California has become the fourth state to ban legacy admissions in the college application process, a practice that has long been criticized as favoring white or wealthy students based on their familial alumni connections.

“In California, everyone should be able to get ahead through merit, skill, and hard work,” Gov. Gavin Newsom said in a Monday statement. “The California Dream shouldn’t be accessible to just a lucky few, which is why we’re opening the door to higher education wide enough for everyone, fairly.”

The decision affects private and nonprofit universities. The University of California system eliminated legacy admission preferences in 1998, according to Newsom’s office.

  • FireTower@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 month ago

    I would recommend you read his concurrence before you make comments as to the nature of his argument. I get it’s a lengthy one at 58 pages but as you seem to suggest in your comment strawmanning people in not a good practice.

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdf

    But if that’s too long I’ll try and summarize with a few lines from it.

    “The Constitution abhors classifications based on race, not only because those classifications can harm favored races or are based on illegitimate motives, but also because every time the government places citizens on racial registers and makes race relevant to the provision of burdens or benefits, it demeans us all.”

    “enunciated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States: that all men are created equal, are equal citizens, and must be treated equally before the law.”

    ““[o]ur Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.” Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U. S. 537, 559 (1896) (Harlan, J., dissenting).”

    And here’s the reading of a portion:

    https://apps.oyez.org/player/#/roberts13/opinion_announcement_audio/25581

    Just as it is wrong for white people to benefit from preferential treatment over black people who were detrimented (such as under slavery or Jim Crow). It is wrong for black people to benefit from preferential treatment over asian people who were detrimented (such as under Japanese interment or the Chinese exclusion act).

    • TimLovesTech (AuDHD)(he/him)@badatbeing.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      Your repeating right wing (hate group) language, again undercutting what I think you are thinking you are supporting. What Thomas is saying is the same language used against LGBTQ+ people when they say things like “why do they need a parade to celebrate themselves, you don’t see straight parades”. Thomas knows what he is saying, and crafts his hateful rhetoric carefully, but it is all full of dog whistles and always in bad faith. There is a reason he “vacations” with and gets RVs from the rich white billionaires that just happen to collect Nazi memorabilia.

      • FireTower@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        Tim, dude, seriously. Actively arguing that it is appropriate to preferential treatment or negative treatment towards people on the basis of race. While claiming a law that shows no favors to anyone on the basis of race is like the words of hate groups.

        There’s a broad distinction between letting people express themselves in their own free time and supporting systemic race based discrimination. Nobody is stopping straight people from going out and expressing themselves.

        You are clearly the one with the bad faith stance. Seriously stop once, and in a moment of humility consider if it is you who might be wrong.