprised that they voted for Prop 16!

I get that - just saying the two may bear a substantial connection.

Sometimes it's hard to tell what "affirmative action" is, so it's entirely possible that the Supreme Court will ban something no one considered affirmative action until 5-6 justices on the Supreme Court called it that. Or that they'll ban things that have long been prohibited but that a lot of people seem to think are still exist in policy, like strict quotas.

This is just already not legal in the US, but they do it anyway.

Maybe I'm a procedural rule-follower, but I think the backlash risk of doing things that are illegal (not just unpopular) is pretty high and there's a real chance of setting things back. Which I guess is happening.

When I was a student rep on an admissions committee at a private school in California nearly twenty years ago, we went to a diversity training where they were pretty clear that you couldn't do anything that resembled an "affirmative action policy" but you could take various aspects of an applicants' life into account. A philosophy professor asked, in what I've come to recognize as a "just asking questions" style of trolling, "Does that mean diversity can cover a white Mormon libertarian if students with that background are underrepresented?" The answer was yes. But most people interpreted the guidelines to mean that you could still more or less think of diversity in conventional ways as long as it wasn't solely about race and/or gender.

The actual diversity admissions program went like this:

- Ignore anything but application materials and select however many students you've been allocated for admission, plus possible alternates/waiting list since not everyone given an offer will accept
- Once you've selected your admission class, you can consider whether anyone you've admitted could be classified as increasing "diversity" in the department
- If so, congratulations, you can admit a few more people (depending again on your departmental allocation)

Anyone who benefited from the additional admissions would be picked from the alternate/waiting list. So it was entirely possible for diversity admissions to result in more white students, if that's how the alternate list shaped up.

17: I WOULD RATHER BE GOVERNED BY THE FIRST 2,000 PEOPLE IN THE TELEPHONE DIRECTORY THAN BY THE HARVARD UNIVERSITY FACULTY.

When I applied to Cal for grad school in fall 2006, they requested a second personal statement in which you described any particular hardships that had gotten in the way of your path through the educational system. This was pretty clearly in lieu of affirmative action and also a way to take more qualitative information into account. It's got to be strange to read those statements when hardship is a generational constant with relatively few exceptions, though.

The University of California has shifted in the years since Proposition 209 to what it calls "holistic review" (with different implementations at the different campuses). This explicitly avoids fixed weights on the various application components; the decision is a subjective one made by the application reader, with little or no documentation of what in the file led them to that decision. I imagine lots of other universities will move in this direction in the wake of the Supreme Court decision. Indeed, I suspect that the Harvard lawsuit, in which the university was shown to have documented enough of their decisions to look bad without documenting enough to defend themselves, is already leading universities to move in this direction, independent of any change in the formal rules.

"with little or no documentation of what in the file led them to that decision"

Right, this is the key. US discrimination law is all set up around banning certain kinds of discrimination, and never around requiring fairness in procedure. So as long as you make sure not to put things in writing you can do whatever you want. In some cases there's internal regulations that make this difficult (e.g. the decision to grant or deny tenure), but for admissions you can just not put anything in writing.

There is a risk that the courts will rewrite discrimination law, making the bar much lower to prove disparate impact against White people than they ever allowed for discrimination against Black people. If so, a lack of documentation may not be enough if plaintiffs can show that their preferred admissions rule would have yielded a whiter class. This is roughly the argument made by the plaintiffs in the Harvard case.

@28, 29

And what if the Supreme Court nixes affirmative action and the next Republican administration applies a disparate impact test to Harvard admissions? Finding that whatever black-box criteria they used, it resulted in discrimination against Asians?

30: There are a fair number of cases on the books already that apply that kind of variable standard in practice.

@32 I believe you. This is not my area - do you have examples? I'm curious to see how it shook out.

@32 - I found this explainer:

https://www.justice.gov/crt/fcs/T6Manual7#Q

What if the Republicans on the court state that encouraging diversity, as a justification, is not legitimate, integral to the recipient's institutional mission, and important?

Or what if they state that encouraging diversity is legitimate and important, but not integral to the college's institutional mission. And they assert that the justification fails because all of its elements are not satisfied?

Mostly I was thinking of City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson and its progeny -- it's just been easier for white plaintiffs to make a case of reverse discrimination, in terms of demonstrating standing and so on, than it has been for minority plaintiffs. Even in Fisher v. U of Texas, standing requirements were very relaxed.

I believe that the "progressive" end to the SATs is so top universities can continue to make their freshman classes as they see fit.

Isn't there a coming shortage of kids? Because Gen X remembered Reagan's policy in Lebanon and pulled out after making a big fuss?

What if the Republicans on the court state that encouraging diversity, as a justification, is not legitimate, integral to the recipient's institutional mission, and important?

Maybe there will finally be a point to organizational "mission statements" as a means to rebut this. "I'm sorry Mr. Justice but it says diversity and inclusion right there in the mission statement."

I mean, its really not on the court to tell universities what their mission is. Which isn't to say they won't try.

37: the demographic cliff is 2025. It's not going to be a problem for Harvard. But it will be for my institution (we will probably lose my major and also my job, despite good enrollments)

So, not much help for an incoming student starting in fall of 2024 and their parents?

5: Harvard is dropping legacy admissions, but I'm sure Dean's exceptions will live on.

I' m sure that the children of some of my classmates have benefited from the legacy rule. Another classmate with younger kids who is of Indian descent was like "I'm the minority that always gets discriminated agains" (by which she meant absurd quotas making immigration to the US hard), and "this was the only time I had a leg up."

Isn't the answer either the Texas top x% solution or banning all the mates' rates exceptions or both?

I love how increasing enrollment is less of a reason to hire than decreasing enrollment is a reason to fire.

39: Here our administrators have gotten a lot less scared about the cliff. Their new theory is that the pandemic was a dry-run for the cliff, and state flagships were basically fine, while the decreases in enrollment happened in less competitive schools. They are, however, very focused on the demographic changes that the cliff will result in. This is the reason why even Republican administrators still care about DEI (at least when DeSantis isn't in the room), because everyone will be competing over recruiting first-gen students from underrepresented groups if they want to still exist after the cliff. There's also a big push to lower academic standards because the median student will be substantially less well prepared after the cliff.

Another classmate with younger kids who is of Indian descent was like "I'm the minority that always gets discriminated agains" (by which she meant absurd quotas making immigration to the US hard),

That, and also that Asian and South Asians in the US, while they are the subject of racism, generally don't get treated as underrepresented minorities in hiring and admissions.
Which makes sense to the extent that they're in many contexts not underrepresented, but still has to be irksome given that it's not like they're not suffering from discrimination in different ways.

I'm glad people from diverse parts of the world are getting into universities here, but what if I'm sick and the only doctor available is gentile?

40: They might be able to accept a wait list placement and do a gap year.

I gotta say, having babies right when baby-making dried up may have its perks. Hawaii will be class of 2027.

I benefited from this same thing: I kept hitting milestones during droughts that gave me opportunities that weren't available 1-2 years later. Ie, I applied to grad school in 1999 when lots of talent was getting sucked up by tech. Two years later, the incoming grad students had way more preparation than I had. Graduated in 2006, which obviously was also lucky by 2-3 years.

(I am very sympathetic towards those 2-3 years later who kept getting screwed through no fault of their own.)

I gotta say, having babies right when baby-making dried up may have its perks. Hawaii will be class of 2027.

I benefited from this same thing: I kept hitting milestones during droughts that gave me opportunities that weren't available 1-2 years later. Ie, I applied to grad school in 1999 when lots of talent was getting sucked up by tech. Two years later, the incoming grad students had way more preparation than I had. Graduated in 2006, which obviously was also lucky by 2-3 years.

(I am very sympathetic towards those 2-3 years later who kept getting screwed through no fault of their own.)

I am lucky that this is a great time to double post, too.

47: I've suggested farming for a year.

47: I've suggested farming for a year.

Stupid phone.

That, and also that Asian and South Asians in the US, while they are the subject of racism, generally don't get treated as underrepresented minorities in hiring and admissions.
Which makes sense to the extent that they're in many contexts not underrepresented, but still has to be irksome given that it's not like they're not suffering from discrimination in different ways.

But grouping everyone of Asian or South Asian descent creates an utterly meaningless "they." That's a problem for any ethnic grouping, but particularly acute when your minority group includes anyone with ancestry in a continent that contains more than half the population of the world.

I choose to believe that our legacy admit kid got in on the merits. Only difference is he got in early and might have been defer/admit otherwise so the legacy bump at least saved us some other application fees and a lot of stress.
I didn't realize the cliff was so soon, our younger kids will benefit from that.

At places like Harvard I feel like it's misleading to distinguish between "the merits" and other effects. The whole game they're playing is to try to accept the people most likely to end up in every "important" role in the next generation. So this includes say accepting the people they think are most likely to be future Nobel prize winners or even just future Sloan fellows, and the people they think are mostly to be the next Martin McDonagh or whatever, so they want a certain number of people chosen primarily on the basis of "academics." But they also want olympians and the principal violinists and Matt Damon. And there's a lot of other important positions, like being Assistant to the President and Senior Advisor, and for those you're better off going with whoever has enough money to pay off two senators from different parties to beg you to let him into your school. That's not lack of merit, *that is the merit*. If you want future Supreme Court Justices then you should take a lot of people from Georgetown Prep. This is also the motivation for a lot of affirmative action. If you want future Senators you should make sure to accept some people from Wyoming. If you want the future president of Howard University you better accept some Black students.

And there's a lot of other important positions, like being Assistant to the President and Senior Advisor, and for those you're better off going with whoever has enough money to pay off two senators from different parties to beg you to let him into your school. That's not lack of merit, *that is the merit*.

I'm sure you don't have to have me tell you this, but there is a major chicken-and-egg issue with this logic!

48: By contrast, I graduated into two recessions. It's been a thing. And the demographic cliff probably means I won't be able to afford college for my kids!

YMMV, but not working for a university turns out to be a better way of making money than I had thought when I worked at a university.

I'm not sure I could get any job besides teaching math.

Not with that attitude.

Texas GOP taking a creative new approach.

Seems like there's quite a few rich people in and around Silicon Valley that could use some math lessons these days.

62: Ugh. OTOH, while I generally think international students in US universities are a good thing, maybe sending them to places like Texas and Florida isn't exactly putting our best foot forward right now.

63: If Billy sets $5 billion on fire, and Joey sets $8 billion on fire, how many non-white people are to blame?

65: Still just the one, until they find some more.

66 touche

@56
"The whole game they're playing is to try to accept the people most likely to end up in every "important" role in the next generation."

To be blunt, that is the most concise argument I've seen for stripping them of their endowment and stabling horses in their lecture halls, a la Cromwell and Canterbury Cathedral.

Lots of people have slept in a lecture hall (or cathedral) without that much fuss.

||

she crawls over the earth like a ground-mist, shapeless and sack-like, armed with a long iron hook with which she snatches children picking cucumbers and drags them away to her underground lair.

Hell I'm at a public school and our old dean once wrote in all caps in an email "under no circumstances will you be allowed to hire a man for this position."

I wonder if other fields have as much blatant illegality in hiring as academia does. I'm thinking maybe no, because most businesses are more hierarchical and have more ways for lawyers to be involved? Hiring of faculty (and graduate admissions), being done entirely by professors who think of themselves as completely autonomous, always shows so much contempt for the law. I can't count the number of times I've been told in job interviews that I wouldn't get a job because my spouse is also an academic. People don't even hesitate to say that kind of thing. I've been in faculty meetings where people talked about a candidate's age as a criterion in hiring and someone pointedly said "you meant to say 'years since PhD'" and everyone kind of rolls their eyes and keeps talking about age.

I suspect small business owners are much worse.

My institution has preemptively started preparing for the demographic cliff by making admissions substantially less selective (i.e., we went from admitting 25% of applicants to admitting 75% of applicants). I have complex feelings about this, overall, but I can confidently state that nothing has been done at the university level to either inform or prepare faculty about this.

Same Dean told candidates that they would have to move up their wedding to get an offer because he was worried that only the trailing spouse would take the position if they weren't legally married.

Just to be clear, I actually think positions only advertised for women are great *in countries where that's legal* (for example Australia). Makes for a much less contentious process that's focused on the quality of the candidates. It's just that this isn't legal here and so it becomes a huge mess when you try to do it anyway.

71: Our searches have been pretty good, with a lot of guidance from HR. But in addition to the usual cranky old people willing to use criteria that they just not ought to use, there's the added complication of academic positions usually involving relocation and for us, at least, trying to sell the candidate on moving to a deep red state. So one ends up trying to make small talk about the town, the schools, the recreation, the opportunities for spouses/partners, and it's very easy for people to wander into you-can't-ask-that territory by trying to be friendly.

Isn't is easier to drink there now? That's always a good conversation starter.

I can't count the number of times I've been told in job interviews that I wouldn't get a job because my spouse is also an academic.

Is that illegal? It's arguably unethical, and if it is unethical then it's unethical in the same way as lots of things that are illegal, but I'm pretty sure "spouse of an academic" is not a protected class under federal law.

Marital status is a protected category in many states, though not under federal law.

But that's married v. single, not the details of who you're married to.

Right, the problem wouldn't be the fact that the spouse is an academic, but that the fact that you're married at all is a factor in the decision.

In Ohio, being a cracker is a protected status but being a honky is not.

I don't think Pennsylvania protects either as a matter of law, but I expect in practice it's not very different.

81: I am not speaking with great authority here, but I think that wouldn't be a problem under federal law. E.g., Congress had to pass a specific statute prohibiting discrimination against pregnant women after a Supreme Court case holding that discrimination against pregnant people wasn't prohibited as sex discrimination. Under state law, who knows?

Yeah. State discrimination law is a great topic.

Apparently I have been told several things about legal requirements for hiring that aren't actual legal requirements. Huh.

Still, can't say that I feel bad about calling one of my colleagues for discriminating against a job candidate based on who their spouse was, which led to said colleague getting really angry and not speaking to me for months. (Unfortunately, they eventually started speaking to me again.)

calling out one of my colleagues, that's supposed to say

I don't see my colleagues much. Though I've recently been educating a colleague who is moving to Pittsburgh this month about our local penchant for driving into buildings.

84: Yeah, I don't think it's necessarily a problem under federal law at all. Could be under state law, depending on the state. A lot of state discrimination laws are actually significantly stronger than the federal equivalents.

In NY, not only the state but the city Human Rights Law is super strong comparatively. If you've been discriminated against in NYC, plead your state and local causes of action!

80: I have a vague recollection of a Washington Supreme Court case finding an employer in violation of state anti-discrimination law for enforcing an anti-nepotism policy in a way that denied an employment opportunity based on who the plaintiff was married to, but I can't remember enough details to google it up.

||

Foreign Minister Augustinas Voldemaras believed that "a nation is composed
more of the dead than the living," which presumably raised practical
problems in terms of counting votes.