Affirmative Action Becomes Geographic and Socio-Economic Action


Sentinel published a YouGov poll yesterday that shows most black people who responded are fine with the Supreme Court’s Affirmative Action decision, aka the black privilege decision, and fewer disapprove. However, Affirmative Action is important to the elites.

Boston, USA – November 5, 2011: Widener Library at night on November 5th, 2011. The Library of Harvard University has 15.6 million books and is the largest university library in the world.

Despite the Supreme Court decision, the elites will keep the anti-white racism going. It’s important to their DEI agenda.

The following is a sample of what the elite universities were putting out after the decision nearly two weeks ago:

Demographic and Socio-Economic Action Replaces Affirmative Action

The elites thought they found a loophole with essays and were going to use it. The Supreme Court actually covered that loophole and the universities aren’t as smart as they thought. They didn’t bother to read the entire decision. They can’t elevate essays. Still, there are loopholes they will use to continue as they were.

The rich colleges are universities can afford to ignore the Supreme Court. Law’s not their strong point. If it becomes a problem, they’ll stop taking government money. They don’t need it. Chances are it won’t matter; they will continue as they were, with no one getting in their way. Productive students will be turned away in favor of non-productive students.

Grant Addison, Deputy Editor of DC Examiner, published an op-ed today about this very issue. The decision, it seems, has created more questions than before. In fact, he says Affirmative Action and Legacy admissions are red herrings.
He wrote about the other loopholes the colleges and universities plan to exploit.

“Schools may still consider “an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration or otherwise,” in the words of Chief Justice John Roberts’s majority opinion. Similarly, nonacademic factors such as geographic location and socioeconomic status remain accepted grounds on which to consider applicants.

“This obviously leaves ample room for subjectivity on behalf of colleges in orienting their admissions processes, including in directions that still prioritize racial status, leaving the future of the college admissions landscape rather unsettled.”

Merit is out and much to our detriment, but it fits a new paradigm being forced upon us.

“While diversity of experience, socioeconomic class, geographical residency, and background are all desirable factors to consider when seeking to compose a well-rounded freshman class or cohort of undergraduates, one would hope the primary criteria of consideration for applicants would be that of academic merit,” Addison writes.

“Indeed, it is as if the entire pretext that college-going is itself about educational attainment is being abandoned in real-time. More than 80% of four-year colleges and universities did not require SAT or ACT standardized test scores for fall 2023 admissions, according to a nationwide list compiled by the National Center for Fair & Open Testing, or FairTest.

COVID was exploited, and they enshrined new measures of equity and so-called fairness in admissions:

“In the wake of the SSFA v. Harvard decision, a number of schools, such as those in the University of California system, announced they will find new ways to prioritize “adversity” and other such experiential metrics as a way to arrive at a racial and ethnicity emphasis within their admittance standards. At the University of California, Davis, School of Medicine, this has resulted in the ranking of applicants based on an “adversity score,” determined by the self-reported disadvantages prospective students have faced.”

Addison believes the unfairness of legacy and affirmative action admissions are red herrings. The problem is the fundamental failure of our higher institutions from grade inflation and students no longer having to prove academic achievement through standardized tests.

Merit is watered down in favor of personal experience and demographic attachments. At the same time, the K-12 farm system is graduating students with poor achievement.

We no longer understand what higher education is for; therein lies the problem. Read the entire piece on this link.

Mark Dice puts affirmative action in perspective:



  1. I’ve seen this for 40 years close up. These people are committed to discrimination. They are unprincipled. They will use any trick to continue. The government funds this discrimination.

    In corporations, the HR, diversity people, and executives all got where they are from AA, either as beneficiaries or promoters of it. In effect, they are all beneficiaries of discrimination, and live by it.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here