After Supreme Court affirmative action ruling, scholarships targeted
By: USA TODAY
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Alia WongUSA TODAY
Corrections & Clarifications: This article was revised on July 7, 2023, to clarify that Walter M. Kimbrough is no longer the president of Dillard University.
The Supreme Court's decision last week banning affirmative action in college admissions says nothing about scholarships, but aid tied to students' race is already off the table at several large universities.
In Missouri, the attorney general directed all colleges to "immediately" stop considering race in scholarships, and in Kentucky, the flagship university's president suggested the institution should do the same. Even in purple Wisconsin, the assembly's Republican speaker alluded to forthcoming legislation that would ban race-conscious financial aid.
Advocates say these scholarships are one of the few levers colleges have left to be proactive about enrolling students of color now that they can no longer consider race as one of many factors in admissions. That's especially true as institutions in some states also roll back diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs - and as young people nationwide question the worth of taking on student loan debt.
"The assault on affirmative action was simply the foundation to go after everything," tweeted Walter M. Kimbrough, former president of Dillard University in Louisiana. "Affirmative action bans won't have the reach that ending these scholarship programs will."
Race largely has been a factor in admissions only at the nation's most selective, elite universities. Scholarships that consider students' race or ethnicity are widely available.
A divide only growing:The college-going gap between Black and white Americans was always bad. It's getting worse.
Shortly after the court issued its ruling, Andrew Bailey, Missouri's Republican attorney general, sent a letter to all the state's colleges, public and private, ordering them to implement the decisions "immediately."
"All Missouri programs that make admitting decisions by disfavoring individuals based on race - not just college admissions, but also scholarships, employment, law reviews, etc. - must immediately adopt race-blind standards," he wrote.
The University of Missouri system, which doesn't practice affirmative action in admissions and is predominantly white, has at least until recently offered scholarships that considered race as one of many factors. In response to the letter, it stated: "Those practices will be discontinued, and we will abide by the new Supreme Court ruling concerning legal standards that applies to race-based admissions and race-based scholarships."
Last year, 5.5% of MU's students were Black and 5.3% were Hispanic. Fewer than 3% identified as Asian. Just 5% of the university's total spending on scholarships last year went toward aid for people of color.
Similar developments are brewing in Kentucky.
"We are still reviewing the details of the ruling, but, based on our initial understanding, it appears that the court has restricted the consideration of race with respect to admissions and scholarships," Eli Capilouto, the University of Kentucky's president, said last Thursday.
Also on Thursday, Robin Vos, the Republican speaker of Wisconsin's state assembly, indicated he'd work to abolish such scholarships in his state. Vos was responding to a tweet arguing numerous higher education aid programs in the state amount to discrimination under the court's ruling. The tweeter, an attorney and alumnus of the conservative Christian Hillsdale College, pointed to grants earmarked for Black American students, American Indian students, and students of Hispanic or certain Southeast Asian descents.
"We are reviewing the decision and will introduce legislation to correct the discriminatory laws on the books and pass repeals in the fall," Vos tweeted Thursday afternoon, also retweeting a user claiming Ivy League colleges "hate rural whites."
This "apparent push to end minority scholarships is thinly veiled white "revanchism," wrote MSNBC blogger Ja'han Jones.
After the ruling, Ed Blum, the architect of the cases challenging Harvard's and the University of North Carolina's affirmative action programs, said, "Virtually all race-exclusive scholarships were already illegal as I understand the law. But whatever confusion there may have been before the (Students for Fair Admissions) ruling, it is correct that race-exclusive fellowships, scholarships, and general educational programs must end."
Henock Solomon, 26, is a rising third-year law student at the University of Colorado Boulder. Since his days as a K-12 student, scholarships have given him educational opportunities he wouldn't have had otherwise. These scholarships, some of which were designated for African Americans, allowed him to attend private school, earn his undergraduate degree and enroll in law school.
Had it not been for that aid, Solomon says, he would have had to "completely reevaluate what I want to do." "It's very hard for us to get into these advanced fields because of the costs and because of the time," he said. Getting rid of them "will further perpetuate a pipeline and a system where the only people who have the opportunity to be in those fields are people who come from good financial situations."
Even as states including Missouri unwind race-based scholarships, however, many colleges and organizations have reiterated their commitment to scholarships and other programs aimed at making campuses more diverse.
Charles Barkley, the TV commentator and former NBA player, said he would be updating his will to leave Auburn University in Alabama $5 million for scholarships for Black students. "That's just my way of trying to make sure Auburn stays diverse," he said of his alma mater. More than 3 in 4 students or 78% at the land-grant institution are white.
Even before affirmative action ban,Many flagship universities didn't reflect their state's Black or Latino high school grads
Given the racial disparities even at public universities like Auburn, the stakes of these scholarships, advocates say, have never been higher. Citing those stakes, legal and financial aid experts are urging colleges and state leaders to be cautious with their directives.
"The SCOTUS opinion was squarely focused on institutions' admissions policies," Justin Draeger, president and CEO of the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators, told the online publication Inside Higher Ed. "The highest court in the country took months to deliberate on this issue, and schools should similarly consider any implications on financial aid ... (and) be careful about overreacting."
Contact Alia Wong at (202) 507-2256 or awong@usatoday.com. Follow her on Twitter at @aliaemily.
Featured Weekly Ad
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Tags
Who is online
97 visitors
Isn't this really how it should be?
Public universities should not grant scholarships for anything other than achievement or financial need.
I think scholarships provided by the university itself should be race blind, if that is even truly possible. My only issue with this is this policy will also HEAVILY favor those kids with access to better schools and resources since most of the time they will outperform those without those same resources even if the other person is just as good or just as smart. This would also have to side effect of reducing aid going to historically disadvantaged communities, which tend to be minority communities.
But that should not apply to any private scholarships.
Agreed. Surely it should be constitutionally valid for private individuals/corporations to apply scholarship funds for any legal reason they should wish.
Can you even imagine the outrage if a school offered a scholarship that only white people were eligible for?
Yes. You.
Like hockey scholarships?
that doesn't make sense.
please tell me you aren't so racist as to think blacks don't play hockey.
Yes it does.
dream on!
I have always indicated that intelligence and achievement should be the qualification to guide the awarding of scholarships - encourage the most brilliant and productive to benefit the nation.
What about the rest. . . who don't have legacy family, faculty "family and friends," or "old money," or "networks," or "friends with benefits," or any of a number of other "ins" into society? What are they supposed to do in a country that is varied in its citizenship?
This is the United States and some people (largely conservatives) can pretend they are fighting for equality in all areas of society, but it is a big lie.
Worse, these fools somehow think they are going to win by putting those they class as "outsiders" back into "the Box." I have a strong feeling that this time it won't work. People are smarter than they were before-smarter than ever-and this time we know how to succeed.
Case in point: Look at 'little' Ukraine kicking Russia's 'oversized' ass around like Godzilla rolling over king Gidorah and 'company.'
Nuclear Godzilla vs King Ghidorah | Godzilla: King of the Monsters [4k, HDR]
As I said, IMO making sure the most brilliant, talented and intelligent receive whatever is necessary to make sure that the best and brightest are enabled to help the nation to be the best and brightest, whatever colour the student might be. My father paid for my higher education and even with student loans I helped pay for my kids' education. I see nothing wrong with that. But with Japan dumping radioactive water in the Pacific maybe we really WILL see a Nuclear Godzilla one day.
Oh, and as for "the rest", either they pay their way, take out student loans if necessary, and If they don't qualify for university, go to trade school - learn a trade with which to make a living, and if nothing else, join the military.
The most brilliant, talented, and intelligent do receive higher educations one way or another. If you are suggesting that only the "most brilliant, talented, and intelligent should receive such opportunities, then you are establishing a caste system.
There are people in this U.S. society who are literally held back/held down/"otherized" (this is talked about in the media all the time so I won't rehash it here) and since this happened in our nation's past and due to changing politics is certainly getting ready to happen again - some support groups and programs are needful in our society. As for student loans all the "needy" students have them in their education packages to a degree or another.
BTW, this country can not maintain its status among nations if it won't help to lift its citizens our of the status quo of "low expectations" simply because it wants to PRETEND not to see the problem for what it is.
3.1.12 and all applicants granted Affirmative Action have qualifying scores to get into colleges and universities. Let's clear that up; the point/s given a student for ethnicity and race is to increase the diversity on campuses due to societal and political factors from the nation's past and soon to be present.
Pretending that there aren't opportunities for all to succeed won't fix your imaginary problems.
If someone with lower test scores is allowed in because of their race while someone scoring higher is denied based on their race, then where in the hell is the equity in that?
Listen to the lyrics of the song from the consciousness era of music, because the times they are a'coming again to remind this nation that people have to help its entire population rather than pushing some impractical ideology which says there are forces in this country which are working to keep other people down and are waging societal war against their fellow citizens! And have been doing so nonstop.
Yeah, this whole shtick about keeping people down and taking their rights away isn't persuasive.
Now, if just once you could provide some proof for these claims.
I don't ever see it happening, to be honest.
Affirmative Action was a tool to help make winners in underprivileged communities due to a variety of negative circumstances, in this context, societal inflicted on minorities by this nation's majority. Conservatives actually seek a return to that?
You do understand what an UNDERPRIVILEGED COMMUNITY set of dynamics, issues, and problems mean, right? If the nation does not use other social tools to self-correct problems in our system...the issues and problems of the past will return/get worse! It is common-sense that if you don't fix corrupted matters in society they will not fix themselves!
One more thing, it is a myth that there opportunities for "all" to succeed in this country, because for one thing there are people (namely conservatives) who keep passing policies in and out that lead to community divide, struggles, and more poverty.
AA is no longer necessary. No special treatment because of race.
THAT is TRUE equality!
I am not sure you are being honest. Because I discern that you not too young to remember the Sixties and all the years of struggle and progress for this entire nation to get to where it is today. And you have the gall to call it a "Shtick" - now that's just ideological stupidity!
It is nothing but schtick in today's world.
AA is discrimination.
Why do you believe you deserve special, disparate treatment?
Is there or has there ever been a problem you don't lay at conservatives' feet?
Says you. And you are? Universities and colleges see what you label (negative) discrimination as needed diversity on their campuses and in the business world. Holding to an impractical ideology instead of making our society work for all by doing what it takes to make it work for all its people is dumb.
Diversity can happen naturally now, no need for special, disparate treatment of any race.
Discrimination is discrimination no matter how you try to justify it.
I didn't label anything as (negative) discrimination, I called out discrimination for what it is---special treatment based on race.
I am reminded about something I read about the "Make America Great Again" mouth spouter: Donald J. Trump:
So you see this evidence of why blacks and other minorities need "special" treatment NOW?! It's all because of sick, disturbed, bigots who won't let society alone to properly integrate and 'melt' into one people. Then and now! A "hero" on the right was busted for being a lousy obstructionist to COLOR-BLINDNESS, as clearly Trump and his minions could SEE color people (of all kinds) and practiced SEGREGATION against them.
I don' t lay problems at conservatives' feet that they don't cause for the rest of humanity and society. Stop messing around in innocent people's lives and conservatives can't be blamed: Can they?!
Spin all you want. Court date are a'coming.
Laughable nonsense, of course.
The only spinning is coming from you, trying to justify discrimination.
SCOTUS has spoken, so once again I have no earthly idea what court dates you are referring to since you didn't name any cases or when and where these cases are being heard.
There is no need to be so cryptic. If you know of such court cases NAME them.
Look, I get your obsession with Trump, I really do, and realize you just can't control dragging him along beside you everywhere you go.
AA is dead, sir, long live justice.
Think of it this way; it won't take the usual suspects long before they get caught red-handed stealing and cheating a minority group out of its rights, privileges, and positions in this society. Then, it's back to the courts for new decisions. Watch. This. Space.
Apparently, lawsuits are all this country has left that works—properly.
I am sick and tired of all your innuendo that you fling around sans any facts to support such crackpot theories.
It is a ridiculous argument that can't hold water.
And every single time anyone ask you to elaborate and tell us what rights you lost, you clam up or disappear.
And I realize you can't help defend the indefensible. The "hero" on the Right was a prime problem-maker who divided the citizens of this country by color codes ; evidently, you can't see how UN-COLOR-BLIND the leader of the republican ticket was/is. Or, maybe it's just too hard for you to admit it.
You don't have to discuss it any farther. I get it. The truth can be too much at times. And the point has been made.
I am curious as to what the hell you think I am defending here.
Discrimination is just that and I am not the one defending it here---you are under the guise of AA.
And if you are naive enough to think racial problems started with Trump, then I gave you too much credit before.
You're digressing and falling back on propaganda myth now. Let's move on. We have a topic in front of us to discuss farther.
So you admit there are racial problems? About damn time! So much for "imaginary problems," (It's all propaganda with you all.)
Let's not. I am growing bored with the usual tactics--making claims without facts, then getting pissy when called out on the same claims because you can NOT justify discrimination no matter how hard you try.
Don't try that crap with me any more.
Never once have I denied it but I am sure you 'read' somewhere that I did.
When will YOU be able to admit that AA is discrimination?
Positive discrimination which seeks to correct past wrongs and malfeasant conduct is constructive, not destructive. Though, it is evident, you would like to PRETEND to not comprehend the difference/s. Try to be share authentic truth going forward.
yes, I damn sure wrote that, and thanks for quoting me.
The imaginary problems are your insistence that you have lost rights, privileges, and standing despite being utterly incapable of articulating what any of those are.
Perhaps instead of talking in broad generalities, you could be a BIT more specific and give examples.
Yeah, discrimination is just that no matter how much lipstick you pile on that pig.
AA is dead, get used to it.
So you still won't admit that AA is discrimination.
Tell that to the Asian American kid who lost his/her/them seat to a less qualified kid.
Good that you see the humor in this argument.
What "argument"?
The positions that you’re advocating.
Tell that to the other minority kids who are underprivileged by conservative ideology which "lives" to keep them out of a wholesome way out of poverty. In this regard, college and university boards are better people than those contrited pretext-seeking dividers of the people of this great nation. We would be better off without any conservatives at all than this 'mess' that has beset the nation. As far as these Asian students, one could ask if they are so highly qualified why some school did not take them - or did they get into college/universities anyway?
As for choice, well peek this, colleges/universities had and continue to have freedom (y'all mouth the word quite often) to decide whom they let on to their campuses. In this case, that is a good thing!
Not even in conservative 'land' will I believe the denseness is so thick! So let's move on.
You digressed (in error of thought). Let's move on.
Whatever.
Exactly, no need for empathy for Asian Americans, to much like white Americans.
OK. That's pretty good.
That's not what a caste system is.
Agree. But giving scholarships to kids based on their race is simply a band-aid covering the cancer.
You're telling kids they can go to college and be successful, despite the fact their public schools didn't prepare them. You give them some money, so they go. But it's not enough money, so they also borrow to go. And then when they can't cut it, they now have no degree and student loans to pay off.
In what way are Asians more like White Americans? Go!
I question if some conservatives do empathize with Asian American college students (if that is what you are implying). All the same, where is the empathy for a "detached" people who are solely and wholly 'products' of this country's mis/treament of them in shapes, forms, and fashions? And, whom were and continue to be held back by 99.99 percentages of conservative majority legislatures coupled with a now conservative-led (6/3 majority) SCOTUS?
Justice Thomas is a case in point: That 'poor fool' is a model of AA success, and yet he has been melodramatic depressed over the method used to get him to the dance and a life of luxury with billion oligarchical friends pouring over him with trips, properties, and 'long walks of reflection on white beaches.' These oligarchs would not even know that fool's name if AA had not been beneficial to him. He should thank Yale instead he has harbored a sick despair about what—his success—for the better part of his adult life!
What, pray tell, is the cancer's cause that Affirmative Action sought to fix. BTW, question for you: What was affirmative action called when it was only proper for Whites to receive advantageous placement and status in this country? What was that called?
Entrance exams and other entrance criteria.
Well good, so. . . it is your theory that no one else should be allowed to enter college except if they are on the level of Asians and White Americans? Is that what you really think? Tell me if I am right or wrong about this!
No, why would you think that?
You can answer the question no matter what I think: Go ahead, please.
That is ALWAYS your MO whenever asked to supply any facts to back your outlandish claims up.
It is intellectually dishonest and rather weak.
Let's NOT move on for a change.
How about we start with you providing some real facts instead of just emotionally charged false claims?
You go first, since you are OBVIOUSLY the fact person. /s Go ahead. Or is all you got is 'mouth'?
Not playing your games today.
You know damn well I was referring to your obstinate refusal to ever document what rights, privileges, and standing have been taken away from you by evil conservatives, oh my!
I think I would fall over in shock if you ever do so.
I called it right!
Yes, you have exhibited a real ability to never answer any questions put to you, to deflect, and make wild crazy accusations while avoiding providing any proof at all for those wild claims and proving you don't want any real discussion.
Thank you.
Now I am moving on - with or without permission. Do not expect anymore replies to non-substantive statements. You're welcome.
Did you think you needed my permission?
Is that one of the rights, privileges, or standing you lost to conservatism?
The bigotry of low expectation. The progressive decline of standards.
Is that a play on words?
Impressive!
SORRY! Your answer does not follow the question asked. Affirmative Action is/was an umbrella program, set of tools, designed and intended for use to fix a lack of inclusion, equity/equality, and diversity on college and university campuses.
You know, DEI programs that some conservatives love to discount and piss on every chance some of their leadership gets.
BTW, question for you: What was affirmative action called when it was only proper for Whites to receive advantageous placement and status in this country? What was that called?
It does. You just don't like the answer.
A supposed problem that wouldn't exist if we educated everybody reasonably equally at the K-12 level.
I have no idea WTF you're talking about, and bigger typeface hasn't made you clearer.
Trick question? What is your answer?
Well, what the "h" are the chances of that happening? It sure is not the "students' responsibility to fix broken, ass-backward schools.
So you have no clue whatsoever, not even a smidgen what affirmative action for white people is/looked like? Why not?!
It would not be much of a question if it was not even meant for a try or an answer-right?
Incredibly low. And the more we keep lowering the bar for minority kids, the worse it's going to get.
No. That still doesn't explain why a black kid should be magically entitled to preferential treatment over a Pakistani kid.
I have no idea what you're asking.
I'm not sure why you imagine this has anything to do with white people. The lawsuit was brought by a group of Asian students.
Right
Oh please. Behind this is some conservative foundation or fake "grassroots" group funding it. Probably a Koch-funded group at that! (KOCH Bros. fund a great many things that they call freedom even when its oppression.)
As for the "low bar for minorities," well all I will say is somebody's white ANCESTORS set minorities-including Native Americans-in this country back with their centuries old policies, policing, and laws, and now INSIST these minorities ought not be permitted a real chance to catch up. The playing field is UNEQUAL when the game is rigged with whites holding to hidden points on the scoreboard which will be revealed at the games end.
As for "low bar for minorities" that is a myth. Minorities, even with their poor-quality schools around the country (as we are told), qualify to enter colleges and universities just like other students what affirmative action does is bring inclusion, equity/equality, and diversity to campuses where the "competition" to get in is shall we say rigorous and stiff-and all the leverage belongs to wealthier people-who are largely white!
The colleges and universities as a 'body' has healthy needs too. That is, it is not a good practice to exclude minorities from campuses, because it underserves the educational field of play and disadvantages the nation as a whole!
Why conservatives with their minds stuck on ideology; fail to realize is that if there are citizens in this nation who wish to be higher educated but can not be because they can not surmount the policies and laws which effectively do not fix the issues that are causing them and the nation to stumble backwards over this, then the disease of what you call "low bar for minorities" may continue renewed and indefinitely!
So give it a try with an answer!
And here in the present-day real world... we have well-intentioned soft-hearted white liberals running schools and trying to make up for all that by "cutting these minority kids a break" and not requiring black kids to learn the same things white kids have to.
There is a gargantuan gap in test scores.
That gap has remained almost unchanged for the last 40 years, moving ever so slightly in the wrong direction. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tables/dt13_226.10.asp
The standard deviation is even higher on graduate exams like the LSAT.
Now... either you believe that gap exists because black and Latino kids are somehow dumber than white and Asian kids.... OR.. the schools are treating them differently .
The data says it's not.
The data says they don't.
If by "leverage", you mean white kids know more and have better scores, then yeah...
Who is responsible for that exclusion, CB? Has the penny dropped yet?
No. It doesn't. Excluding more qualified kids based on skin color does not in any way produce an advantage for the nation. It only masks the damage our public education system has been doing to black & Latino students for decades.
Then, if your chief and repeat complain is the public school system (where have I heard this complaint before?) then it is as I stated:
3.1.74 "It sure is not the students' responsibility to fix broken, ass-backward schools."
That is why we supposedly have educators, supervisors, and a Secretary of Education. Also, policy makers in Congress. Also, I don't fully grasp what you seem to be alluding :
1. Is it the failure of the K-12 system?
2. The failure of public school system?
3.The collective failure of Black and Brown people to learn?
Which one or is it all of the above that you see as the problem?
Be open and clear so we can get somewhere in this discussion we are having!
"More" qualified students by definition will become high achievers in their own right and likely with other opportunities at other elite universities.
However, these "achievement gappers" as your SAT scores link highlights, is not the ONLY and should not be the single way for young, bright, children of minorities (including Asians) to get into college. So why the heavy and repeat and one-sided emphasis while ignoring other means of entry (used and promoted by all who seek to have their children or the child/ren itself)?
This is from your article (its last paragraph):
Your link shares data results and findings which point out the race-gap on the SAT. Then, the article continues in several ways to explain the data numbers by continuing to fill in the details of how the experts consider other factors involved behind the numbers .
Also this from the article:
* So there are questions about the SAT's usage (the SAT may not be a good measure of student potential. - From the Brookings.edu link.)
** The point is clear here that there are societal INEQUITIES which are behind the racial gap between groups which the data highlights.
And now this pause for the cause: (Flashback)
And as I replied in 3.1.76, that still doesn't explain why a black kid should be magically entitled to preferential treatment over a Pakistani kid.
It is the failure of the public K-12 system, but we'll add the community college systems as well.
No. It's the school. When the black valedictorian of a predominantly black/Latino high school makes 1040 on her SAT... which is average for white students... that's the failure of the school.
She's done everything they've asked her to do. She has fought for her opportunity. She has shown discipline and perseverance. But the poor academic standards in the school have left her at a massive disadvantage.
It's not. It is, however, a standardized assessment of what a person actually learned while they were in school. Universities use them because they have known for decades that the quality of education varies wildly from one high school to another.
Why should one of the other "means of entry" be skin color?
A point I have never disputed. Where you and I disagree is how to improve the situation.
When you find a Pakistani "kid" in America with a similar general historical and modern background as a black person you let me know. Moreover, Black Americans are known for being in the struggle for civil rights - Pakistanis I know have told me to my face that they appreciate what black Americans have done for this nation in securing liberties and OPPORTUNTIES for minorities which they otherwise as limited in number do not have the power or influence to accomplish!
Since you have mentioned Pakistani kids TWICE in this thread I think it proper to inform you there is no internecine quarrel going on between blacks and Pakistanis or Asians even. Exception: The problem as I see it is a sick political warfare being waged between extreme conservatives of all shades and colors and extreme liberals of all shades and colors. And let me be clear about one other point at this time: I am foremost a (political) pragmatist and then more or less a moderate liberal.
Finally, if it is the failure of the SYSTEM to properly educate then it is as I stated: 3.1.74 "It sure is not the students' responsibility to fix broken, ass-backward schools."
Students can't fix systemic issues of the schools that is for the proper authorities and leaders to do, bar none. Thus, you just gave a clear indication why colleges moved on the issue to make inclusion, equity, and diversity (necessary for the health of the country as a whole) possible using affirmative action as a tool to level the playing field. Since some students lack in intercity schools necessity 'tools' which apparently show up in private predominantly white schools.
Exactly, no animosity between Black Americans and Asian Americans.
Generally speaking, that is. Who in the "h" knows what individuals can have between them as anecdotal narratives.
The problem when you drill down on it is "skin color" - you just got through offering it up here:
When the black valedictorian of a predominantly black/Latino high school makes 1040 on her SAT... which is average for white students... that's the failure of the school.
She's done everything they've asked her to do. She has fought for her opportunity. She has shown discipline and perseverance. But the poor academic standards in the school have left her at a massive disadvantage.
You mentioned black, 'brown,' and white -students as modeling the problem. Fix the problem by offering better K-12 schools to blacks and browns EQUAL to the education of whites. And, you fix the 'color' problem. Otherwise the solution was and could be yes you are guessing it: Affirmative Action which creates EQUITY (not a dirty word) to allow black and brown students coming out of systemically poor quality schools (your assessment) to meet up at some point with their white counterparts at the college/university level.
You sure can't get 'there' pretending that society is COLORBLIND. You just 'detailed' why it is not - the DATA evidences the problem.
Now for a clarifying question: Are you against inclusion, equity, and diversity or any one of the three? if so, state it and explain why, please.
You:
Me:
This type of 'monumental' problem for blacks and other minorities has been going on since the integration of schools. And it has been CONSERVATIVES leading the opposition in the private vs. public schools/department of education debates and policy proposals or reasons to terminate.
Has it ever crossed the conservative mind that they are largely the problem for why public schools can't get their curriculum together? That is, because of various interferences by the same set of never satisfied with progress as progress conservatives?!
The public system is not going away. It is here to stay. And yet, even you Jack are discussing our educational system's shortcomings and "disadvantages" without offering one iota of support to the public system to make it better. And you even 'threw down' (in opposition) on community colleges (a public education offering):
Partially the problem is conservatives won't lift a finger to help the public system be the 'eagle' soaring that it can be; not just a turkey 'winging' it.
That is what?
Huh?
Why would that matter? If academic admission is to be based on the level of persecution endured by someone's ancestors, we'll just admit all the Jewish kids and be done.
So?
Great. We all feel good now. Tell me again how that makes up for 300 points on the SAT.
That's still true. It still doesn't entitle black students to take opportunities away from more successful students based on their skin color.
You moved the goalpost. You introduced "the Pakistani kid" into this - I simply replied to it being so done!
Are you implying that Jews are under-represented at elite universities/Ivy League schools? Yes or No?
And besides that when were Jews EVER enslaved and considered non-white as to be systemically locked out of civil and equitable society in this country?
Finally, why would it be necessary to admit AL L THE JEWS anyway? Though Jews are a small percentage of the U.S. citizenry. . . it would be 'wildly' out of proportion to their numbers to admit ALL of them to elite campuses simply to repair some neglect and mistreatment of them in this country (which as it relates to Blacks did not happen).
Again, that's moving the goalpost. If you were interested in SAT points (you did not list Pakistani SAT scores even so) it would require you to post so much.
As for Blacks and the Civil Rights 'movement' that is too storied in this country for you to attempt to dismiss it out of turn. So I will ask that you don't make that play. Because Jews marched and died in the struggle for civil rights right alongside of blacks and others.
Elite universities decide what to do about their campuses under-representation of minorities and in the context of the United States, historically schools accept as fact that there was not and is not yet a level playing field. I will leave it up to you to figure out how other groups use their 'means' to get their "kid/s" into elite universities beyond SAT scores up to this point and time in 'America.'
The pressing question for conservatives is this: Do you want people of color (Blacks) to be successful in this country or not?
Because it was becoming so and as I stated to you already, whites in this country have had an EXCEPTIONAL 'head-start' in the education and work 'game of life' even why systemically keeping backs down - then and now. I asked (you) when was "affirmative action" white in this country and you deferred to give a cogent reply. Instead, feigning ignorance of the meaning of the question.
But, for an oppressed people - oppression is a set-back! And, it 'took' centuries to set black people back - don't let it distract you and other conservatives that it may take longer than forty years of direct affirmative action to catch us up in the data.
Are you anti-Semitic?
Huh? Explain to me why you think to ask me such a question! If I accept your answer, then and only then will I give you my honest answer.
Based on your comments in 3.1.94
President Lyndon B. Johnson (a former racist, who became a friend of ordinary people and especially black people):
That is NOT an explanation!
It’s as good as you get.
Don't try to ask complex questions with a 'easy' retort. You have been around long enough to read my 'thoughts' on Jews and others. You "suspicion" was wrong-headed and inappropriate. As indicated by you can not explain why you thought to use this as an opportunity to cast aspersion.
Now we're talkin'.
It's obviously not a solution. It's been 50 years. If it were an actual solution, it would have worked by now.
Nonsense. It creates a balm that assuages white liberal guilt and mollifies black people willing to ignore 5 decades of failure.
You get there by enforcing the same accountability for every school and every student instead of making excuses based on color and producing 1040 valedictorians.
Define those terms as you see them.
No. It was always there. You just don't like how far you're going to have to kick the ball to get there.
There is no "former" about it.
Racist as fuck from his first day to his last.
If he thought he could have got more votes by re-instituting slavery, he would have done it without hesitation.
Did you mean answer, not ask?
I don’t remember any of your previous comments regarding Jews
Did you mean, Don't try to answer...
Huh?
Conservatives are no friend of aiding and improving the public school system. Recently, the republican candidate "leader" (Trump) has stated in his 2024 bid:
And so the "theater" of conservatives see-sawing around with public education whether than supporting it continues.
You can't be taken seriously when you establish a subjective timetables on millions of minorities, who by the way, are relatively 'trickling' into elite universities. Moreover, I recently asked you somewhere : How long has affirmative action for whites last ?
Then you blanketly call the entirety of the AA program a "failure" when you are fully or partially aware that many success stories-including Clarence Thomas and Sonja Sotamayor and likely the Obamas went to elite universities through the program.
The terms speak for themselves, so let's not belabor them. Are you for any one or several of these in any shape, form, or fashion? If so share that or do you simply reject inclusion, equity, and diversity on college, university campuses?
You introduced "the Pakistani kid" into this - I simply replied to it being so done! Worse. What purpose does it serve this discussion if you "ditch" the rest of the comment in its 'entirety'?
That is your opinion and you can't prove beyond that. President Lyndon B. Johnson, the president who appointed Thurgood Marshall, a civil rights icon, to the Supreme Court of the United States.
I want you to listen (closely) to a discussion had by President Johnson and Thurgood Marshall that set the stage for there to be a Justice Marshall in 1967:
CAUTION: The audio is 'poor' quality in some places but you can still here (if you even attend to it):
For the record, hardly would a racist and opportunist bent on keeping down the blacks offer a lifetime position to a black jurist (civil rights icon). Judge former President Johnson by his actions, because as a black person living at the time. . . that is what I, we, surely did!
And as for the conservative insulting talking point that what a/any man does for a vote or many votes to win and election: I know you did not just go 'there' considering what conservatives were willing to do and did for Bush-43 (stopped the recount in Florida) and Trump (held an insurrection on January 6, 2021 and a host of other contrivances). Though, these are discussions beyond the scope of this article.
No. They recognize the job as nearly impossible at this point, and favor alternative methods to get kids better educated.
Are you saying the Obamas were less qualified than white students?
No they don't. There are actual definitions and then there are liberal buzzword definitions. And then yours may be something else altogether.
Define what you mean by those words.
My mother knew him.
What are you 'saying' about the Obamas'? You tell me: Were Clarence Thomas and Sonja Sotomayor less qualified? Or did they 'excel' beyond their meager 'offerings' in public schools once allowed in university?
Didn’t both attend Catholic schools?
I will do no such thing, beyond saying those words here in context mean what each generally mean. Take it or leave it!
That would be "hearsay." . . . I'll just leave it at that. Moreover, this is what you wrote about the man:
In my opinion, a truly racist man "to his last" would not have interacted in a telephone call to make his administration's Solicitor General and going farther grant a highly coveted lifetime appointment to a black/civil rights icon as a show of his racist bona fides. In fact, said individual would surely lose reputation for each instance of doing so!
Cutting through the noise, President Lyndon B. Johnson, elevated himself to the rank of a president of all the people. That is, he let the interests of the country rule his actions and ultimately his heart (which you can hear if you listen to the recording at 3.1.111 .
Pray tell, what "alternative methods" to better educate (liberal) kids do conservatives have in mind? Go!
Huh?
Your comment 3.1.115 asked about what public schools provided to the two Justices and I think that they went to Catholic school, not public schools.
Thank you if you are correct about Thomas and Sotomayor's schools. However, please remark on their admissions as affirmative action higher education entrees. (It's the focus of this discussion.)
How would I know if their universities selected them on merit alone or not?
Thomas graduated in 1971 with a BA, cum laude, ranked ninth in his class at Holy Cross. That’s what got him into Yale Law School.
Thomas entered Yale as an affirmative action entree (and resented it the 'rest' of his life as apparently it gives him a 'complex' which he is now indulging fully against anyone else receiving such entry into colleges and universities).
Source?
Wow. Now I guess I work for a conservative (this time):
You as always can guess whatever you like.
I don’t use Fox News as a source, but even if used, it doesn’t say the Thomas was admitted to Yale because of AA.
It does not say that he didn't either. It does HINT that he did (and Clarence hints that he did too). . . so now what?!
And why should I care about how you source materials, eh?
Anyway here is another 'offering' from the media CENTER to help solidify your concern about sourcing materials- I hope:
Why, graduating cum laude, ranked ninth in his class at Holy Cross wasn’t good enough?
Why ask me? Do I resemble anybody 'close' to Clarence Thomas? I read the material and 'report' it! And, Clarence has an inferiority 'complex' actively working against him even now because of his "interactions" and/or nearness to Yale's affirmative action policy - that is circumstantially undeniable. That 'crippled' fool of a justice spit in the face of what caused him to succeed and wait for it: highly probably put him in position to meet and marry Ginni and most definitely 'squared' his status at the "commission" to be found and supported later by George H. W. Bush!
Maybe his so called complex is a reaction to all that assume that the only way a Black man could get into Yale in 1971 was through AA.
Clarence's placement at Yale Law School was not due to himself (possibly; we may never fully know. That is, he may not know definitely himself). That said, as a supreme court justice sworn to rule on laws objectively, it is highly questionable if he let his subjective 'complex' (for over thirty plus years); as he waited for a conservative-leaning court to materialize decide his vote on affirmative action.
The issue for Yale Law School in 1970 was a driving need for diversity; that not having any other 'pool' to draw out of other than a largely underprivileged, often poor, limited (lesser) education, or not considered well-socialized groups of minorities (to a whiteness standard/ of education), nevertheless.
In short, Yale in 1970 had a 'mission' that required set upon being more inclusive of minorities (in an excessively "white campus"), because blacks in society needed a balance of elite black lawyers similar to whites having an overabundance of elite white lawyers. So Clarence Thomas wanted Yale. Yale desired to place Thomas. And, as it happened affirmative action "kicked in" in the very first year of Thomas' admission to the elite school.
More on this train of thought in the light of day (Monday). It's late. Good night!
Why don’t you believe that a Black man could have earned his position at Yale in 1971? Was the Yale admission board full of racist Repubs?
I have not suggested a black man could not earn a position at Yale in 1971. What I am stating is that in Thomas' situation at Yale there were at least two goals to achieve:
1. Yale Law need to diversified to better serve the (elite) law community; and
2. Clarence Thomas' needed entrance to an elite law university (where leaders are drawn from its pool).
The two goals abruptly 'collided' and afterwards Clarence Thomas was deeply affected ('disturbed') by what he suspects happened-whether he could prove affirmative action in his entrance or not.
That is, Clarence Thomas' problem stemmed from the fact that Yale begin affirmative action the same year (1971) he, a black student, enrolled, and from what I have read on the issue (plenty by now) Thomas possibly never was told whether he was a recipient of affirmative action or admitted based on his past grades. Or worse, he felt that he could never convince anyone because of the (bad) timing of his 1971 admission that he was not a 'child' of affirmative action. Remember this, Yale had admissions requirements in 1971 of which the new program, affirmative action, became one of a list of processes to build consensus for admission to the school.
Note: I have sourcing information to support my statements.
No, you suggested that Thomas couldn't. Yale could have cleared this up years ago by providing their 1971 admission process/products as it relates to Thomas.
Consider this: (Source 1 of 2)
Note the actor who played Thomas in film flat out states Thomas benefited from Affirmative Action .
Consider this set of 'arguments' from a Yale exchange of letters in 1969 about Affirmative Action: (Source 2 of 2)
This is very interesting about the Yale 'mindset' on why student diversity at Yale is a thing to be desired and brought about:
This "exchange" goes on for 9 pages (about a total of 11 pages) in the pdf. It is just too long to post here.
The "reply" back to the addressor is of keen interest because it gives critical insights into what Yale had in mind to do with Affirmative Action on its campuses .
I encourage (all) you to read the link I supplied above. It's 'deep' - from both addressor and addressee 'sides.'
Yes, a good back and forth, thanks for posting it.
Some of the school's comments suggest that my recommendation of using socio-economic class and regionally based targets might achieve greater diversity without being as polarizing as racial targets.
Of course these letters don't tell us if Thomas was one of the otherwise qualified or not. They do reinforced the notion that Yale could have clarified Thomas' status had they choice to do so.
In my opinion, it is highly likely that Clarence Thomas thinks he was a CANDIDATE for affirmative action in 1971, his 'grudge' against Yale and extraordinary action of attaching a 15 cents sticker to his law degree is indicative of someone who believes he has been 'wronged' by the institution. That 'wrong' being admitted to Yale under the A A inclusion program. Keep in mind, Thomas' background of poverty, lack, cultural "blackness," etceteras in the 1970's made it so that he would qualify for AA whether or not he asked to be considered. That is, Yale Law School —the elite institution of higher learning—would not have viewed his application to the school as he viewed himself.
Alright, good interaction between us on Thomas.
A couple of quick points:
1. It is telling that nowhere do I read anything Thomas writes or states where he outright DENY affirmative action was used in his admitting to Yale Law School. Yet, he has been deeply and emotionally 'afflicted' about A A.
2. The PDF in 3.1.137 illustrates "perfectly" for the READER what colleges and universities mean/t when they exert INTEREST in admitting less fortunate members of society into their "elite" ranks. It's good business and it's also quite "noble."
See 3.1.142.
The UNC SYSTEM.
Minimum Admission Requirements for High School Graduates and GED :
20** years and younger with fewer than 24 transferable credits
21** years or older
Any age with 24** or more transferable college credits (does not include AP, IB or credit by exam)
Active duty service member or veteran with 3** or more years of active duty service
** Criteria must be met by the time of enrollment at the UNC institution
*** Being exempt from these requirements does not guarantee admission. While applicants are not required to meet these GPA, test score and course requirements, institutions will only admit applicants who meet all campus-specific admission requirements
Yes, it tells us that Yale never shared the criteria they used in his admission. He can't affirm or deny what he wasn't told.
That was because he felt that students, facility and the law firms, assumed AA when looking at Black Yale law students and graduated lawyers.
That Justice Thomas allowed his subjective emotional 'discomfort' to fester for well over 30 years and affect his opinion-making in negative factions is alarming. For one thing, A A has served him well through out the course of his life of success and not being a failure.
That he wittingly or unwittingly thought that other minorities do not need (or deserve) a hand-up (which he received at Yale) is a sad commentary on Justice Thomas. Affirmative Action helped Justice Thomas become the man we see today. Hating himself and forcing others to grasp at 'air' because he could not cope is not clear-thinking.
As we saw Yale meant well by its black and minority students to open the door which was shut on account of a standard (GPA and multiple other factors of college admissions) which minorities simply could not achieve because of a ceaseless "struggle" to simply belong in society being waged. (Need I mention that conservatives were the number 1 culprits always putting up obstacles for minorities to be distracted by in the business, education, social, cultural, hell—all-around?)
Finally, I 'read' more like listened to an assessment that Clarence Thomas was a liberal up until this occurred more or less at this instance was when he decided to tilt to conservative points of view. Why? Because he felt strongly that Yale Law School with its 'help' for minority admissions into an old 'white-dominated' system had exposed him to shame, ridicule, questioning, and ultimately job denials because of a (liberal) 'bent' on race admission.
It was only recently (2020) that Clarence Thomas even partially allowed himself to 'forgive' Yale Law enough to as a justice of the Supreme Court go and speak at his alma mater.
In my opinion, I think Justice Thomas is a sad case of a professional holding his private neurosis in high esteem and failing to realize that is unworthy of him to expose the country's law to it. That is, Thomas has done considerable harm to the law he professes to love because of private motivation. Of course, it is possible and may be understandable that Thomas was given a hard time because of affirmative action at an elite institution. . . it was new, it was possible not well understood, it was "mean kids," - but, Clarence Thomas at this time of ending affirmative action should have figured out by now that not all "elite" students are what they appear to be, as the dean alluded to in his argument (from the PDF) not all the white students gaining entry into Yale had high scores on the LSAT or high GPA but were admitted for varying social, cultural, financial "contributors" on their accounts.
You've posted the requirements for the entire system, which includes 17 different institutions.
A 1010 may get you into someplace like Fayetville State or Appalachian State, provided you're also 6'4", 245lbs, run a 4.4, and led your district in tackles, rushing yards, or touchdown passes.
That isn't going to get a non-athlete into the flagship school at Chapel Hill, where the average score is 1260.
You seem to be attempting to assert that a black student with a 1010 should be admitted ahead of an Asian student with a 1260, based solely on the fact that student is black.
That's racist as fuck.
You know it's racist as fuck because if the situation were reversed you'd be screaming about it.... and rightfully so.
All I did is post what UNC requires and you 'shoot the messenger'? Jack, how about you "calling up" the university and giving them your fire/ire? BTW, I did not even mention "an Asian student" that is your leap to conclusion and you need to deal with that!
You seem to have a need for promoting Asians in your comments, but if you have been reading the threads (and maybe even the PDF I attached) it should be OBVIOUS to you and anybody else that colleges and universities as a body see a need for a MULTIPLICITY of admission criterions aside from grade in order to 'repair breaches' which are left festering if one allows a continuing hierarchy whether than a democracy on their campuses.
Where did you get your degree in psychiatry? Was the due to AA?
At Holy Cross, Thomas earned excellent grades and outside of class, he was a leader in the Black Student Union. He became an activist,and attended anti-Vietnam War rallies and organize a threatened walkout in response to the school’s unfair targeting of Black students for punishment following a campus protest.
He said that more attention to partying and less on studying started his movement away from his peers. That was reinforced by the attitude towards blacks with Yale instructors and further firmed by law firm attitudes towards AA when he graduated. The Anita Hill hearings was probably the kicker.
This AA decision wasn't a 5-4 decision.
Yes, it was 6-3 conservative majority. But, we are focusing on Clarence Thomas, eh?
His vote wouldn't have changed the outcome and thus didn't cause the considerable damage that you accused him of.
Indeed, one could make the case that a justice with a definite and private bias against affirmative action should have RECUSED himself from the case (As Justice Kentanji Jackson Brown did in one of the A A school cases due to an association with the school). Alas! Thomas rarely if ever does recuse himself, does he? Unlike Chief Justice Roberts known to vote against A A every time it comes up before the court for opinion-making, Thomas has made us aware of a personal bias against the A A.
That is not the point, is it? Now you are looking for mitigation. As you well know or should know a 6-3 opinion has the force of precedent and will deter challenges based on the count itself in the future.
No, just an informed discussion.
If I have misrepresented your views, do please correct me.
Asian students brought the lawsuit.
Yes. Some of which are racist. Which is why they've been ordered to stop.
Well, I trust that you have received it in spades by this point!
Ordered to stop by a conservative-majority court. It's ability to work as a tool for inclusion rather than exclusion be damned. I might as well state this at this point: Nobody, including conservatives, are able to live in an ideological 'state' for long. We've see what comes of the NEXT "well-heeled" lawsuit on affirmative action smacks a court near us!
Affirmative Action policy was set up as a tool to level the playing field and true to form, conservatives like their field level 'unevenly equal.' That's a shame. The struggle against conservatism: To be continued.
You never answered the question about when affirmative action was white. . . but apparently enjoy taking potshots when affirmative action is for minorities. Well, it is what it is.
After all you read and gleaned from this discussion you fall back into the arms of being disaffected by the misery of others. Sad. But by now, I should expect so much.
I will get over my 'disappointment,' because I have no choice but to do so.
Spades, LoL, CB.
What does that suppose to mean, Drinker?
Didn't you mean 3.1.152 to be a play on words?
Exactly how is it inclusive to exclude a more-qualified candidate based on race again?
Was that meant to be a non-rhetorical question? Whites, especially wealthy whites have had historical advantages since their arrival.
What have I written that you consider a potshot?
As you frequently do, you leave me clueless as to your meaning.
Since Drinker knows full well that in the context you used it the term "In Spades" means "In Trump Cards" and thus we are only left to believe that Drinker was obviously referencing that the word "Spade" is also a racial slur. He probably thinks he is being cute and funny! But, it was an intentionally toxic and noxiously inappropriate comment IMO...
Do you think it ever gets tiring imagining racism at every term?
And what could be better than you responding to a term used first by another and you getting grilled on it!
Crazy!
What's the deal in your liberal, blue state of CA? How did racist conservatives pass a ballot measure in 1996 that banned public colleges from considering race in admissions?
I read that the share of Black students in the UC system was less than 4.5% while Hispanics were 25%. Talk about your unequal playing field.
followed by a smiley face as a good natured pun. How did you interpret the meaning? I must be out of touch as I don't know what you mean with, "In Trump Cards".
Maybe CB will clear up the confusion.
Really? When have you ever been unfairly accused of harboring racist sentiments?
Yes.
Each and every time I have ever been accused.
Do you know what "In Trump Cards" mean? I've never heard that expression.
I never have.
I know that trying to be so cryptic and 'clever' is a piss-poor way of getting their 'point' across.
Maybe they have disguised their point so much that somebody as slow and old as myself just doesn't get it.
I have 47 years of federal service (Army) and have never been accused of racism. It seems that those on NT, have a less informed but much lower threshold of what is racism.
In other words, having been dealt your comeuppance "In Spades" you are now going to play coy and pretend that you never heard of such a phrase and were completely unaware of what you, I and everyone else here knows you meant...
Go tell it to a baby. We all know better!
I’ve certainly heard the idiom “In Spades”. Is that what CB meant with the smiley face and not a joke.
Perhaps then, my mistake and my laugh was inappropriate.
BTW, what did you mean by Trump Cards?
See there? That is what I meant about you never being sincere and always being coy. Nobody would believe you if you were on fire? Nobody can take you seriously. I'll bet you are probably a bridge player, too. As if you do not know that spades are trump cards? Nobody needs attention that badly, outside Texas and Northern Virginia!
See where? I honestly thought that CB was making a good natured joke. I’m still not sure he didn’t since we’ve not heard from him.
Northern VA and Maryland get a lot of attention as many of the federal expenditures are here. I don’t need any extra, I’m doing all right.
And I don’t mind if I can’t make the scene
I’ve got a daytime job, I’m doing alright
I can play Honky Tonk like a maverick
Saving it up for a NT night
With the Sultans
With the Sultans of Rhetoric
Yeah
I'll leave you to fester in your own bile...
No bile, I lost my gallbladder in Nov 2020.
I just read all of 'that' above up to this point: I am at a loss for words! This is some sick shit.
You could tell me, since you are advocating for EXCLUSION based on race to return once again. Merit is a myth since you fully are aware that some conservatives will not honor any standard they can get around to do whatsoever they 'will' - see McConnell stiff Obama on Merrick Garland's non-appointment to the supreme court and later indulge himself and Trump on Amy Comey Barrett using the exact same method of deceit!
Indeed, cancer is some sick shit. Fortunately, I had great medical care and although I lost some significant body parts and have some chemo effects, I’m a very lucky dude.
I am not interested in your cancer or anybody's medical care. This is some toxic shit being carried forward after what may have been a revealing discussion about affirmative action. I am disgusted by what is being done here and now.
I’ve certainly misunderstood you in the past, what do you mean now?
One hopes you’re at least under the influence and/or wasted on something right now. If not, that post is some sick shit.
Some really, really sick shit.
So says you.
's are sick too! /s
And don't EVER make an attempt to tell me what I should feel when some conservatives are here days in and nights out to spread simple chaos . Evidently, some conservatives come here to manipulate only!
Are you saying that liberal courts support racism?
That's sort of like saying "Donald Trump's compassion be damned". If it ever existed, there isn't any evidence to suggest it still does.
You might state it a different way, so people will understand what you mean.
No it wasn't. It was set up as a tool to make white liberals "feel better" without having to actually solve a problem. That's how they've done things for decades.
Interesting description of "non-racist".
I noticed you have yet to define the terms inclusion, equity, or diversity. You also did not dispute the idea that you believe less qualified black students should be given admission ahead of other students with higher scores.
What I am SAYING is liberals support RESTORATION of past wrong-doings in a society that was bigoted, hateful, and had some monstrous people masquerading about freely talking big about freedom (for themselves) and oppressions for those they deigned unworthy of being anything but their beasts of burden.
That you do not "get" what colleges and universities have done since President Johnson passed the civil rights act and affirmative action came into a truer form and what colleges and universities plan to continue to do to make right societal wrongs is your problem. Inclusion means all of us, yes including conservatives, exclusion as far as this discussion goes means: Some conservatives selfish greed.
Well Clarence Thomas, a black conservative, would certainly agree with you with his affirmatively "actioned" silly miserable "justiced" self!
I notice you have not defined affirmative action after the manner institutions of higher learning define it. Why not?
Moreover, those institutions of higher learning choose to have the FREEDOM (remember the word conservative?) to build up this society for the good of all citizens (whatever it may take education-wise) while some conservatives choose to be haters of their fellow humanity. If your "other students" are so damn SMART then how come universities didn't choose him/her/them to take the available slots not set aside? I will tell you why, because campus DIVERSITY matters. Neoliberalism intends to leave citizens behind, and not everybody is desirous of being a neoliberal (like some conservatives). Some institutions of higher learning actually DESIRE to be 'wholesome' and decent places for all humanity to come, learn, and get equipped for tomorrow. Not just bastions for "whiteness," per se.
But now, we seem to have crossed a 'threshold' and possibly no other good can come from this discussion at this point. I am going to wind down now because what may remain is SHIT to throw.
I’m sorry that you find my comments chaos inducing. While I don’t think that I clearly understand yours, I never felt chaotic. Do you want to restore clarity now or just drop the dialogue on this thread?
Surprisingly, you seem to single out here the liberal university admissions folks or due you find them to be mostly conservative racists?
Is California’s passing of Proposition 209 in 1996 which outlawed admission preferences based on race and gender in the state's public institutions an example of conservative racists at work?
I have heard about this recently and repeatedly in the news, however I have not taken any time to look into the details of why any of the states which passed laws doing so did so. Eventually I will get around to reading the details (nuances) when time is available.
It only took them 35 years to catch up to the EO signed by President Kennedy stating the same thing.
California is all over it. /s
Why do you INSIST on telling a lie about my position?
If you can quote me doing as you claim (and it is well-established you can't) you MIGHT have a valid claim. I'll wait.
Just like I STILL am waiting for an answer to this:
Exactly how is it inclusive to exclude a more-qualified candidate based on race again?
Seems like YOU are touting racist policies here, not me. I don't want race to be a factor and YOU DO--as long as the racism seems to benefit a racial group you approve of.
That is rather hypocritical.
So you were totally sober when you made that comment which makes it even sicker. Thus displaying the tendency some liberals have for selective compassion. Overly compassionate for one thing and zero compassion for another.
Sad …..
Any racism and discrimination designed to benefit his preferred group of "victims" of "white conservatives" even though liberals have really done nothing to address any problems realistically.
Once again (sigh), you refuse to engage in any meaningful debate.
If a simple question can flummox you so easily and so consistently, how do you expect to convey your points?
I believe you believe that.
I also believe you would believe any liberal who told you the only reason black people couldn't fly to the moon by flapping their arms is because mean ol' conservatives were "holding them down".
Oh we all get it. It's institutionalized racism. You just happen to support it.
Their freedom to be openly and blatantly racist, which has thankfully been revoked.
Because universities are famously full of white liberals. It's the white liberal promised land.
Does it?
Does it really?
Are we sure?
Once again, the lawsuit was brought by Asian students. I'm quite sure they would argue that their presence in any university does not actually make it less wholesome or less decent, and that they are part of "all humanity".
We have reached a surreal and asinine place in our history when the "non-racist" or "inclusive" view necessarily accepts the premise that one or more races are inherently inferior and its members are in need of constant accommodation.
Why would I believe anything you foolishly say I believe? And, how long have you been believing black people can fly? Did R. Kelly's, "I believe I Can Fly" have something to do with your foolhardy acceptance of this notion?
Oh no! Then that would mean for fifty years a president, congress, and "another" SCOTUS agreed institutionalized racism (your turn of choice) was practical and serviceable. I wonder what rationale that SCOTUS, that former president, and that congress used to come to their conclusions? More to the point, if you have an issue with what those who established a precedent of affirmative action so long ago-you should consult them with your complaint. I am pretty sure they did not see this (and neither do the colleges and universities) the way you insist upon doing so.
Btw, it is so tiresome to have to make "long-winded" discussions with insensitive, hard-headed, people of the internet. Can we wrap this up, soon?
So are those minorities you deign to pretend to be ignorant about their needs and historical backgrounds. But, carry on! Keep pretending. It's horrifiably disconnected and yet somehow amusing.
Exactly how is it inclusive to exclude a more-qualified candidate based on race again?
Is past discrimination really a justification for discrimination today?
How do you rationalize that?
Maybe CB knows that Asian Americans will succeed regardless of the racist conservatives so why waste a seat at a good school when they don’t really need it.
That’s what I was saying just the other day, cheap amusement here.
I find it a ludicrous argument that discrimination today is justified because of past discrimination.
How in the world does that make SENSE??
Just another example of the soft bigotry of low expectations.
Instead of demanding more, let's lower the standards for all so we produce yet more incapable people.
Asian Americans are the only race that can succeed very well in the face of hostility, discrimination and racism. Chinese laborers mid-19th century were practically slaves and human trafficked whores. They faced similar structural racism as Blacks, had land confiscated from them in WW II, previously were denied seats at the table of good schools, industry, lawyers, etc. Yet they have the lowest student debt load and pay back the earliest. They are the most likely to earn a salary significantly above their debt.
CB’s argument is not only do they not need help, but like income redistribution, they need to make more sacrifices for the benefit of our disadvantaged.
Lowering the bar only hurts in Limbo.
Before Affirmative Action blacks and browns were unable to qualify to get into elite colleges and universities for a host of reasons (including, but not based on academic/test scores alone). Affirmative Action provides an opening in the closed university system to allow minorities underprivileged , poverty-stricken , living in decayed surroundings , unemployed , blighted conditions , and enduring prejudice (then and now) for centuries.
The opening made by an affirmative action policy is inclusive because it let/s in to predominantly white campuses people who were not there before. Anybody will tell you minorities simply were not there on those campuses. Now they are because of affirmative action. Moreover, it is guesstimated that now that race-centric affirmative action ending will lower those percentages of black and brown people able to access those elite schools as the old issues rise up again pervasive across the country.
Let's call it like it is.
There were lawsuits filed for decades upon decades against affirmative action policies which chipped away at the policy incrementally and then with a conservative-majority court: the policy has been ended for the duration .
There is your affirmation (inclusion) action working to diversify campuses, now this will fall back to exclusion because the policy simply has not been allowed to complete its good works.
The question is probably best answered by asking has the hearts and minds of the hardcore conservatives been changed over the decades about what is needful, helpful, wholesome, and decent for higher education black and brown people? Or, will this be an opportunity for conservatives to shut the doors to higher education for minorities once again.
Additionally,
Affirmative Action provides/ed:
greater representation at leading schools for minorities,
a growing black and brown middle class , and
more members in leadership positions in key instit utions.
The Decades-long Fight to Dismantle Affirmative Action
Why do you leave out Asian and Muslim Americans? How about Jewish Americans?
No one (but people who write like you just now) believes black and brown people or any other minority is inherently inferior. That is a lie some conservative like to remark upon with plausible deniability however, it is clear to all the conclusions such groups of people jump to to state such stupid shit publicly. As it is with all matters conservative (including the "Lost Cause of the South"), conservatives have never stopped filing lawsuits designed to chip away, distract, hinder, and ultimately end affirmative action (see a conservative-led majority SCOTUS - put in power by the crooked politics of a republican-led senate under Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell).
BTW, I have asked you several times thereabouts when has this country ever done away with "affirmative action" for whites? The silence is deafening!
Please don’t go deaf. I tried to respond to your question in 3.1.162 but I haven’t seen your response.
Yeah, I bet good money someone denied a spot because of AA is really feeling included.
There simply is no good argument for discrimination today.
And that is exactly what AA is. High time it was stopped for admission to college.
Quotas are ridiculous anyways.
Diversity for the sheer sake of diversity serves no one well.
For all the words you included in your post, the questions still begs to be answered:
Exactly how is it inclusive to exclude a more-qualified candidate based on race again?
Is past discrimination really a justification for discrimination today?
Of course, some conservatives have been suing for decades to hamper, cripple, diminish, and finally through immoral trickery of Mitch McConnell twice over has taken precedent-setting control of the Supreme Court of the United States. Making it evidentially clear that fairness is not what some conservatives wish for others, while taking power for themselves.
Not true.
Not sure how relevant today some letters that are 54 years old are, but I found this in them:
Discrimination is not a good thing and should be refrained from.
Since you list no cases, I have no idea what you are talking about. I don't think you know what cases you are talking about.
Whining about Mitch McConnell is kind of 2016, don't you think?
I really don't know who you think controls the thinking of SCOTUS members or makes them vote a certain way on cases.
That is a far-fetched notion of insane proportions.
Discrimination rights wrongs.
War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.
Budget increases are decreases.
Defund the police, but make us safer.
Pay off college loans with taxpayer money but don't use taxpayer money to build a wall to protect ourselves.
The Inflation Reduction Act whips inflation now.
Capable people is so last century.
Go for it! Did affirmative action aid them as well? Tell us all about it to your heart's contentment!
This comment is full of shit. Once again proof that you are about as serious as a soup sandwich.
In 3.1.212 I asked you, "Why do you leave out Asian and Muslim Americans? How about Jewish Americans?
Given that, I don't understand your comment:
What do you mean?
Yes, you copied n' pasted my comment well.
Good on you for reading a portion of the article. I wonder if you read the rest of the PDF file-did you?
Is this your version of a serious argument?
And now you can explain what point you thought you made by posting it.
In your own words, but related to what is actually in your source.
Some years ago, I tried and failed to learn to eat soup with a knife.
You believe a massive amount of very foolish claptrap. How is one supposed to tell where that ends?
Yes. And they have been proven wrong.
The struggle continues. . . Jack. The struggle. . . continues. Same as it ever was all those years gone by.
The tribulations of your ancestors do not entitle you to enact retribution upon everyone else 4 generations later.
Why not? Some conservatives are the same as their ancestors. Same conflicts, same battles, same wars. The more times change. . . the more they stay the same.
So much for bye.
Well, you know how it goes. . . it's a lengthy good bye. It's not like I have to hop a flight or go on holiday or anything like that, friend Drinker!
Just sitting here thinking how pathetic (and ironic) it is that some conservatives can not seem to be truly happy while a liberal is independently living free and clear. One would think the so-called "freedom-lovers" would love that liberals can think for themselves to fix their problems without having to depend on conservatives. . . sadly all conservatives do is get in the way; block the way; and, work overtime taking joy out of the lives of others who do not even care what type of lives conservatives live. Oh the irony, of how stuck on 'stupid' life was, is, and probably always will be in this country.
Don’t you mean pathetic or ironic?
As opposed to what other country?
Same as it ever was, same as it ever was
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5IsSpAOD6K8
Hardly, by what metrics?
It’s a double secret bye.
Similar to the double secret ignore some of our friends here like to employ.
Oh, you are free to do that.
And some people just won't be swayed by emotions.
Why are you so concerned with some conservative's happiness anyway?
If a liberal is LIVING "free and clear" then why are they ALWAYS complaining about, well, EVERYTHING? One would think that if you were "free and clear" you all wouldn't bitch so much about trivial shit.
It is always some vague references to liberties "stolen" by conservatives despite the number of liberals in Congress.
What you will never get is what liberties stolen by whom and how they did it.
If they even casually try to identify what was stolen and by who, they would quickly realize that they have been crying over nothing.
For example, Liberals cried for years about equality. Well, doing away with the abomination that Affirmative Action turned into, is that equality. Now they are crying about that.
It's all about playing the victim.
Love that song! "Same as it ever was. . . ." And yes, I knew and listened to the band in the Eighties.
Same as it ever was. Just a different era of fighting the same tired old conflicts, battles, and wars for another generation. I have watched this shit play out all my life and now that I am old(er) I finally realize just how selfish and greedy some republicans and conservatives can be and that they will never of their own volition leave liberals to live in peace.
Drive-by!
You're one to talk about whining about everything, Trump supporter.
Well, if you do that, it magically absolves you from any responsibility in your life--it is always someone holding you down and taking shit from you.
It is a weak, pathetic argument.
It always is. Then when things don't go the way they we see the childish bullshit come out like in 3.1.550.
Childish insults seems to be the last resort when weak arguments are destroyed.
Can't help but noticing those liberal tears when they are all over the place.
Not everyone is some 'victim' and the sooner some people realize that, the better.
Wow, You need to get off your "liberal tears soapbox" and engage in honest debate and not just talking points. And more to the point, I am not ever going to allow you to engage in emotionless 'chit-chat' with me where you present ideology over practical reality-where we all live including conservatives. When you are ready, let's go. (Although, I fear this article has ran its course and needs to fall back now.)
Nobody is looking for "liberal tears". We wade through them on a daily basis. Maybe if liberals would stop complaining about shit they want then complaining when they get it, this wouldn't be a problem.
I don't even mind the whining so much if they would just present some specific facts.
Instead what we get is some vague crap about how "rights, privilege, and station" are being TAKEN by conservatives.
When asked for specifics, they are NEVER forthcoming.
That's what happens when we deal with those who cannot separate feelings from facts. Then they claim that they want to engage in honest debate while in the midst of a temper tantrum.
Thank you for admitting that to be your goal.
You say that, and then you are never, ever, ever able to define any actual persecution you personally endure because of your race. You end up trying to substitute "lack of preferential treatment" in its stead.
The fact is you are still trying to fight the same battles from 1960, but they don't exist anymore. A whole new set of battles has emerged that you are utterly unwilling to acknowledge.
What problem have they fixed?
Keep running …..
Wow, there was your opening to start over again, and you post a "THINK SAFETY FIRST" meme.
I must ask: Are some conservatives simply shells without the talking points?
How bizarre
How bizarre, how bizarre
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=C2cMG33mWVY
I won't indulge you, Jack_TX. You live in the same country I live in. If you choose to ignore the plights of liberals for your own "conveniences" don't let it surprise when a liberal or several liberals bring them back up to a level of your awareness. That said, I don't have to detail what conservatives are doing, attempting to do, or long-term strategizing to bring about as some conservatives should keep themselves reasonably informed about what it is they are supporting.
Affirmative Action has been fought AGAINST by conservatives since it was conceived-as not being constitutional. Why? Because it is not in the constitution and conservatives at the constitutional convention would have seen to it that it not be in the constitution had it been brought up.
Conservatives have no interest in justice or freedom for anyone who is not a conservative. Let's cut the bullshit about right and wrong. Some conservatives morality is subjective and one-way: for conservatives to process and receive, liberals need not apply.
Going forward, some conservatives will not waste my time droning on and on about shit they should know and know well because they are the perpetrators of it.
Told you. Evidence of some conservatives pretending to know nothing and wasting other people time to explain it to the 'rocks' only to be dismissed out of turn.
You're firing blanks. /s
I encourage you to look again.
it really isn't about safety at all if you look again.
that is silly. of course we care about justice and freedom.
let's not pretend they are taking something from you when they aren't.
Here is an accurate summary of your talking points.
Conservatives bad.
Conservatives stole freedoms from me but I can't say which ones or even how they did it.
There you go.
Thank you, I’ve never been able too succulently summarize his talking points.
oh there will be lots and lots of words and fury signifying nothing.
Vasectomy?
I don't care about a meme, Texan1211 or your 'combat' persona which thinks anything at all you write is worthwhile and "winning." Get over it. Move on. Stop with the baiting questions and "hemming and hawing" comments and write something REAL that is heartfelt, else shallowness is all that comes forth. And none of that kind of SHIT will be remembered once the article is let go.
Some conservatives are bad. Some conservatives do steal freedoms from other citizens because stupidly they think the only good freedoms derive from the conservative mind. And as for telling you or any other conservative what is stolen and not granted to begin with would be a waste of time because conservatives have been bitchin and moanin; waiting and watching; finally, stealing and deploying whatever power and influence they can amass to do what it is we hear/see/experience happening right now in politics, opinions, and law.
If you don't know ask a(nother) conservative. I ain't wasting time talking to some 'rocks' who don't give a damn about liberals yesterday, today, or tomorrow.
Some conservatives care about conservative-leaning justice and freedom and the rest of us can eat shit.
Coming from a friend, I am surprised. Why did you wish to be friends again? I ask because you didn't bother to explain this time around or the last time.
Probably carry more weight had you not brought it up then.
you can repeat silly lines about how your rights, freedoms and standing have been stolen from you from now to Doomsday and it simply is tired rhetoric.
Agreed which just shows the sorry state of our public school system in the USA. In theory, all who attend public schools should get an equal education. Or at least something close enough as to not disadvantage them to any serious degree in the college selection process.
Now back to reality.
Yep and whose fault is that?
Certainly not the kids being subjected to an inferior product.
Wow. Thanks Clarence Thomas, the UN-Thurgood Marshall black justice on the Supreme Court. So here we go back to the radical 60's consciousness days all over again.
No.
Now colleges can't discriminate based on race.
That's a win for all unless you think equality is an evil conservative plot.
I think (some) conservatism is an evil plot. Again, affirmative action, lifted qualified students up to where their talents, intellect, and brilliance can be seen, felt, and heard in society. You can call it discrimination all you want! In which case, it would be POSITIVE discrimination which is a whole lot better than its counterpart!
Discrimination is discrimination no matter how hard you try to sugarcoat it.
And here all along I thought the real goal was equality.
I see I am wrong about the true goal.
Spin all you want; it will all end up in a court yet again sooner or later. Watch for the 'fat man' to sing again!
Why do you consider it spinning when I provide you with facts?
Stop being so cryptic--WHAT court cases? Where are they? What are they about?
P.S. SCOTUS ruled.
For now. Court cases happen every day.
Well, if you understand how courts work, it is doubtful that any court will deal with AA in college admissions since SCOTUS ruled.
It sounds more like a wish than a fact to me.
Oh, SCOTUS will be involved one way or another, bet that!
Oh, they WERE.
They ruled.
Get used to it now.
Is equality the real goal for conservatives, hell no! We all know it and now liberal leaders best get about doing something more about this!
SCOTUS will be involved again: may be because of conservative over-reach and going too far. Not a damn thing is settled law, as this AA reversal is exhibit 1 of this very statement.
How do you define equality?
What is exhibit 2?
The definition of equality is not the point of my comment. Let's move on. Conveniently, the point of the comment went over your head. (Hint: Inequality is more like what conservative are striving to achieve.) By now we all know that conservatives have long feigned liberty and freedom with a hidden motive of prejudice and injustice.
It has not make its proper appearance yet, but most likely conservative activists will get prior indications and notices!
Uh-huh.
You've got it!
It escapes you.
Ditto.
“It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so.”
― Ronald Reagan
yes, it must all be part of the very vast right-wing conservative plot to take your rights, privilege and station away, right?
Oh boy...
It's great that you support CRT in colleges and universities, same-sex marriage, and a women's right to privacy in child birth, eh? That's great, Texan! Tell us more about how you have fallen out with the republican party!
I don't really care what adults choose to study.
I don't care who marries what.
It has never been a secret that I support privacy in child birth.
BTW, I also support abortion. I think a woman should have as many as she wants and can afford.
Thanks! I'll rest easier tonight just basking in the glow of your personal stamp of approval.
But, and it's a big but, you anecdotal choices aside, you 'seat' yourself in the well of a party that does considerable and great harm to the lives of individuals who do not share (apparently) your view of those three key issues.
Ah, yes, the perpetual mythical victim routine.
Doesn't fly with me.
It does not matter if it "flies" are not! It's a fact and it can't be denied. As a conservative, republican, and defender of the policies which otherwise interfere and damage AMERICAN lives, these positions you stand for will be written about accordingly and appropriately.
It matters to me. I don't want to be subjected to the litany of alleged abuses suffered at the hands of some conservatives which can never be cited.
It's a waste of time, especially as many times as it has been repeated without facts.
So you SAY!
Yes, and as I have proven!
False, of course.
What conservative ever told you that?
Enjoy your fantasy trip while the rest of us reside in reality.
Nay! The sixties were a reality, and I am pretty sure you were a part of the dawning of the age of Aquarius!
Exactly, the Democratic Convention in Chicago in 2024, could be a real as it was in 1968.
Seriously?
I meant that it is a fantasy if you think we are returning to the 60's.
If we really want diversity of qualified applicants, throw out race and add class and region. Family income levels without regard to race can be taken into account and true diversity includes kids for urban, suburban, small and midsize towns and rural regions.
Diversity wasn't the only goal of AA.
In a poorly-designed attempt to right past wrongs, some folks thought discrimination was the cure FOR discrimination.
I swear, one couldn't even make something so stupid up.
Wow. So says conservatives who have never discriminated against anything, anywhere, at anytime! Including a favorite beverage, or shoe color that they will never wear. Or any of a 'thousand' things they choose to NEVER do in life. Talk about making up stupid. And then getting trying to get fierce about it.
Why do you insist on making shit up?
Intellectually dishonest and pretty damn weak.
So conservatives DO discriminate, eh? Hmm . . .what are you complaining about again?
Okay. Here it is AGAIN!
YES, SOME CONSERVATIVES DISCRIMINATE. SO DO SOME LIBERALS. SO DO SOME WHO DON'T IDENTIFY AS EITHER.
I was not complaining, just informing you that AA IS discrimination.
Take it or leave it as you will, but walk away with at least the truth of the matter.
We know that AA is discrimination; a type allowed by law to correct a past wrong in society. At least it was doing so, until a conservative majority SCOTUS decided to renege on a prior court decision just to APPEASE other conservatives who bitch and moan about 99.99 percent of things liberals write and do on the bench and off it!
Since now you personally admit YES, SOME CONSERVATIVES DISCRIMINATE it would appear you have been intellectually dishonest and pretty damn weak in making its denial/s.
Not nice.
I have been telling you comment after comment on this thread that there are POSITIVE forms of discrimination and NEGATIVE forms of discrimination. And the two things deserve recognition for their nuances.
Now you agree, with me as you have no choice but to do so, because it's a FACT!
And now it is no longer necessary. You should be happier that it achieved its goals.
Now look, we both know that is nothing but a woeful lie. I have not denied it, that is just you inventing things you WISH I had wrote and then poorly attempting to argue that which you invent.
I could ask for proof for yet another scurrilous claim, but you can't provide it for what is clearly nothing more than your misguided opinion, so I won't bother to ask for something you will completely and utterly ignore yet once again.
Renege? Interesting term, but I bet it is all one-sided.
Unless you think SCOTUS reneged when overturning:
Do/did you even care if it achieves/ed its goals? I think not! Some conservatives have spent their lives trying to take back/down every type of support the system used/es to self-correct for mistakes and errors against its citizens.
And so you admit that discrimination has its positive and negative ends of the spectrum. Good! You don't need to thank me for drawing it out of you. . .I don't need any applause for what I do here!
I agree.
I don't know that my opinion mattered much to SCOTUS, but hey, whatever you imagine.
Some liberals have spent their lives trying to convince everyone that certain folks are perpetual victims and that justifies any discrimination now.
I won't attempt to justify wrongdoing because I don't think the means are justified by the results. I'll leave such shenanigans to the unprincipled folk.
Oh but conservatives do, sir! Really, republicans do. Principle be damned.
So you SAY, but I PROVED you are doing it.
Nice quote, does that mean you are admitting to it now?
Somebody is digressing.
I agree ….. jeers perhaps but certainly not applause.
Perhaps?
You can do better than that!
I have tried to no avail to get you to stop.............
Which was the goal of Affirmative Action when JFK signed the EO.
There's a lot there but I don't see a damn thing about giving preference to anybody based on race, creed, color, or national origin. It morphed into the perception that somebody is owed something based on what ever was the "hot topic" of the day.
Well, it's been funny buns of a good week spent talking about affirmative action, but now its time to turn the page of tomorrow. Bye! (Chuckles.)
Welcome to tomorrow.
The place with one less discriminatory policy.
Happy trails to you, until we meet again
Happy trails to you, keep smilin' till then
https://music.youtube.com/watch?v=vwEQ33B0hoo
Wow. You too, friend.