How Affirmative Action Lost at the Supreme Court

Published

2 years ago

September 7, 2023

admin

The end of affirmative action in university admissions has been prophesied since 2003, when the Supreme Court issued its decision in Grutter v. Bollinger. In the majority opinion, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote that “25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today.” That reckoning has now arrived, and five years earlier than predicted: In June, the Supreme Court ruled 63 that public universities must stop favoring certain applicants, and disfavoring others, based on their race or ethnicity.

“Eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it,” Chief Justice John Roberts declared, writing for the majority in Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College. “In other words, the student must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individualnot on the basis of race.”

For everyone who values fairness, individuality, and nondiscrimination, this decision could not have come soon enough. The perniciousness of the admissions system was on full display, thanks to the details of the case. The plaintiffan advocacy organization that filed suits against Harvard and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC)persuasively demonstrated that race-based admissions schemes systematically disadvantaged Asian-American students. UNC, for instance, admitted more than 80 percent of its black applicants but less than 70 percent of its white and Asian applicants. (Reason Foundation, the nonprofit that publishes this magazine, submitted an amicus brief in support of the plaintiff.)

At Harvard, discriminatory practices were overt and began with recruitment. Admissions officials would send letters of interest to black and Hispanic high schoolers who received a score of 1100 or more on the SAT. Asian Americans were ignored unless they received at least a 1350. During the actual admissions process, students were sorted into “deciles”10 levels of academic performance. Asian Americans in the top decile were less likely to get in than black students in the fourth decile.

The plaintiff also submitted evidence that Harvard admissions officers tended to give Asian Americans negative scores on the personality rating, a wholly subjective criterion. Favoritism also extended to white applicants from what Harvard describes as “sparse country”: rural states with historically low enrollment numbers. The result was that applicants were judged not solely on the merits of their individual achievements but on immutable characteristics like their race and place of origin.

These schemes, according to the Supreme Court, violated federal law and, in UNC’s case, the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. “Many universities have for too long wrongly concluded that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned, but the color of their skin,” wrote Roberts. “This Nation’s constitutional history does not tolerate that choice.”

Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibits entities that receive federal funding from practicing racial discrimination. But affirmative actiona scheme to benefit racial minorities in hiring, contracting, and school admissionswas viewed as an exception; the idea was to practice discrimination on behalf of historically marginalized groups in order to make amends for past wrongs.

In 2003, a pair of Supreme Court rulings involving the University of MichiganGratz v. Bollinger and the aforementioned Grutterupended that justification. In Gratz, the Court held 63 that Michigan’s undergraduate admissions program went too far in its consideration of race. The university used a point system, with 100 points guaranteeing admission; belonging to an underrepresented minority group was worth 20 points, while a perfect SAT score was worth only 12 points.

In Grutter, however, the Court permitted Michigan’s law school to consider race as one factor among many in admissions decisions, on the grounds that a racially diverse student body was a “compelling interest” of the state. While the decision preserved affirmative action in some formfor perhaps 25 years, per O’Connor’s time limitit forced higher education administrators to change their reasoning: Henceforth, they would have to defend race-based admissions as diversity enhancement programs.

Whether affirmative action actually promotes diversity is up for debate, of course. Schools that engage in racial gerrymandering may succeed in making their campuses more diverse in the most superficial sense without doing anything to improve intellectual, political, socioeconomic, or geographic diversity. No one in a position to defend Harvard’s admissions system ever argued that the school needed more conservative or libertarian representation; in practice, the institution’s position was simply that it needed fewer Asians.

At a time when the Supreme Court is often accused of being out of touch and counter-majoritarian, it’s worth mentioning that Students for Fair Admissions undeniably reflects the will of the people. Race-based admissions systems are opposed by 69 percent of poll respondents, including 58 percent of Democrats, according to The New York Times. Voters in California, a deep-blue state, banned affirmative action twicein 1996 and again, for good measure, in 2020. Faced with this reality, many defenders of affirmative action are trying to change the subject.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (DN.Y.), for instance, complained that the Supreme Court had ignored a more serious example of unfairness in higher education. “If SCOTUS was serious about their ludicrous ‘colorblindness’ claims,” she wrote on Twitter, “they would have abolished legacy admissions, aka affirmative action for the privileged.” Other progressive Democrats, such as Reps. Cori Bush (DMo.) and Jamaal Bowman (DN.Y.), made similar observations.

It should go without saying, but the justices declined to adjudicate legacy admissions because this issue was not before them. That said, legislators do not need to wait for the Court; they can and should abolish the practice within public institutions. The widespread practice of granting preferential treatment to the scions of alumni is unfair and has no place at taxpayer-funded colleges and universities.

The fact that legacy admissions still exist is not a reason to maintain affirmative action; eliminating explicit racial discrimination is a noble goal in and of itself. But to any naysayers who disdain the Supreme Court’s ruling because they think legacy admissions should face the same fate: Your terms are acceptable.

Entertainment

Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs sentenced to more than four years in prison

Published

1 hour ago

October 4, 2025

admin

Sean 'Diddy' Combs sentenced to more than four years in prison

Sean “Diddy” Combs has been sentenced to more than four years in prison over prostitution charges relating to his former girlfriends and male sex workers.

Judge Arun Subramanian handed down his 50-month sentence – including a $500,000 fine – at the end of a long and emotional full-day hearing, which saw the hip-hop mogul speak out for the first time in court.

Combs, 55, admitted his past behaviour was “disgusting, shameful and sick”, and apologised personally to Cassie Ventura and “Jane”, another former girlfriend who testified anonymously during the trial.

But despite his plea for “mercy” and expressions of remorse, the judge told him he had abused his “power and control” with women he professed to love – and rejected the defence’s characterisation that “freak off” sexual encounters were consensual experiences, that his was just a “sex, drugs and rock’n’roll story”.

Addressing Cassie and “the other brave survivors who came forward”, the judge said. “We heard you… I can only say your families are proud of you and your children will be proud of you.

“You weren’t just talking to the jury you were talking to the women who feel powerless – you gave them a voice, you stood up to power, it’s not easy.”

Combs showed no visible change of emotion as his sentence was delivered, looking straight ahead as the judge spoke. Afterwards, he seemed subdued – with no sign of the enthusiasm or feeling showed earlier in the day.

Ahead of his own speech, the court heard from six of his seven children – causing the rapper to break down in tears as they spoke about how much they loved him, how he has changed, and how much they and their younger two-year-old sister need him.

The sentencing brings to an end a sordid case that featured harrowing testimony – not just from Cassie and Jane, but also from former employees and associates of Combs.

He was convicted in July of flying people around the US and abroad for sexual encounters, including his then girlfriends and male sex workers, in violation of prostitution laws.

However, he was cleared of more serious charges of racketeering conspiracy and sex-trafficking that could have put him in jail for life.

‘I hate myself right now’

On the eve of his sentencing, Combs submitted a letter to the judge pleading for “mercy” and apologising for the “hurt and pain” he has caused others.

He expanded on this in court, saying he wanted to “personally apologise” to Cassie for “any harm” he caused her “emotionally or physically”, and to Jane – and all victims of domestic violence.

He told the court he got “lost in my excess and lost in my ego”, but since his time in prison he has been “humbled and broken to my core”.

Combs continued: “I hate myself right now… I am truly sorry for it all.”

Once one of the most influential hip-hop producers of the 1990s and 2000s – the founder of Bad Boy Records and a Grammy-winning artist in his own right – he has led a very different life since his high-profile arrest.

He was facing a maximum of 20 years in prison for the prostitution-related charges, so the sentence is towards the lower end of the scale.

Prosecutors had argued he should spend at least 11 years behind bars, while Combs’s lawyers were calling for him to be freed almost immediately due to time already served since his arrest just over a year ago.

Christy Slavik, for the prosecution, told the judge sparing the rapper serious prison time would excuse years of violence.

‘Make the most of that second chance’

The judge, who had rejected bail for the rapper several times before sentencing, told him that he would get through his time in prison. It will be hard, he said, but he will still “have a life afterwards”.

Combs has “a chance for renewal and redemption”, he added. “What went wrong can be made right… I am counting on you to make the most of that second chance.”

Outside the courthouse, journalists and onlookers swarmed the pavements as TV crews stood in a long row across the street, echoing scenes from the two-month high-profile trial.

It included four days of testimony from Cassie, now Cassie Ventura Fine, who told the court she was coerced and sometimes blackmailed into sexual encounters with male sex workers, referred to as “freak offs”.

Cassie responds

Jurors were also shown video clips of Combs dragging and beating her in a Los Angeles hotel hallway after one of those sessions in 2016.

Combs referred to this in court, saying it was a “heavy burden” that he will forever carry, and that he was “sick from drugs” and “out of control” at the time, “lost in my excess and lost in my ego”.

Ahead of the sentencing, Cassie also submitted a letter to the judge, calling Combs a “manipulator” and saying she would fear for her safety should he be immediately released.

Responding to the sentence, her lawyers Douglas Wigdor and Meredith Firetog (Wigdor LLP), said: “While nothing can undo the trauma caused by Combs, the sentence imposed today recognises the impact of the serious offences he committed.

“We are confident that with the support of her family and friends, Ms Ventura will continue healing knowing that her bravery and fortitude have been an inspiration to so many.”

US

Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs sentenced to more than four years in prison

Published

1 hour ago

October 4, 2025

admin

Sean “Diddy” Combs has been sentenced to more than four years in prison over prostitution charges relating to his former girlfriends and male sex workers.

Addressing Cassie and “the other brave survivors who came forward”, the judge said. “We heard you… I can only say your families are proud of you and your children will be proud of you.

“You weren’t just talking to the jury you were talking to the women who feel powerless – you gave them a voice, you stood up to power, it’s not easy.”

The sentencing brings to an end a sordid case that featured harrowing testimony – not just from Cassie and Jane, but also from former employees and associates of Combs.

He was convicted in July of flying people around the US and abroad for sexual encounters, including his then girlfriends and male sex workers, in violation of prostitution laws.

However, he was cleared of more serious charges of racketeering conspiracy and sex-trafficking that could have put him in jail for life.

‘I hate myself right now’

On the eve of his sentencing, Combs submitted a letter to the judge pleading for “mercy” and apologising for the “hurt and pain” he has caused others.

He told the court he got “lost in my excess and lost in my ego”, but since his time in prison he has been “humbled and broken to my core”.

Combs continued: “I hate myself right now… I am truly sorry for it all.”

He was facing a maximum of 20 years in prison for the prostitution-related charges, so the sentence is towards the lower end of the scale.

Christy Slavik, for the prosecution, told the judge sparing the rapper serious prison time would excuse years of violence.

‘Make the most of that second chance’

Combs has “a chance for renewal and redemption”, he added. “What went wrong can be made right… I am counting on you to make the most of that second chance.”

Outside the courthouse, journalists and onlookers swarmed the pavements as TV crews stood in a long row across the street, echoing scenes from the two-month high-profile trial.

Cassie responds

Jurors were also shown video clips of Combs dragging and beating her in a Los Angeles hotel hallway after one of those sessions in 2016.

Ahead of the sentencing, Cassie also submitted a letter to the judge, calling Combs a “manipulator” and saying she would fear for her safety should he be immediately released.

“We are confident that with the support of her family and friends, Ms Ventura will continue healing knowing that her bravery and fortitude have been an inspiration to so many.”

US

Balin Miller, renowned Alaskan climber, dies after falling at Yosemite National Park while livestreaming

Published

1 hour ago

October 4, 2025

admin

Balin Miller, renowned Alaskan climber, dies after falling at Yosemite National Park while livestreaming

An Alaskan climber fell to his death from Yosemite National Park’s El Capitan while livestreaming on TikTok.

Balin Miller, 23, died in a climbing accident on Wednesday, his mother Jeanine Girard-Moorman confirmed in a statement.

“He’s been climbing since he was a young boy,” she said. “His heart and soul was truly to just climb.

“He loved to climb and it was never about money and fame.”

While details of the incident are not clear, Balin’s brother Dylan Miller said that he was lead rope soloing – a way to climb alone while still protected by a rope – on a 2,400ft (730m) route named Sea of Dreams.

He had already finished the climb and was hauling up his last bit of gear when he likely rappelled off the end of his rope, the older brother said.

“He said he felt most alive when he was climbing,” Dylan added. “I’m his bigger brother but he was my mentor.”

Many posted tributes to the Alaskan climber on social media, saying they had watched him climb on a TikTok livestream and calling him “orange tent guy” because of his distinctive camp setup.

On Facebook, Michelle Derrick said Balin was livestreaming during the fatal incident, and he was attempting to retrieve his bags that were stuck on a rock when he fell.

Another climber, Tom Evans, also posted he was climbing at El Capitan at the time, and saw a man rappel off his lead line.

“He was a young man,” Mr Evans added, “highly regarded among the best climbers here.”

Balin was an accomplished alpinist who gained international attention for claiming the first solo ascent of Mount McKinley’s Slovak Direct.

He posted photos of his ascent up the technically difficult route that took him 56 hours to complete on his Instagram in June.

It marks the third death at the national park in California this year: In June, an 18-year-old from Texas died in the park while free-soloing, or climbing without a rope, on a different formation.

In August, a 29-year-old woman died after being struck in the head by a large tree branch while hiking.

Balin’s death also came on the first day of the US government shutdown, which leaves national parks “generally” open but with limited operations and closed visitor centres.

The National Park Service said in a statement that they are investigating the incident and “park rangers and emergency personnel responded immediately”.