undermine or disadvantage somebody, and looking ate in the lenses of strict scrutiny, this court is saying that you have not justified the use of race by anything very compelling to us. you have not provided day that this is still warranted or necessary. of courses a lot of this in the admissions process is subjective. the criteria of what you think a student should be a part of the community based on something else is based on the factors with the data surrounding test score, and you have a whole host of subjective criteria to wbe used, and this court is saying it can be used, but it is not the criteria. and the application mechanism of it in terms of how a school knows when they are crossing line in considering and listening to a student s discussion of race as part of an identity as opposed to using it as somehow an advantage. what we are seeing here is an evolution. there are no quotas. it cannot be a plus-factor.
school, and she had a lengthy statement, and passionate statement about the need for affirmative action and how it helped her, but this is one passage from her. today my heart breaks for any young person out there who is wondering what their future holds and what kind of chances will be open to them. while i know the strength and grit that lies inside of the kids who have had to sweat a little bit more to climb the same ladders, i hope and pray that the rest of us are willing to sweat a little, too. so certainly interesting reactions there, but pi am thinking back to a time on the campaign trail in 2007 when then senator obama was asked about affirmative action and if their daughters malia and sasha should benefitt from the programs and at the time, senator obama, the junior senator from illinois who would become president and not clear at this time, he was not sure they should benefit from it, because they had many
and this decision is whether race can be a part of the holistic consideration of one s application which is inherently subjective. but at the end of the day, one part that was really interesting to me in particular is justice thomas concurring opinion where he talked about hbcus and identifying the hbcus as an example of not racially diverse entity that still has benefits to the student body outside of the college and university setting. he used that to juxtapose why diversity might be a goal societally, but it is not compelling enough to say that you have to use race exclusively as a factor or plus factor or quota or holistic notion, and many will quibble with that opinion, and many aspects as well, but overall, what we are seeing here is the value of precedent, and the shaping of precedent and the nuances of it over periods of time that are
challenge is the extent to which whatever benefits a person had by virtue of the high grades or scores, somehow, it justified their admission over somebody with lower scores is going to be hard to prove given the fact that diversity is about a lot more than race. michael, just talk a little bit more broadly in this moment as we are going to remind everyone where we are in this huge moment that is just now come to the entire country of coming from the supreme court in this decision, and we heard from the last guest who says that this is not ending affirmative action in terms of the race consideration in admissions. he says it is shifting focus of affirmative action in terms of admissions. do you see it that way or is this ending affirmative action without ending it? i think that this is ending affirmative action without
far shorter than they used to be. and remember roe v. wade was a nearly 50-year precedent and many attacks of it, and many in the form of litigation, and now you affirmative action decided in 2016 as steve pointed out, and the contour is again reshaped. you can expect to have some form of litigation still pending, because it is not black and white, and forgive the pun, but it is not black and white how one can objectively assess subjective application process. laura, stick with us because i want to bring in kenny shue, president of color united a member of the board of studens for color united who oppose