Can the term "affirmative action" apply to achieving equity through non-demographic considerations, such as by accounting for lived experiences?

does anybody have a link to the actual text of the opinion? was going to read it to ensure it couldn't be construed as "weakened but not banned"

@brubsby https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23864004-students-for-fair-admissions-inc-v-president-and-fellows-of-harvard-college

"Eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it."

@cloudprism That’s from Thomas’ Opinion, I think: not Roberts writing for the majority?

@MarcusAbramovitch holy fuck it's so long why did i make this market

@brubsby it also includes basically instructions for how to circumvent the ruling, in that personal essays which mention race are not to be tossed, so that seems like a point for "weakened but not banned" as surely this allows schools to do some implicit form of adhoc affirmative action still

@brubsby

@brubsby this is not saying to factor race into the admissions. Just that the essay a student writes can talk about race.

@MarcusAbramovitch true, but that's going to be exploited as a loophole by admissions. They'll use it as proxy. Harvard has already said so in essence.

@NicoDelon i think that in deciding which bucket of the guesses that this falls into, this specific piece doesn't meet the criteria of "weakened but not banned, or only applies to harvard/unc", because it is banned, and to my understanding more broadly so than just the schools in the lawsuit.

@brubsby agreed, I think it's the first option (stringent test).

@NicoDelon I mean, this particular loophole is not the test. The circumstances in which race can be considered constitute the test. It's discussed on another market.

@NicoDelon could you link the discussion?

@brubsby https://manifold.markets/SolomonSia/will-the-supreme-court-universally?r=Tmljb0RlbG9u

@NicoDelon it doesn't seem like this ruling comes with FURTHER conditions as it primarily relies on the existing concept of "strict scrutiny" and that unc/harvard's current usage of race did not meet strict scrutiny. it also seems to meet the criteria of having a stringent test (although extracting a block of text that contains the exact stringent test or remedy, or summarizing it, seems difficult to me now), so i'm leaning toward going 50-50 on the first two, but open to discussion still.

@brubsby I'll rule 50%-50% as described unless any persuasive arguments are made against my reasoning above. Probably in the next 5 hours or so. It also feels right that this is also very close to resolving it to market, but was not the goal of my reasoning.