Comments by "L.W. Paradis" (@l.w.paradis2108) on "Forbes Breaking News"
channel.
-
81
-
71
-
33
-
28
-
26
-
15
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
The Supreme Court always publishes the briefs, so I can tell you what they are arguing about: there is a long line of precedent that permits consideration of race in addition to a number of other factors, and previous Courts have ruled that a limited use of race in that way was legal as long as things like legacy admissions weighed so strongly against all non-Europeans. Seth Waxman, who was Solicitor General and is in front of the Court all the time, is arguing that the criteria for using race in a limited way was clearly met by Harvard's admissions policy. Well, now you can guess what the other side is arguing: they believe the line of precedent that allows using race should be overturned. The lead attorney for the other side is a U of Chicago and Cambridge (UK -- that Cambridge) grad who once considered becoming an astrophysicist. This gives you an idea of the brainpower applied to this case.
What is at stake also is that Harvard can forgo federal funding. It's a private school, and can continue its admissions policies exactly as they are, as long as it accepts no federal funds. Its policies are not the type that would easily trigger scrutiny under other federal laws. So, in the end, it's about the money.
The big question is why Harvard grads are so heavily advantaged for the rest of their lives. Chief Justice Roberts was a Harvard undergrad and Harvard Law graduate. He really did do well in school his whole life, however, and he wasn't admitted as a legacy. He actually worked in a steel mill one summer.
4
-
4
-
4