[ricardoplouis]

Worth noting that while affirmative action has been banned, we still have proxies for race (aka legacy admissions) which overwhelmingly favor rich and white students. And given the historical discrimination of elite universities, this ban on affirmative action without addressing legacy admissions or historical harm will only increase the number of white students at universities. We can't pretend that eliminating race based admissions will serve the greater interest without addressing past (and current) systems of white supremacy.

Link to demographics on legacy admissions: https://www.culawreview.org/journal/legacy-admissions-an-ins...

[onetimeusename]

> overwhelmingly favor rich and white students.

not really. Legacy students have higher SAT scores than non-legacy. https://features.thecrimson.com/2021/freshman-survey/academi...

Whites are also the only ethnic group on Harvard's campus that are underrepresented relative to their percentage of the population. I think to argue that Harvard (I am using them as the example since they are part of the SC case and relevant here) is white supremacist is absurd. It's really quite the opposite.

In fact, I think the SFFA case will reduce the number of white students because Harvard may have been using affirmative action to help poor white students who are the least likely to take test prep[1] and likely didn't attend a high powered high school.

There is absolutely 0 appetite from Harvard to favor white people in any way.

[1]: https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2014/03/th...

[Der_Einzige]

This ruling will overwhelmingly help Asians and only marginally help white people

[gnicholas]

It will be especially helpful for Asian people who don't have Asian-sounding last names. I suspect that schools will continue to discriminate against Asians, and last names are one easy way to do so.

[vorpalhex]

From your source

> In addition, 70 percent of Harvard’s legacy applicants are white.

From US Census:

> Race and Hispanic Origin

> White alone, percent

> 75.5%

[jasonlotito]

From the source of the source you quoted:

> Our model of admissions shows that roughly three-quarters of white ALDC admits would have been rejected absent their ALDC status.

So, three-quarters of those individuals didn't earn their place academically.

> Removing preferences for athletes and legacies would significantly alter the racial distribution of admitted students away from whites.

So, the mechanisms in place for academics currently favor white people.

Yes, 70% vs 75% is about the same, but it was helped that way in part because of legacies, and would be much lower otherwise.

Which supports the original comment:

> [legacy admissions] overwhelmingly favor rich and white students.

Maybe the paper itself has more details. I'm only going by the abstract. But unless the abstract is lying, I think it makes sense.