https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/students-for-fair-admissions-inc-v-president-fellows-of-harvard-college/

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4949181&forum_id=2#43326671)

As far as I know, it's his last opinion on whether and to what extent race can be used in school admissions.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4949181&forum_id=2#43333411)

if the same data had come out in a discrimination suit against a major corporation, the corporation would lose immediately.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4949181&forum_id=2#43333089)

https://www.supremecourt.gov/casehand/AmicusGuide2019.pdf

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4949181&forum_id=2#43331882)

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-1199/173454/20210331115206206_20-1199%20Amicus%20Brief%20of%20The%20Jewish%20Coalition%20for%20Religious%20Liberty.pdf

They argue that schools should be able to give diversity weight to religion.

"Indeed, the college altogether excludes from most applications any consideration of religious faith—the most

fundamental part of many students’ identity."

Are they saying not enough jews at Harvard?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4949181&forum_id=2#43331765)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4949181&forum_id=2#43331892)

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-1199/173516/20210331135938337_20-1199%20Amicus%20Brief.pdf

he shows that the more opaque and holistic the review, the more mechanically the school is doing race norming.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4949181&forum_id=2#43331954)

by doing so, a regression analysis that just looks at races as an entire group shows zero effect from race. but if you regress race by each band of incoming creds, race is everything.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4949181&forum_id=2#43332082)

I barely understand the concept of regression so don't know what this is.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4949181&forum_id=2#43332628)

For people with terrific or weak-to-poor creds, Asians get no boost and no suppression. That covers the bulk of applicants. But in the middle bands of applicants, where an admit is possible but far from guaranteed, Asians get utterly hammered. Off the charts hammered. And blacks and Hispanics get enormous boosts.

But Harvard knows how to precisely manipulate the process so that if you just study the effect of race across the entire corpus of applications, you don't see race being particularly critical. That's how Harvard's expert did it. And that's what Richard Sander exposes.

But despite HLS's trick, anyone with common sense sees that in the crucial middle bands race explains everything.

Under reigning SCOTUS precedent, the UM undergrad plan, which was open and transparent, was dinged but the UM law plan, being opaque and "holistic" was okayed. So HLS does all its manipulations under the cloak of "holistic."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4949181&forum_id=2#43332661)

"But surely the dumbest Asians in the applicant pool have no chance of getting in?"

sure

"So if some are getting admitted that's obviously because of a deliberately planned boost?"

Who says dumb Asians are getting admitted?

"Every year Harvard College picks out a few dozen dumb Asian kids and awards the windfall of admission?"

I don't think so (unless they are squash or dressage stars or something).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4949181&forum_id=2#43333059)

I didn't read this part carefully enough. I was intuitively thinking that a boost had to be given to the bottom 10% of Asians to make the covering track thing work and screw up the regression.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4949181&forum_id=2#43333211)

it's possible that Harvard's day-to-day tracking enabled them to give a handful of poor Asian applicants an admission so as to keep the global numbers looking good.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4949181&forum_id=2#43333230)

Would it make more sense to say the top 10% of Asian applicants don't get discriminated against? And then everyone below the top 10% with a viable chance gets discriminated?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4949181&forum_id=2#43333183)

this brief is saying this analysis doesnt account for all the times race was used as an influencing factor for socioeconomic differences or what have you - essentially saying libs need to look at their own current pet project "intersectionality"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4949181&forum_id=2#43332683)

"SFFA is probably right that Harvard’s personal ratings have a strong discriminatory effect upon Asian Americans. The broader point here, however, is that Harvard manipulates the subjective components of the personal rating to achieve an extremely implausible hierarchy of races that directly offsets disparities in objective academic rankings. As elaborated below, Harvard also uses (and concedes that is uses) racial preferences to foster diversity. These preferences also have the same symmetrical pattern as the personal ratings: Blacks receive the largest racial preferences, then Hispanics, with Whites in some middle range, with Asian-Americans disfavored relative to whites."

"Thus, when one considers an Asian-American male applicant who is not “disadvantaged” under Harvard’s classification, and has characteristics and evaluations that would produce a 25% change of admission, those admission chances rise to 34% if one changes the applicant’s race to “white,” 74% if one changes the applicant’s race to “Hispanic,” and 93% if one changes the applicant’s race to “African American.”"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4949181&forum_id=2#43332964)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4949181&forum_id=2#43332860)

applicant who is not “disadvantaged” under Harvard’s

classification, and has characteristics and evaluations

that would produce a 25% change of admission, those

admission chances rise to 34% if one changes the

applicant’s race to “white,” 74% if one changes the

applicant’s race to “Hispanic,” and 93% if one changes

the applicant’s race to “African American.” For nondisadvantaged female applicants, the corresponding

percentages are 25% for Asian-Americans, 30% for

whites, 70% for Hispanics, and 92% for African-Americans.29 In other words, the effect of Harvard’s

use of race is to change an applicant from one with a

modest but reasonable shot at admission to one who is

a nearly-certain admit. For these Asian and Black

applicants, it is hard to see how race is not the

“defining feature” of their application. If the Court’s

language in Fisher and Grutter means something else,

this case is a valuable vehicle through which to clarify

what the standard does mean.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4949181&forum_id=2#43333630)

if that's not consciousness of guilt, what is?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4949181&forum_id=2#43333702)

by the time you dip below those three, the need for boosts becomes massive.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4949181&forum_id=2#43333747)