🎓 하버드 입학의 숨겨진 4가지 조건? [소수 인종 우대 정책] 판결 총정리

A few days ago, there was a court ruling that stirred up the American society. The SFFA, a civic organization, filed a lawsuit against Harvard and North Carolina Universities, and this case went to the U.S. Supreme Court. The SFFA won the case in the U.S. Supreme Court. The content of the lawsuit is as follows. These universities are trying to increase the student population of minorities, black people, Hispanics, or Native Americans, so there are fewer places for white or Asian students. White or Asian students with a relatively high degree of academic achievement could have been admitted if there was no such system, but they couldn't. So this is a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality between races in the U.S. Constitution, and the U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1964. In American society, this ruling is interpreted as the end of affirmative action. Affirmative action refers to a minority policy that has been implemented since the Civil Rights era in the 1960s. From 1776 to the mid-1960s, when the U.S. was founded, the U.S. law did not treat white people and other races equally. In order to correct the historical gap, the U.S. should give benefits to minorities who have experienced inequality and make the U.S. an equal society. But since this is a violation of the Constitution, there is an active debate about whether affirmative action is actually a useless system or whether the U.S. is still too far away from achieving equality between races, and whether the U.S. has eliminated this system too quickly. So, I prepared this video today because I thought it would be interesting to see how the Supreme Court made this judgment, and what minority opinions were made by those who opposed this judgment among the judges of the Supreme Court. And I thought it would be interesting to see how the media reacted to this judgment, so I prepared today's content. First of all, there is a part that explains the logic of how the judgment was made in the opinion of the court at the top of the judgment. To a free man who was created based on the principle of equality in the political system, that is, to an American citizen, it is a falsehood to distinguish a citizen according to who his ancestors were. Odius. It should be a trembling thing just by listening to it. The U.S. itself is a country created by people who came because they didn't want their identity to be determined according to who their parents or ancestors were. It is a country based on the principle that all humans are individual and free. In such a country, no matter what the reason is, it is a violation of the principles of American democracy to judge who my ancestors were when I was evaluated. Most of the opinions were divided into 6 to 3 out of 9 judges. So 6 people agreed to the judgment, and 3 people opposed it. Among the opinions, there is an opinion of Justice Thomas. Article 14 of the Constitution uses racial and ethnic terms, and enlarged legal privileges and protections to all citizens. Justice Thomas says that the U.S. Constitution is a colorblind constitution. It's a law that doesn't look at skin color. In other words, it is a process that guarantees in the U.S. Constitution to judge a person's actions, abilities, and results without considering his race at all. I think he's talking about that. All American students study in high school and use two previous court judgments related to racial discrimination. The opinion of the Dutch Supreme Court in Plessis vs. Fergus was the same. He said, our Constitution is colorblind. What he wrote in English was, Our Constitution is colorblind. He used the expression blind again. It's blind in color. Also, in the Brown vs. Education Board, he refused the right to use race-based education opportunities. Most of the opinions today are the same. It requires absolute equality of all citizens before the law. And there was a very famous ruling in the Supreme Court in 2003. There was a ruling called Grutter vs. Bollinger. The Grutter vs. Bollinger ruling was so powerful that it could justify the classification of the university by race. It recognized only one reason. It's educational efficiency for students with diversity. However, it is unclear how diversity based on race contributes to this educational goal. The diversity of life of a white student who grew up in the countryside of the Appalachian Mountains and a white student who grew up in the rich church area of San Francisco is more diverse than a white and a black student who graduated from an elite school in the Manhattan Upper East Side. Diversity depends on individual experience. It doesn't depend on race. It's hard to admit that the criteria for guaranteeing diversity are race. This is Thomas' opinion. Among the opposing opinions, Sotomayor's opinion is the most popular. The inequality between races is still a reality. A society with inequality between races does not achieve equality by ignoring race. It was true in the 1860s, it was true in 1954, and it is still true today. If you want to achieve equality, you have to recognize inequality. The history of the separation of races by law in the government is more than 100 years old, and American society is still isolated by race. About half of black and Latino students go to schools that are isolated by more than 75% of ethnic minorities. The percentage of schools with a high degree of racial isolation, that is, 90% to 100% of which are made up of ethnic minorities, has also increased rapidly. In the end, the goal of affirmative action is to make America a society where all races live together. It's hard to say that such a goal has been achieved. Because the number of schools that are made up of ethnic minorities is not decreasing, but increasing. It is said that the historical situation when affirmative action first began is still valid. Combined with the education funding system, which has a strong reliance on local real estate and the gap between races, this situation creates a reality that ethnic minorities go to schools with far fewer educational resources. The high school I went to in Michigan also had an administrative area called Ingham County. Parents actually used the money they paid for their education there. So, the school in the rich area had a swimming pool with hot water for a year, and the facilities were so good that the outdoor basketball court and the indoor basketball court were separated. Compared to that, in the case of a school in a poor neighborhood, it was so tight that I wondered if it was a school or a prison. There were schools where you had to pass the metal detector to get weapons. So, when one race goes to school like this, and another race goes to school like that, the question of whether to compare the grades of the students horizontally or to properly evaluate the merits of the students has been raised in American society for a long time, and the Sotomayor Court is also raising this question. Based on this historical background, Harvard and North Carolina Universities have checked their own past and remnants. The race was important in American history, and while recognizing the fact that it is still important, universities set diversity and inclusion as the goal of the institution. The court decided to stop the business that could be the cause of today's prosecution and establish racial inequality in education. In this Supreme Court ruling, the logic that many justices spread was that it was impossible to classify humans as races. For example, the classification of race itself is a generalization that does not fit back and forth. Let's take Asians as an example. This category includes East Asians, that is, the Chinese, Korean, and Japanese, and South Asians, India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. If you add them up, it's over 60% of the world's population. A large number of people with countless cultures, languages, and historical experiences are classified as one mass. Very few people will believe that these people have similar backgrounds, similar thoughts, and experiences. The category of Hispanics is not only for people whose ancestors' languages are Spanish, Basque, and Catalan, but also for descendants of Maya, Mixtec, and Zapotec, who do not speak the above languages at all, and for people who have a deep relationship with the American continent, not the Iberian Peninsula of their ancestors, and all of them are classified as one mass. Among the white people, there are descendants of Europe, Asia to the west of India, that is, Southeast Asia, North Africa, and Wales, Norway, Greece, Italy, Morocco, Lebanon, Turkey, and Iran. Iraq, Ukraine, South America, and the British royal family are classified as one mass. In addition, Americans are described as black people or Africans, along with black people who grew up poor in the southern countryside, children of a rich Nigerian immigrant, and black people who classified themselves as black people among the ordinary mixed-race people who grew up in church areas in the United States. As the number of marriages between races in the United States increases and the number of immigrants increases, it is becoming an impossible society to classify people as white, Asian, black, or Hispanic. And the very act of asking yourself if you are an Asian or a black person is an accident that can cause discrimination and discrimination against race. Now, let's see what kind of logic the media is spreading about this judgment. Let's look at an article in the Wall Street Journal that was arguing that this affirmative action should be abolished. Let's look at the article that was written when the Supreme Court accepted this lawsuit. It's an article from October 4, 2022. After the benefits of racism began to be given to universities, there was a phenomenon called mismatching among social scientists. In other words, the mismatch between students and schools was not properly matched. Black students are allowed to enter even with a lower degree of academic achievement than the average of the school. As a result, black students had a hard time studying, and the possibility of stopping studying was relatively high, and there were relatively more cases of changing their major to an easier major than the original intention. Now, let's move on to the Washington Post, which opposed the abolition of affirmative action. If you look at the content of June 29, 2023, it is completely contrary to the logic of the Wall Street Journal. Blimmer, who studied the long-term impact of California's prohibition of affirmative action, found that black and Hispanic students who went to universities where the selection process was less tricky had worse results in terms of graduation rate, college admission rate, and income. It's the first time that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that affirmative action is unconstitutional, but there have been quite a few cases where affirmative action has already been ruled illegal at the state level. There are many places in California, such as Michigan, that do not implement racial discrimination or discrimination. Therefore, it was possible to study in the long term in places where affirmative action had not been used for decades, such as California. Blimmer studied that, and he said that black and Hispanic students who went to universities where the selection process was less tricky had worse results in terms of graduation rate, college admission rate, and income. According to Blimmer, if you go to a more tricky university, black and Hispanic students will be able to create a network that cannot be created elsewhere, or get specific information that cannot be obtained in high school. This network is said to be converted into higher income in the labor market. Among the students who applied to California University, the number of people earning more than $100,000 in their early 30s decreased by 3% compared to the generation that benefited from affirmative action. Contrary to Wall Street Journal's mismatching theory, it is said that when black and Hispanic students went to less tricky universities, their academic achievement was lower. In fact, there is a separate reason why this ruling has been reported a lot in Korea. At the center of this controversy were Asian students. Asian students are the most likely to have the highest academic achievement in the United States, so it can be said that they are the most likely to suffer the most from affirmative action. In the National Review, one of the conservative media in the United States, said that this affirmative action was actually discrimination against Asian people. In the SFFA, students who were dropped out of Harvard, where they filed a lawsuit on behalf of them, were also Asian. For black students, the school not only raised the finger of the scale, but also reflected the actual discrimination against Asian Americans. If you want to accept one of these students, you have to tilt it to one side, but they didn't have any weight, so they raised the student's finger and matched it like this. In the process of raising the finger of the scale, the school said that there was actual discrimination against Asian Americans. In the United States, there is a history of their own special discrimination, and it is said that it is a group centered on the first and second-generation immigrants. If other ethnic groups have been in the United States since the third and fourth generations, Asians started with a little more penalties because they were the first and second-generation. In addition, there was a law called the Chinese Exclusion Act in the United States, which tried not to give citizenship to Chinese immigrants. It was said that it was China, but it also included the whole of East Asia. Also, in the Second World War, when Japan and the United States started the war for having Japanese bloodlines, there was an experience of forced migration. It is said that they also benefited from the Affirmative Action, but suffered a loss. This is not the first time that a university has discriminated against a small minority. Many elite universities were afraid that the university would be too Jewish, so they put a quarter in the number of Jews. It is the same as many universities are afraid of being too Asian. This is an anti-American idea. The ruling of the law and robots is appropriate. The admission to the university is a zero-sum game. Benefits given to one group and not given to other groups inevitably give an advantage to the former due to the damage of the latter. What Harvard argued was that although we give honor to a small minority, we have never given a minus to someone who has an average degree like Asians or white people. Likewise, the university is a game of fighting with a limited seat, so if you give an advantage, another group has no choice but to suffer. So, most Asians would have agreed to put a quarter in the Affirmative Action, but Asian Americans are the most sensitive to this issue. Let's take a look at an article in a foreign magazine. Many AAPIs say that the legal strategy of 40 years, which confirmed the legitimacy and cohesion of the consideration of race, has been thrown away. AAPI stands for Asian American and Pacific Islander. It is a combination of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders. Pacific Islanders are the descendants of the indigenous people of the islands in the Pacific, which were colonized by the United States. People from Hawaii, people from the Marshall Islands, people from the Virgin Islands of the United States. However, there are also AAPIs who congratulate the court's judgment. Because the most critical opponents of the Affirmative Action were also AAPIs. For example, in the Harvard lawsuit, the SFFA said that Harvard deliberately discriminated against Asian Americans, violating Article 6 of the Civil Rights Act, and filed a lawsuit on behalf of some Asians. But the reason I found this article interesting is because the person who wrote this article said that AAPIs need affirmative action. So I'm going to read this article. According to Pew Research in 2021, 54% of Asian Americans over the age of 25 have a higher education than the average of 33% in the United States. However, the Asian community is not a lump. Asians are the most unequal ethnic group in terms of educational achievement and income. In the university graduation rate, the Indian community was the highest at 75%, and the Americans in Bhutan and Laos were 15% and 18% respectively. Pacific Indians suffer more educational hardships. In California, the university graduation rate of Marshall and Tonga was 11% and 14% respectively. When you look at Asians as a group, there is a very high ratio of 54%, but there is a huge gap between the rich and the poor, and the educational achievement is so different depending on which country you come from, so when you look at the overall status of Asians, I think they claim that affirmative action is necessary. If the admission system was purely based on exam scores, the number of students in the United States of Asia could be delayed. According to a survey by the U.S. Georgetown University's Educational Personnel Center in 2021, 1 out of 5 Asian students attending an elite university in the U.S. would not have been able to enter the university purely based on exam scores. So there are people who suffer a loss because of high academic achievement, but there are also quite a few people who are receiving education opportunities that they will not receive. This kind of mindset works as a toxic iron that stimulates conflict when the AAPI and other minority communities have to work together. As it is well known in Korea, it is also true that the hate crimes against Asians have increased a lot during the COVID-19 era. So at this time, we have to fight against racism together, and I warn that this issue can separate Asians from other races and cause conflict. At the same time, I will talk about how much we have achieved when Asian Americans and other races work together. In 1869, Frederick Douglass, a very famous black human rights activist, made a speech on behalf of the efforts of Chinese immigrants to become U.S. citizens and get voting rights. During World War II, the NAACP, a black human rights organization, publicly opposed the forced acceptance of Japanese Americans. And in 1965, when the Immigration and Nationality Act was passed, there is no doubt that the black human rights movement, which passed the Immigration and Nationality Act in 1965, paved the way. Before the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, there were many laws that said that if a person was born in the United States or lived in the United States for a long time, he or she had to be of a certain race to gain American citizenship. These were achievements that could be achieved because of the power of racialized races. However, it is not good for the fate of Asians in the United States to have a gap between Asians and other minorities due to university admission issues or affirmative action. On the other hand, there was an article that wrote a reason why Asians were angry. It's an article from New Yorker on March 23, 2023. Overall, Harvard gave Asian Americans higher academic scores and external activity scores, but gave a low personal rating compared to white Americans. In the article, the SFF says that Harvard used personal ratings to prevent Asians from entering and tried to conduct a covert quarter. So, there were many expressions like belittling Asians in the e-mails between the civil servants and Harvard admissions officers of institutions that should monitor whether Harvard is not racialized. For example, there was an expression called Typical AACJR. AA stands for Asian American, and CJR stands for non-racialized. The purpose of coming to Harvard is to recruit Asian American students who are trying to make a lot of money by using only good academic performance and call them AACJR, which is an abbreviation for Harvard admissions officers. So, it was an article that said that the dissatisfaction with Harvard admissions officers had no choice but to come out with such a lawsuit. Recently, another controversy broke out as it was revealed how Harvard's admissions officer system works by the SFF. It was a controversy about the old tradition of Ivy League universities, which is called legacy admission. Legacy admission refers to helping the family's legacy by making a house that has been in Harvard for generations. It says that it considers four things that are not related to study. Is this student a student who is really good at sports and can play a role in various sports teams at Harvard? Has this student's parents ever donated a lot? And is this student the child of a professor or an employee? Or is it the child of a family that has graduated from Harvard for generations? And the fourth is race. In a way, it was legacy status that had nothing to do with his ability. If an American university goes to a perfect ability-oriented university that does not consider race, there will be a lot of controversy about the need to get rid of not only race, but also legacy status. It's a topic that appears a lot in American media. Let's read one article at a time. The Wall Street Journal wrote the opposite article. Let's look at the article from July 4, 2023. Fairness means that everyone is given the same opportunities, and no one is given privileges. But today, the entrance to an elite university is full of benefits that give more privileges to those who have privileges. Americans are opposed to such practices as much as racial benefits. For example, the special treatment for the children of wealthy donors is very severe. In one study, four benefits unrelated to race were studied. A scouted athlete, a graduate of Harvard, a donor, a professor, a teacher, and so on. The study said that 43% of the 100 Harvard graduates belong to one of the four categories between 2014 and 2019. Half of the 100 graduates come in for reasons unrelated to studying, so it cannot be called a fair competition in a competitive society, and it should be eliminated. But this is an article from a month ago. If you look at the article from Forbes on May 10, 2023, according to NCES data, there are few private universities in the United States that can be operated without a donation fund. On average, 29% of the annual operating expenses of private universities come from donation funds. It's almost the same as the 33% of tuition, dormitory expenses, and food expenses. We can say that universities should be operated with tuition, not donation funds. In the United States, the facilities and research environment are overwhelmingly better than other universities. Especially for Harvard or Ivy League universities with a lot of money, the reason is that only one-third of the annual budget is paid for tuition, and the other one-third comes from personal donations, so the United States can maintain the best universities in the world. Legacy students are more likely to enroll, and they pay more out-of-pocket tuition. Out-of-pocket tuition means paying full tuition with cash without any scholarship or other support. As I said earlier, the average family income of legacy students is about $500,000. It's about 600 million won in Korean won. Then, of course, these students are not eligible for tuition, but they become people who pay out-of-pocket tuition with their own pocket money. In addition, in the case of students from Harvard or Yale, the whole family is from Harvard or Yale, so there is a high possibility that the family will donate a lot of money to Harvard or Yale. It was Forbes' opinion that these students are contributing to the learning environment of other students in their own way. What I thought while reading these articles was that I think there is a huge economic late-change in American society in light of this controversy. These days, there are a lot of books about the fall of the middle class in American bookstores. The traditional middle class in the United States was made up of people who could live a safe life without going to college as the country's economy developed as industrial workers who worked in factories began to receive a fairly high wage. However, as manufacturing went abroad or became automated, the manufacturing economy moved to a knowledge economy. In order to become a member of this knowledge economy, you need to have knowledge. As a result, in a society where graduating from college is much more a necessary element of survival in a society where manufacturing is collapsing, getting a job at a university is not a goal to receive quality education or develop your talent as before, but a goal to fight for the right to survive in this knowledge economy where you can show your presence in the knowledge economy is a battle for survival. In a way, I thought that a college entrance exam war that is more familiar to Koreans was also taking place in the United States. That's it for today's Joppington Post. I'll see you next time with a more interesting topic. Goodbye.