Supreme Court to Review Race-Conscious Admissions Policies at Harvard, UNC
Category: News & Politics
Via: vic-eldred • 2 years ago • 254 commentsBy: Brent Kendall and Melissa Korn (WSJ)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court said it would decide whether to prohibit the use of race-conscious admissions in higher education, agreeing to consider challenges to policies at Harvard and the University of North Carolina.
The court in a brief written order on Monday said it would consider a pair of challenges by a group called Students for Fair Admissions, led by conservative legal activist Edward Blum, which sued both schools on the same day in 2014.
The lawsuit against Harvard alleged the school used quota-like racial-balancing tactics that artificially raised the standards of admission for Asian-American applicants, in violation of federal civil-rights law. The challengers alleged Asians were admitted at a lower rate than whites, even though their overall academic scores were better.
Harvard rejected the claims of discrimination and said it only considered race in a flexible way, as one factor among many in building diverse classes of students.
Under the Trump administration, the Justice Department supported the lawsuit, but the Biden-era department abandoned that position and offered support for Harvard in a legal brief last month that urged the Supreme Court to turn away the challenge.
A Boston-based U.S. district judge and a federal appeals court each sided with the school.
The lawsuit against UNC was similar to the Harvard allegations, though it added claims that the flagship public university in Chapel Hill violated the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection.
The challengers alleged the school unlawfully factored students’ race into the admissions process, favoring Black, Hispanic and Native American applicants and even caused them harm by inviting them into classrooms for which they weren’t prepared. The university, they said, didn’t fully pursue race-neutral alternatives to diversify its student body.
UNC in court papers said it has made progress on diversity but continues to face challenges in admitting underrepresented minorities. The school said it considered race as one of dozens of factors when evaluating applicants, which “may sometimes tip the balance toward admission in an individual case—but it almost always does not.”
A federal judge sided with UNC in October. The challengers then sought to bypass appellate review, asking the Supreme Court to go ahead and hear the case along with the Harvard litigation.
The Supreme Court is expected to consider the cases during its next term, which begins in October. Under that timeline, a ruling would be expected by June 2023.
Harvard President Lawrence Bacow said the court’s decision to review the cases puts at risk the ability of schools to create diverse campus communities, “which strengthens the learning environment for all.”
He said Harvard would continue to defend its admissions practices. Given the lower courts’ unanimous rulings and Supreme Court precedent on the matter, he said, “there is no persuasive, credible evidence warranting a different outcome.”
UNC spokeswoman Beth Keith said the school would defend its admissions process, which it terms holistic. “As the trial court held, our process is consistent with long-standing Supreme Court precedent and allows for an evaluation of each student in a deliberate and thoughtful way,” she said.
“The cornerstone of our nation’s civil-rights laws is the principle that an individual’s race should not be used to help or harm them in their life’s endeavors,” Mr. Blum said, alleging that Harvard and UNC “racially gerrymandered” their classes to hit quotas. “It is our hope that the justices will end the use of race as an admissions factor at Harvard, UNC and all colleges and universities.”
While declining to comment on the litigation, White House press secretary Jen Psaki said the Biden administration believes “in the benefits of diversity in higher education.”
By taking the cases, the Supreme Court will be directly considering whether to reverse course on more than 40 years of precedent allowing some consideration of race in admissions. Current law permits schools to consider an applicant’s race in narrow ways, but not as a rigid set-aside for minority applicants.
The court’s 1978 decision in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke barred the use of racial quotas but said schools could use race in some circumstances for assembling a diverse student body. In 2003, the court in Grutter v. Bollinger upheld the University of Michigan Law School’s use of race in admissions. And in 2016 the court ruled the University of Texas at Austin’s process passed constitutional muster , in another case backed by Mr. Blum. Each of the decisions sparked deep divisions at the court.
Many selective colleges use what they call a holistic admissions review process, taking into consideration factors including academic credentials, extracurricular achievements and recommendations, as well as an applicant’s background. The goal, admissions officers say, is to ensure they enroll a mix of students whose life experiences and outlooks can enrich the educational opportunities of their classmates.
In writing for the court majority in the 2003 Grutter case, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor said the use of racial preferences wouldn’t be necessary 25 years on. Schools, though, say other systemic inequities, including ones baked into the K-12 education system, mean alternative efforts to improve diversity without considering race aren’t yet effective enough on their own.
By also considering an applicant’s background—overcoming hardship, growing up with grandparents or taking care of a younger sibling, or otherwise making the most of limited resources—admissions officers say they can spot other candidates with potential and achieve the aimed-for educational benefits of a diverse class.
Dozens of higher-education leaders have backed Harvard and UNC in the legal battle, as have corporate executives who say their talent pipelines would grow more homogeneous if affirmative action were disallowed.
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
77 visitors
As anyone familiar with the Constitution knows, there is no way that these schools can support using skin color as an admission criterion. It should be a slam dunk. I predict the Court will rule race based admissions are unconstitutional by a vote of 6-3.
That will really put a dent into their racial equity equations won't it !!!
Equity obviously means an equality of results.
The fact that they want to is damning.
And on another seed we hear howling about attacks on Asian Americans. Here the university declares Asians value education too much.
Asians take advantages of the opportunities and work their asses off... The whiners don't.... so they have to have allowances made for them...
Washington state schools have determined that Asians are to be calculated as whites for the purpose of equity.... Essentially they need to admit fewer asians cause they are taking up slots that should go to the less qualified....
How much more bigoted can you get than that?
Do you support people of color masquerading as White? And yet, some conservatives decry Equity legally extended to Blacks and other people of color? Do you agree with equity for all or just adore stirring up conflict?
Oh, the web of one weaves when one seeks to deceive.
Yes, ALL colors, not some to the exclusion or detriment of others...
Please. Some conservatives do not support people of color, because it would mean you would have no reason to not include all people in your policy stances. Some conservatives exclude liberals from their policy stances. Just stop-"untruthing."
Not much. Well said.
Can you imagine If Asian Americans had all the benefits granted to them that American politicians & educators have granted to those considered "victims?"
We would have a true elite.
LOL. We have 'everything' we've got coming to us, Vic E. Do not even attempt to make Asians a class of 'saviors' - because I remind you there is a 'world' of billions of Chinese that some conservatives are bad-mouthing as "China Virus." And sadly, they are being beat and killed on the streets of our country, their country, by villainous men, women, and teens.
"True elite" Asians in America? Manipulative rhetoric-posturing much?
ONE Washington state school district grouped Asians with whites while documenting performance in ONE document which they immediately acknowledged and rectified.
There, I fixed it for you...
What benefits are you speaking of Vic? Are you under the unfounded presumption that the Civil Rights laws of the last 60+ years did NOT benefit to lives of Asian Americans?
Please elaborate. Who are these 'false' elite you speak of?
You didn't fix shit... They recategorized Asians cause they were doing too good... Including them they felt skewed their data showing that POC's were doing much better than they were claiming... So they just removed them from the statistics...
They apologized cause they got caught skewing the data to make it appear a much much worse a problem than it actually is...
ie including them revealed the political intent.... Liberals lie when it suits their purpose...
You can't believe a thing they say....
Really?
'They' who NWM? Was it 'Washington state schools' or ONE Washington state school district?
If the answer is the later, I DID fix shit, didn't I?
That was an insufferably opportunist thing for Vic to 'spout off' seeing that in every election cycle, some conservatives malign any elite American ("Dr. Fauci - current model of "boogey-manning") who does not tout their causes de jour! It's all such pathetic and tightly focused rhetoric. If only they could be honest and decent to the truth so help them God! Instead, this, trying to pressure or cajole citizens to accept excessive biases (and untruths) as normal, decent, and wholesome.
When quota systems are used to promote and/or achieve diversity and opportunity, either in education or employment, in many cases the losers are generally the most qualified applicants no matter what their color, ethnicity, or gender may be.
Conservatism vs. Liberalism: The new return to injustice. BTW, the Constitution has skin color written into it, written out of it, and still the 'tinge" continues around its edges. I wonder how that happens? Do you wonder, Vic?
How is the Constitution still allowing injustices to citizens to 'prevail' against its lofty rhetoric?
So you think it's OK to discriminate?
There is good discrimination and there is bad discrimination. Which are you concerned about, Greg? Not all discrimination is the same.
So in essence it is ok to discriminate against someone you feel is an oppressor but not against the oppressed...
Your making the choice... That isn't a problem?
Discrimination is discrimination it is WRONG in any direction against ANYONE when used to oppress ANYONE...
In that case: Done! You must not discriminate with another negative word against innocent liberals going forward! As for the remainder of your assertion: learn why oppressor and oppressed are distinct categories. For example: Dr. King spoke out against oppressors, as a voice for and one of the oppressed. Or, would you deny him his place in history?
Ok point out where Dr King talked about oppressors... (using his words)
Please do....
INNOCENT LIBERALS? That's like saying innocent conservatives....
Big difference here? LIBERALISM IS A CHOICE, Conservatism is a choice....
The color of ones skin not so much....
This is oppressive capitalism as spoken by Dr. King:
This is oppression Christianity spoken of by Dr. King:
This is oppression spoken of by Dr. King:
It is impractical to post entire sermons from Dr. King on this comment board, you will have to go to the various links and READ context for the full effect—yourself! There are other speeches on the subject of oppression and oppressors. No doubt to peruse.
Here is the link to the excerpts above (again):
The sermon by Dr. King (referenced above):
Martin Luther King Jr. "Paul's Letter to American Christians" June 3, 1958
You can bull patty some of the people some of the time, and bull patty all the people some of the time, but you can't bull patty all the people all of the time. I rest my case.
Good discrimination. No discrimination is ever good, period.
Some people will never get that.
Au contraire. There is "discriminating taste," "discriminating clothing," "discriminating attitudes," and more relevant to this topic: "discriminating people" for example: I don't like liars, cheats, thugs, or litterers in my vicinity. A few example of good discriminating factors and values.
Of course, discrimination that "X" out people from civil society or 'demotes" them to sub-standard ("beastly) roles or modes because of an existential factor (of being) is a bad discriminating factor!
The colleges recognize a deficiency in their schools. That is, a 'gap' or underserving of a societal mission. Therefore, in their role or roles as leaders and leadership they act to plug or repair the blemish or insufficiency using APPROVED methods. That is good discrimination seeking to fix a "chronic" problem or condition.
It is far more injurious to society to let youth be locked out of higher education due to some deficiency, certainly one, that higher placement (college) can correct. That would be bad discrimination allowed to fester.
Okay? How we doing?
And you do a pretty good job of bull pattying everyone all the time...
Problem is, I see nowhere in any of those quotations where he uses the word Oppressor's or Oppression....
Which means the whole oppressions spiel your spewing is your opinion and concoction... and your using Dr King to justify your own racism and hated...
Like I said before, show me where HE used the term Oppression or Oppressor....
HIS WORDS, not yours your putting into his mouth...
I'm still waiting...
WOW, that comment illustrates a startling lack of knowledge about MLK.
Here's a couple of easy ones:
Now, perhaps you can elaborate on the purpose of your request.
[Deleted]
I forgot to post a link with my second block quote. Correcting that isn't a violation of IMPASSE. The text is copyrighted.
Letter from Birmingham Jail, by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. (letterfromjail.com)
Vic, when was it ok to use race as a criteria for admission to these schools?
Give us a year when you think affirmative action was justified.
If you say "never" then you are saying that blacks or latinos should never have had the chance to be on an equal playing field.
People who start 20 yards behind in a 100 yard race are not going to catch up before the finish line.
Affirmative action has always been justified on a moral and legal basis. The question is when should it stop. But people like you dont argue when should it stop. You argue that it never had a basis, because if it had a basis it may still have a basis, which you cant ever admit.
Equity is called for and has been granted. But, the unusual suspects are upset and demanding 'regressive change.'
Let's hope Roberts means what he wrote 15 or so years ago:
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."
If SCOTUS rules that race-based admissions are illegal, what will be the response from the left?
We got "A return to Jim Crow" from the clowns over voting rights, so what will the spin be if this ruling comes down?
Back in the 90's most big universities did away with racial equity requirements cause they weren't getting all the best and brightest and it was hurting their education standards...
Today, such requirements are being legislated back into existence, not that it will make the university any more capable of educating anyone, it's just so their racial experiments will have a foundation...
Here in Washington Asians are now considered as whites when doing racial equity admissions... Why? cause asians make up just under half the new admission to school... They are taking up seats that the more disadvantaged might have taken....
As one section of society grows out of the cage they are sociologically forced into based upon the color of their skin they transition into being the oppressor's who need to be managed....
Race base ratings/quotas are bigotry in it simplest, most blatant form...
Which destroys the entire premise of CRT, but that's another topic.
Some conservatives are feeling Oppression (by Blacks and People of Color)? Squeezed? Pressured? How long have you been feeling this "I-ME" (length) relationship to life? Try the "I-You (breadth) relationship spoken of by Dr. Martin Luther King:
Thank you for posting this....
THAT is why I got up off my ass and marched with him....
Today, the movement is all about subverting justice...
He went on to the most important thing that must be done...
So tell me, how far has the march came? when what is preached is hatred day in and day out....
Retribution is what is called for today, reparations for things none of us had a part in... The movement was perverted to political aims after his death, and today it is nothing like what we marched for...
Interesting that you (all) think a 200 year history of discrimination against non whites and all women can be
corrected in a mere 50 years with constant pushback.
Interesting.
Like I said else where.
The Purity test includes eliminating all scholarships for sports, brains and talents.
be careful what you wish for.
And you completely missed the point...
Nah, not at all.
It's an excerpt from a larger speech. Here is the very next paragraph (which I myself am segmenting for ease of reading).
The Three Dimensions of a Complete Life Sermon Delivered at the Unitarian Church of Germantown:
(Excerpt 2)
I'm well aware of it...
The totality of life, yes I understand... I do not believe it means what you interpret it to mean though... It doesn't help your argument...
Not at all. Those are all competitively awarded.
Applying the logic of "diversity" to those things would require scholarships for sports based on race. Whites are underrepresented in men's basketball and football for instance.
Affirmative action for white running backs coming to a campus near you.
Why should I care what you "believe" it means? I don't mean to be rude, but Dr. King was not speaking directly to you about you (or to me about me). He was talking about hu-man-i-ty and its in-ter-re-lat-ive-ness.
Thus, when any 'slice' of humanity anywhere are oppressed and down-trodden by politics and or majorities-we are all in a state of suffering. Especially when citizens are of 'one national family' -us,USA warring politically and never coming together to heal our wound/s we create out of whole cloth against our own human interests.
It just seeps under the surface. Now Blacks ought to apologize for being 'best' and in demand for inherent talent on fields of play? What? Do you begrudge us success at anything—everything.
What exactly do you consider 'fairnesss'. . . cheating? Political 'games, INTRIGUE in board rooms (maneuvers off the fields)?
The game(s) have been played that way—long ago. You miss it?
Yet you seem unaware of the content of some of his most famous and inspiring writings...how is that possible?
Since you bring up discrimination and Jim Crow, here we go again . Do you wonder why we keep these 'Negro spirituals' in the helms of our garments!
We might as well start marchin' and singin' freedom songs of the past all over again . Shame too. That some conservatives are always trying to 'best' others by keeping equity off the playing field. Always 'angry' conservatives . . . this one is for you:
Howard Gospel Choir - Ain't Gonna Let Nobody Turn Me Around
The crowning achievement in hypocrisy must go to those staunch Republicans and Democrats of the Midwest and West who were given land by our government when they came here as immigrants from Europe. They were given education through the land grant colleges. They were provided with agricultural agents to keep them abreast of forming trends, they were granted low interest loans to aid in the mechanization of their farms and now that they have succeeded in becoming successful, they are paid not to farm and these are the same people that now say to black people, whose ancesors were brought to this country in chains and who were emancipated in 1863 without being given land to cultivate or bread to eat; that they must pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. What they truly advocate is Socialism for the rich and Capitalism for the poor.
I wish that I could say that this is just a passing phase in the cycles of our nation’s life; certainly times of war, times of reaction throughout the society but I suspect that we are now experiencing the coming to the surface of a triple prong sickness that has been lurking within our body politic from its very beginning. That is the sickness of racism, excessive materialism and militarism. Not only is this our nation’s dilemma it is the plague of western civilization. As early as 1906 W. E. B Dubois prophesized that the problem of the 20 th century, would be the problem of the color line, now as we stand two-thirds into this crucial period of history we know full well that racism is still that hound of hell which dogs the tracks of our civilization.
Ever since the birth of our nation, White America has had a Schizophrenic personality on the question of race, she has been torn between selves. A self in which she proudly professes the great principle of democracy and a self in which she madly practices the antithesis of democracy. This tragic duality has produced a strange indecisiveness and ambivalence toward the Negro, causing America to take a step backwards simultaneously with every step forward on the question of Racial Justice; to be at once attracted to the Negro and repelled by him, to love and to hate him. There has never been a solid, unified and determined thrust to make justice a reality for Afro-Americans.
. . . .
Racism can well be, that corrosive evil that will bring down the curtain on western civilization . Arnold Toynbee has said that some twenty-six civilization have risen upon the face of the Earth, almost all of them have descended into the junk heap of destruction. The decline and fall of these civilizations, according to Toynbee, was not caused by external invasion but by internal decay. They failed to respond creatively to the challenges impingent upon them.
If America does not respond creatively to the challenge to banish racism, some future historian will have to say, that a great civilization died because it lacked the soul and commitment to make justice a reality for all men.
https://www.nwesd.org/ed-talks/equity/the-three-evils-of-society-address-martin-luther-king-jr/#:~:text=That%20is%20the%20sickness%20of%20racism%2C%20excessive%20materialism%20and%20militarism .
Some conservatives you will try to demonize, you will try to go back to the 'I-ME" approach to this life; but, the "I-You" approach to life is where salvation for all of us resides. You can never be happy while others are unhappy. In this country, true joy is interlaced in all the citizenry!
So you are for race-based admissions?
Why?
So you are for race-based admissions? It shows inadequacy that you fiddle around with this question. Equity is the thing called for in a country that chooses to be out of 'tilt' with itself historically.
Something to ponder: A Cadillac car and a Ford truck are both vehicles which will get you to the same ends albeit possible by different means.
I am emphatically NOT for race-based admissions. I believe them to be prejudiced.
I believe the inadequacy is amply demonstrated by the non-answer I received to my question, but I am used to that.
So it is equity which is sought now, not equality?
What specific "equity" are you seeking, and how do you propose to obtain it without discriminating against others?
Was equality (the same struggles as 'the next guy or gal') what immigrants from Europe received (in college land grants) when they arrived here? Were all American citizens told to pull themselves up by their 'bootstraps'? Seems equity was granted them from the beginning and here you are attempting to sustain equity for the few in the present. At least, its consistent.
Stop asking me idle, redundant, questions. This discussion is wide open and the statements 'blasting' from the past illustrate the larger points of reality that existed then, attempting to burst back into the present. As well, as why they should not be allowed to reenter the timeline of our future generations of humanity.
What does that mean? Immigrants weren't given college educations when they entered the country.
Um... yeah. You should read the Jungle by Upton Sinclair and see how easy immigrants had it.
The real thing is, none of that really has any bearing on what should be done today.
Diversity for diversity's sake at the expense of otherwise qualified students isn't good policy for college admissions.
I know in Texas that if you graduate in the top 10% of your class, you are guaranteed admission to any state-funded university.
That seems fair to me.
It's up to you! What I discern is Dr. King's words are not honored by you. As you find nothing worthy of mentioning, but have acted to ignore him entirely for the sake of pushing an agenda out. I'm with you on having a great night!!!
Read under @3: Dr. King's excerpt. And drill down on the words to your delight. Maybe you missed the content there?
Texan1211, really? Is diversity simply for it's own sake? Forgive me, do not be dense. Equity is not 'rocket science.' It is opening doors for people to enter "in" where they were procedurally, institutionally, or racially locked out! It is playing 'catch up' because it the MORALLY RIGHT thing to do. It is not people sitting around bemoaning who they won't have to bully, demean, or be hierarchical above. I get it, conservatives see this country differently than I do.
That being just the point: We have to meet 'in the middle' if this country is to continue to succeed. As you can see, heaping people into 'camps' is only driving up deeper into trenches and worse yet - our international enemies see our national DISTRESS and know, or inevitably will learn how to best exploit it.
Returning to a pretense of equality (which was not in the eighteenth century and succeeding years) won't prosper the whole of this nation. It will just continue the 'backward syndrome' that is stopping this country from 'better health' it deserves!
Come together. Be better. 2022!
I am uncaring as to your discernment.
Concise to a fault. Those words conveying nothing, sadly.
You pretend that didn't also apply to Asians.
Why would I pretend any such thing? I do not sit in judgement of anybody. Please 'go on' with this vain attempt to set 'tooth against tooth.' No man or woman need trample over another man or woman. Just. Do. What. Is. Right.
Leave all guile out of doing it.
Au contrare! you sit in judgment of white people, something Dr King NEVER did....
Dr King understood that we ALL needed to put away the hate and look at each as people with the same needs and desires from life....
The great enlightenment.... or has that missed you in your zeal for equity.... (which is really another name for special rights/treatment)
Judgement of the appropriate sort has already been rendered. It's laughable (to me) that you would try desperately to make me a foil in history. The rest of your comment about Dr. King is moot. @3 there is an excerpt from Dr. King do read it and then began your 'questioning' of what Dr. King thought of persons (connivers and schemers) who deceitful toil to manipulate peace, freedom, and justice for their fellow citizens.
I'm sure you think it has...
What's laughable is your position that history has already decided, all you are is a trumpet, one not everyone is attuned to...
Oh I completely understand, the only people that can have a valid take on Dr King are those that agree with your paradigm... Everyone else is moot... I get it, there is that discrimination you rail so much about...
Ok here is is....
All men... It is incumbent on all men.... Not just those you pick and choose... The passage doesn't convey what your claiming it does...
I am not surprised that you don't see the irony in your comment.
How apropo. Just keep striving for striving sake. Apparently, this will take time and greater effort. . . .
Because it's convenient to your point. The primary victims of this practice are Asian students.
Once again, you ignore reality in favor of idealistic rhetoric. Do you deny the fact that there are a limited number of spaces in every freshman class at Harvard, Yale, UNC, or any other prestigious college?
Given that reality, every student accepted means one was rejected...or in the case of Harvard as many as 24 others may have been rejected.
So getting into any prestigious university is absolutely necessarily done by "trampling over" other applicants.
What is "right" is to take the best applicants without regard to their race or gender. That's not happening. Hence, the lawsuit.
How you would you know what is "the best applicant" for any college? What are your certs' qualifying you to admit students? Speak up!
Furthermore, I do not have to pretend any "convenience" to get my point across to you. It is plain to see that some conservatives want to be dispassionate ("Plug it up! Those "negroes" and "undesirables" have found a way in! "Plug it up!) about EQUALITY and even now EQUITY.
Just how many more 'dirty' words will some conservatives be stirring up as they 'toil' to take us back to the 18th century?
One more thing:
It is an old ploy to split people into 'factions' and pit them (like dogs in a fight pit) against each other. While the 'masters,' the perpetrators bet on which will be: winner and loser. Meanwhile, the rewards of capitalism never need change pockets.
Dr. Martin Luther King:
Savvy people of color ought recognize this ploy and call it out!
The single best predictor of college success is high school GPA. This is a well-established fact and has been for many years.
The unintelligible wording of your current phrase aside, your previous point was perfectly clear. You pretend when it is convenient. You advocate racism when it suits you, and then attempt to rationalize that through vague terminology like "equity".
It turns out that "equity" is a thinly disguised way to say "certain people should get preference because of their race". But "equity" doesn't sound as bad as "racism", so when you're going to advocate racism, you should definitely call it "equity".
Ahhh yes. Now we've moved on to the next phase, where you pretend those who disagree with your racism are themselves racist. Wonderfully predictable.
Boy! That's some chop-work you done did there. Anyway, back to the subject-matter. . . .
That seems to be true from recent studies, but does it really answer the question? I don't think that it does. Kids from zip code 75205 certainly have a much better chance for entry and success in a university than kids from lower-income school districts. Therein lies the problem, IMO.
As long as there is a disparity in the wealth of the school district the kid from the wealthy school district will have a better chance of entry and success at a university.
The implication being that lower-performing kids are somehow "the best applicants". I think you're going to have a difficult time making that case.
That's a resultant symptom of the actual problem, which is that we don't educate poor kids as well, if at all. The sane solution to that is to actually improve academics in poor districts rather than artificially award admission based on race.
As long as there is a disparity in the wealth of the families, the same situation will exist.
The immediate reaction to that reality is "that's not fair". But it's certainly not fair to the Asian kid who earned the spot to boot him out of it because he's the wrong race.
They're basically operating under the philosophy that more racism will make things less racist, which is questionable at best.
Don't make assumptions, since that is not what I was implying at all.
That is my point.
Yes, it will but if the school district are on a more level playing field (finances and support) it will help those kids that are from less wealthy families.
If you're saying that is what I'm saying once again you are making assumptions.
That is not how I look at, but each has their own opinion.
And that is not what the schools are doing or conducting. For surely, a "racist" practice would not have past 'muster' in a SCOTUS judicial proceeding when precedent was established. This is more of the same tawdry treatment of minorities that some conservatives have always, non-stop pushed! For example: Insistence that a woman's right to choose and privacy in abortion law is equal to "murder."
Some conservative persistently interfere with any effort to lift up the low zones and areas of minorities, and they do this from a 'superior' position of using the constitution as static and "unbreakable" contract of the 18th century (mode).
This is why some conservatives INSIST that the constitution is not a 'living' document. For to allow the constitution to 'live" in today's world is to allow that document to repair the harms of modern society—by definition, conservatism is the 'way things were.'
The practical effects of getting this country to see the 'conservative way'? Change back to patriarchal, religion (orthodoxy) dominated rule of law. Establishment in America as conservatism over and above liberalism (a metaphor for White-Evangelical-Protestant governance). (Yes, with some lesser 'shares' of 'pepper and spices' tinging the 'salt'. A metaphor reference for illustration purposes only.)
And its from the Conservative 'playbook' of Old: Find a poor class to pit against another poor class to break the "mode of recovery" of another (poor whites against poor blacks; poor Blacks against poor Asians) and sit back and wait on "easy bank" for getting it on as 'fur' flies. (see @ 3.1.34 .)
not everyone is out to get you.
Of course not! Does not change the narrative: the ends justify the means. Letting crooked people doing dirty 'shit' co-mingle and hide in plain sight against good people who mean nobody any harm is morally WRONG!
talking in circles
Riiiight.
Because Plessy v Ferguson was some other country's Supreme Court......
Well, you got me with that one (going way back and also there was Dred Scott vs. Sandford. 1856.) Though, I would question why you insist on labeling affirmative action (for people of color (Blacks) as a racist practice of today. That is, why you compare bad law to good law without any distinction.
I am not ignorant of the fact that you are passing both Plessy v Ferguson and Affrimative Action off as bad law. Nothing could be further from the truth, nevertheless!
You mean the ploy that the democrat machine loves to use to keep people repressed?
From the same address your quoting...
Unfortunately, Justice will not be obtained from any political parties patronage system... Especially the democrat patronage system, and Dr King KNEW that all such did was keep the slavery going....
But then, when he was assassinated, we all knew where the supposed inheritors of the movement turned the movement to, directly into the Democrat patronage system... They own the movement now, more political that just...
And there are millions of supporters that have turned their backs on the movement... Why? cause it isn't a movement anymore it's a political religion populated by true believers who only give a damn about themselves...
The anathema of true justice....
And Dr King knew it...
The point simply being the SCOTUS has been known to be wrong. I'm sure we don't have to look very far here on NT to find somebody who will spend an hour ranting about Citizens United.
I would question why you limit "people of color" to mean "Blacks". The vast majority of kids who lose out in this situation are Asian.
By definition the practice is racist. They favor one group of people because of their race.
The Civil Rights Act is a good law. Affirmative action is a set of practices intended to ensure compliance with that law, but it's misguided on several levels.
The most ironic thing of all may be that the Civil Rights Act itself expressly prohibits discrimination against students and college applicants on the basis of race or gender.
I'm always disappointed to see how few people will even ask the question about why black kids should need special accommodations in the first place. How is it that nobody ever seems to wonder why they can't compete on their own merits?
As you are so 'FOND' of saying, I now state: "I do not think that paragraph is saying what you think it is saying." Actually, I am pretty sure it is not conveying what you think, based on your past statements and attitude:
1. Dr. King has found a problem with the Democratic Party "machine" and he is right to vocalize to the public ("going public") about that concern.
2. "We cry out against welfare. . . " is contracted with ". . . oil depletion allowance making the rich richer.
3. "Six Mississippi plantations (cotton) receive more than a million dollars. . ." is contracted with ". . . no provision is made to feed tenant farmers put out of work."
Can you see it NOW?
Dr. King is decrying public policies which do not take care of the masses.
Blacks have been the 'eternal' focus of civil rights in this country. Indeed, blacks have taken the 'blunt force' of racism head-on since reconstruction. Of course, I am interlacing people of color and black Americans inclusively. Read your history. All people of color have suffered oppression in the USA at one time or the other, and black Americans have been the fulcrum spinning up change and reminding some conservatives of where and how they have fallen short of their lofty constitution-driven aspirations.
Thus, I limit nothing or no one. I am simply speaking to the issue not the subset.
Speaking of merit, care to put take a 'stab' at going beyond rhetoric and telling us why you think affirmative action is misguided? And, why you feel special accommodation (for people of color - especially black Americans) is not essential?
(Note: You can reply with a short or long statement. Just be 'completely clear', please.)
Attempting to correct racial prejudices by calling FOR racial prejudices is rather a silly idea.
Special accommodations are not needed or even warranted.
Absolutely! except I saw it damn near 50 years ago... Without the racist political spin it is subjected to today...
It is STILL an issue today, but back then we had AG's that were willing to use the antitrust laws to break up conglomerates trying to set up the "company store" Controlled capitalism, and the manipulated something for nothing stock market...
Can't say we have those today in either party....
I'm a libertarian, not a republican, not a democrat, neither party stands for what I believe in....
Back in the day 10%-15% profit was a good profit, today it gets you ran out of business... You need to be making 20-30% profit...
Beware the military, industrial, scientific complex... Several of our real Great leaders have repeated that or some form of that throughout our history...
Unfortunately some just buy into it and roll with the flow...
If there is to be any real justice in this country, we need to realize we are all in it together... And stop trying to make it about one piece or the other piece not getting their fair share... No one is getting their fair share of the american dream...
What is so funny to me is so many supposedly educated people don't understand it much less see it in society today...
Isn't that usually called "the soft bigotry of low expectations"?
Thank you for your 'entry' - Texan1211. I am waiting for Jack_TX now.
For the record, 'labeling' is a distraction technique. And responding that something is "silly" is not an explanation for why affirmative action is misguided. Care to try again (for yourself this time)?
Special accommodations, not prescribed? Texan1211, was city busing in the South instituted as a public accommodation for Blacks who otherwise had no means of getting to work but walking? Even so, Black citizens (people of color) were instructed (forced) to sit in the back of the buses or get up and surrender even those seats to whites as needed and require by law? Apart from 'nice, clean, 'perfumed,' white citizens.
Perhaps you would care to actually read my comment?
The explanation you seek is there and has been all along.
Hint: the answer is in the red portion.
And your silly little "quip" about "Care to try again (for yourself this time)? is duly noted. Who in tarnation do you think wrote the lines you may or may not have read? Hint: I DID. I stand behind what I wrote.
If you can't answer the question properly than don't. I am sure I won't care. Perhaps Jack_TX can. I am 'full' of this poutiness for now. Bye
I suppose for some people answering a question "correctly" means giving them an answer they like. Sorry, I don't really care if people like my answers or not. I am not here to please you, but for God's sake stop pretending you didn't get an answer and admit that you got one and didn't like it.
Well, that makes two of us then.
And yet you are numbered on the republican 'roster.' That's telling all its own.
Of course, Dr. King advocated for non-violent protest and racial harmony, because he was a religious leader and civil rights leader with a bevy of interlocking responsibilities.
It is you who are 'harking' about 'racists' blacks for the mere mention white institutional racism in individuals and in society was the norm; only through the toil of men and women like Dr. King who pushed-back, called out, and pricked consciences (may be that is why the conservatives have shut their consciences down in the present) that change of the sort which arrived came to 'America.'
You can try to make Dr. King into a conservative symbol, but you will fail. All one has to do is look at the images of the 60's, look at the hatred that 'adorned' Dr. King from 'local officials.' And moreover, look at Dr. King's wife, Coretta Scott King and his children and the late King's associates in the movement nearly all of whom landed in service of the Democratic Party.
The Republican Party? It became the new 'home' of the southern democratics forced out largely: but finding shelter in the party of "States Rights" - Republican Party.
For crying out loud, you are alllllll over the place again.
With the historic 'baggage' of violence against a race of people that is 'eternal' and unrelenting, let me be the first to spell out for you just how resilient blacks and people of color are—I am here routinely, daily even, talking to white people about the slights, pains, struggles, misgivings, deaths, and injustices done to people of color and I am not a 'tragic' figure or insufferable in attitude in doing so.
We can do better as one people or we will continue to be a fragmented people never fulling reaching its zenith.
As I have stated this year and I believe this: Conservatives can not be successful without liberals and vice-versa. We will keep sloping downhill incrementally as a country until we get together and 'grow vertically' together. We are the change we are looking for - no one else can be it for us!
White Privilege is it affirmative action?
It is you who make it a racist political thing....
LOOK at the images of the 60's? I LIVED IT!!! I MARCHED!!!
WHO ARE YOU TO TELL ME WHAT I MARCHED FOR? What I got peppered with birdshot for? What I had bats and 2x4's and golf clubs swung at my head from moving trucks for?
YOU Look at the pictures, I saw it with my own two damned eyes...
Conservative symbol my ass... You said it...
THATS RIGHT!! AFTER HIS DEATH.... the movement was usurped by the Democrat party... to use your words, IN SERVICE OF THE PARTY...
Who became the slaves again? cause that is where the so called leaders decided to take them... Dr King didn't want ANYTHING from either political party... Wouldn't affiliate with either cause he KNEW it came with a price which according to him NO MAN SHOULD HAVE TO PAY....
The movement lost tens of thousands of supporters when that happened... When it became about black power, and rioting in the streets and burning the towns down... When you became the racists... When you started fostering hate...
You get it out of a book, I lived it...
Go peddle your made up political tripe somewhere else...
JHC, what makes you think a black person hasn't lived it
since you marched.
that's just fucking self righteous arrogance
if you are both truthful about who you are.
How Dense Are You?
Did I say that, Of course fucking not... Arrogance is telling me who lived it I should look at a picture in a fucking book...
It's like telling someone from Dachau or Auschwitz that they haven't a fucking clue what genocide is...
What's a good ol' boy? someone who will take your head off if given half a chance and you NEVER turn your back to them...
Some of you people just fucking amaze me....
HOW DENSE ARE YOU?
I think the feminist movement might disagree. You do realize black people were voting in America half a century before white women were.
I personally would consider their time before reconstruction to be somewhat worse.
Except Asians, apparently.
That's amazingly ironic.
Spinning up "change". Riiiiight.
Things have "changed" so much that you're arguing for the continuation of a supposedly corrective measure that obviously hasn't worked for 50 years.
That is the single most evil, devastating, systemic racism in America today, and nothing else comes.
But that public school problem is so hard to fix we won't even acknowledge it. It's much easier to let a few token black kids into Harvard or Yale and pretend everything is fine.
Because I don't believe black people are inferior.
Interesting question.
I'm going to use an illustration. Bear with me.
Imagine a youth football team. We'll call them the Bobcats. They're good kids, and they want to win. They practice twice a week for 3 hours. Coach throws them passes, they play a pickup game, try to kick a few field goals. If they drop the ball or miss a tacke...it's OK, they're kids. Then the coach makes them do 20 pushups before they leave. They want to be successful, so they do everything the coach tells them to do.
There is another team in that league. We'll call them the Vikings. They also practice twice a week for 3 hours. They have a carefully planned pre-workout routine. They spend an hour each time in high intensity blocking and tackling drills, with immediate punishments if they fail to execute. They have a playbook they're required to learn on their own time, and if they forget the plays they have to run laps. They practice blocking schemes and defensive assignments. The quarterbacks practice their reads and progressions, and the receivers run routes until their lungs nearly burst. The defense works on situational schemes. Every time they miss a tackle or drop a pass or fumble the ball, they all do 20 pushups. Their coach demands a lot, and not all the kids do it.
Strangely enough, every single time these two teams play, the Vikings kick the living shit out of the Bobcats.
Do the Bobcat players wish they could win like the Vikings? Oh hell yeah.
Do they have any chance to actually win? Not in a million years. They exist in a system that does not prepare them to be able to compete.
Do the Viking players win by virtue of simply being on that team? Yeah... pretty much. They exist in an environment that provides an infrastructure to make them successful and the constant demand that they perform.
So is "Viking privilege" a thing? In a way, sort of. But it sure as hell doesn't feel like it when they're on pushup number 18 for the 5th time in 10 minutes.
More importantly, you're not doing the Bobcats any favors by simply declaring them the winners even though the Vikings scored 40 more points.
The sane thing to do is improve the training of the poor team and get them able to compete with the better team.
Well, let's get one thing straight, I did not march with Dr. King. I sure was in the vicinity of civil rights in his lifetime - damn near central to it as a child. So do not doubt that I come from the period. Indeed, I was close enough to MARCH, but of course, children needed parental permission! I had to settle for church meeting and public assemblages on protests. I watched national guard lining our streets. I sat through a shooting (in a masonic temple) where a black youth shot by guard forces was brought and stretched out. I lived the experience that my parents would bring home from the 'day' outside in it.
So what if the 'rest' I get out books? It is what books on subject matter are! Incidentally, I remembered you stated you 'marched' thereabouts. My reference to look was to more gathered reading here than you. It was the collective 'look.'
Dr. King could not afford to be a democrat or republican or WHATEVER because he needed to be able to speak to all WILLING interests and participants in civil rights legislation.
My REQUEST that you consider where the AFTER 'participants' in Civil Rights nearly all of the leaders and influencers landed - the Democratic Party - is because the Republican Party became the residing place for white Southern Democrats through migration away from the democratic party AFTER President Johnson rebuked his own party AND WHITE SOUTHERN DEMOCRATS with the Civil Rights Act.
And, Nowhere Man, let me respect your time and service to the cause of civil rights, but do not think you will lecture me on what the movement was about and how it ended. That the movement loss people (because they could not 'go' farther) simply because it was tumultuous and times with lots of interests rubbing against and together - there was even a Black Muslim Movement, which I know well as a child but did not participate in as a Christian afoot.
Dr. King's nonviolent movement ended in his violent death. Of course, blacks reacted. Some violently. Mostly peacefully. And, the result is Dr. King's family, associates, and more sided with the Democratic Party ultimately.
You have no right, with all due respect to your experience, to INSIST that after Dr. King's death the work of his companions in civil rights was for a slave party. Though, there was a great deal of transitioning and political 'horse-trading' and stallingss involved as one would expect.
I will resist that characterization from you now and going forward.
The King family today are not pawns of the democratic party, but participants in slowly, maybe too slow at times, getting moving out of the 'glacier' that is our back and forth political system(s).
More later, if you wish or insist!
Great analogy. But, is that what White privilege is? Is it all White privilege is?
Asian Americans 'will not be used' by conservatives attacking affirmative action
It's the core of it.
That core then establishes expectations, which expand, exacerbate, and eventually cement that disparity.
"Activist lawyer"?
C'mon.
So basically we have a whole lot of professional liberals quoting other professional liberals about how anybody who disagrees with them is hell-bent on oppressing whoever it is they're talking to.
The thing is, Harvard could easily modify their admission process in such a way as to give black kids a fair shot without unfairly penalizing Asian kids.
Texas has a state law that provides guaranteed acceptance to state universities to any public school student in the top 10% of their class. That has been modified by the University of Texas at Austin down to 7%, because they had more top 10% applicants than they had room for.
So whether you went to all-white all-wealthy Highland Park HS or you went to Pinkston HS, if you outworked everybody in the environment you were in, you'll get a chance at the next level.
Harvard could easily establish some sort of similar empirical criteria without having to artificially engineer something that violates the Civil Rights Act and acknowledges and which honors the actual achievements of black students. They just don't want to.
Now you are just spewing rhetoric where a simply "affirmation" would do. I do not have time to sit and S-P-E-L-L out every nuance of a topic to grown-up/s—which you are. I am pretty sure of that!
Great, because black people are not inferior. As you so astutely observed. Now, step aside and let the system work for the good of all Americans!
What?
Activist lawyer? Everybody got to eat and have a career path/flow right? Right? The rest of your comment is to nuanced for this discussion about national affirmative action policy.
OK Reverend. You're back in the pulpit where you stop making sense.
It's not actually rocket science.
I think we've pretty well established that "the system" works far better for me than it does for black people.
This is the same system that all but ensures my son will be a millionaire before his 40th birthday while his black friends will have to work up to living paycheck to paycheck.
But hey, if that's what you want to preserve, it doesn't hurt me any.
That doesn't mean we should take them seriously.
You can try all you wish to twist the truth, but it always manages to straighten itself out. That's the interesting thing about truth! Let somebody fix our systems and stop supporting causes and worldviews that ruin the lives of men, women, and children. We're sick and tired of republican obstruction. Let us have our freedoms and liberties even if are miserable afterwards.
Are you sure you trust other people to fix them? Why?
What freedoms do you imagine are being obstructed?
Conservatives and some conservatives (Trumpism) speak about freedom and liberty as a thing greatly prized, but when serendipitously shown a new way to EXCITE the electorate (because of a one in a lifetime pandemic of all things) and get more people to vote—liars emerge to poo-poo it. That is error. That is morally 'bankrupt.' Something good for the voting populous in this country happened: We ought to celebrate and follow after accordingly.
Do not be (big) pretenders who speak with 'forked tongue' seeing to bag Americans and pigeonhole society. Celebrate learning how people wish to engage and interact every two years with elections. Explore it. Improve it. "Efficient" it.
Stifle voting that works for more people? Heavens no! Lastly, do not 'invent' problems out of whole cloth for the future. For crying out loud: the children are watching adults LIE, LIE, AND REINFORCE LIES. It makes all of us adults who don't lie to children hard-pressed to explain why liars, cheaters, and thieves never win: (If liars, cheaters, and thieves do win, that is.).
What freedoms do you imagine are being obstructed?
Do 'obstructing' and 'stifling' mean the same thing to you Jack?
I am all for it. /s
Fuck the past. /s
Fuck football for that matter./s
( How dare they try to make up for 100 years of slavery, 90 years of Jim Crow or 200 years where women weren't admitted to
white State and Ivy League schools.)
And fuck basketball, baseball and every Olympic sport for that matter.
How dare they give scholarships to somebody who can throw a cannon ball 15 meters or more.
How dare they use IQS, standardized test, and then use teacher recommendations and actual interviews for tie breakers.
How dare they follow SCOTUS precedent?
When they give away athletic scholarships like candy it takes away some other students chance, right?
Is that not discrimination?
They give full rides to geniuses too. Discrimination??.
Or is it taking into account the students potential contribution to the institutions ( private or state run ) reputation and income?
Be careful what you wish for.
No predictions, this court is Baffling.
Sometimes Thomas is the lone dissent
Sometimes Gorsuch and Kavanaugh 'go the other way'.
I still like beer.
Like I've said before I like this court....
Well, where is it written that scores are the limit of everything valuable about a person or an accurate measure of what they might contribute or achieve?
As the years pass, it becomes tougher to say what is right and what is needed when it comes to diverse admissions. The reasons for it have been many. Sometimes it’s to correct past injustice. Sometimes it’s for diversity’s sake.
The Courts will not allow simple racial quotas for their own sake, but I think there should be room in our system to seek out diversity if an institution sees value in that.
I don’t do college admissions, but I will say that whenever I have had to put together a group of people for something, I seek diversity in that group. It’s not usually always about social justice, although it can be. Mostly, I just like being around different kinds of people and I think the potential for group success increases.
One of the unsettling things I see a lot is the assumption that justice must be a zero sum game. I.e., if justice is extended to one person, it must necessarily be stolen from someone else. I wish we had more grace as a society to not see things this way.
Understood, in its entirety. Radiant in its messaging.
But that's what happens. There are a limited number of seats available at these institutions. Awarding a seat to someone necessarily means someone else won't get it. There's no way around that reality.
There is limited space for college admissions, but that still doesn’t make the process unjust. There’s no particular reason to have a default policy of admitting people with either white skin or the highest scores. So if a person of color with lower scores gets in, that doesn’t mean they have “stolen” the position from someone else.
here is limited space for college admissions, but that still doesn’t make the process unjust
Unjust is a subjective term, but most people come down on the side of the government being involved in racial discrimination as being very unjust.
here’s no particular reason to have a default policy of admitting people with either white skin or the highest scores.
Well, admitting people with white skin would be illegal so it would be impossible for a public school to have that as a default policy.
But the basis for an admission process that uses objective standards to admit the highest achieving students is self explanatory. It may not be perfect, but it's more fair than admitting people based on random factors like the number of vowels in the their name or biological reasons like the color of their skin.
if a person of color with lower scores gets in, that doesn’t mean they have “stolen” the position from someone else.
But it does, if you believe schools should be a meritocracy and not award admission based on race. But sure, if you accept discriminating on the basis of race is a valid method of allocating a scare resource, than one's race entitles you to a spot, whether you are academically qualified of not.
But not necessarily relevant, satisfactory, or beneficial. A school could use any objective standard. Tallest, for example. Or strongest. Such standards would be objective, but not necessary relevant, etc.
Should a school admit the students with the highest test scores if all those students are assholes? I think most people might say "no," but even so, there is no objective measurement for being an asshole. Still, I think it would be a better criterion than height.
What I'm saying is that the admission process is necessarily subjective and each institution will have its own unique combination of priorities, including qualities you just can't measure objectively. There is no reason to think that the best path for a school is to just admit people based on a test score, and I don't know of any school that does that.
Fair to whom? Whom does the admission process serve? The applicant only? What about the school? The student body? Society at large? Doesn't the process serve those other interests, as well?
Even if I do, what qualities are meritorious? Would you rather have the student who tests well? Or the student is who is a self-starter? How about the student who works best with others? How about the student who brings a fresh perspective?
I know you did not ask this from me at this point, but I must add it. These, some conservatives, are code-talking. They are 'out' to deny blacks and people of color (and they are working deceit by using Asians for manipulation ("selling") purposes) equity-which they are doing their damnest to treat as a negative and poo-poo. It is not logical. It is not caring-they don't care about equality. It is simply a ploy, a pretext, 'an Asian entryway' into getting blacks setback and ultimately under the 'floor' yet again. Apparently, incremental progress for minorities RISING into the millionaire and billionaire ranks is too much progress for some conservatives.
Again, you did not ask me for this, but I felt compelled to address this here and now.
Generally: I believe the privileged majority has a moral obligation to reach out to the minority - whomever that might be - and invite them in. People who haven’t been discriminated against (or loved someone who was) maybe don’t appreciate how a tradition of discrimination can make whole populations feel locked out of society and unwelcome.
Because of the past - either personal or general - many people think college is not for them and so they don’t make even a half-hearted attempt at it. Therefore, they might not have the training and experience under their belt to look (on paper) like a strong applicant. But given a chance, they may succeed.
They shouldn’t just be written off because of test scores. And that’s the flip side of the “objective meritocracy” argument. Obviously if someone tests well, they will likely have some academic success at college. But we shouldn’t just assume someone is unqualified because of test scores.
To your point, though, I think there is always an element of the majority fearing to lose their power. When the women’s equality movement was more urgent in the 70s, we heard a lot about women “taking men’s jobs.” That was about men fearing they would lose their privilege and power. Gay rights are always portrayed as some kind of threat to straight rights. And yes, brown and black rights are seen as a threat to white rights.
This might only be felt at the level of 1% for some people, but unfortunately, people are unwilling to look for that dark motivation in themselves. No one wants to see that in the mirror.
I think if a person opposes colleges using race as a factor in admission, they should ask themselves, “what am I really afraid of?”
There is so much 'maddening' duplicity at play at any given moment in all this. It's exhausting. It's disgusting. It's depressing. But I will not let up! I appreciate your open-ness to listening (with your heart) and writing from sincere and balanced thoughts.
One more thought (distinct from the above). I appreciate those in here who are writing about cooperation and 'merging' into one with goodness and justice for all. Aspirational and literal. Yet, it is inescapable that some here are writing from an agenda, a talking point, a ploy, a disingenuous place, seeking only to manipulate hearts and minds. I know this, because they fail to accept the realities of 'spoken' history, but try to select and pull out for closer scrutiny words which are only partially true and supporting of their worldview—not the totality of the narratives.
Sure they could, and they have the advantage of not being outlawed by Congress, like racial discrimination.
uch standards would be objective, but not necessary relevant, etc.
But standards like grades and test scores are obviously relevant.
aying is that the admission process is necessarily subjective and each institution will have its own unique combination of priorities, including qualities you just can't measure objectively.
Again, the priorities should be legal ones and not banned by Congress, second it's pretty clear they are objective. Data from the University of Michigan showed that the median black undergrad was accepted with a 1000 on the SAT, and almost zero white applicants with a 1000 were accepted. So whatever pretextual reason you want to argue, it comes to down to racial preferences.
ir to whom? Whom does the admission process serve? The applicant only? What about the school? The student body? Society at large? Doesn't the process serve those other interests, as well?
The application process should be fair to applicants. But that's a political question and Congress has addressed it and outlawed discrimination on the basis of race. It's not the Court's job to rewrite legislation.
what qualities are meritorious?
For schools, a demonstrated record of achievement and an ability to achieve.
As long as that applies to all races, genders, etc, it seems fair
The variety of diversity an institution seeks is entirely up to them. But it’s not as if there is a shortage of white or Asian college students, so don’t look for schools to try to increase those numbers.
Well if you are referring to race only that is not true. I hope that is not in their admission requirements, policies, practices, and guidelines.
Is that happening anywhere, though? What school is admitting a bunch of incompetent assholes just to fill the halls with people of a certain color?
Yes, colleges have admitted they want to use race as a deciding factor.
As a factor. Meaning: “one of many factors.” Not “race only.”
But it is still a deciding factor. I thought in America that was discrimination.
No it shouldn't be any, only or one factor. Consideration of race is a disadvantage to all applicants unless though a college is biased in their admissions of a race then it is obviously an advantage to that race.
The color of ones skin does not make them better or worse than someone else. Should not be a factor at all.
Was oppression applied equally or equitable to all races in this country, Sunshine? Please proceed. . . . Why should Whites be 'mouthing' how oppressed they are? If Whites in America are oppressed then how much more are the 'rest' of our diverse citizen-community?
Do you (all) reflect on what you put forward to the public?
What is this "Me-first" shit all the time? Some conservatives stock and trade is to travel the world helping others (or it is a ploy to get what others have) and then some conservatives 'come home' and decry blacks and people of color who help our nation in every way ALLOWED to build this country's blood and treasure- all the while, some conservatives are twisting our arms and our legs into political knots!
Well the case involves Asians not whites. Your rant is just that a rant.
And Asians are "yellow" in the stream of conscious discussion. BTW, what makes you THINK blacks don't need placement in colleges proportional to the aggregate good of this nation? How long should we be striving 'underfoot' because 'massuh' says what we bring to the table has no "immediate" value? How 'fast' might we rise if whites (the majority) keep throwing obstacles (proverbial 'kitchen sinks,' 'sheet-rock,' "large boulders," injury, and even death) in our paths of advancement?
Do some conservatives want people of color to rise? Do some conservatives SUPPORT their own causes? Publicly and secretly? Yes, some conservatives do support their own causes célèbre.
(Okay! That was a rant.
I feel better now. (Smile.))
Women have made major gains in taking advantage of educational opportunities to be able to pursue careers in the fields of their choice.
This might answer your question in part.
and the site below gives stats by Ivy League College. There should be similar stats available online for most colleges.
CB this case isn’t about whites although you are trying your hardest to make it seem as it is. Why are you so afraid that Asians should receive the same consideration that blacks do?
You blabber on and rant about white conservatives trying to keep minorities down but hasn’t it been white liberals running most of the higher education while setting the standards for admission?
Spin-rooming,. . .anyone? Gap it all off, why don't cha. We will just have to work on those calloused conscience with renewed vigor! I know from experience that some of you all wish to pigeon-hole or "cubby-hole" discussions to where it can only affect liberals in the worst possible light, but that ain't how it works!
This case is about Affirmative Action and some conservatives long-range strategies to displace it and people of color once again. It would seem that some conservatives wish to pretend that the USA is 'best' say oh around 1776 (the 18th century) so why change? Well, it's obvious - - its' 2022 (the 21st century) and all citizens want equal and equitable representation and to come out of the shadows of the past! Dig?
We are not YOUR 'children' - some conservatives! We are as adult as you. And you will be compelled one way or another to accept it.
Who is we? So you speak for all people? For all black people now?
This case is about racial discrimination. The fact you don’t approve of citizens having their constitutional and civil rights not being violated is telling about you.
You will have to accept it.
No, it's telling about you and what you wish to try to pass off as discrimination and violation. But, I am not going to bicker with you. "We" now who might you think I am referring? Blacks, people of color, the Oppressed, and oh yeah - liberals. We don't need conservative 'parenting.' Just. Tell. The. Truth. I will agree and support any fact that is established - the bearer does not hinder me.
Keep. The. Spin. Thank you - NEXT!
You are bickering with US law not me. 😆
Carry on…
Most females don't live in and dwell on the past. They move forward.
I have been a very successful person in my life personally and financially. I could have gone the other way too, but I took the mindset of a person who knows that only I can make myself succeed with simply hard work and dedication, not the mindset of a victim regardless of any obstacles that I encounter.
I didn't piss and whine daily about preceding generations. They worked hard to make changes for the next generations and I shouldn't just piss it away by whining ever fucking day that I am victim and deserve special treatment.
I put in long days, months, and years for my success and anyone who wants more of my success becasue of their laziness and bs excuses of victimhood can foff as far as I am concerned.
Now, can you attest to doing all or any that while standing on one foot, or with one arm tied behind your back, or being handicapped by the government that feeds you just enough to stay alive, but not thrive or prosper? I don't think you can. Nice try, though. As a woman, I am sure your success is hard-won in our society, but do not think to lecture me about what blacks and people of color face simply because you wish to glaze over centuries of mistreatment and malice to stand on a 'soap-box' affirming, "I got mine!"
The rest of your comment is below the level of discussion I choose to sink to with you.
I just wonder what right wingers will use if any type of race considerations disappear and deserving people who make the grade end up filling colleges with a higher percentage minority enrollment than the quota system. Removing the quota cap may not give the results the right wing wants to see.
Then those on the left shouldn't be so worried, right?
I don't look for specific results--I just want fairness applied.
Of course you do! Some conservative credibility is near 'empty.'
You support changes in the access to voting in Texas - simply because it benefited liberals in 2020. Liberals got up and did the 'work' across the country (as requested by some conservatives) and how are they repaid: Not with congratulations, but with LIES!
Some conservatives couldn't win in court, so they do an end-run in the political arena and MANUFACTURE a fake narrative that liberals must be stealing votes (even though we can't evidence materially); therefore some conservative HAVE no other choice than to 'crack down' on voting rights and privileges.
Some conservatives you can't be trusted. It's just that simple. Lie too much! Lies can't ever masquerade as FAIRNESS. Lying is never FAIR.</For example>.
yes, you have that correct.
As are "some liberals" credibility.
Quote me saying that and you may begin to have a point. If you are just going to make shit up and attribute it to me--DON'T. That is intellectually lazy and morally bankrupt.
You seem to be ALL OVER the place here. Are voting laws related to college admissions or something now, and "some liberals" forgot to tell the rest if the world?
Do you even know what the article is about?
Texan, be brave. Stand up for your ideology. As for my comment @6.1.1. it began like this I even saw it 'posted' on my end as it posted like below.
"< For example > " . . . "< / For example > "
However, it is stripped of its opening 'For example.' That being a coding technique and value might have caused it 'extraction' from the comment. (It might not even reformat in this attempt.)
Anyway, I was TRYING to signify it was AN EXAMPLE.
That is what I have been doing. You must have skipped reading my posts thoroughly.
What. In. The. World. Is. That???
You are so far off the topic and aren't making any sense.
To quote you:
The only ones that give a rats ass about race is the left. And that's usually around election time. Oh wait, imagine that, midterms are coming up. It's pandering time.
The left will once again pander to the black community during campaign time, going to community centers, churches, etc, to suck up to that community.
If these idiots get elected, then they will magically forget about these communities and revert back to their normal racist ways, much like Biden is known for.
Hope the left remembers to put some hot sauce in their purses and remember to say "I ain't in no ways tired".
That's right, conservatives only care that blacks be. . . conservative. And nowadays, that translates to being Trump conservative. A class so special, not every conservative need apply! Talk about 'purity test': Trump yesterday, Trump today, Trump tomorrow.
@6.2.3. All for now.
@6.2.3 That is all.
ok????
THAT is simply hilarious after the left pillories EVERY conservative regardless of color. Usually they just call conservatives who are people of color "Uncle Toms" or Tio Thomas".
Wow, how shocking that you managed to get the childish dig in about Trump, even though no one was even talking about him. It is getting pretty old and worn out invoking Trump on every article.
Hilarious, you are routinely indeed! /s
And there it is. Who was talking about Trump? That's right, nobody. Well, except you. It's hilarious how all you leftists rant and rave about how conservatives "worship Trump", yet most of us don't mention him. It's always you liberals who allow the man to live rent free in your heads that bring him up. And it's usually when things aren't going the way you want them to.
LOL! You don't get to tell me if I can mention news narratives and "important" people in the news Jeremy. Just for shits and giggles I have a theory why some conservatives don't like to discuss Trump, he is now your "stealth" president abiding in the wings for a TAKEOVER while Americans are distracted on other stuff. Other than that, some conservatives can defend the Loser who won't stop giving. . . or is it taking?
Is there nothing leftists won't connect to Trump somehow?
There you are, right on schedule. Good morning, 'team'!
People without legitimate arguments often resort to invoking Trump even when he isn't the topic. I feel for those poor people.
And there you are, talking about Trump when no one else was because he isn't a part of the seeded article.
Oh get over yourself.
Theories like that are actually called "Conspiracy Theories". And you come up with that one all by yourself did you? And you wonder why people laugh at the left.
I wonder if it's like a tic like those who have Tourette's Syndrome have. It's involuntary and they just can't help themselves. Somebody goes against the lefts narrative and BAM there it is - they set their hair on fire babbling "TRUMP...TRUMP...TRUMP...TRUMP".
Maybe it's a fanboy situation. That they are so enamored with Trump that they have to talk about him all the time.
No, they make conscious decisions to drag Trump into every conversation. It is all they have, after all, because they damn sure can't tout any Biden "successes".
It also displays a severe lack of any cogent arguments for the topic at hand.
I don't worry much about the "Left," "Lefty," or what tickles the 'fat' on the rumps of the "Right" or "Righty" - Jeremy. It's all so. . . beneath any good standard of communication. (I only use it when compelled to make or emphasize a point.) What I want is for conservatives and liberals to come together. Neither group sets are going anywhere predictably soon, so for the sake of say, 'ordinary' citizens can we meet in the middle of politicians again and shut out the extremes (largely) on both sides of politics. If not:
"Long live Independents!"
In researching higher education stats, I found info on Harvard admissions. There were comments on the stats that some people might find interesting, entertaining and/or enlightening.
EXTRAORDINARY!
Come on guys, we all know that the way to get into an American university is to be a national all-star high school quarterback or be able to sink 10 3-pointers in a row, even if they they're stumped if you ask them to subtract 2 from 1. I don't think race or colour would have anything to do with that.
In Texas, all one has to do is to graduate in the top 10% of their class to be insured a place in a state-funded college. No athletic prowess required.
OK, lemme ask this question - SCOTUS is going to take up "race-based" admissions in college, right? So, how are they gonna handle Biden's "demand" that a "Black female" be selected to replace Beyer? Any discrimination there? How would/will the court react?
Presidential privilege? Worked for Donald 3x already! Honestly, it is all so surreal anyway. We seem to need to get judges in seats but the process is getting more convoluted in public all the time. Particularly, as politicians fight over every damn thing in sight and hearing of the public (which is trying desperately to stay out of political machinations and intrigue. Mitch McConnell tainted the pool and caused hard-feeling when he changed rules to stiiff democrats, Donald tainted the pool when promised to put "youthful hard-ass conservatives" on SCOTUS and now Biden committed to 'detailing' a black woman as a condition of his presidency and his confidence.
What comes next on SCOTUS 'watch'?
Didn't mention presidential privilege. Didn't mention Trump. Didn't mention McConnell. Only mentioned a dichotomy and paradigm - reviewing a race based selectee while ruling on a race based selection process.
So what? Are we now restricted to only discussing "pigeon-holed" monotonous talking points? Heavens no!
Some folks are simply incapable of discussing anything without bringing up Trump.
It is an old, worn-out, tired tactic to divert conversations when they have no other legitimate, sane argument.
You can answer your own question by reviewing what Reagan did. Reagan announced that he was going to nominate a woman to the court, cited his reasons, and did so. Did Reagan discriminate against men when he made that 'gender-based' choice?
And he did that while the court is weighing arguments over race based school admissions??
Apples/Oranges Dulay - don't go off tangent.
WTF does what the SCOTUS is hearing NOW have to do with who will be on the court during the NEXT term of the SCOTUS?
Hint: Nothing.
Obtuse comment 1st.
Sorry it was too specific for you, but the issue/point I'm making, is that right now, SCOTUS is hearing a case dealing with shutting down race based admissions for schools. At the same time, Biden STATES that he is going to fill Beyer's slot with a Black Female - which is a race, gender based decision.
Kinda wrong timing.
Ya, got that 1st. AND?
That's YOUR opinion 1st.
Did I miss it when you decried the 'raced, gender based decision' when Biden nominated Deb Haaland, the first Native American woman, to lead the Interior?
IMHO, it was LONG overdue, just like nominating an African American woman to the SCOTUS.
No time like the present.
What 'quota' is he fulfilling, Istwarrior. Think it through, okay?
70% of Asian Americans support affirmative action. Here's why misconceptions persist.
According to the national 2020 Asian American Voter Survey , which examined almost 1,570 voters, targeting the six largest national origin groups, found that 70 percent of Asian Americans supported affirmative action, while 16 percent opposed it. Chinese Americans, who were the least likely of the ethnicities to back the program, still favored it at a majority of 56 percent.
Data on Harvard’s own admissions shows that race-conscious admissions have benefitted all communities, including Asian Americans, producing a more diverse student body, Yang said.
Harvard’s admissions statistics show that the share of its admitted class that is Asian American has grown by 27 percent since 2010, according to the university's response to the lawsuit. When looking at its class of 2023, Asian Americans make up more than 25 percent, while Latinx students comprise just over 12 percent and Black students constitute more than 14 percent.
A history of being used as a wedge against other minority students
SFFA, led by white conservative activist Edward Blum, has continued to position Asian Americans in opposition to other minorities through the case, Yang said. After U.S. Circuit Judge Sandra Lynch ruled that Harvard’s use of race was not “impermissibly extensive” and was instead “meaningful” to ensure diversity did not drop among its student body, Blum said in a statement that he would call on the Supreme Court “to end these unfair and unconstitutional race-based admissions policies at Harvard and all colleges and universities.”
“Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders have been used as a wedge and certain groups have purposefully showcased Asian American dissent to affirmative action as a way of masking their anti-Black and anti-Latino agendas,” Yang explained. “Such efforts hide the fact that most opponents of affirmative action are really trying to increase the number of Caucasian students at the expense of Black, Latino and Native American applicants.”
Read more at link below:Race should not be a factor for admittance.
In a relatively normal nation seeking positive outcomes for all its citizens race becomes muted. But, that is not the basis for this court case. Call it what it is: Some conservatives are arguing for regressive policy and a return to the 18th century model of America.
Some "Progressives" are arguing the same point - where's your outrage over that?
We're discussing affirmative action; Texan1211 is arguing a GOP 'talking point.' Note the distinction, okay? I have no clue what progressives offsite are stating as I have been glued to this board. Are those progressives debating affirmative action or race?
No kidding. Who said it was?
Sure thing. A case to keep race from being used as a deciding factor for college admissions.
Plain enough?
You clearly have no clue what I have been writing despite reading it.
Please enlighten us all with whatever "GOP talking point" you have dreamt I am arguing--'cuz it's news to me!!!
They don't have to go back to the 18th century model of America CB. All they need is to go back to the first half of the 20th century in which minorities and women were denied entrance into the majority of colleges in this country.
If, as is claimed ad nauseum, they want to eliminate race in admissions, they can't ignore legacy admission practices, which historically give white students an advantage and subverts the purely merit-based admission practices they claim to desire.
14% of Harvard's admissions are legacy based.
Legacy. . . that is the word I was looking for and could not remember. I kept coming up with "grandfather or grandfathering" and I knew it was not quite right. Thank you.
When it comes to race, "all of a sudden," some conservatives want to tell me, us, how to 'get it right" with a pretense of "color-blindness." All that whole 'act' is - is an attempt to posture the constitution in its original form (18th century) provides equality for all (it does, and it does not) therefore, EQUITY is not necessary (it is.).
Some conservatives are smooth, manipulative, talkers with lots of "length" (I-Me) discussions; little or none of "breadth" (I-You) discussions-mentioned by Dr. King in his speeches and sermons.
Back in 2003 the heir to the Johnson and Johnson fortune Jamie Johnson did a documentary: "Born Rich."
Here is a clip from it still online, even though some of the rich participants are (now) embarrassed for having 'over-shared.' But, to your legacy point-see 27 minutes in the video for sure! Also, Ivanka Trump did a segment or two in this as well.
Born Rich (2003 documentary)
First, I will to be clear, I do not indict these young "elites" for being born with high social status, more power to them. We all need to see how being generationally rich can affect some children of the wealthy, nevertheless.
Overall, what I feel about these young people (obviously much older now possibly with families) is how "neurotic?" and "difficult?" having access to excessive wealth is fro them-even as to how they should navigate grade schools and colleges.
Asians are being used to make the case against affirmative action. Again.
We are cast as victims in a pernicious story about race.
. . . .
The “racial mascoting” of Asians
The use of Asian Americans as a political prop isn’t new.
In the mid-1980s, Asian-American groups started to uncover admissions practices that hurt Asian applicants. Eventually, top schools like Stanford and Brown conceded there was real bias against Asians in their admissions policies.
The Reagan administration saw an opportunity in these controversies.
William Bradford Reynolds, then the head of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division and a longtime opponent of affirmative action, said in a 1988 speech that Asian Americans faced discrimination because of efforts to help other minority groups:
But Asian-American leaders were horrified that their cause was being co-opted by conservatives to dismantle policies that helped other racial minorities — and they refused to play the part.
UC Berkeley professor L. Ling-Chi Wang wrote to Reynolds , “At no time has anyone in the Asian American community linked these concerns to the legitimate affirmative action program for the historically discriminated, underrepresented minorities.”
Law professor and activist Mari Matsuda argued Asians shouldn’t be used to “deny educational opportunities to the disadvantaged and to preserve success only for the privileged.”
Race shouldn't be a factor for admittance.
In a relatively normal nation seeking positive outcomes for all its citizens race becomes muted. But, that is not the basis for this court case. Call it what it is: Some conservatives are arguing for regressive policy and a return to the 18th century model of America.
Sure.
read post 11.1.5 for all the good it will do.
I need to point out this: @ 12 is so comprehensive on this topic of affirmative action and stats that it deserves a deep-dive beyond what I can reasonable post in a comment. Give it a good read everybody who really cares!
When Affirmative Action was White : an untold history of racial inequality in twentieth-century America
/ Ira Katznelson [ppgs. 20-21.]
Location: Internet Archive website.
Excerpt:
As the great agent of social policy change in the New Deal and postwar periods, this Democratic Party partnership of "strange bedfellows" produced a series of "strange deals" that, together, constituted a program of affirmative action granting white Americans privileged access to state-sponsored economic mobility. The South used its legislative powers to transfer its priorities about race to Washington. It's leaders imposed them, with little resistance, on New Deal policies. Even at the height of the New Deal, the Democratic Party required southern acquiescence to the national program. Rising to oppose a 1940 anti-lynching bill, Congressman John Rankin of Mississippi cautioned northern Democrats to
“Remember that southern Democrats now have the balance of power in both Houses of Congress. By your conduct you may make it impossible for us to support many of you for importantt committee assignments, and other positions to which you aspire. . . . You Democrats who are pushing this vicious measure [1940 anti-lynching bill] are destroying your usefulness here. . . . The Republicans would be delighted to see you cut President Roosevelt’s throat politically, and are therefore voting with you on this vicious measure. . . . They know that if he signs it, it will ruin him in the Southern states; and that if he vetoes it, they can get the benefit of the Negro votes this vicious measure would inflict in the North.”
Their advantageous situation made it possible for southern members of Congress to support Democratic Party legislation provided the integrity of the South’s matrix would remain unquestioned as a matter of “local option.” During the depression and the Second World War, southerners in Congress were forced to embark on a great balancing act. They were reassured by the apparent resemblance between the New Deal and Woodrow Wilson’s New Freedom, when Jim Crow had been strengthened, and were enthusiastic about the much-needed bounty federal public spending could provide. Concurrently, they distrusted an enhanced central state because they worried that its agencies would be placed in the hands of administrators from other regions who would possess a great deal of discretion.
Further, with the glimmerings of the civil rights protest, early pro-civil rights decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, and support for civil rights decisions by some leading Democrats, southern anxiety continued to grow throughout the 1930s and 1940s. “Our position is desperate,” Georgia’s Richard Russell wrote to his fellow senator, Sam Ervin of North Carolina, “for we are hopelessly outnumbered. But we are not going to yield an inch.” They did not.
The South’s representatives-built ramparts within the policy initiatives of the New Deal and the Fair Deal to safeguard their region’s social organization. They accomplished this aim by making the most of their disproportionate numbers on committees, by their close acquaintance with legislative rules and procedures, and by exploiting the gap between the intensity of their feeling and the relative indifference of their fellow members of Congress.
indifference of their fellow members of Congress.
[IMPORTANT:]
They used three mechanisms.
First, whenever the nature of the legislation permitted, they sought to leave out as many African-Americans as they could. They achieved this not by inscribing race into law but by writing provisions that, in Robert Lieberman’s language, were racially laden.
The most important instances concerned categories of work in which blacks were heavily over over-represented, notably farm workers and maids. These groups—constituting more than 60 percent of the black labor force in the 1930s and nearly 75 percent of those who were employed in the South—were EXCLUDED from the legislation that created:
modern unions, from laws that set minimum wages, regulated the hours of work, and, from Social Security until the 1950s.
Second, they successfully insisted that the administration of these and other laws, including assistance to the poor and support for veterans, be placed in the hands of local officials who were deeply hostile to black aspirations.
Over and over, the bureaucrats who were handed authority by Congress used their capacity to shield the southern system from challenge and disruption.
Third, they prevented Congress from attaching any sort of anti-discrimination provisions to a wide array of social welfare programs such as community health services, school lunches, and hospital construction grants, indeed all the programs that distributed monies to their region.
AS A CONSEQUENCE, at the very moment when a wide array of public policies was providing most white Americans with valuable tools to advance their social welfare – insure their old age, get good jobs, acquired economic security, build assets, and gain middle-class status – most black Americans were left behind or left out.
Affirmative action then was white.
New national policies enacted in the pre-civil rights, last gasp era of Jim Crow constituted a massive transfer of quite specific privileges to white Americans. New programs produced economic and social opportunity for favored constituencies and thus widened the gap between white and black Americans in the aftermath of the Second World War.
And the effects, as we will see, did not stop after the discriminaton codes were swept aside by the civil rights movement and the legislation it aspired.
Where are those southern Democrats 'partied up' today? Inside the Republican Party where 'states's rights' and obstacles to African-American advancement is stifled on a day, week, month, and year effort. They, southern Democrats, split from the Democratic Party when President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of the 1960s.
Yep. This is a devastating argument against those who think merit is always rewarded. US history is littered with examples of people of color losing out because of their skin color.
It happens to this very day as conservatives and some conservatives throw up 'roadblocks,' obfuscate, deny, delay, attach "poisonous" clauses and deadlines, and other sorts of strategic 'claw-backs' with intentional designs on "x-ing" out advancement or to make aid ineffective for whole portions of the citizenry.
And no sooner than they 'seat' a majority of conservative judges here they are seeking to regress the nation (for certain groups) again! That is the "conservative way"!
Note our resident 'some conservatives' have no comment about where southern Democrats new political 'digs' reside today: In the Republican Party; seated parallel to Libertarians!
The southern democrats who were any part of segregation and Jim Crow are all passed on. Most all did do as democrats to the day they passed. It was the northern migration to the sunbelt since the early 1970’s that gradually turned the south Republican along with the 1980’s transformation of evangelicals from non political or democrat to republicans because of Reagan and abortion along with gun rights.
That is simply because "some conservatives" are far too smart to fall into the left's spin on politics in the South, as that pet theory has been debunked.
Nope. Just continue to observe Republicans, conservatives, Jim Crow 2.0, the party of states' rights (used for oppression) and all is revealed. Not only did the Dixiecrats dissolve into the republican party-they remain there today. Just look at the map!
Biden spoke out of his ass when he called laws "Jim Crow".
Republicans don't want a return of the Democratic Party's heydays of real Jim Crow.
Ok so, I enter a room, find the only seat in the place just happens to be between two devout progressive liberals...
According to this statement since I sat down and took the seat, I'm now a devout progressive liberal... Instantaneously just cause I sat down....
Interesting, your proximity to people of a certain political belief rubs off I suppose on everyone around them... Instantly transforming them into the evil I fight... Just because he sat down to have a listen to what's happening...
You see when we talk about being vilified cause we simply don't agree, it is because of attitudes like this...
No wonder those good ol' boys would throw black paint and ink or oil on us when we were marching, they were illustrating that it rubbed off on us... We know where Jim Crow 2.0 resides..
Libertarians do not appear (to me) to be changing or calling out Trumpism. If so, try harder. At the least, you are not denying the 'southern democrats' racist mindset is in the GOP. Because southern democrat racist mindset certainly departed the Democratic Party.
Departed???
On what planet????
The Dixie rats did not dissolve into the Republican Party.
Sheesh...
It can appear to you to be anything you want it to... [deleted...] I didn't vote for the man, if that's not good enough non support for you, Tough Shit....
Try Harder? you need to try harder at moving towards the center like you were exhorting everyone else to, Ahem, YOU and YOUR positions, are not the center, they are a pretty substantial distance to the left...
Another thing, YOUR opinions are not the truth, no matter how much you claim them to be...
Thou doth protesteth too much! You are a conservative; Donald Trump masquerades as one of you in his continuing campaign to be the first U.S. dictator. And you shallowly pick fights with "freedom lovers" - next thing you know you will try to convince me that Dr. King and Coretta King (may God be pleased with them) were they alive today would be facilitating the efforts of a republican conservative ignoramus and blabbermouth named Donald J. Trump as you sat across from the man—looking and smelling for all the politics like Trumpism. In case I am not clear: The King's and Family would not be a republican or conservative in agreement with Trumpism.
Oh, and libertarian, do you support wage floors, minimum wage scales (of any kind), or "catch as catch can" for employees of companies? It's a fair question on policy prescriptions or lack thereof.
My God! you do live in a liberal phantasy world don't you... That is one hell of a rationalized mental construct you have there...
Freedom lover, hardly... A freedom lover rejects hate... The spiel quoted above, is nothing but hate... Not trying to convince you of anything, the phantasy you live under as expressed above abhors anything rational that would conflict with your preconceived notions of right and wrong...Good and bad, and the biases they represent as well...
I learned a long time ago there is no point in having a discussion with someone that lives in a rationalized phantasy world...
I will not join your phantasy world, you can live in it all alone...
Enjoy...
Where on God's green earth did you pick THAT up from?
It is hard to take your posts seriously when you post that kind of idiocy.
Trump idealism is for libertarians too. Sinister and downright dirty use of freedom of association. No one is forcing libertarians to 'house' with Trumpists and Trump ideology. Stand up for right that is proper for people and saving this country, not for some lousy SOB with a big, flapping, set of lips that he can't humble. We would not know Trump was such a fool, but he can't or won't shut up! No matter some conservatives feed off the shit which is his injustices to all!
It would be nice if liberals did stand up for what is right and fair, and didn't take their lead from some incoherent babbling person trying to play president...
Here I re-wrote this part for ya....
Makes perfect sense stated this way as well... Most pointless blanket pejorative statements do....
Reveals a very weak opinion argument not founded in any true reality...
Except truth is true and lies are lies. It is up to people to DISCERN, DISTINGUISH, fact from error and other tomfoolery.
But the problem lies in the only discerning or distinguishing you will contemplate as valid is that which agrees with yours...
It's called biases.... You have yours and I have mine... And it is pretty apparent they will never meet in the middle... (despite your calls for such, your biases/beliefs aren't the middle)
Neither is mine for that matter, problem is I see that mine aren't, you have convinced yourself that yours are...
Nothing is going to be resolved here, there is no further point to converse over... So why don't we just go our separate ways I'll let you have the last word, as pointless and predictable as it will be...
When Affirmative Action was White : an untold history of racial inequality in twentieth-century America
/ Ira Katznelson [ppgs. 122-124.]
Location: Internet Archive website.
Excerpt:
When Walter White, Executive secretary of the NAACP wrote to President Roosevelt on October 5, 1944, four months after passage, to stress that" one of the most important instrumentalities toward assurance of equality of opportunity without regard to race, creed, color, or national origin will be the Veterans Administration and the implementation by the Bureau of the . . .G. I. Bill of Rights Act,” his words reflected a mixture of expectations and anxiety. His hope lay in unimpeded access to material resources greater than any since Reconstruction, when citizen-soldiers similarly benefited.
His disquiet was based on a deep familiarity with American racism and its understanding that the new law was vulnerable to Jim Crow.
It did not take long for reports of obstacles based on race to appear. “The discharged negro GI who returns to Lubbock [Texas] is having difficulty securing a home loan, “one such story reported, in June 1945. Another from Los Angeles recounted how nineteen black Seabees who had been discharged without a hearing after complaining about “intolerable Jim Crow conditions at the Caribbean bases” had written to the secretary of the Navy “to ask for ‘rights’ under the G.I. Bill.” A third from Atlanta described how a delegation “told the Veterans Administration on Friday that Negro soldiers in the South are discouraged from enjoying the benefits of the ‘GI Bill of Rights.’ They are voicing the views of more than a million Negro servicemen and women, the majority of whom came out of the South.”
How could a program open to all veterans take this turn? The 1947 convention of the United Negro and Allied Veterans of America, a left-oriented group, tried its hand at an answer. It declared firmly that “racial prejudice” in the South “prevents the Negro veteran from securing full benefits under the GI bill.” But such a general explanation, true as it was, lacked one crucial political dimension.
It missed how the conversion of bigoted values into racist practices had been built into the law’s design and administration from the start. The deep contradiction between color-blind benefits and profoundly biased allotments of resources invites closer examination.
The GI Bill was crafted in the main by the Committee of World War Legislation in the House of Representatives, which was chaired by John Rankin of Mississippi, one of the chamber’s most unashamed racists (he was something of a thug, openly anti-black , anti-Jewish, and anti-Catholic). Guided by the model of a administrative decentralization that the South had achieved in earlier New Deal laws, Rankin led the drafting of a law that left responsibility for implementation mainly to the states and localities, including, of course, those that practiced official racism without compromise.
The main forerunner to the GI Bill had been the unevenly organized benefits for health care, vocational rehabilitation, disability payments, and survivor’s benefits provided for First World War veterans and their dependents between 1918 and 19828.
Three features of this legacy affected the shape of the new GI Bill.
First, unhappiness among veterans with its often-amateurish administration led to the creation of the House committee chaired by Rankin.
Second, the direct federal welfare provisions that had been offered to families of soldiers during the war had unsettled many white southerners, who observed that with money in their pockets, black women often refused to take on menial household work and black youngsters stayed away from the fields. The supply of maids and farmworkers thus had diminished for a time. Rankin worked hard to avoid a repetition.
Third, it gave rise both to the creation of a Veterans Bureau in Washington in 1921 (the Bureau became the Veterans Administration in 1930) and to a powerful American Legion, both of which sought to build support for munificent social provisions by appealing primarily to middle-and working- class whites in all parts of the country.
Moreover, officials at the Legion (which, like the Veterans of Foreign Wars, countenanced segregation and lacked any black leaders except in all-black posts) and the Veterans Administration (whose hospitals and housing was racially segregated) knew that legislation for veterans had to pass through southern hands and garner southern backing in Congress.
To cultivate this support, they made clear that they were DISINCLINED to challenge the region’s race relations and enforce equal treatment for all veterans.
And they joined Rankin and his fellow southern representatives to oppose proposals put forward by the administration for a postwar program to be fully directed from Washington.
The suggestion by Roosevelt’s National Resources Planning Board that postwar demobilization and benefits for veterans should be managed by a “strong central directive agency,” with responsibility “for the integration of the administration of all Federal agencies engaged in the post-war readjustment of civilian and military personnel,” was anathema to the South.
“We have endeavored to assure a measure of states' rights in the legislation wherein control of many of the features of the bill will still rest with individual states.” In writing to his deputy, he further stressed that in the version he preferred, the one that passed into law, the VA would take care not to disturb arrangements within the South. Devolving administrative responsibilities to the state level would leave flexible discretion in the hands of white district officers to manage the law as they thought appropriate under local conditions.
The alliance of the Rankin-led South, the VA, and the Legion produced a bill combining generosity to veterans with provisions for the dispersion of administrative responsibilities that were designed to shield Jim Crow.
|||||
Historical example of the G.I. Bill meant for good but twisted by conservatives in Congress to disadvantage Black Americans and holding Blacks down (oppression), while extending "affirmative action" to White Americans!
Note the 'red states' are in play then and now. Take stock of the mention of "states' rights" as policy. All republican party today!
Of course you would quote Katznelson, I wouldn't expect anything less... given what you post... He wrote the bible of rationalizing racist history for the political liberal elites... He's about 10 steps to the left of Richard Hofstadter
The laws you were talking about came about through democrat congresses under democrat presidents with liberal administrators...
Yeah I'm familiar with the racist slant liberals put on things... I've been reading it for decades... John E. Rankin was a life long democrat a huge supporter of Roosevelts "New Deal", but if you read his wiki page you would think he was a staunch republican conservative... He was also the supervisor of the house negotiations over the GI Bill...
PROBLEM IS HE WAS A LIBERAL DEMOCRAT! the GI Bill was created by primarily Liberal Democrats...
The rewriting of true history to support an alternative racist historical narrative blaming the political opposition of this huge conspiracy goes on.....
You forget, I'm a historian myself.... I've read most of the major historian's writings and many of the political commentator's crap as well...
Push that conservative racist states rights bullshit somewhere else...
Of course at that point in history (1940) southern democrats were DEMOCRATS. Never hinted any difference. THAT DOES NOT GIVE YOU LIBERTY TO say that a southern democrat was liberal. That would be a untruth.
THE POINT SINCE YOU KEEP LETTING IT SLIDE OVER YOUR HEAD: Southern states are republican states to this day and the same dumb ass strategies and tactics are in play in congress right. this. very. day. on. the. republican. side.
Libertarians support states' rights, too! Admit it. Stop playing childish untruth games with yourself.
As for a the writer of the book, writers write. Does not change history when it is true. You should take a lesson from conservative writers you quote.
That's why I read all sides, so I can tell the bullshit from the truth... I don't accept any writers words for rote, but it sure seems you do...
I have to know a writers biases before I will ajudge what his intent is, what is he trying to convey, is it the truth or is he pushing an agenda...
Katznelson pushes an agenda, you accept that agenda as fact and truth... And since that IS the way you flow, (only reading that which supports and reinforces your own prejudices and biases) anything you exhort has to be viewed at least as biased as the original authors...
You putting forth a biased vision of reality and anyone that disagrees with you you pigeon hole as someone less than you... An enemy so to speak... and when you eventually get to the point where all else fails, you dismiss them as less than yourself...
Problem is, to those who can follow the conversation, it is you that is less than yourself... Your bias has become the most important thing to you...
Which is sad.... It is always sad when someone pigeon holes themselves like you have done to yourself here...
Truly sad...
Nothing left to discuss, time to shut it down...
Please, Trump supporter, you words might have more validity if you were not CONNECTED to a wanna-be dictator. Project this!
Keep letting nothing get through. . . I will keep working on a MOAB or 'bunker buster' for Trumpists.
In the truest sense, civil rights laws should not have been necessary for honest people. So why were they, civil rights laws necessary? Is it for the same reasons that affirmative action is necessary: A great wrong has been done to people of color in this country, specifically Black Americans , and conservatives in our country time and time again put on display their obsession with holding down black achievements and opportunities to advance beyond poverty class. Perhaps some conservatives feel threatened that given equity in the system, black American will continue to rise in class and individual status?