MUScoop
MUScoop => The Superbar => Topic started by: 4everwarriors on June 29, 2023, 01:52:25 PM
-
Admission to college to be based on merit and not just checking the right boxes, hey?
-
Admission to college to be based on merit and not just checking the right boxes, hey?
Absolutely. Just ask all those legacy kids...
-
Admission to college to be based on merit and not just checking the right boxes, hey?
Too bad we haven't fixed the need for it, yet.
-
Merit like Jarod Kushner and George Bush?
-
They ended legacy admissions?
-
My unborn child could be a D1 rower for the right price...
-
Thank goodness! College is safe again!
IBTL
-
AA really did a disservice to those admitted. For example, in my daughter's high school class was an African American student who matriculated to Harvard. He was arguably one of the brightest students I've run across... AP Scholar, National Merit Finalist. Unfortunately, he'll likely go through life with people saying he got in to Harvard based on AA. Nothing could be farther from the truth. He earned it.
The current Press Secretary, on the other hand, is an entirely different story, hey?
-
AA really did a disservice to those admitted. For example, in my daughter's high school school was an African American student who matriculated to Harvard. He was arguably one of the brightest students I've run across... AP Scholar, National Merit Finalist. Unfortunately, he'll likely go through life with people saying he got in to Harvard based on AA. Nothing could be farther from the truth. He earned it.
Why do you make that assumption?
Maybe only dentists think like that.
-
AA really did a disservice to those admitted. For example, in my daughter's high school school was an African American student who matriculated to Harvard. He was arguably one of the brightest students I've run across... AP Scholar, National Merit Finalist. Unfortunately, he'll likely go through life with people saying he got in to Harvard based on AA. Nothing could be farther from the truth. He earned it.
The current Press Secretary, on the other hand, is an entirely different story, hey?
If that's the biggest problem of AA, that is a successful program
-
Why do you make that assumption?
Maybe only dentists think like that.
Shut up and drill
-
And all this time, I thought Alcoholics Anonymous helped people. Can't believe we have to say adios to AA.
-
Unfortunately, he'll likely go through life with people racists saying he got in to Harvard based on AA. Nothing could be farther from the truth. He earned it.
FTFY.
-
And all this time, I thought Alcoholics Anonymous helped people. Can't believe we have to say adios to AA.
AA is another example of America being fool in’ soft, aina?
-
Merit like Jarod Kushner and George Bush?
And Malia Obama?
-
This ruling will be controversial but the reality is it the demographics of college have changed and will continue to change. Females are now the vast majority of college students and whites will soon be under 50%. What's interesting is that it is the Asians who filed these lawsuits as they were stuck in a quota system. The reality is AA and Title IX have become in parts largely obsolete over time as to what was intended (mostly by demographics naturally).
These laws shouldn't be evergreened but should be updated to reflect 2023 not 1973. The reality is, these were very successful in accomplishing their intent.
-
And Malia Obama?
Maybe, though I admit I am completely ignorant WRT Malia's academics or ability to get into Harvard if she weren't the daughter of a former President.
I am quite positive OTOH that Jarod and Shrub would have had difficulty getting into Western Illinois without their connections.
-
I can honestly say I never once thought that someone only got into the college they did because they were African American or a minority.
-
I don't agree with the ruling but I don't think it will have that big of an impact. Schools will find other ways to get diverse student bodies, it just officially and explicitly can't be based on race.
You can use socio-economic status, family background, upbringing, etc.
A lot of room to get this type of information in certain essay questions without ever explicitly bringing up race.
-
I can only hope that is true, Coleman.
These justices that decided this, and their cheerleaders, are living in a bubble of their own making.
-
I don't agree with the ruling but I don't think it will have that big of an impact. Schools will find other ways to get diverse student bodies, it just officially and explicitly can't be based on race.
You can use socio-economic status, family background, upbringing, etc.
A lot of room to get this type of information in certain essay questions without ever explicitly bringing up race.
Strongly disagree. One political party is doing everything they can to destroy the American educational system. They’ve spent decades attacking teachers and the educated people of this country.
-
AA really did a disservice to those admitted. For example, in my daughter's high school class was an African American student who matriculated to Harvard. He was arguably one of the brightest students I've run across... AP Scholar, National Merit Finalist. Unfortunately, he'll likely go through life with people saying he got in to Harvard based on AA. Nothing could be farther from the truth. He earned it.
The current Press Secretary, on the other hand, is an entirely different story, hey?
Insecure racist White Man who cannot speak one language, jealously lashes out at Black Woman who speaks several languages.
-
If that's the biggest problem of AA, that is a successful program
This is 100% it for me right here.
-
I don't agree with the ruling but I don't think it will have that big of an impact. Schools will find other ways to get diverse student bodies, it just officially and explicitly can't be based on race.
You can use socio-economic status, family background, upbringing, etc.
A lot of room to get this type of information in certain essay questions without ever explicitly bringing up race.
Yep. Many colleges and universities stopped explicitly using race a long time ago in anticipation of a ruling like this. IMO it will result in very little change to what many places are already doing.
-
They ended legacy admissions?
GWB. Is smiling today. Mediocre, rich white kids have been sparred.
-
Strongly disagree. One political party is doing everything they can to destroy the American educational system. They’ve spent decades attacking teachers and the educated people of this country.
Yet immigrants of all nationalities, races and creeds are still knocking down the walls to enter and to educate their kids in the USA. There is no other nation with such diversity. Is the country flawed in the pursuit of that equality? Of course but that pursuit is the crux of this country's success.
#landofthefree
-
I am quite positive OTOH that Jarod and Shrub would have had difficulty getting into Western Illinois without their connections.
Devils advocate, Kushner was way over his head politically and looked like a clown from 2016 onward, but he went to a really good HS, graduated from Harvard with honors, and got a JD/MBA from NYU and was more than a little successful taking over after his dad went to jail. No doubt his dad's fat check drove his admission into Harvard, but that doesn't necessarily mean he's a bumbling idiot.
I had a friend in my Chicago days from a very wealthy family who got wait-listed at Georgtown. He got in cause one of his father's connected friends who was an alumni wrote a letter and made a donation. His "backups" that he already had gotten into were Vanderbilt and NYU, so its not like he was just a dumb lucky sperm club
I can honestly say I never once thought that someone only got into the college they did because they were African American or a minority.
I never "thought" but I knew based on fairly innocuous discussions in the dorms freshmen year about SAT scores and HS achievements. But that being said, one of the girls in question (who would have never gotten in as a random non-minority from suburban Detroit) absolutely killed it, got into a good med school and is now a doctor.
-
Yet immigrants of all nationalities, races and creeds are still knocking down the walls to enter and to educate their kids in the USA. There is no other nation with such diversity. Is the country flawed in the pursuit of that equality? Of course but that pursuit is the crux of this country's success.
#landofthefree
“There is no other nation with such diversity?” What? Not even close.
-
GWB. Is smiling today. Mediocre, rich white kids have been sparred.
That’s a bit much! Or did you mean “spared”?
-
Simple answer:
1) Set objective qualifications.
2) Take everyone who meets the qualifications by college and assign them a number.
3) Put every number is a drum.
4) Draw out 120% of the spaces in a class in a school.
5) Admit based on whose numbers were drawn first.
It's fair, objective and gives everyone an equal chance.
-
Time for Affirmative Action v2, aimed at the lower class. A lot of folks need a leg up in this country, regardless of the mistakes/misfortune of their parents.
It's not easy to meet standardized qualifications when you grew up food insecure, having to care for your siblings/relatives.
-
Yet immigrants of all nationalities, races and creeds are still knocking down the walls to enter and to educate their kids in the USA. There is no other nation with such diversity. Is the country flawed in the pursuit of that equality? Of course but that pursuit is the crux of this country's success.
#landofthefree
We don’t want them and when they get here, we let them know in every way imaginable. Well, at least one loud segment of America
-
I never "thought" but I knew based on fairly innocuous discussions in the dorms freshmen year about SAT scores and HS achievements. But that being said, one of the girls in question (who would have never gotten in as a random non-minority from suburban Detroit) absolutely killed it, got into a good med school and is now a doctor.
I've never understood the acceptance process for colleges. My fiancé went to an Ivy League school but was declined by another very good school (and she wasn't a legacy admit at the Ivy League school). A friend of mine went to the school that she was declined at and was declined at the Ivy League school she went to.
To me it's all over the board. I remember people with incredible grades and solid test scores being waitlisted at Madison while other people who seemingly had worse grades and/or test scores got admitted right away.
-
“There is no other nation with such diversity?” What? Not even close.
Name them?
-
Simple answer:
1) Set objective qualifications.
2) Take everyone who meets the qualifications by college and assign them a number.
3) Put every number is a drum.
4) Draw out 120% of the spaces in a class in a school.
5) Admit based on whose numbers were drawn first.
It's fair, objective and gives everyone an equal chance.
In this scenario, how is a kid from Englewood or Appalachia given an equal chance with one from Winnetka or Scarsdale?
-
I see the justices made an exception for the military academies. Minorities make good cannon fodder.
-
I see the justices made an exception for the military academies. Minorities make good cannon fodder.
https://youtu.be/AQnEBSwdAXw
-
Name them?
There's dozens of them.
https://wisevoter.com/country-rankings/most-racially-diverse-countries/
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/most-diverse-countries
-
Fascists morons doing moronic fascist things.
I anticipate this will have a similar effect on the electorate as the Roe overthrow.
-
Time for Affirmative Action v2, aimed at the lower class. A lot of folks need a leg up in this country, regardless of the mistakes/misfortune of their parents.
It's not easy to meet standardized qualifications when you grew up food insecure, having to care for your siblings/relatives.
100%. I would have no problem if there was a sliding scale based on economics or schools attended. But why should Asians from the same prep school be discriminated vs white kids? And why should white kids under those same circumstances be discriminated against vs black kids?
-
Fascists morons doing moronic fascist things.
I anticipate this will have a similar effect on the electorate as the Roe overthrow.
https://www.theonion.com/i-decided-to-become-a-slave-so-one-day-my-descendants-c-1850592638
-
There's dozens of them.
https://wisevoter.com/country-rankings/most-racially-diverse-countries/
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/most-diverse-countries
So they are counting the 22 indigenous African tribes of Liberia as "diverse"?
-
I would ask who bought off Alito and Thomas on this one, but they probably did this one for free.
-
So they are counting the 22 indigenous African tribes of Liberia as "diverse"?
Yeah, because they are diverse.
Ethnic and cultural diversity isn't something determined only by arbitrary political boundaries and skin color.
-
Yeah, because they are diverse.
Ethnic and cultural diversity isn't something determined only by arbitrary political boundaries and skin color.
The stat headline says “racial diversity” but then counts ethnic diversity. A neighborhood of 100 families with 10 of each from Poland, Ukraine, Bulgaria, and 7 other Eastern European countries is ethnically diverse, but not racially diverse.
Dr B’s original point was about diversity of race and nationality and religion. I think that’s wholly different than a country with a bunch of ethnic groups that fall into the same category of the above. It’s not some idea of American exceptionalism or denigration of Liberia or Nigeria or Iran, it’s just speaking factually.
-
...the primary beneficiaries of affirmative action have been white women. Women held only 35 percent of bachelor degrees before affirmative action policies were reintroduced; now, women’s enrollment in college outpaces men, and has for some time. Now, elite colleges and universities are giving men a boost in admissions considerations, because their grades and scores are not keeping pace with women’s.
Yet you’ll note that the Supreme Court did not ban gender consciousness in college admissions. Nor did it ban legacy consciousness, wealth consciousness, geographic consciousness, or athletic consciousness
-
Or at the military academies. A fascinating distinction.
-
Simple answer:
1) Set objective qualifications.
2) Take everyone who meets the qualifications by college and assign them a number.
3) Put every number is a drum.
4) Draw out 120% of the spaces in a class in a school.
5) Admit based on whose numbers were drawn first.
It's fair, objective and gives everyone an equal chance.
Don’t quit your day job.
-
I can honestly say I never once thought that someone only got into the college they did because they were African American or a minority.
Because you are not consumed with grievance and resentment
-
The stat headline says “racial diversity” but then counts ethnic diversity. A neighborhood of 100 families with 10 of each from Poland, Ukraine, Bulgaria, and 7 other Eastern European countries is ethnically diverse, but not racially diverse.
Dr B’s original point was about diversity of race and nationality and religion. I think that’s wholly different than a country with a bunch of ethnic groups that fall into the same category of the above. It’s not some idea of American exceptionalism or denigration of Liberia or Nigeria or Iran, it’s just speaking factually.
And it’s very simplistic. But sure. Let’s say “hey all those African tribes are basically the same” and see what they think.
But they all look alike right?
-
Devils advocate, Kushner was way over his head politically and looked like a clown from 2016 onward, but he went to a really good HS, graduated from Harvard with honors, and got a JD/MBA from NYU and was more than a little successful taking over after his dad went to jail. No doubt his dad's fat check drove his admission into Harvard, but that doesn't necessarily mean he's a bumbling idiot.
Fair point.
Though, he was also a bumbling idiot in real estate, too, until his connections brought in sketchy foreign money to bail him out.
-
Yeah, because they are diverse.
Ethnic and cultural diversity isn't something determined only by arbitrary political boundaries and skin color.
Using that "logic" the 100s of native American tribes would make the USofA more diverse.
-
Using that "logic" the 100s of native American tribes would make the USofA more diverse.
The land mass of Africa is gigantic. Regardless of specificity of definition.
-
Using that "logic" the 100s of native American tribes would make the USofA more diverse.
There are different types of tribes no doubt. Hundreds? No. But they’re not all the same you know.
-
In this scenario, how is a kid from Englewood or Appalachia given an equal chance with one from Winnetka or Scarsdale?
Does the young man or woman from Father Ryan have the equal chance with a person from MBA, BGA or a private academy in the east?
Probably not.
Life is what you make of it. All things being equal, someone from Harvard has a better chance of being a CEO than someone from Marquette. But that just means the woman from Marquette is going to have to work harder than the silver spooned legacy Caucasian male from Harvard. Get used to it. That's life.
Guess who I'd rather have as my CEO -- the woman from Marquette because, dadgummit, she had to scratch for what she attained. Maybe the Harvard person did too, but at the end of the day, there comes a point where what you are is more important than who you are or from where you came!
-
Guess who I'd rather have as my CEO -- the woman from Marquette because, dadgummit, she had to scratch for what she attained. Maybe the Harvard person did too, but at the end of the day, there comes a point where what you are is more important than who you are or from where you came!
Congrats I’m sure many people want This. Im sure some people think this person exists but it’s as unique as Al or hopefully Shaka.
I’m optimistic about the future but being grounded reality is never more important.
-
Wow. Some of you guys are quite enthusiastic in your willingness to discriminate against Asian-American students. Shocked I tell you.
-
Fair point.
Though, he was also a bumbling idiot in real estate, too, until his connections brought in sketchy foreign money to bail him out.
you have the hubris of bring up "bumbling idiots" and "sketchy foreign money"??
prostitutes, porn hub accounts and crack are biness deductions now and they haven't even scratched the surface of art sales and gun possession by a felon
pay your fair share, eyn'a
you best sit this one out oinky
-
Question ..
Google tells me there are ~3200 colleges in the US public + private. AA mostly impacted schools that were moderately+ selective and .. full, right? That leaves thousands of other options, with tons of high quality schools to choose from.
So many of the cases that are stated surround schools like Harvard, MIT, Ivies, and formerly UCLA, and Berkeley. These now turned away kids .. aren't they just going to another pretty solid school?
Doesn't the demise of AA only impact a tiny sliver of academically solid kids who have dozens of other choices?
-
There are different types of tribes no doubt. Hundreds? No. But they’re not all the same you know.
574 recognized tribes per the Dept of Interior.
But yes, I believe they are all the same. 🙄
-
The golden ring some would say….
-
Wow. Some of you guys are quite enthusiastic in your willingness to discriminate against Asian-American students. Shocked I tell you.
This is very depressing and upsetting thread on a number of levels dtd. I'll just leave it at that. Keep your head up. Maybe we can all agree that having a variety of views on the subject make this country great? Unfortunately, if you read these comments, it seems more likely that our schism will widen and we're on the brink of a total collapse. Secession may be in our future? It's honestly really sad.
-
Question ..
Google tells me there are ~3200 colleges in the US public + private. AA mostly impacted schools that were moderately+ selective and .. full, right? That leaves thousands of other options, with tons of high quality schools to choose from.
So many of the cases that are stated surround schools like Harvard, MIT, Ivies, and formerly UCLA, and Berkeley. These now turned away kids .. aren't they just going to another pretty solid school?
Doesn't the demise of AA only impact a tiny sliver of academically solid kids who have dozens of other choices?
If this is the case why would it be important enough for the highest court in the country to rule?
-
Yeah, because they are diverse.
Ethnic and cultural diversity isn't something determined only by arbitrary political boundaries and skin color.
The topic is AA legal definition in the US. You pulled a Chicoesque 10 second Google search as your counter argument for diversity? You are better than that. Uganda is diverse?
Btw, how many Gaelic Tribes are we not counting? Pick up your game.
The fact is there has been statistically a lot of progress. Time for a more advanced approach like what the Jackson's donated to MU 2-3 years ago.
-
If this is the case why would it be important enough for the highest court in the country to rule?
We both think the SC should weigh in.
I'm more interested in the practical societal impact, small, medium, large?
-
Question ..
Google tells me there are ~3200 colleges in the US public + private. AA mostly impacted schools that were moderately+ selective and .. full, right? That leaves thousands of other options, with tons of high quality schools to choose from.
So many of the cases that are stated surround schools like Harvard, MIT, Ivies, and formerly UCLA, and Berkeley. These now turned away kids .. aren't they just going to another pretty solid school?
Doesn't the demise of AA only impact a tiny sliver of academically solid kids who have dozens of other choices?
People who are redlined can always find another house, I guess. That doesn’t make the discrimination any less wrong, though.
-
you have the hubris of bring up "bumbling idiots" and "sketchy foreign money"??
prostitutes, porn hub accounts and crack are biness deductions now and they haven't even scratched the surface of art sales and gun possession by a felon
pay your fair share, eyn'a
you best sit this one out oinky
Do you ever have a thought for yourself? Everything is a regurgitation of whatever was on Fox in the last hour, with never a shred of examination. You vomit out the daily outrage like the well-trained monkey that you are.
-
People who are redlined can always find another house, I guess. That doesn’t make the discrimination any less wrong, though.
I'm not sure your point is there -- unless you are making the point that AA was discriminating against whites, which I'd agree is undeniable -- but the comparative "wrongs" are not in the same league.
-
Do you ever have a thought for yourself? Everything is a regurgitation of whatever was on Fox in the last hour, with never a shred of examination. You vomit out the daily outrage like the well-trained monkey that you are.
🐷🐷
-
The topic is AA legal definition in the US. You pulled a Chicoesque 10 second Google search as your counter argument for diversity? You are better than that. Uganda is diverse?
Btw, how many Gaelic Tribes are we not counting? Pick up your game.
The fact is there has been statistically a lot of progress. Time for a more advanced approach like what the Jackson's donated to MU 2-3 years ago.
Meh. Just seems you want to handpick definition of diverse that supports your nitial claim. Whatever. Not worth arguing over.
-
Meh. Just seems you want to handpick definition of diverse that supports your nitial claim. Whatever. Not worth arguing over.
You lost me on Afghanistan and Iran.
-
Sultan has dressed as a Native American for Halloween
-
Does the young man or woman from Father Ryan have the equal chance with a person from MBA, BGA or a private academy in the east?
Probably not.
Life is what you make of it. All things being equal, someone from Harvard has a better chance of being a CEO than someone from Marquette. But that just means the woman from Marquette is going to have to work harder than the silver spooned legacy Caucasian male from Harvard. Get used to it. That's life.
Guess who I'd rather have as my CEO -- the woman from Marquette because, dadgummit, she had to scratch for what she attained. Maybe the Harvard person did too, but at the end of the day, there comes a point where what you are is more important than who you are or from where you came!
Huh. So you're OK with systemic inequities when they work against the poor and disadvantaged. That's life and all
-
Meh. Just seems you want to handpick definition of diverse that supports your nitial claim. Whatever. Not worth arguing over.
Weak. Take the L, cheeks.
-
You lost me on Afghanistan and Iran.
They're countries in a part of the world frequently referred to as the "Middle East," though that's a bit of a misnomer in the case of Afghanistan.
You should know this stuff.
-
Weak. Take the L, cheeks.
Pig emoji. Clown emoji.
/reaches for key to chastity device.
-
If only merit in the classroom should count for college admissions, then ask yourself the following question: Why are preferences of any kind still allowable?:
1. Geographic preferences (you may be from a preferred region of the country)
2. Legacy preferences (big boost at many schools)
3. Athletic preferences (you can shoot a round ball through a hoop - you're in)
4. Special talent preferences (you excel at art, dance, or the violin)
5. Wealth preferences (yes, with enough money, you can literally buy your way into a university)
If you honestly feel that racial preferences should eliminated (no doubt that's a legitimate position to take), then how can you turn a blind eye to the other preferences that are still allowable? I say now that racial preferences in college admissions has been eliminated, then all other preferences should be eliminated and we should let the chips fall where they may (Digies, love your lottery example above). In fact, if we eliminate all preferences and admit kids to college based solely on academic merit, then maybe we can let schools do what they're best at - educating kids.
Just for kicks, I would eliminate legacy preferences immediately. Imagine the kid applying to an Ivy who has to rely SOLELY on his performance in the classroom for admission to Mom's/Dad's alma mater? Next, I would eliminate athletic preferences (this would be the most fun). Can you imagine the next 7'2" Kentucky recruit or the next star running back seeking admission at USC having to rely SOLELY on his performance in the classroom? Laughable, right? Sorry Johnny, I know you can bench four hundred pounds and run a 4.3 forty, but that skinny 5'6" kid with no athletic ability is better in the classroom than you. That's just the way it is since we eliminated preferences.
-
They're countries in a part of the world frequently referred to as the "Middle East," though that's a bit of a misnomer in the case of Afghanistan.
You should know this stuff.
I am quoting the source you posted. Afghanistan and Iran are, according to your posted source, some of the most "diverse" countries in the world (along with Uganda). Much more than the US or any western country other than Belgium.
Do you read the sources you post?
-
I am quoting the source you posted. Afghanistan and Iran are, according to your posted source, some of the most "diverse" countries in the world (along with Uganda). Much more than the US or any western country other than Belgium.
Do you read the sources you post?
I take it you disagree.
Why?
You should probably read this while you're at it.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/05/16/a-revealing-map-of-the-worlds-most-and-least-ethnically-diverse-countries/
-
I take it you disagree.
Why?
(https://www.cheatsheet.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Fonzie-jumps-the-shark-1.jpg)
You should probably read this while you're at it.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/05/16/a-revealing-map-of-the-worlds-most-and-least-ethnically-diverse-countries/
(https://media.cnn.com/api/v1/images/stellar/prod/211228170239-taliban-bans-afghan-women.jpg?q=h_1997,w_3000,x_0,y_0)
-
I would ask who bought off Alito and Thomas on this one, but they probably did this one for free.
Thomas has wanted to end AA for a very long time. It also isn't an overstatement to say that his career is a direct byproduct of AA - he was admitted to Yale law under AA, and Bush I appointed him to SCOTUS to replace Thurgood Marshall after only 18 months as an appellate judge. And yet to hear him talk about the mental and social impact AA had on him, he feels very victimized by it.
-
(https://media.cnn.com/api/v1/images/stellar/prod/211228170239-taliban-bans-afghan-women.jpg?q=h_1997,w_3000,x_0,y_0)
Burka, please.
-
Pig emoji. Clown emoji.
/reaches for key to chastity device.
💦💦💦
-
Do you ever have a thought for yourself? Everything is a regurgitation of whatever was on Fox in the last hour, with never a shred of examination. You vomit out the daily outrage like the well-trained monkey that you are.
this seems to be your canned response to everything that opposes(very rightly so) your msnbc/cnn/the view generated opinions.
0 for 10 (reeko very disappointed)
i guess AA didn't work for you at MU after all
please sit this one out
-
Simple answer:
1) Set objective qualifications.
2) Take everyone who meets the qualifications by college and assign them a number.
3) Put every number is a drum.
4) Draw out 120% of the spaces in a class in a school.
5) Admit based on whose numbers were drawn first.
It's fair, objective and gives everyone an equal chance.
This absolutely ignores a ton of issues. If everything prior to step 1 is equal then I'm fine with your criteria... but it ain't.
-
this seems to be your canned response to everything that opposes(very rightly so) your msnbc/cnn/the view generated opinions.
0 for 10 (reeko very disappointed)
i guess AA didn't work for you at MU after all
please sit this one out
You should probably sit the entire forum out, just sayin'.
-
574 recognized tribes per the Dept of Interior.
But yes, I believe they are all the same. 🙄
A tribe is a legal term, not an ethnic one.
-
100%. I would have no problem if there was a sliding scale based on economics or schools attended. But why should Asians from the same prep school be discriminated vs white kids? And why should white kids under those same circumstances be discriminated against vs black kids?
Actually a good take. Someone else mentioned it here but AA should be based on socio-economic status rather than race.
One is measurable, the other is a social construct that creates 'otherism'.
-
Question ..
Google tells me there are ~3200 colleges in the US public + private. AA mostly impacted schools that were moderately+ selective and .. full, right? That leaves thousands of other options, with tons of high quality schools to choose from.
So many of the cases that are stated surround schools like Harvard, MIT, Ivies, and formerly UCLA, and Berkeley. These now turned away kids .. aren't they just going to another pretty solid school?
Doesn't the demise of AA only impact a tiny sliver of academically solid kids who have dozens of other choices?
In the end it really will have very little impact. IMO the racial make up of highly selective universities will be no different than it is now.
-
Actually a good take. Someone else mentioned it here but AA should be based on socio-economic status rather than race.
One is measurable, the other is a social construct that creates 'otherism'.
Which is exactly what many schools have been moving toward for years.
-
This absolutely ignores a ton of issues. If everything prior to step 1 is equal then I'm fine with your criteria... but it ain't.
how do you propose we deal with "a ton of issues" in order to get to the point of establishing a set of criteria to whittle long lists of candidates down to a finite number of positions. we can't list every scenario under which every person from every background, ethnicity, religion, etc etc comes from. i very much dislike the, "i don't test well" excuses
interviews, grades, resumes, essays, references
problem is people are flawed
-
how do you propose we deal with "a ton of issues" in order to get to the point of establishing a set of criteria to whittle long lists of candidates down to a finite number of positions. we can't list every scenario under which every person from every background, ethnicity, religion, etc etc comes from. i very much dislike the, "i don't test well" excuses
interviews, grades, resumes, essays, references
problem is people are flawed
Yeah, I have to question the people that let you into Marquette
-
First off, the vast majority of schools (including Marquette) are accepting the majority of the people who apply, and want most of them to show up. So it really isn't going to impact them at all.
Second, at highly selective institutions, grades aren't a differentiating factor. Everyone admitted has great grades. Everyone is really smart and really accomplished academically. The problem is that interviews, resumes, essays and references all are subjective. What if the last spot is between two people both 4.0, honors level students. One was the captain of the football team, volunteered at a homeless shelter and has zero financial need so he didn't work. The other wasn't involved in many extra curriculars because he was too busy working two jobs to support his family. Who do you take?
The idea that admissions can only be done on merit just doesn't reflect reality. When people hire for a job, do you only look at experience and nothing else? Candidate A has 12 years experience and Candidate B has 10 - therefore we have to hire the former? Of course not.
-
how do you propose we deal with "a ton of issues" in order to get to the point of establishing a set of criteria to whittle long lists of candidates down to a finite number of positions. we can't list every scenario under which every person from every background, ethnicity, religion, etc etc comes from. i very much dislike the, "i don't test well" excuses
interviews, grades, resumes, essays, references
problem is people are flawed
Are you asking how I would fix education or how I would determine socio-economic status? This isn't an easy fix, but it is fixable.
-
Thank you all for your responses to the Dgies Random Admissions Program ("RAP"). Here's some additional thoughts to chew on, both positive and negative:
1) Positive: It eliminates legacy admissions. OK, university advancement may suffer but a legacy who meets certain academic and social criteria has the same chance as anyone else. Period. It's a numbers game, silly!
2) Positive: The RAP program is color-blind. You may end up with a class full of Asians or you may have a diverse class. It'll change every year based on the luck of the draw.
3) Positive: RAP envisions one set-aside -- for athletes! We want our Warriors to be as strong as ever!
4) Negative: No character admissions. We may have someone who is of incredible character and is just a really "special" human being who would otherwise be admitted because an officer read a recommendation letter. Recommendation letters under RAP are out. RAP is a numbers game based on a pre-determined criteria.
5) Negative: Economics. RAP treats everyone the same. It ignores the question of how much student aid, scholarships and loans a student needs to enter an elite university. Thus, if a school's resources are limited, there may be more than average fall-out.
6) Neutral: A class' mix may not be one the Professors want to teach. Waaaahhh, stop your whining.
Ultimately, if society wants a more diverse mix of students, the solution is to increase the pool of qualified applicants. That comes from a systematic improvement in educational quality, holding teachers accountable and demanding more from urban educational systems. Affirmative Action was supposed to be a bridge from where we were -- systematic Jim Crow -- to a day when society was color blind. That bridge seems to never end and that's part of what the Supreme Court was saying.
Full Disclosure: I went to Marquette ;D . No affirmative action program, special admissions systems or other preferences affected my ability to gain admission to the world's greatest university. To the extent that one class of students had an "edge" in gaining admission to Marquette at that time, so what? Plus, I met Ms. Dgies there and we live happily ever after.
-
Thank you all for your responses to the Dgies Random Admissions Program ("RAP"). Here's some additional thoughts to chew on, both positive and negative:
1) Positive: It eliminates legacy admissions. OK, university advancement may suffer but a legacy who meets certain academic and social criteria has the same chance as anyone else. Period. It's a numbers game, silly!
2) Positive: The RAP program is color-blind. You may end up with a class full of Asians or you may have a diverse class. It'll change every year based on the luck of the draw.
3) Positive: RAP envisions one set-aside -- for athletes! We want our Warriors to be as strong as ever!
4) Negative: No character admissions. We may have someone who is of incredible character and is just a really "special" human being who would otherwise be admitted because an officer read a recommendation letter. Recommendation letters under RAP are out. RAP is a numbers game based on a pre-determined criteria.
5) Negative: Economics. RAP treats everyone the same. It ignores the question of how much student aid, scholarships and loans a student needs to enter an elite university. Thus, if a school's resources are limited, there may be more than average fall-out.
6) Neutral: A class' mix may not be one the Professors want to teach. Waaaahhh, stop your whining.
Ultimately, if society wants a more diverse mix of students, the solution is to increase the pool of qualified applicants. That comes from a systematic improvement in educational quality, holding teachers accountable and demanding more from urban educational systems. Affirmative Action was supposed to be a bridge from where we were -- systematic Jim Crow -- to a day when society was color blind. That bridge seems to never end and that's part of what the Supreme Court was saying.
Full Disclosure: I went to Marquette ;D . No affirmative action program, special admissions systems or other preferences affected my ability to gain admission to the world's greatest university. To the extent that one class of students had an "edge" in gaining admission to Marquette at that time, so what? Plus, I met Ms. Dgies there and we live happily ever after.
Again, don't quit your day job.
-
In the end it really will have very little impact. IMO the racial make up of highly selective universities will be no different than it is now.
Exactly. It won't have much impact at all (if any) at the elite schools. Possibly in athletics but I doubt it. And regardless of race, the kids who don't get in and wind up at a non Ivy will be fine. In light of our current issues in the country this one is infinitesimal.
-
Again, don't quit your day job.
Stop attacking brother dgies. All opinions should be valued.
-
Stop attacking brother dgies. All opinions should be valued.
No. It's a really bad idea.
-
The dgies RAP is a formula for an endless cycle of low educational attainment and poverty among the lower classes.
-
My view is that many of the large state schools, the Ivies, and a few other schools really like AA just as they like the legacies. It makes teaching easier because the students aren't as demanding. It's really difficult to teach a room full of brilliant students. Most professors are lazy, and their incentives (i.e. $$) come from research in STEM or "publish or perish" in the humanities so they could give a toss about teaching. More dumb students makes them happy because they can focus on what brings the $$.
Now, those same schools are all out talking to the insurance companies, trying to buy the red line data so they can do the same thing a different way.
Most schools are also biased towards a percentage who can pay full price because they also need people to pay the bills.
I still believe there are a handful of universities out there that have the aim of educating people, but the majority have lost the plot.
-
My view is that many of the large state schools, the Ivies, and a few other schools really like AA just as they like the legacies. It makes teaching easier because the students aren't as demanding. It's really difficult to teach a room full of brilliant students. Most professors are lazy, and their incentives (i.e. $$) come from research in STEM or "publish or perish" in the humanities so they could give a toss about teaching. More dumb students makes them happy because they can focus on what brings the $$.
Now, those same schools are all out talking to the insurance companies, trying to buy the red line data so they can do the same thing a different way.
Most schools are also biased towards a percentage who can pay full price because they also need people to pay the bills.
I still believe there are a handful of universities out there that have the aim of educating people, but the majority have lost the plot.
So your theory is that the highly selective Ivies and their ilk, and the large state schools, really don't want the best students? So the fact that pretty much everyone accepted has high academic achievement is really just a ruse?
Congrats on having the dumbest take in the topic. It was a high bar, but you managed to reach it. I especially like the casual racism of the "well getting minorities enrolled is a way to dumb down the students."
-
My view is that many of the large state schools, the Ivies, and a few other schools really like AA just as they like the legacies. It makes teaching easier because the students aren't as demanding. It's really difficult to teach a room full of brilliant students. Most professors are lazy, and their incentives (i.e. $$) come from research in STEM or "publish or perish" in the humanities so they could give a toss about teaching. More dumb students makes them happy because they can focus on what brings the $$.
Now, those same schools are all out talking to the insurance companies, trying to buy the red line data so they can do the same thing a different way.
Most schools are also biased towards a percentage who can pay full price because they also need people to pay the bills.
I still believe there are a handful of universities out there that have the aim of educating people, but the majority have lost the plot.
In summary: Colleges like AA because students who benefit are less intelligent and less demanding.
Saying the quiet part out loud.
-
The dgies RAP is a formula for an endless cycle of low educational attainment and poverty among the lower classes.
Brother Muggs:
Thank you!
Brother Pakuni:
That's a rather condescending and possibly racist comment. Are you suggesting that the only way that protected class individuals can compete with non-protected class individuals is if we change the rules?
If it we make it easier for people that we think might be inferior? Good God, that's the same underlying view that we have been trying to eradicate for 70 or so years!
I get that the Dgies RAP program makes it harder to "take a chance" on someone. But our laws speak loudly and tell us we shouldn't discriminate on race.
Society has evolved dramatically since Brown vs. Board in 1954. I get concerns about ensuring every body has a fair shot. But as I said previously, giving folks a fair shot does not mean set-asides. It means providing the impetus to expand the pool! That's the direction we need to go as a society.
Oh and I still don't believe in set-asides for legacies!
-
In summary: Colleges like AA because students who benefit are less intelligent and less demanding.
Saying the quiet part out loud.
Shut up and study?
-
If y'all were honest, you'd want your airline pilot, heart surgeon, attorney, etc. to be one of the best and and brightest. You also wouldn't want your kids to be passed over for a lesser candidate who checks the right box. Oh, for thee, but not for me, aina?
-
If y'all were honest, you'd want your airline pilot, heart surgeon, attorney, etc. to be one of the best and and brightest. You also wouldn't want your kids to be passed over for a lesser candidate who checks the right box. Oh, for thee, but not not for me, aina?
Shut up and drill, aina?
-
Shut up and drill, aina?
Thank you. I agree with this analysis
-
I normally hate breaking things down to narrative, but this is just another one of those things where anyone who can speak to first hand experience with it supports it, and everyone else just bitches from the sideline.* I am yet to meet a white peer who thought they were unjustly impacted by AA and with whom I would ever really want to spend time. Anyone who in the last 25 years has attended institutions that employed AA policies can plainly see why individuals admitted under AA were worthy and absolutely enhanced the campus experience compared to just another middle to high achieving white kid, despite lower objective metrics. Of course there will always be outliers, but broadly, the societal benefit of admitting AA candidates vs just another white kid from the suburbs is pretty plain - even to any white kid from the suburbs who is worth a damn anyway.
* for the perspective of Justice Thomas. His experiences and perspective shouldn't be invalidated. That being said, his perspective also shouldn't be dispositive on an issue that impacts so many people. And the manner in which he has continued to take advantage of AA benefits implicitly throughout his rise to the Supreme Court adds important context to his position.
-
If y'all were honest, you'd want your airline pilot, heart surgeon, attorney, etc. to be one of the best and and brightest. You also wouldn't want your kids to be passed over for a lesser candidate who checks the right box. Oh, for thee, but not not for me, aina?
This is just it - we are talking about admission to the education that MAKES a person an airline pilot, heart surgeon, or attorney. You are assuming that the skill of the person already "is what it is" when they graduate high school. That is plainly bullcrap. For my money, an 18 year old kid is closer to unformed clay than an actualized professional in whose hands I would place my life. In that context, I'd much rather take my chances with the 20-years-later version of the African American kid who grew up on the south side and got a 26 on the ACT despite much tougher odds than just another white kid from Naperville who got a 32.
-
Right. We are talking about the best and brightest…in high school.
Not some high stakes profession.
-
This is just it - we are talking about admission to the education that MAKES a person an airline pilot, heart surgeon, or attorney. You are assuming that the skill of the person already "is what it is" when they graduate high school. That is plainly bullcrap. For my money, an 18 year old kid is closer to unformed clay than an actualized professional in whose hands I would place my life. In that context, I'd much rather take my chances with the 20-years-later version of the African American kid who grew up on the south side and got a 26 on the ACT despite much tougher odds than just another white kid from Naperville who got a 32.
Nailed it.
-
This is just it - we are talking about admission to the education that MAKES a person an airline pilot, heart surgeon, or attorney. You are assuming that the skill of the person already "is what it is" when they graduate high school. That is plainly bullcrap. For my money, an 18 year old kid is closer to unformed clay than an actualized professional in whose hands I would place my life. In that context, I'd much rather take my chances with the 20-years-later version of the African American kid who grew up on the south side and got a 26 on the ACT despite much tougher odds than just another white kid from Naperville who got a 32.
Suburban kids have it to easy. Part of the pussificati0n of America, aina?
Something about cracked sidewalks, eh?
-
Right. We are talking about the best and brightest…in high school.
Not some high stakes profession.
But that doesn't put the fear of God in well off old white men. The world has been so hard on those people.
-
Anyone know the impetus and financial backing of the groups who brought the lawsuits to the SC?
-
Anyone know the impetus and financial backing of the groups who brought the lawsuits to the SC?
Asians were upset
-
For my money, an 18 year old kid is closer to unformed clay than an actualized professional in whose hands I would place my life.
Surely you’re in favor of increasing the minimum voting age, yes?
-
This is just it - we are talking about admission to the education that MAKES a person an airline pilot, heart surgeon, or attorney. You are assuming that the skill of the person already "is what it is" when they graduate high school. That is plainly bullcrap. For my money, an 18 year old kid is closer to unformed clay than an actualized professional in whose hands I would place my life. In that context, I'd much rather take my chances with the 20-years-later version of the African American kid who grew up on the south side and got a 26 on the ACT despite much tougher odds than just another white kid from Naperville who got a 32.
This is the correct response. No brilliant high schooler, no matter how brilliant they are, is going to be said heart surgeon.l straight out of high school. Hell, how many people change majors in college these days?
Allow kids from marginalized groups the opportunity and access to higher education so they have the tools to become doctors, etc. but instead we just see them as cannon fodder.
-
Surely you’re in favor of increasing the minimum voting age, yes?
No because we have decided that despite being "unformed clay" at age 18 for purposes of being airline pilots, heart surgeons, or attorneys until they receive significant training, we have decided that they are at a sufficient level to vote, die for their country, and be punished as adults in the criminal justice system. As a society, we have decided that they have a sufficient mental capacity to vote on the future of the country they are inheriting, but not to cut open my chest and perform surgery on my heart. I think that's an okay line to draw.
-
No because we have decided that despite being "unformed clay" at age 18 for purposes of being airline pilots, heart surgeons, or attorneys until they receive significant training, we have decided that they are at a sufficient level to vote, die for their country, and be punished as adults in the criminal justice system. As a society, we have decided that they have a sufficient mental capacity to vote on the future of the country they are inheriting, but not to cut open my chest and perform surgery on my heart. I think that's an okay line to draw.
It’s a straw man argument.
Truth is, it’s a movement that will gain a lot of steam moving forward, raising the voting age.
Making voting harder and discriminatory is the goal of one political party.
-
Supreme Court yesterday: Don't discriminate!
Supreme Court today: Discriminate as you please!
-
Supreme Court yesterday: Don't discriminate!
Supreme Court today: Discriminate as you please!
There are zero checks and balances on the Supreme Court right now.
This is what the Republican Party wanted, block the Garland confirmation based on zero merit and let it unravel from there.
-
Devils advocate, Kushner was way over his head politically and looked like a clown from 2016 onward, but he went to a really good HS, graduated from Harvard with honors, and got a JD/MBA from NYU and was more than a little successful taking over after his dad went to jail. No doubt his dad's fat check drove his admission into Harvard, but that doesn't necessarily mean he's a bumbling idiot.
Also, playing Devils Advocate. 90% of students who graduated the same year as Kushner from Harvard also graduated with honors, so it just means he was above the 90th percentile in his class. That typically would not be sufficient to get one into a JD/MBA program at NYU. His JD/MBA was also likely a result of his family connections.
And as someone else already mentioned, his real estate prowess was not one to write home about.
But I agree, none of the above suggests at all he's a bumbling idiot. I remind students all the time, that just to finish their degrees at a high quality institution places one smarter than 90% of the worlds population. But Kushner and most of his ilk (wealthy families) benefit immeasurably because of their connections.
An anecdotal story. A student I had once, got into our university solely based on family connections. Ended up finishing with a 1.8 GPA, didn't get kicked out, because of family connections. When I had them as a Senior and they squeaked by with a C- in my class I asked them what they planned to do with their life. They said law school (going to a top 10 program). I indicated their metrics don't align with said goal, they said metrics don't apply to their family.
They graduated from said top 10 law school last year. Last I looked on LinkedIn, they got immediately hired by a major firm with significant connections to their families business.
-
It’s a straw man argument.
Truth is, it’s a movement that will gain a lot of steam moving forward, raising the voting age.
Making voting harder and discriminatory is the goal of one political party.
That's the only way forward for them. There is no way they'll win the popular vote going forward with their continued attacks on things that young people are largely for. 2004 was truly the last win for them, they're absolutely going to have to try to change the rules.
They've been masks off with christofascism, and kids aren't into it.
The voting age should be the age at which it is legal to work and be taxed. No taxation without representation.
-
The Supreme Court has agreed to take on a case concerning whether people convicted of domestic violence can own guns.
What could go wrong?
-
The Supreme Court has agreed to take on a case concerning whether people convicted of domestic violence can own guns.
What could go wrong?
They’re out of control, the “religious practice” bakery ruling wasn’t even a real case. They made their ruling on a hypothetical situation that never even happened.
-
That's the only way forward for them. There is no way they'll win the popular vote going forward with their continued attacks on things that young people are largely for. 2004 was truly the last win for them, they're absolutely going to have to try to change the rules.
They've been masks off with christofascism, and kids aren't into it.
The voting age should be the age at which it is legal to work and be taxed. No taxation without representation.
We will see more state Rs do what Kansas and Idaho have done. Ban young people or minorities from.any position of power in the state parties.
-
Good thing all the Dems who were mad about Bernie getting “jobbed” and/or who weren’t “inspired” by Hillary either didn’t vote in 2016 or voted for Jill Stein. Because this is much better for them than what a Clinton presidency would’ve been. They might as well have just voted for Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett, the end of Roe v. Wade, the Christian state taking over, etc.
-
Asians were upset
Nothing to do with this guy?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Blum_(litigant)
Or the monied interests behind him?
-
Good thing all the Dems who were mad about Bernie getting “jobbed” and/or who weren’t “inspired” by Hillary either didn’t vote in 2016 or voted for Jill Stein. Because this is much better for them than what a Clinton presidency would’ve been. They might as well have just voted for Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett, the end of Roe v. Wade, the Christian state taking over, etc.
Yup, there’s a lot of blame Dems have to shoulder. Not getting out to vote in 2016, RGB not retiring during the Obama administration was pretty selfish as well.
Still though, not confirming Garland was one of the most atrocious things I’ve seen in modern politics.
-
Race-based affirmative action was an attempt to right the race-based wrongs of the past in this country.
If your argument is you believe race-based affirmative action contributes to lessening of a merit-based system, then you should also subscribe to the idea of getting rid of all types of affirmative action. If you don't, your arguments are completely hollow.
If your argument is you believe race-based affirmative action is unnecessary because we've either eliminated racial concerns in our current society or we've more than made up for wrongs committed in the past, I think you've got your head in the sand.
-
Yup, there’s a lot of blame Dems have to shoulder. Not getting out to vote in 2016, RGB not retiring during the Obama administration was pretty selfish as well.
Still though, not confirming Garland was one of the most atrocious things I’ve seen in modern politics.
The Dem machine are the only ones responsible for not getting folks to the polls in 2016.
I have seen zero statistical evidence that 3rd party voters in 2016 could have changed the outcome
-
Good thing all the Dems who were mad about Bernie getting “jobbed” and/or who weren’t “inspired” by Hillary either didn’t vote in 2016 or voted for Jill Stein. Because this is much better for them than what a Clinton presidency would’ve been. They might as well have just voted for Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett, the end of Roe v. Wade, the Christian state taking over, etc.
Tons of lib crap to unpack here.
PERHAPS instead of forcing your voters to eat crap, and smile pick someone else. Gorsuch got there because Obama is a tit. RBG also could have stepped down at ANY POINT when she knew her health was failing but she didn't.
Putting the blame on Bernie voters is so droll. The blame lies with the DCCC and people who still think that our government is functional. You can't play games with people who won't play by the rules.
-
The Dem machine are the only ones responsible for not getting folks to the polls in 2016.
I have seen zero statistical evidence that 3rd party voters in 2016 could have changed the outcome
Not third party voters, but people who just didn’t show up. Was Hillary uninspiring to the left wing? absolutely but so is Biden.
Progressive dems wanted to make a statement and it cost them, and they still ended up with a moderate/right wing candidate in 2020…
-
Gorsuch got there because Obama is a tit.
Complete bullcrap, there was no precedent for Garland not to get confirmed.
Because it was an election year? Gimme a break. Anyways, it’s not like Scalia retired, he died it wasn’t the Obama administration telling him to step down.
-
Complete bullcrap, there was no precedent for Garland not to get confirmed.
Because it was an election year? Gimme a break. Anyways, it’s not like Scalia retired, he died it wasn’t the Obama administration telling him to step down.
It can be both. Obama played way to nice with people who hated his guts.
-
Complete bullcrap, there was no precedent for Garland not to get confirmed.
Because it was an election year? Gimme a break. Anyways, it’s not like Scalia retired, he died it wasn’t the Obama administration telling him to step down.
The GOP does what they always do - wield power to the nth degree when they have it and obstruct when they don't.
The Dems refuse to wield power the same way. Frequently saying "tradition" or "norms" should be held on to, regardless of watching the GOP ignore them.
-
Not third party voters, but people who just didn’t show up. Was Hillary uninspiring to the left wing? absolutely but so is Biden.
Progressive dems wanted to make a statement and it cost them, and they still ended up with a moderate/right wing candidate in 2020…
Also, I wonder if there was a way for the DNC to get progressive Dems to the polls and still have Hillary as the candidate?
Why do you think the DNC refuses to introduce progressive agenda items into their platform?
-
The GOP does what they always do - wield power to the nth degree when they have it and obstruct when they don't.
The Dems refuse to wield power the same way. Frequently saying "tradition" or "norms" should be held on to, regardless of watching the GOP ignore them.
IBTL
Both sides wield power in the same manner, by the way. Doesn't make it right, just shows our system is broken.
-
Complete bullcrap, there was no precedent for Garland not to get confirmed.
Merrick Garland was a love note from Mitch McConnell reminding the Democrats of how they handled Robert Bork.
-
IBTL
Both sides wield power in the same manner, by the way. Doesn't make it right, just shows our system is broken.
Of that, we agree.
It's the corporations and the Uber wealthy vs all.
(And I seriously doubt anyone in here is "Uber wealthy")
-
The GOP does what they always do - wield power to the nth degree when they have it and obstruct when they don't.
The Dems refuse to wield power the same way. Frequently saying "tradition" or "norms" should be held on to, regardless of watching the GOP ignore them.
^^^ ban ze
-
Race-based affirmative action was an attempt to right the race-based wrongs of the past in this country.
This is the key. Decade after decade. generation after generation. Blacks were denied the basic human rights that allow families to build wealth and property. AA was an attempt to fix this.
-
IBTL
Both sides wield power in the same manner, by the way. Doesn't make it right, just shows our system is broken.
Wait til the Dems push for a rule change because one crazy Republican is holding back hundreds of military promotions. I can hear it now “Dems are changing the rules, so when we take over the senate we won’t play by the rules either.”
-
Merrick Garland was a love note from Mitch McConnell reminding the Democrats of how they handled Robert Bork.
The Dems stole a SCOTUS pick, and then a few years later stole another? First I’m hearing of this.
-
They’re out of control, the “religious practice” bakery ruling wasn’t even a real case. They made their ruling on a hypothetical situation that never even happened.
Nah. They are doing what they are being paid to do.
-
Yeah, I have to question the people that let you into Marquette
Legacy admit
-
Merrick Garland was a love note from Mitch McConnell reminding the Democrats of how they handled Robert Bork.
And Anita Hill/Clarence Thomas was Biden's biggest mistake.
-
The Dem machine are the only ones responsible for not getting folks to the polls in 2016.
I have seen zero statistical evidence that 3rd party voters in 2016 could have changed the outcome
These points are correct.
3rd party voting broke about the same as it typically does. Blaming unenthusiastic Dems is an easy scapegoat, but that wasn't want provided the margin. Dems were definitely a step behind on the social media effects and driving the vote.
"Russia, if you're listening..."
-
IBTL
Both sides wield power in the same manner, by the way. Doesn't make it right, just shows our system is broken.
No, they literally don't wield it in the same manner.
-
And Anita Hill/Clarence Thomas was Biden's biggest mistake.
Whoa easy now, he's had more than a few.
Crime bill was easily the worst imo.
-
IBTL
Both sides wield power in the same manner, by the way. Doesn't make it right, just shows our system is broken.
As a progressive, I wish this were true.
-
Merrick Garland was a love note from Mitch McConnell reminding the Democrats of how they handled Robert Bork.
Revisionist fantasy.
-
Revisionist fantasy.
It's hard to admit that you're rooting for the bad guys
-
Merrick Garland was a love note from Mitch McConnell reminding the Democrats of how they handled Robert Bork.
A milquetoast moderate vs. a fire-breathing radical? LOL
One got a vote, and it was decided that he had no business and did not have the temperament to be a SC Justice. He was Scalia + Thomas.
The other was denied a vote under a made up theorem that was reversed as soon as circumstances allowed. Turtle is evil, but effective, which is why he hates Drumpf.
-
In summary: Colleges like AA because students who benefit are less intelligent and less demanding.
Saying the quiet part out loud.
Colleges like AA and legacy admissions for this reason.
-
Nah. They are doing what they are being paid to do.
Yuuuuuuupp
-
My favorite part of the religious-rights ruling was that the decision made clear that workers who ask for accommodations, such as taking the Sabbath off, should have their requests honored unless employers show that doing so would result in “substantial increased costs” to the business.
In other words, if someone practicing his or her religious beliefs won't really cost the business owner money, then those beliefs are sacrosanct ... but if the owner will lose money, tough crap, we don't give two shytes about your beliefs. Get yer arse to work!
-
My favorite part of the religious-rights ruling was that the decision made clear that workers who ask for accommodations, such as taking the Sabbath off, should have their requests honored unless employers show that doing so would result in “substantial increased costs” to the business.
In other words, if someone practicing his or her religious beliefs won't really cost the business owner money, then those beliefs are sacrosanct ... but if the owner will lose money, tough crap, we don't give two shytes about your beliefs. Get yer arse to work!
Good. Religion is for the weak-minded. Most religious folks are complete hypocrites, anyway.
-
The Dems stole a SCOTUS pick, and then a few years later stole another? First I’m hearing of this.
Frontline on PBS reported this during a news documentary.
As Barack Obama used to say, "elections have consequences."
-
Frontline on PBS reported this during a news documentary.
As Barack Obama used to say, "elections have consequences."
Tell us more
-
“We hate activist courts. We hate activist courts.”
“Oh, wait. We love activist courts.”
-
Good thing all the Dems who were mad about Bernie getting “jobbed” and/or who weren’t “inspired” by Hillary either didn’t vote in 2016 or voted for Jill Stein. Because this is much better for them than what a Clinton presidency would’ve been. They might as well have just voted for Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett, the end of Roe v. Wade, the Christian state taking over, etc.
25% of Hillary voters in 2008 voted for McCain. 15% of Bernie voters did not vote for Hillary (abstained/trump/otherwise). Stop using this tired disproven line.
-
Frontline on PBS reported this during a news documentary.
As Barack Obama used to say, "elections have consequences."
Elections have consequences? Oh really, so when a Republican next wins the presidency with a Dem senate, followed by a SCOTUS vacancy in his first few months in office, what happens? We are just supposed to say no SCOTUS pick for you for four years (at least two)? Elections have consequences!!! We all know it's wrong, but that's how badly our system has been perverted by the Republicans.
-
25% of Hillary voters in 2008 voted for McCain. 15% of Bernie voters did not vote for Hillary (abstained/trump/otherwise). Stop using this tired disproven line.
Those are the best numbers you can make up?
-
Those are the best numbers you can make up?
Some folks simply didn't read my post correctly. I said Dems who were Bernie fans OR who were uninspired by Hillary either didn't turn out to vote OR they voted for Jill Stein.
I don't know how that is wrong or controversial at all.
Had more Dems voted rather than shrugged their shoulders, SCOTUS would look a lot different, Roe v Wade would still be intact, and the religious right wouldn't own the Supreme Court.
There's plenty of blame to go around between the DNC, Clinton and Dems who either skipped voting or cast protest votes.
-
Those are the best numbers you can make up?
Yeah.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/105691/mccain-vs-obama-28-clinton-backers-mccain.aspx
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/12/sanders-supporters-clinton-vote-survey
But I know we usually defer to you for level headed analysis.
-
“We hate activist courts. We hate activist courts.”
“Oh, wait. We love activist courts.”
We hate courts that try to do the job of the legislative and the executive branch.
We love courts who rescind legislation previously enacted unconstitutionally by the court and return the decision making to where the constitution intended it - the legislature. And when the executive branch usurps the legislature to pass legislation we love when the court deems it what it is - unconstitutional.
-
We hate courts that try to do the job of the legislative and the executive branch.
We love courts who rescind legislation previously enacted unconstitutionally by the court and return the decision making to where the constitution intended it - the legislature. And when the executive branch usurps the legislature to pass legislation we love when the court deems it what it is - unconstitutional.
They just ruled on a “case” that was literally made up. Stop this nonsense…
-
We hate courts that try to do the job of the legislative and the executive branch.
You mean like courts that declare corporations are people, just as the Constitution states? Those are the courts you hate?
-
We hate courts that try to do the job of the legislative and the executive branch.
We love courts who rescind legislation previously enacted unconstitutionally by the court and return the decision making to where the constitution intended it - the legislature. And when the executive branch usurps the legislature to pass legislation we love when the court deems it what it is - unconstitutional.
Well said, lenny.
-
We hate courts that try to do the job of the legislative and the executive branch.
We love courts who rescind legislation previously enacted unconstitutionally by the court and return the decision making to where the constitution intended it - the legislature. And when the executive branch usurps the legislature to pass legislation we love when the court deems it what it is - unconstitutional.
Ahhh…
So either you can’t figure out how what you just said contradicts itself. Or you’re being dishonest. Which is it?
Well said, lenny.
I rest my case.
-
Ahhh…
So either you can’t figure out how what you just said contradicts itself. Or you’re being dishonest. Which is it?
I rest my case.
You rested too early. Clearly, you don’t understand what the roles of the three branches of government are.
-
You rested too early. Clearly, you don’t understand what the roles of the three branches of government are.
Sure I do.
When a court routinely upholds precedent for over 50 years, but then simply decides to overturn precedent, that’s an activist court. To pretend otherwise is simply false.
Dobbs was just as much an example of an activist court as Brown v. Board of Education. Don’t be intellectually dishonest and pretend otherwise.
-
Ahhh…
So either you can’t figure out how what you just said contradicts itself. Or you’re being dishonest. Which is it?
Neither.
-
Neither.
Still waiting for an explanation how ruling on a case that didn’t exist isn’t “activist” or “legislative”
I’ll hang up and wait for my answer
-
I hope we can at least all agree that the Roberts Court is an utter sh*tshow.
Best (worst) part about it is he knows it he's too ineffectual to do a thing about it.
-
The Supreme Court has agreed to take on a case concerning whether people convicted of domestic violence can own guns.
What could go wrong?
Well, since this thread is off the rails anyways, I might as well comment on this case, as it will be interesting to see what the SC does.
If they follow their own precedent in Bruen, then they would have to decide that people convicted of domestic violence can own guns.
Their precedent is that gun laws forbidding gun ownership can only exist if similar restrictions were in place at the time of our nations founding. Pretty sure that domestic violence was not prohibitive of gun ownership back then.
So they are presented with a conundrum. Follow their own recent precedent and say laws cannot be enacted to stop dangerous convicted violent individuals from owning guns, or further prove that they are a mockery of the law.
-
Well, since this thread is off the rails anyways, I might as well comment on this case, as it will be interesting to see what the SC does.
If they follow their own precedent in Bruen, then they would have to decide that people convicted of domestic violence can own guns.
Their precedent is that gun laws forbidding gun ownership can only exist if similar restrictions were in place at the time of our nations founding. Pretty sure that domestic violence was not prohibitive of gun ownership back then.
So they are presented with a conundrum. Follow their own recent precedent and say laws cannot be enacted to stop dangerous convicted violent individuals from owning guns, or further prove that they are a mockery of the law.
Regarding Bruen, it's less about what was in place at the founding,, but rather what the majority labeled the "history and tradition" of gun laws. It's ridiculously vague - probably intentionally so - and has spawned equally ridiculous lower court decisions (like one saying it's OK to remove gun serial numbers).
That said, there is a long history in this country of the government keeping weapons out of the hands of people deemed dangerous.
So, if this were a normal court, there would be hope. But of course, this isn't a normal court..It's evident this court holds little regard for precedent and simply throws sh*t up against the wall to get its preferred outcome (as in Bruen).
-
Regarding Bruen, it's less about what was in place at the founding,, but rather what the majority labeled the "history and tradition" of gun laws. It's ridiculously vague - probably intentionally so - and has spawned equally ridiculous lower court decisions (like one saying it's OK to remove gun serial numbers).
That said, there is a long history in this country of the government keeping weapons out of the hands of people deemed dangerous.
So, if this were a normal court, there would be hope. But of course, this isn't a normal court..It's evident this court holds little regard for precedent and simply throws sh*t up against the wall to get its preferred outcome (as in Bruen).
Do we know what perks the NRA and gun lobby have given Thomas and Alioto? Trips? Jobs for family members? You know, bribes
-
Neither.
Oh. So you just typed some pablum without understanding what you were saying. Not surprising.
-
Do we know what perks the NRA and gun lobby have given Thomas and Alioto? Trips? Jobs for family members? You know, bribes
SCOTUS goes back centuries, and I'm no historian, so I wouldn't be surprised to learn that there have been more corrupt and compromised justices than these two. But they certainly are the worst in that regard that I know of -- especially Thomas, who has let his "justice" be bought and sold, and who refuses to recuse himself even in scenarios that involve his bat-shyte crazy wife and his friends.
-
Regarding Bruen, it's less about what was in place at the founding,, but rather what the majority labeled the "history and tradition" of gun laws. It's ridiculously vague - probably intentionally so - and has spawned equally ridiculous lower court decisions (like one saying it's OK to remove gun serial numbers).
That said, there is a long history in this country of the government keeping weapons out of the hands of people deemed dangerous.
So, if this were a normal court, there would be hope. But of course, this isn't a normal court..It's evident this court holds little regard for precedent and simply throws sh*t up against the wall to get its preferred outcome (as in Bruen).
Thanks for the professional deeper dive into the case. I largely only knew things I read from news articles. Particularly a recent case in Mississippi, where a judge dismissed a case against a convicted felon who possessed a gun, because according to the Judge's opinion, Bruen says such a law is unconstitutional.
-
SCOTUS goes back centuries, and I'm no historian, so I wouldn't be surprised to learn that there have been more corrupt and compromised justices than these two. But they certainly are the worst in that regard that I know of -- especially Thomas, who has let his "justice" be bought and sold, and who refuses to recuse himself even in scenarios that involve his bat-shyte crazy wife and his friends.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lochner_era
-
Merrick Garland was a love note from Mitch McConnell reminding the Democrats of how they handled Robert Bork.
If you're suggesting McConnel used this as a "justification" for Garland, sure maybe.
If you are suggesting that those two situations are remotely similar, that's BS
-
If you're suggesting McConnel used this as a "justification" for Garland, sure maybe.
If you are suggesting that those two situations are remotely similar, that's BS
Don't forget they stole the Barrett pick, too. Bum rushed her through in record time. That was Biden's pick, but they rushed things and frankly didn't allow for ample time to vet her qualifications. If they played by their own rules (I know that's laughable) then they would have let the next duly elected president choose this pick because "elections matter."
I hate to say it because I am supportive of institutions that help our country run smoothly, but if one can't see that the legitimacy of this court is at risk of crumbling, then they're not paying attention.
Turn those two stolen picks around and we have a balanced court.
-
Oh. So you just typed some pablum without understanding what you were saying. Not surprising.
Nope. Wrong again. You’re on a roll.
-
Blame RBG. She fooked y'all over, aina?
-
Blame RBG. She fooked y'all over, aina?
America, she fooked over. At least she wasn’t a crook like Alioto and Thomas
-
Better to have a cogent ruling by the majority than have to live with the amateur dissents written by people who wish to ignore the constitution as written. Sotomayer’s
dissent circled around argued against her point
This anti SOTUS stuff is a diversion to take heat off
“The Big Guy”
-
Better to have a cogent ruling by the majority than have to live with the amateur dissents written by people who wish to ignore the constitution as written. Sotomayer’s
dissent circled around argued against her point
This anti SOTUS stuff is a diversion to take heat off
“The Big Guy”
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/37/Manwithtinfoilhat.jpg/800px-Manwithtinfoilhat.jpg)
-
Oh. So you just typed some pablum without understanding what you were saying. Not surprising.
And they still won’t answer my question
-
And they still won’t answer my question
Because they just parrot talking points.
-
Because they just parrot talking points.
"They"
-
"They"
Yep.
-
59 years ago today:
https://millercenter.org/the-presidency/presidential-speeches/july-2-1964-remarks-upon-signing-civil-rights-bill
-
We love courts who rescind legislation previously enacted unconstitutionally by the court and return the decision making to where the constitution intended it - the legislature. And when the executive branch usurps the legislature to pass legislation we love when the court deems it what it is - unconstitutional.
Lenny - thanks for posting this. We can fight about the political merits of the decisions this week all day long, but its way harder to say "I want/like this" than "This sucks because."
My two cents is that Roberts' legal philosophy has an enormous blind spot - he truly does not believe conservative judicial activism is a thing. When you look at his commentaries on the court over the years, it becomes clear he belives that's an oxymoron and that if you are politically conservative, your opinions can't also be activist. It started with his "balls and strikes" truism during his confirmation hearings (great as something a judge's grandma crosstitches and then frames, but unworkable when you consider the requirements for SCOTUS to grant cert in the first place) and is reinforced in his unchracteristically whiny allegation in Nebraska that when a liberal dissent accuses conservatives of judicial activism it is suddenly "disparagement" that "misleads the public and is is harmful to the court and the country."
I think just about anyone would agree that having a conservative bent does not insulate a jurist from interpreting questions of law in a manner that introduces new concepts, canons of construction, or even attributes new motivations to the legislative and executive branches who enacted past legislation (ahem major questions doctrine). But by starting from the notion that conservatives have a get out of jail free card on judicial activism, Roberts has made it basically impossible for his court legacy to be the moderate image he intended. His opinions outline that as long as a holding is conservative and has roots in the past, the process of getting there is less important. And imo that's the exact opposite of judicial restraint.
-
Thought this thread was going to be about Alan Arkin.
-
Lenny - thanks for posting this. We can fight about the political merits of the decisions this week all day long, but its way harder to say "I want/like this" than "This sucks because."
My two cents is that Roberts' legal philosophy has an enormous blind spot - he truly does not believe conservative judicial activism is a thing. When you look at his commentaries on the court over the years, it becomes clear he belives that's an oxymoron and that if you are politically conservative, your opinions can't also be activist. It started with his "balls and strikes" truism during his confirmation hearings (great as something a judge's grandma crosstitches and then frames, but unworkable when you consider the requirements for SCOTUS to grant cert in the first place) and is reinforced in his unchracteristically whiny allegation in Nebraska that when a liberal dissent accuses conservatives of judicial activism it is suddenly "disparagement" that "misleads the public and is is harmful to the court and the country."
I think just about anyone would agree that having a conservative bent does not insulate a jurist from interpreting questions of law in a manner that introduces new concepts, canons of construction, or even attributes new motivations to the legislative and executive branches who enacted past legislation (ahem major questions doctrine). But by starting from the notion that conservatives have a get out of jail free card on judicial activism, Roberts has made it basically impossible for his court legacy to be the moderate image he intended. His opinions outline that as long as a holding is conservative and has roots in the past, the process of getting there is less important. And imo that's the exact opposite of judicial restraint.
Thoughtful and thought provoking, Burrow. Agree or disagree I always appreciate your posts.
-
Here's something long overdue. Now we'll see what, if anything, comes of it ...
WASHINGTON (AP) — A civil rights group is challenging legacy admissions at Harvard University, saying the practice discriminates against students of color by giving an unfair boost to the mostly white children of alumni.
https://apnews.com/article/legacy-admissions-affirmative-action-colleges-4a4e1191274e91e695e0631ff5156875
The practice of giving priority to the children of alumni has faced growing pushback in the wake of last week’s Supreme Court’s decision ending affirmative action in higher education. The NAACP added its weight behind the effort on Monday, asking more than 1,500 colleges and universities to even the playing field in admissions, including by ending legacy admissions.
The civil rights complaint was filed Monday by Lawyers for Civil Rights, a nonprofit based in Boston, on behalf of Black and Latino community groups in New England, alleging that Harvard’s admissions system violates the Civil Rights Act.
“Why are we rewarding children for privileges and advantages accrued by prior generations?” said Ivan Espinoza-Madrigal, the group’s executive director. “Your family’s last name and the size of your bank account are not a measure of merit, and should have no bearing on the college admissions process.”
Opponents say the practice is no longer defensible without affirmative action providing a counterbalance. The court’s ruling says colleges must ignore the race of applicants, activists point out, but schools can still give a boost to the children of alumni and donors.
The complaint, submitted with the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights, draws on Harvard data that came to light amid the affirmative action case that landed before the Supreme Court. The records revealed that 70% of Harvard’s donor-related and legacy applicants are white, and being a legacy student makes an applicant roughly six times more likely to be admitted.
It draws attention to other colleges that have abandoned the practice amid questions about its fairness, including Amherst College and Johns Hopkins University.
-
Zero issue with that. Legacy admissions are based in financial considerations and not any sort of academic reputation of the university mix.
My favorite legacy is a girl I knew through friends in Chicago. She went to a pretty good suburban HS but was not a very bright student and didn't get into Northern Illinois. However, she had some well heeled family who were alumni at Purdue. Guess where she ended up going? BOILER UP! Not shockingly, she didn't even last 2 full years.
-
Sure I do.
When a court routinely upholds precedent for over 50 years, but then simply decides to overturn precedent, that’s an activist court. To pretend otherwise is simply false.
Dobbs was just as much an example of an activist court as Brown v. Board of Education. Don’t be intellectually dishonest and pretend otherwise.
...but they both corrected flawed decisions. Dobbs returned the abortion debate back to the people. It may take decades, but I think the electorate will figure it out. To day we still have equal but separate public school education. Tell me all those inner city kids are getting the same education as all those suburban schools and many inner city schools are paying more per pupil than their suburban counterparts.
-
...but they both corrected flawed decisions. Dobbs returned the abortion debate back to the people. It may take decades, but I think the electorate will figure it out.
I’m glad it helps you sleep at night but it wasn’t a ‘flawed decision’. It was multiple cases that reaffirmed the position of the court that created decades of precedent.
You can use whatever terms you want for that but let’s not pretend that five years ago someone got something wrong and we’re just correcting the error.
-
Here's something long overdue. Now we'll see what, if anything, comes of it ...
WASHINGTON (AP) — A civil rights group is challenging legacy admissions at Harvard University, saying the practice discriminates against students of color by giving an unfair boost to the mostly white children of alumni.
https://apnews.com/article/legacy-admissions-affirmative-action-colleges-4a4e1191274e91e695e0631ff5156875
The practice of giving priority to the children of alumni has faced growing pushback in the wake of last week’s Supreme Court’s decision ending affirmative action in higher education. The NAACP added its weight behind the effort on Monday, asking more than 1,500 colleges and universities to even the playing field in admissions, including by ending legacy admissions.
The civil rights complaint was filed Monday by Lawyers for Civil Rights, a nonprofit based in Boston, on behalf of Black and Latino community groups in New England, alleging that Harvard’s admissions system violates the Civil Rights Act.
“Why are we rewarding children for privileges and advantages accrued by prior generations?” said Ivan Espinoza-Madrigal, the group’s executive director. “Your family’s last name and the size of your bank account are not a measure of merit, and should have no bearing on the college admissions process.”
Opponents say the practice is no longer defensible without affirmative action providing a counterbalance. The court’s ruling says colleges must ignore the race of applicants, activists point out, but schools can still give a boost to the children of alumni and donors.
The complaint, submitted with the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights, draws on Harvard data that came to light amid the affirmative action case that landed before the Supreme Court. The records revealed that 70% of Harvard’s donor-related and legacy applicants are white, and being a legacy student makes an applicant roughly six times more likely to be admitted.
It draws attention to other colleges that have abandoned the practice amid questions about its fairness, including Amherst College and Johns Hopkins University.
No argument from me, but until Colleges and Universities have actual skin in the game when it comes to student loans and lowering tuition costs there is nothing fair in paying for an overpriced diploma that most students today have difficulty paying off.
-
I’m glad it helps you sleep at night but it wasn’t a ‘flawed decision’. It was multiple cases that reaffirmed the position of the court that created decades of precedent.
You can use whatever terms you want for that but let’s not pretend that five years ago someone got something wrong and we’re just correcting the error.
So separate but equal was not flawed?
-
‘It may take decades, but I think the electorate will figure it out’
It should not have taken decades to figure out that separate but equal isn’t equal - oh wait we still haven’t figured that out.
Women should not have to wait decades either.
Not to mention the ballot initiatives the far right now is trying to keep people from voting on in the first place, because they’ve lost the ones that were on the ballot since Dobbs. And the push for a federal ban, even for states that don’t have one now.
-
So separate but equal was not flawed?
It’s a completely different situation where the rights of people were subjugated.
Here a right to make your own decisions with a doctor was granted to more than a generation of people and then taken away.
Oopsie - they got that technically wrong over and over again over the past 50 years. We’ll fix it!
-
It’s a completely different situation where the rights of people were subjugated.
Here a right to make your own decisions with a doctor was granted to more than a generation of people and then taken away.
Oopsie - they got that technically wrong over and over again over the past 50 years. We’ll fix it!
I’m glad it helps you sleep at night but it wasn’t a ‘flawed decision’. It was multiple cases that reaffirmed the position of the court that created decades of precedent.
You can use whatever terms you want for that but let’s not pretend that five years ago someone got something wrong and we’re just correcting the error.
Abortion advocates seem to be winning at the ballot box so what is the problem.
-
Abortion advocates seem to be winning at the ballot box so what is the problem.
I don’t like activist courts. I guess we agree right?
-
Here's something long overdue. Now we'll see what, if anything, comes of it ...
WASHINGTON (AP) — A civil rights group is challenging legacy admissions at Harvard University, saying the practice discriminates against students of color by giving an unfair boost to the mostly white children of alumni.
https://apnews.com/article/legacy-admissions-affirmative-action-colleges-4a4e1191274e91e695e0631ff5156875
The practice of giving priority to the children of alumni has faced growing pushback in the wake of last week’s Supreme Court’s decision ending affirmative action in higher education. The NAACP added its weight behind the effort on Monday, asking more than 1,500 colleges and universities to even the playing field in admissions, including by ending legacy admissions.
The civil rights complaint was filed Monday by Lawyers for Civil Rights, a nonprofit based in Boston, on behalf of Black and Latino community groups in New England, alleging that Harvard’s admissions system violates the Civil Rights Act.
“Why are we rewarding children for privileges and advantages accrued by prior generations?” said Ivan Espinoza-Madrigal, the group’s executive director. “Your family’s last name and the size of your bank account are not a measure of merit, and should have no bearing on the college admissions process.”
Opponents say the practice is no longer defensible without affirmative action providing a counterbalance. The court’s ruling says colleges must ignore the race of applicants, activists point out, but schools can still give a boost to the children of alumni and donors.
The complaint, submitted with the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights, draws on Harvard data that came to light amid the affirmative action case that landed before the Supreme Court. The records revealed that 70% of Harvard’s donor-related and legacy applicants are white, and being a legacy student makes an applicant roughly six times more likely to be admitted.
It draws attention to other colleges that have abandoned the practice amid questions about its fairness, including Amherst College and Johns Hopkins University.
Legacy admissions should be ended. Colleges won’t like it ($) but if it’s only fair. Wh6 should one kind of prejudice be OK and not another?
-
...but they both corrected flawed decisions. Dobbs returned the abortion debate back to the people. It may take decades, but I think the electorate will figure it out. To day we still have equal but separate public school education. Tell me all those inner city kids are getting the same education as all those suburban schools and many inner city schools are paying more per pupil than their suburban counterparts.
They were flawed in your opinion.
But overturning precedent after 50 years of upholding it, is activist.
-
It’s a completely different situation where the rights of people were subjugated.
Here a right to make your own decisions with a doctor was granted to more than a generation of people and then taken away.
Oopsie - they got that technically wrong over and over again over the past 50 years. We’ll fix it!
It has nothing to with making your own decision with your doctor, but when the state has a compelling interest in protecting the life of an unborn child.
...and inner city kids are not subjugated to an inferior education? Just look at all the test scores and graduation rates. So much good did Brown vs BOE.
-
They were flawed in your opinion.
But overturning precedent after 50 years of upholding it, is activist.
I never said they were not.
-
It has nothing to with making your own decision with your doctor, but when the state has a compelling interest in protecting the life of an unborn child.
It does because every woman with a legitimate right to have a procedure done in the most restrictive cases have the government in that room. I’m not even getting into how to define things but by it’s nature it takes the right away even if it meets one of x number of arbitrary definitions now that is out there.
You can try to bring race into it for what-about-ism all you want. But if you propose legislative or judicial means to make the poorest peoples life’s more equitable. I’d be for that too.
But it’s separate from your “we made an oopsie” theory.
-
Legacy admissions should be ended. Colleges won’t like it ($) but if it’s only fair. Wh6 should one kind of prejudice be OK and not another?
Good question.
Explain 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis
-
If legacy preferences and wealth preferences (making a donation for admittance) are eliminated, can athletic preference be far behind? This could ruin college sports forever!!!!
-
...and inner city kids are not subjugated to an inferior education? Just look at all the test scores and graduation rates. So much good did Brown vs BOE.
Do you think Browv v BOE was a mistake?
-
If legacy preferences and wealth preferences (making a donation for admittance) are eliminated, can athletic preference be far behind? This could ruin college sports forever!!!!
And many schools are eliminating standardized test scores. So, looks like it will be a lottery system, with the losers having to fight in the Hunger Games.
-
Private schools = private policies. Harvard does not hold a monopoly on great education, nor is Harvard the only path to 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness'.
If Harvard wants to do what they want, they should refuse public aid (students should still be free to secure funding however they see fit).
-
Do you think Browv v BOE was a mistake?
I do, but I also think slavery wasn’t that bad
-
Nm
-
Legacy admissions should be ended. Colleges won’t like it ($) but if it’s only fair. Wh6 should one kind of prejudice be OK and not another?
If HS graduates are getting into Harvard based on legacy, wouldn't that lower their incoming class ranking?
Aren't people always trying to get an edge somehow?
Aren't future doctor or dentist wannabe's frequently doing their undergraduate at schools that have medical or dental schools? Why? Because they think it will give them an edge to get in.
-
I do, but I also think slavery wasn’t that bad
"Shtick"
-
"Shtick"
No, I’m a Republican in 2023
-
No, I’m a Republican in 2023
"Shtick"
-
"Shtick"
Crean sucks
🐷🐷
Schtick
-
Dobbs returned the abortion debate back to the people.
The last couple of years, every time "the people" have gotten to vote on it -- even in the reddest of states -- "the people" have backed a women's right to make their own reproductive decisions.
So now states run by the GOP are changing the rules about how to get the abortion question on their ballots ... because they know "the people" will make losers of the GOP on this issue.
If you can't score the most points, change the rules so that the team scoring the fewest points wins.
-
There are zero checks and balances on the Supreme Court right now.
This is what the Republican Party wanted, block the Garland confirmation based on zero merit and let it unravel from there.
There are zero checks and balances on the Supreme Court because the Federal Judiciary is, and always has been, a separate and co-equal branch of our Federal Government. The only process akin to "checks and balances" is the constitutionally prescribed ability of Congress to impeach and remove Federal Judges appointed for life, for cause.
Civics 101.
-
Crean sucks
🐷🐷
Schtick
Copying is the greatest form of flattery, aina?
-
Crean sucks
🐷🐷
Schtick
It's their best work...
-
how's about making the schools accountable for the financing of it's students and getting the gubmint out of the biness of financing education. make the schools take the active role in giving the students the best possible route(s) to success and therefore the ability to pay back the loan.
-
how's about making the schools accountable for the financing of it's students and getting the gubmint out of the biness of financing education. make the schools take the active role in giving the students the best possible route(s) to success and therefore the ability to pay back the loan.
If anything, the government should be investing more into higher education - and that should come with more efforts to control costs.
-
If anything, the government should be investing more into higher education - and that should come with more efforts to control costs.
The last thing we want is an educated populace. I prefer blind obedience to a piece of cloth and the make believe man in the sky
-
The last thing we want is an educated populace. I prefer blind obedience to a piece of cloth and the make believe man in the sky
"I love the uneducated."
-
Poorly educated.
-
The last thing we want is an educated populace. I prefer blind obedience to a piece of cloth and the make believe man in the sky
Right on, Rico! Anyone who as part of their “education” doesn’t accept the left’s version of truth should be cancelled and banned from college campuses. Oh wait, that’s already a mission accomplished. Next step? Lock ‘‘em up!
-
Right on, Rico! Anyone who as part of their “education” doesn’t accept the left’s version of truth should be cancelled and banned from college campuses. Oh wait, that’s already a mission accomplished. Next step? Lock ‘‘em up!
We need to ban more books, imo, too. The only book we need is the Bible. I’d eliminate math, science and history for sure. Can you believe they teach kids Americans owned slaves at one time? You know they don’t teach them that slaveowners taught them Christianity.
As for science, the only science we need is how to make bullets more efficient.
-
Poorly educated.
Noted
-
Right on, Rico! Anyone who as part of their “education” doesn’t accept the left’s version of truth should be cancelled and banned from college campuses. Oh wait, that’s already a mission accomplished. Next step? Lock ‘‘em up!
Your kind of guy, Lenny.
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/quick-takes/2023/06/27/liberty-university-spokesperson-invokes-hitler
Saying the quiet part out loud. Education is evangelization and we need to emulate Hitler, Mao, and Stalin.
-
Your kind of guy, Lenny.
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/quick-takes/2023/06/27/liberty-university-spokesperson-invokes-hitler
Saying the quiet part out loud. Education is evangelization and we need to emulate Hitler, Mao, and Stalin.
Say what you will about those three but their populations were patriotic
-
None of that pesky dissension. Or having bullsh!t called on campuses when they espoused bullsh!t.
-
Teaching that slavery existed and that racism still exists is the exact same as telling white people to hate themselves.
It's all critical race theory, and I'm tired of them teaching it in kindergarten.
-
Your kind of guy, Lenny.
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/quick-takes/2023/06/27/liberty-university-spokesperson-invokes-hitler
Saying the quiet part out loud. Education is evangelization and we need to emulate Hitler, Mao, and Stalin.
I’m no fan of Liberty. Any place that calls indoctrination education is no bueno in my book whether they’re coming from the far right or the far left. But you only see the problem from one side. I thought you were more open minded.
-
Your kind of guy, Lenny.
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/quick-takes/2023/06/27/liberty-university-spokesperson-invokes-hitler
Saying the quiet part out loud. Education is evangelization and we need to emulate Hitler, Mao, and Stalin.
At what point does this become a trend?
https://www.businessinsider.com/carl-paladino-running-again-stefanik-endorsement-hitler-leadership-quote-radio-2022-6?amp
https://www.chicagotribune.com/politics/ct-mary-miller-congresswoman-hitler-one-thing-right-speech-20210106-wdryhnfyfbetfbyi6ef7lpmlgm-story.html
https://apnews.com/article/moms-for-liberty-adolf-hitler-newsletter-quote-bcce698e901b9e782970030ccd710512
-
At what point does this become a trend?
https://www.businessinsider.com/carl-paladino-running-again-stefanik-endorsement-hitler-leadership-quote-radio-2022-6?amp
https://www.chicagotribune.com/politics/ct-mary-miller-congresswoman-hitler-one-thing-right-speech-20210106-wdryhnfyfbetfbyi6ef7lpmlgm-story.html
https://apnews.com/article/moms-for-liberty-adolf-hitler-newsletter-quote-bcce698e901b9e782970030ccd710512
Would you kill baby hitler
-
Would you kill baby hitler
No. People forget he built roads, too.
-
I’m no fan of Liberty. Any place that calls indoctrination education is no bueno in my book whether they’re coming from the far right or the far left. But you only see the problem from one side. I thought you were more open minded.
Teaching facts is not indoctrination. I would not consider a flat earther a worthy science teacher. I don't want a holocaust denier as a history teacher. If you think that makes me closed minded.... thank you.
-
No. People forget he built roads, too.
Churchill! With his cigars. With his brandy. And his rotten painting - rotten! Hitler, there was a painter. He could paint an entire apartment in one afternoon! Two coats!
-
At what point does this become a trend?
https://www.businessinsider.com/carl-paladino-running-again-stefanik-endorsement-hitler-leadership-quote-radio-2022-6?amp
https://www.chicagotribune.com/politics/ct-mary-miller-congresswoman-hitler-one-thing-right-speech-20210106-wdryhnfyfbetfbyi6ef7lpmlgm-story.html
https://apnews.com/article/moms-for-liberty-adolf-hitler-newsletter-quote-bcce698e901b9e782970030ccd710512
People who actually suffered under Mao,Stalin and Chubby in No Korea have been coming out and stating that this is exactly what is happening on campuses all over. One Speak or you face failing a course or the Academic brown shirts write letters asking for your firing.
The greatest impediment to understanding is the belief that the position you hold is universal - Nietsche
Universities used to be bastions of free speach and discussions among diverse thought . Sadly no longer
-
They still are. Snowflakes are snowflaking when their bs is challenged. It is a reflex for you guys.
You called bs on my bs. I am oppressed.
-
People who actually suffered under Mao,Stalin and Chubby in No Korea have been coming out and stating that this is exactly what is happening on campuses all over. One Speak or you face failing a course or the Academic brown shirts write letters asking for your firing.
The greatest impediment to understanding is the belief that the position you hold is universal - Nietsche
Universities used to be bastions of free speach and discussions among diverse thought . Sadly no longer
I very much doubt people who suffered under Mao, Stalin and the Dear Leaders of North Korea have said anything of the sort, and if they are, they're morons ... as is anyone who would take such a remark seriously.
Nobody is being sent to the Gulag. Nobody is being murdered on the quad for their opinions. Nobody is being sent to forced labor camps.
Any such suggestion is pure idiocy.
But keep playing the victim.
-
Would you kill baby hitler
Pre-born or post-born Hitler?
One is precious. The other is a waste of my tax dollars.
-
Teaching facts is not indoctrination. I would not consider a flat earthen a worthy science teacher. I don't want a holocaust denier as a history teacher. If you think that makes me closed minded.... thank you.
Agreed 100%. I'll also note, that not only is it not indoctrination, but the high school and college aged kids actually would prefer for education to be far far far more liberal than it is.
It is the parents that view teaching facts indoctrination, the kids want things more liberal than they are if anything.
-
The weaponization of Karen-ism.
-
the minimization and the projection here is overwhelming. i haven't seen many (none) of the college speeches nor commencement speakers from the left being protested and/or rescinded. i'm sure you guys might find 1 or 2, but compare this to essentially all of those with a sniff of right wing pollys.
tower you speak of "karen's" and "snowflakes" often, but put a decent conservative speaker on a college campus and the lefties hair goes on fire. remember when you know who was elected and schools had to cancel tests, bring in llamas and gerbils to calm them down?
and these aren't all students reactions, but teachers and admin alike
-
'Decent conservative speaker'
I think the vast majority of campuses would invite one if they could find one. Sadly, intellectual conservative thought has become an oxymoron.
-
the minimization and the projection here is overwhelming. i haven't seen many (none) of the college speeches nor commencement speakers from the left being protested and/or rescinded. i'm sure you guys might find 1 or 2, but compare this to essentially all of those with a sniff of right wing pollys.
tower you speak of "karen's" and "snowflakes" often, but put a decent conservative speaker on a college campus and the lefties hair goes on fire. remember when you know who was elected and schools had to cancel tests, bring in llamas and gerbils to calm them down?
and these aren't all students reactions, but teachers and admin alike
8 of 10
-
'Decent conservative speaker'
I think the vast majority of campuses would invite one if they could find one. Sadly, intellectual conservative thought has become an oxymoron.
Why won’t they invite Dan Bongino or Charlie Kirk, the voices of conservatism?
-
https://news.yahoo.com/uchicago-debate-over-free-speech-172151160.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall
Conservatives don't like a class, they organize hate doxing of a professor.
Which seems somewhat familiar.....
-
Invite Kristina Karamo (head of the Michigan Republican Party) to MU to discuss her theory that demonic possession is passed from person to person through sexual contact. But who should she debate? A scientist? A theologian? An exorcist?
-
https://news.yahoo.com/uchicago-debate-over-free-speech-172151160.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall
Conservatives don't like a class, they organize hate doxing of a professor.
Which seems somewhat familiar.....
That is hilarious. The conservatives ran that process to the letter of the liberal playbook to shut down free speech.
People need to grow up, let people speak, and choose to listen or not listen. The hate and vitriol from both sides is sickening.
-
'Decent conservative speaker'
I think the vast majority of campuses would invite one if they could find one. Sadly, intellectual conservative thought has become an oxymoron.
difficult to have a serious conversation with this, but you're in friendly waters so carry on tower
-
That is hilarious. The conservatives ran that process to the letter of the liberal playbook to shut down free speech.
People need to grow up, let people speak, and choose to listen or not listen. The hate and vitriol from both sides is sickening.
Of course you’re right, but “liberal” thinkers like Tower have decided that there are no Conservatives who deserve a place in any debate so it’s a grand idea to shut them out. Of course any truly liberal thinker would vomit at such an idea but when one side pretty much takes over it’s what can happen - phony liberals become authoritarians.
-
the minimization and the projection here is overwhelming. i haven't seen many (none) of the college speeches nor commencement speakers from the left being protested and/or rescinded. i'm sure you guys might find 1 or 2, but compare this to essentially all of those with a sniff of right wing pollys.
tower you speak of "karen's" and "snowflakes" often, but put a decent conservative speaker on a college campus and the lefties hair goes on fire. remember when you know who was elected and schools had to cancel tests, bring in llamas and gerbils to calm them down?
and these aren't all students reactions, but teachers and admin alike
ROCKET: It was a good week for the United States Constitution and for the justice system.
And as long as people like Justices Alito and Thomas remain stewards of that system, the Marxists can be held off from taking control of all of our institutions, at least for a little while longer.
-
ROCKET: It was a good week for the United States Constitution and for the justice system.
And as long as people like Justices Alito and Thomas remain stewards of that system, the Marxists can be held off from taking control of all of our institutions, at least for a little while longer.
Define Marxism in your own words.
-
ROCKET: It was a good week for the United States Constitution and for the justice system.
And as long as people like Justices Alito and Thomas remain stewards of that system, the Marxists can be held off from taking control of all of our institutions, at least for a little while longer.
right on richard, but note, our constitution is only under attack and the supreme court is activist only when they come out with decisions they don't agree with. pack em up until ya get what ya want??
book banning? umm, yeah, catcher in the rye and huck finn vs gender queer...tough calls?? half the kids can't read anyway, so no harm no foul, eyn'a??
-
ROCKET: It was a good week for the United States Constitution and for the justice system.
And as long as people like Justices Alito and Thomas remain stewards of that system, the Marxists can be held off from taking control of all of our institutions, at least for a little while longer.
This has to be irony right?
Anyway, if you think college's and university's are brainwashing the youth of America, wait until I tell you about what conservative media is doing to the Boomers.
-
So, regarding the lack of conservative thought....
Name one item from the 2020 national GOP platform. (Hint: trick question)
Name the last GOP policy initiative to move the country forward that wasn't just rebranded tax cuts for the rich. One that moved all people forward.
What are rhe GOP policy initiatives going forward? Keep young people from voting? Make discrimination great again? F Biden and anyone who voted for him?
I miss intellectual discussions with conservative friends and colleagues about tax policy, productive education reforms, limited foreign entanglements, how should we best contain Russia, how government can best be used to make the country better, or not.
Ironically, Trump is afraid to campaign on his greatest (IMO) accomplishment. Operation Warp Speed ultimately saved a million lives. He gets booed. And that, to me, as much as anything, encapsulates what currently passes for conservative thought.
-
And they just label people who disagree with them as "woke" or "Marxists." Two words that have lost all semblance of meaning.
-
right on richard, but note, our constitution is only under attack and the supreme court is activist only when they come out with decisions they don't agree with. pack em up until ya get what ya want??
book banning? umm, yeah, catcher in the rye and huck finn vs gender queer...tough calls?? half the kids can't read anyway, so no harm no foul, eyn'a??
8.5 out of 10
-
Liz Cheney, who for years was one of the most reliably conservative votes in the House, was canceled because she refused to bend the knee to the indicted, impeached, adulterous leader of the "law and order" and "family values" party.
#cancelculture
-
Liz Cheney, who for years was one of the most reliably conservative votes in the House, was canceled because she refused to bend the knee to the indicted, impeached, adulterous leader of the "law and order" and "family values" party.
#cancelculture
Bill Clinton?
-
And they just label people who disagree with them as "woke" or "Marxists." Two words that have lost all semblance of meaning.
You forgot "groomers."
-
Bill Clinton?
Yes, unironically the Ds are more supportive of law and order and family values at this point in history.
-
ROCKET: It was a good week for the United States Constitution and for the justice system.
And as long as people like Justices Alito and Thomas remain stewards of that system, the Marxists can be held off from taking control of all of our institutions, at least for a little while longer.
Your ilk will age out of existence soon enough and your backwards thought will go along with.
Good riddance to most of you.
-
Yes, unironically the Ds are more supportive of law and order and family values at this point in history.
Do you miss the good old days when D's fought and died to keep slavery?
-
Nope. I miss the days when R's weren't fighting to bring it back.
-
Nope. I miss the days when R's weren't fighting to bring it back.
Turn off msnbc and hit the putting green.
-
Do you miss the good old days when D's fought and died to keep slavery?
This argument is about as stupid as any argument out there. This is the kind of brainless argument a simpleton makes, ignoring history completely.
Southern democrats of the civil war era and Dixiecrat era post WWII don’t exist anymore because they were replaced by republicans after the passage of the Civil Rights bill in 1964.
True story: Southern Democrats filibustered and fought against this bill happening. Didn’t matter because the Republican Party saw an opportunity to win the south by siding against such things moving forward. JFK and LBJ both knew the risk they’d lose the south and pushed for it anyway. And they did lose the south.
Can you imagine any Republican representing a southern state having the huevos to do something like this today? The answer is no. Why did Strom Thurmond switch parties in 1964? So he could oppose civil rights and keep getting elected.
So, yes, democrats of 175 years ago were on the wrong side of history. The southern democrats of the 50’s and 60’s were on the wrong side of history. Quite the winning argument you make.
-
Turn off msnbc and hit the putting green.
You spent more time on this post than I have on cable news since the start of 21. Except for January 6 and the Nashville school shooting. (Relatives attend that school) I read lots of different sources. I don't do cable news.
And I said what I said.
-
You spent more time on this post than I have on cable news since the start of 21. Except for January 6 and the Nashville school shooting. (Relatives attend that school) I read lots of different sources. I don't do cable news.
And I said what I said.
You have moved further to the looney left than just about anyone on here since '21. Might want to put down the Nation, comrade.
-
Your ilk will age out of existence soon enough and your backwards thought will go along with.
Good riddance to most of you.
I have extremely broad shoulders and am more than capable of taking care of myself in these matters.
But don't go dissing my ilk.
-
I have extremely broad shoulders and am more than capable of taking care of myself in these matters.
But don't go dissing my ilk.
Hahaha, internet tough guy!
-
You have moved further to the looney left than just about anyone on here since '21. Might want to put down the Nation, comrade.
My political viewpoints are pretty much where they have been since college. Pragmatic liberal. I appreciate anyone from any political bent who makes a practical policy proposal to make the world a better place. I bust on anybody trying to take America back to the 50's. 1950's, 1850's or 1750's. What can be be done to take us forward? Because we need all of us. White, black, brown, yellow, male, female, straight, gay, somewhere in between. And even worse, this is where my faith has led me.
Do you, Ziggy. Oink.
-
Your ilk will age out of existence soon enough and your backwards thought will go along with.
Good riddance to most of you.
Hoping a bunch of people die. How very un-Marquette like.Think you might want to step away from the keyboard for a few
-
My political viewpoints are pretty much where they have been since college. Pragmatic liberal. I appreciate anyone from any political bent who makes a practical policy proposal to make the world a better place. I bust on anybody trying to take America back to the 50's. 1950's, 1850's or 1750's. What can be be done to take us forward? Because we need all of us. White, black, brown, yellow, male, female, straight, gay, somewhere in between. And even worse, this is where my faith has led me.
Do you, Ziggy. Oink.
Name 1 legitimate R that is advocating for the return of slavery in this country. Not some Twitter fringe nutcase.
Frankly, the insinuation that half of the country wants to bring back slavery is offensive and un- Christian. Might be time to reevaluate your views.
And TSmith is the only double swine around here.
-
It was a direct riposte to white trash.
-
It was a direct riposte to white trash.
Nope. I miss the days when R's weren't fighting to bring it back.
So are you saying that Rs want to bring back slavery or that you think Rs are fighting to bring it back?
-
So are you saying that Rs want to bring back slavery or that you think Rs are fighting to bring it back?
Try to be intellectually consistent for once…
Do you miss the good old days when D's fought and died to keep slavery?
-
I have extremely broad shoulders and am more than capable of taking care of myself in these matters.
But don't go dissing my ilk.
Time comes for all.
-
Hoping a bunch of people die. How very un-Marquette like.Think you might want to step away from the keyboard for a few
Everyone dies, my friend. Everyone. I am not wishing a violent end for anyone.
-
Name 1 legitimate R that is advocating for the return of slavery in this country. Not some Twitter fringe nutcase.
How do you tell them apart?
I mean, there are definitely some sane Republicans out there, but by and large they've been shunned and marginalized by the wingnuts (see: Cheney, Kinzinger, Hogan, Sununu, Romney, Ryan, etc.).
-
I like that Wisconsite who runs the Bulwark. He seems to still have a lingering common sense cell somewhere sometimes.
-
I like that Wisconsite who runs the Bulwark. He seems to still have a lingering common sense cell somewhere sometimes.
Yep. The Bulwark and The Dispatch are where the sane GOP has gone.
The National Review, despite a couple of solid writers, is mostly a lost cause. The three of them combined probably don't receive as much traffic as the Daily Wire or The Blaze.
-
I like that Wisconsite who runs the Bulwark. He seems to still have a lingering common sense cell somewhere sometimes.
That’s Charlie Sykes and his opinions shift as the wind blows. He saw an opportunity to monetize an Anti-Trump wing of the Republican Party.
In fairness, when he was still on the air, he was anti-Trump from the get go and pushed Ted Cruz. His backing of Cruz probably helped him win Wisconsin during the 2016 primaries.
I’m agnostic on Sykes. I listened to his show and actually called in a few times when he got into discussions of things not necessarily political. His years on the air definitely opened a door to Trumpism, however.
Saying all that, I think people on both sides see a lot of grifter in him
-
This argument is about as stupid as any argument out there. This is the kind of brainless argument a simpleton makes, ignoring history completely.
Southern democrats of the civil war era and Dixiecrat era post WWII don’t exist anymore because they were replaced by republicans after the passage of the Civil Rights bill in 1964.
True story: Southern Democrats filibustered and fought against this bill happening. Didn’t matter because the Republican Party saw an opportunity to win the south by siding against such things moving forward. JFK and LBJ both knew the risk they’d lose the south and pushed for it anyway. And they did lose the south.
Can you imagine any Republican representing a southern state having the huevos to do something like this today? The answer is no. Why did Strom Thurmond switch parties in 1964? So he could oppose civil rights and keep getting elected.
So, yes, democrats of 175 years ago were on the wrong side of history. The southern democrats of the 50’s and 60’s were on the wrong side of history. Quite the winning argument you make.
There is literally nothing is your post that discredits or refutes the statement/question in my post. You only gave more details of the facts.
In a different discussion of the history of Democrats, yes the party came to its senses and recognized people of color are humans and deserving to be treated like any other human beings. There are great Democrats who did great things for this country. I am glad we have the Democratic Party. I also appreciate the valuable contributions of the Republicans.
-
I very much doubt people who suffered under Mao, Stalin and the Dear Leaders of North Korea have said anything of the sort, and if they are, they're morons ... as is anyone who would take such a remark seriously.
Nobody is being sent to the Gulag. Nobody is being murdered on the quad for their opinions. Nobody is being sent to forced labor camps.
Any such suggestion is pure idiocy.
Incorrect , former inhabitants of the above come out regularly and warn about the suppression of free speech
and wokeness. As for no Gulag look no further than Americans being held for 3 years in solitary without a trial for Jan6. These are facts ,Bruh
But keep playing the victim.
-
“Wokeness” 😂😂😂
-
“Wokeness” 😂😂😂
Shush now. Huge numbers of people that suffered under repressive autocratic regimes have come to the U.S. and complained about our wokeness. As everyone knows. It's just a proven, indisputable fact. They'd almost rather go back to their oppressors than suffer our wokeness, in fact.
-
Shush now. Huge numbers of people that suffered under repressive autocratic regimes have come to the U.S. and complained about our wokeness. As everyone knows. It's just a proven, undisputable fact. They'd almost rather go back to their oppressors than suffer our wokeness, in fact.
Wokeness is the exact same thing as Stalin's purge. Nobody disputes this.
-
“Wokeness” 😂😂😂
What? You didn't hear that, while they were imprisoned, all Stalin's victims could talk about was how woke he was? Learn some history, pal!
Of course, a couple millennia ago, there was one famous guy who actually was persecuted -- and ultimately crucified -- for being woke.
-
‘As for no Gulag look no further than Americans being held for three years in solitary without a trial for January 6. These are facts bruh’ ‘
Name one person held in solitary for three years since January 6, 2021 without a trial. You can’t because unless we have morphed magically into 2024, no one has been. And people are still being identified and charged, so clearly they haven’t been. And btw Elizabeth Warren criticized that decision in the first place.
-
Who was more woke? Stalin or Mao?
IMO, it’s Mao but I’ll listen to someone who says Stalin
-
Who was more woke? Stalin or Mao?
IMO, it’s Mao but I’ll listen to someone who says Stalin
Pol Pot has to be in the conversation, since his affiliation was the Party of Democratic Kampuchea
-
Pol Pot has to be in the conversation, since his affiliation was the Party of Democratic Kampuchea
That’s a good point. He was as woke as the other two. He might have been the wokest of them all. I can only imagine what Bud Light put on their cans in Cambodia during his reign of terror
-
‘As for no Gulag look no further than Americans being held for three years in solitary without a trial for January 6. These are facts bruh’ ‘
Name one person held in solitary for three years since January 6, 2021 without a trial. You can’t because unless we have morphed magically into 2024, no one has been. And people are still being identified and charged, so clearly they haven’t been. And btw Elizabeth Warren criticized that decision in the first place.
I might be wrong about this, but the only people who are still being held prior to trial are either those who have been charged with violent offenses or conspiracy. And this is pretty much SOP in our federal courts.
IMO if people want to speed up the process to get defendants to trial, that would be fine with me. But in my experience, it is usually the defense that slows down the process.
-
Wallstreetwanderer will be along any moment now with an extensive list of J6 victims being held in solitary without trial, as well as the heaps of North Koreans that escaped to the U.S. to complain about our wokeness.
Any moment now.
-
I might be wrong about this, but the only people who are still being held prior to trial are either those who have been charged with violent offenses or conspiracy. And this is pretty much SOP in our federal courts.
IMO if people want to speed up the process to get defendants to trial, that would be fine with me. But in my experience, it is usually the defense that slows down the process.
Right. Under federal law, a defendant has a right to a trial within 70 days of indictment. It's rare that trials actually occur that quickly, but the delays are almost always at the request of the defense or with the defense's consent.
Obviously there are zero Jan. 6 defendants who have been held for three years now - we're not even three years beyond Jan. 6, 2021 - nor any held in solitary for their entire confinement. And I'd wager heavily that those in custody for more than a year are there due to continuances sought or consented to by their attorney.
-
Of course there are those who have been held for more than 3 years for crimes committed 2.5 years ago. Because of time travel. At least that is what the moms on my Facebook feed said during the 'give ivermectin to infants to help with teething' thread.
-
Who was more woke? Stalin or Mao?
IMO, it’s Mao but I’ll listen to someone who says Stalin
Gotta be Moms for Liberty. They wanna hear more from Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot - all of the people who should be heroes in America.
-
Gotta be Moms for Liberty. They wanna hear more from Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot - all of the people who should be heroes in America.
🤯
-
Gotta be Moms for Liberty. They wanna hear more from Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot - all of the people who should be heroes in America.
Ku Klux Karens
Twatzies
-
Weaponized Karens.
-
Gotta be Moms for Liberty. They wanna hear more from Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot - all of the people who should be heroes in America.
I remember John Lennon lecturing my lefty friends in “Revolution”:
Cause if you carrying pictures of Chairman Mao
You ain’t gonna make it anyone anyhow
I don’t recall anyone from either side loving Hitler, but Stalin and Mao were very much defended/admired by the left and vilified by the right in the USA.
-
I have never heard anyone defend Stalin or Mao. Sadly, I have heard far too many people defend Hitler. Maybe it is an age thing.
-
I have never heard anyone defend Stalin or Mao. Sadly, I have heard far too many people defend Hitler. Maybe it is an age thing.
My experience has been the exact opposite. Not defending the horrific human rights violations but favoring the system of government and economic policies of Stalin, Mao and Castro. I guess the promise of the government taking care of your every want and need is a sweet siren's song to some.
Truth be told, the idea of not seeing political ads as a result of free elections is tempting. ;D
-
My experience has been the exact opposite. Not defending the horrific human rights violations but favoring the system of government and economic policies of Stalin, Mao and Castro. I guess the promise of the government taking care of your every want and need is a sweet siren's song to some.
Truth be told, the idea of not seeing political ads as a result of free elections is tempting. ;D
Tankies gonna tankie.
-
My experience has been the exact opposite. Not defending the horrific human rights violations but favoring the system of government and economic policies of Stalin, Mao and Castro. I guess the promise of the government taking care of your every want and need is a sweet siren's song to some.
Truth be told, the idea of not seeing political ads as a result of free elections is tempting. ;D
Seriously?
I mean, even modern Western socialists think the economic policies and systems of government of Stalin, Mao and Castro were disastrous. Where exactly are you finding these people?
-
Seriously?
I mean, even modern Western socialists think the economic policies and systems of government of Stalin, Mao and Castro were disastrous. Where exactly are you finding these people?
They're not modern western socialists. This isn't like Bernie/AOC/Olaf Scholz types. These are tankies. They're not serious people. Some blend of dorm room zealot, failed commune revolutionary from the 60s, and twitter trolls. As a practical matter, they do not exist. They make for a good butt of a joke.
In all seriousness though they are sometimes used to counterbalance the rightwing extremism, e.g. "See look at the Tankies advocating for the destruction of NATO and the United States, denying the Holodomer occurred, and advocating for Guavera-esque guerilla tactics." Except where this fails is that while some mopes on the internet with hammer and sickle avatars are saying nonsense like this from behind a screen, as a group Tankies aren't out there, for example, organizing and marching in the streets demanding the systematic elimination of the kulaks. And there's where the comparison breaks down.
-
They're not modern western socialists. This isn't like Bernie/AOC/Olaf Scholz types. These are tankies. They're not serious people. Some blend of dorm room zealot, failed commune revolutionary from the 60s, and twitter trolls. As a practical matter, they do not exist. They make for a good butt of a joke.
In all seriousness though they are sometimes used to counterbalance the rightwing extremism, e.g. "See look at the Tankies advocating for the destruction of NATO and the United States, denying the Holodomer occurred, and advocating for Guavera-esque guerilla tactics." Except where this fails is that while some mopes on the internet with hammer and sickle avatars are saying nonsense like this from behind a screen, as a group Tankies aren't out there, for example, organizing and marching in the streets demanding the systematic elimination of the kulaks. And there's where the comparison breaks down.
This but Scoop
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EeF8nXVWkAUlkEG.jpg)
-
Seriously?
I mean, even modern Western socialists think the economic policies and systems of government of Stalin, Mao and Castro were disastrous. Where exactly are you finding these people?
Probably the ones that said that the Soviets, the ChiComs, NK, Cuba, Venezuela, etc. just did communism wrong.
See also: jesmu.
-
Probably the ones that said that the Soviets, the ChiComs, NK, Cuba, Venezuela, etc. just did communism wrong.
See also: jesmu.
This makes no sense.
The people who say the Soviets, Chinese, etc. "did communism wrong" wouldn't favor the economic policies and style of government imposed by Stalin and Mao. That's what they think the Soviets and Chinese got wrong.
-
This but Scoop
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EeF8nXVWkAUlkEG.jpg)
Religion, amirite?
-
Seriously?
I mean, even modern Western socialists think the economic policies and systems of government of Stalin, Mao and Castro were disastrous. Where exactly are you finding these people?
Where do they find me is the real question. ;)
Seriously, it's not a lot of people, kind of random in nature, but people I've worked with and family. They freely support people like AOC and ideas like "tax the rich". They are in favor of the redistribution wealth to the level that private property (even though they own homes) is offensive. The think everyone living in America should be guaranteed a "living wage", regardless of employment status because the US can afford it and it is the humane thing to do. They believe the Constitution is worthless because white men wrote it. They would much prefer one party, Dems, and genuinely hate Republicans. They believe anyone who votes Republican is a racist and sexist.
No private property + guaranteed wages + single party + eliminating the Constitution that setup the democratic republic = ?
-
This makes no sense.
The people who say the Soviets, Chinese, etc. "did communism wrong" wouldn't favor the economic policies and style of government imposed by Stalin and Mao. That's what they think the Soviets and Chinese got wrong.
Typing at a stop light. My error.
Jesmu could still help you find some people that believe in communism.
-
Where do they find me is the real question. ;)
Seriously, it's not a lot of people, kind of random in nature, but people I've worked with and family. They freely support people like AOC and ideas like "tax the rich". They are in favor of the redistribution wealth to the level that private property (even though they own homes) is offensive. The think everyone living in America should be guaranteed a "living wage", regardless of employment status because the US can afford it and it is the humane thing to do. They believe the Constitution is worthless because white men wrote it. They would much prefer one party, Dems, and genuinely hate Republicans. They believe anyone who votes Republican is a racist and sexist.
No private property + guaranteed wages + single party + eliminating the Constitution that setup the democratic republic = ?
70% of Scoop?
-
Where do they find me is the real question. ;)
Seriously, it's not a lot of people, kind of random in nature, but people I've worked with and family. They freely support people like AOC and ideas like "tax the rich". They are in favor of the redistribution wealth to the level that private property (even though they own homes) is offensive. The think everyone living in America should be guaranteed a "living wage", regardless of employment status because the US can afford it and it is the humane thing to do. They believe the Constitution is worthless because white men wrote it. They would much prefer one party, Dems, and genuinely hate Republicans. They believe anyone who votes Republican is a racist and sexist.
No private property + guaranteed wages + single party + eliminating the Constitution that setup the democratic republic = ?
That’s why I live in a gated community and don’t pay taxes. Being rich rules.
-
Where do they find me is the real question. ;)
Seriously, it's not a lot of people, kind of random in nature, but people I've worked with and family. They freely support people like AOC and ideas like "tax the rich". They are in favor of the redistribution wealth to the level that private property (even though they own homes) is offensive. The think everyone living in America should be guaranteed a "living wage", regardless of employment status because the US can afford it and it is the humane thing to do. They believe the Constitution is worthless because white men wrote it. They would much prefer one party, Dems, and genuinely hate Republicans. They believe anyone who votes Republican is a racist and sexist.
No private property + guaranteed wages + single party + eliminating the Constitution that setup the democratic republic = ?
While I don't doubt such people exist, I would suggest they are a tiny minority of the American populace.
And the only political figure I can think of who wants to get rid of the Constitution is a Florida man who spent some time in the White House.
-
https://www.instagram.com/reel/Cs3VZhOtyXz/?igshid=YzcxN2Q2NzY0OA==
-
Typing at a stop light. My error.
Jesmu could still help you find some people that believe in communism.
Right this way, comrade.
Seriously though, it would be terrible to run our country like one of the nordics.
-
You don't want to shape this country up by using Nordic Track?
-
Right this way, comrade.
Seriously though, it would be terrible to run our country like one of the nordics.
Really? You want to compare a culture like the US to Norway? 98% white 83+% Norwegian Norway? 5.4 million people in the whole freakin’ country Norway? Sure.
-
Really? You want to compare a culture like the US to Norway? 98% white 83+% Norwegian Norway? 5.4 million people in the whole freakin’ country Norway? Sure.
Why is race and ethnicity relevant, Lenny?
-
Why is race and ethnicity relevant, Lenny?
I'd go further than that.
Why is race and ethnicity relevant when discussing how the government should choose an economic policy that benefits its citizens?
-
I don’t recall anyone from either side loving Hitler, but Stalin and Mao were very much defended/admired by the left and vilified by the right in the USA.
It might be helpful, then, if the current crop of conservatives and Republican politicians stop saying how much they admire Hitler.
-
I don’t recall anyone from either side loving Hitler, but Stalin and Mao were very much defended/admired by the left and vilified by the right in the USA.
In 1939, there was a pro-Nazi rally in Madison Square Garden attended by more than 20,000. That's a lot of people loving Hitler.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1939_Nazi_rally_at_Madison_Square_Garden
-
In 1939, there was a pro-Nazi rally in Madison Square Garden attended by more than 20,000. That's a lot of people loving Hitler.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1939_Nazi_rally_at_Madison_Square_Garden
Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uftTLH6NRks
-
In 1939, there was a pro-Nazi rally in Madison Square Garden attended by more than 20,000. That's a lot of people loving Hitler.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1939_Nazi_rally_at_Madison_Square_Garden
Yawn. To be expected in the Democratic haven of NYC. ;D
Is it safe to say New Yorkers like Hitler more than the Knicks?
-
Yawn. To be expected in the Democratic haven of NYC. ;D
Is it safe to say New Yorkers like Hitler more than the Knicks?
A lot more than 20,000 voted for the Communist Party candidates for president a lot later than 1939.
-
A lot more than 20,000 voted for the Communist Party candidates for president a lot later than 1939.
How many Republicans voted for David Duke?
(Hint: A lot)
-
Duke ran as a democrat in 1988.
-
A lot more than 20,000 voted for the Communist Party candidates for president a lot later than 1939.
Goalposts successfully moved!
-
Duke ran as a democrat in 1988.
Yep
And did so poorly he switched parties, and was promptly elected to the Louisiana House. He then received substantial support (more than 600K votes each) in his campaigns for US Senaor and Louisiana governor.
-
I'd go further than that.
Why is race and ethnicity relevant when discussing how the government should choose an economic policy that benefits its citizens?
The only way Socialism has a chance is if the electorate has a very high level of trust in the government. When you have a) a small country, 2) an almost totally homogeneous people/culture and c) 100 years of relative prosperity and growth under capitalism it can seem like a good idea. Such was the situation in Scandinavia in 1970. After 20 years of not so great results governments started moving back towards the center where they are today. The government programs that work with such a small population stay, one’s that don’t go.
I very much doubt that 340 million people of so many diverse cultures will ever trust government enough to turn over everything to them. But the false hope that government is the answer to people’s woes is tempting so maybe I’m wrong.
-
Duke ran as a democrat in 1988.
The Democrats don't embrace the KKK, but the KKK was born and bread Democrat.
Look, the reality is fringe hate groups are in both parties but are not embraced by those parties. Neo-Nazi side with the Republicans.
-
Yep
And did so poorly he switched parties, and was promptly elected to the Louisiana House. He then received substantial support (more than 600K votes each) in his campaigns for US Senaor and Louisiana governor.
You sound like a fanboi.
-
The Democrats don't embrace the KKK, but the KKK was born and bread Democrat.
Look, the reality is fringe hate groups are in both parties but are not embraced by those parties. Neo-Nazi side with the Republicans.
Did you really just liken the KKK's roots from 150 years ago to the modern GOP playing footsie with white supremacists?
-
You sound like a fanboi.
Pig emoji. Clown emoji.
/Reaches for box of Kleenex.
-
Really? You want to compare a culture like the US to Norway? 98% white 83+% Norwegian Norway? 5.4 million people in the whole freakin’ country Norway? Sure.
Not to mention oil reserves that produce annual flows not far behind gulf nations not named Saudi, for that small population. Everything about the Nordics is just a wildly apples to oranges comp for a population the size and diversity of the US.
-
Not to mention oil reserves that produce annual flows not far behind gulf nations not named Saudi, for that small population. Everything about the Nordics is just a wildly apples to oranges comp for a population the size and diversity of the US.
But you're really only talkiing about Norway here. None of the other Nordic nations produce significant amounts of oil.
By "not far behind" ...
Barrels per day:
Iraq - 4.47 million
UAE - 3.47 million
Iran - 3.29 million
Kuwait - 2.82 million
Norway - 1.7 million
So, what about Sweden, Finland and Denmark?
And I still need an explanation of why having a population that isn't 90+ percent white is prohibitive here. (I realize you're not the one who made that claim, exactly, though you do mention diversity).
Edit: I'm not saying the U.S. should pursue a Nordic economic model, I just don't quite grasp why our multiracial society makes it such an impossibility.
-
Not to mention oil reserves that produce annual flows not far behind gulf nations not named Saudi, for that small population. Everything about the Nordics is just a wildly apples to oranges comp for a population the size and diversity of the US.
What are the annual flows of the oil produced in the US?
-
Really? You want to compare a culture like the US to Norway? 98% white 83+% Norwegian Norway? 5.4 million people in the whole freakin’ country Norway? Sure.
Oh boy.
-
Not to mention oil reserves that produce annual flows not far behind gulf nations not named Saudi, for that small population. Everything about the Nordics is just a wildly apples to oranges comp for a population the size and diversity of the US.
We choose not to nationalize the oil industry in the US. Instead we subsidize it, and it's profits to fill private coffers.
Which is more equitable?
-
Norway's domestic energy is almost all renewable. Hydropower. They export their oil.
-
Norway's domestic energy is almost all renewable. Hydropower. They export their oil.
If they were truly a green country, they would leave the oil in the ground. They are helping kill this planet.
-
Bravo.
-
washigton post poll shows more african americans strongly support scotus rulling than oppose
-
washigton post poll shows more african americans strongly support scotus rulling than oppose
Irony is dead
-
What are the annual flows of the oil produced in the US?
We produce 7x as much as Norway…but are 65x as big population wise.
And I was speaking diversity not so much as “they’re all white” but just the vast regional, cultural, and geographic differences that lend to different mentalities.
-
washigton post poll shows more african americans strongly support scotus rulling than oppose
Only like 20 who are misbehaving
-
washigton post poll shows more african americans strongly support scotus rulling than oppose
It actually was an Economist/You Gov poll that the Washington Post wrote about -- and you no doubt read about it in the article Fox News wrote about the Post writing about the poll.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/washington-post-sounds-off-poll-showing-black-americans-support-scotus-affirmative-action-ruling
FWIW, the last paragraph of the Fox News article reads:
The Economist/YouGov poll cited by the Post does not meet Fox News' polling standards while the ABC/Ipsos poll referenced in the article does meet those standards.
The text of the ABC/Ipsos poll that meets Fox News' standards begins:
Washington, DC, July 2, 2023— In polling conducted June 30-July 1, 2023—just after the Supreme Court overturned affirmative action, struck down the Biden student loan forgiveness plan, and ruled in favor of a web designer seeking to deny services to a same-sex couple—a new ABC News/Ipsos poll finds the American public is split on the decisions. Additionally, a majority of Americans (53%) say that they think Supreme Court justices rule mainly on the basis of their partisan political views, up 10 points from January of 2022.
Looking at each case, a bare majority of Americans (52%) approve of the decision to overturn affirmative action with a third (32%) disapproving. The majority includes majorities of both white (60%) and Asian (58%) Americans. Latino and Hispanic Americans are split on the ruling (40% approve vs. 40% disapprove), and the majority of Black Americans disapprove (52%).
https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/americans-split-recent-supreme-court-decisions
I'll admit I'm surprised a majority of Black people in any poll approved of the ruling, but every poll isn't the same -- indeed, the ABC/Ipsos poll said a slight majority of Black people disapproved -- and there's a lot of nuance with this issue.
-
https://www.instagram.com/reel/CuCzFGYpt1a/?igshid=YzcxN2Q2NzY0OA==
-
I have never heard anyone defend Stalin or Mao. Sadly, I have heard far too many people defend Hitler. Maybe it is an age thing.
https://canadafreepress.com/article/who-was-chairman-mao-lionized-by-obamas-white-house
-
https://canadafreepress.com/article/who-was-chairman-mao-lionized-by-obamas-white-house
Lol. Seriously?
-
https://canadafreepress.com/article/who-was-chairman-mao-lionized-by-obamas-white-house
I'll see your Mao and raise you seven Hitlers.
GOP lawmaker says homeless people should look to Hitler
https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2022/04/14/hitler-homeless-tennessee-republican-niceley/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2022/04/14/hitler-homeless-tennessee-republican-niceley/)
House GOP candidate called Hitler ‘the kind of leader we need’ in 2021 remarks
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2022-election/house-gop-candidate-called-hitler-kind-leader-need-2021-remarks-rcna32876
New Illinois congresswoman: ‘Hitler was right on one thing’
https://www.kktv.com/2021/01/07/new-illinois-congresswoman-hitler-was-right-on-one-thing/ (https://www.kktv.com/2021/01/07/new-illinois-congresswoman-hitler-was-right-on-one-thing/)
Republican Pal Nick Fuentes SWOONS Over Hitler
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dI35UbH3XXc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dI35UbH3XXc)
Republican Politician Urges Americans to Revisit Hitler and Stalin at Moms for Liberty Event
https://www.advocate.com/politicians/moms-for-liberty-read-hitler (https://www.advocate.com/politicians/moms-for-liberty-read-hitler)
https://twitter.com/AmoneyResists/status/1673048451662200832 (https://twitter.com/AmoneyResists/status/1673048451662200832)
"In case you think @Moms4Liberty quoted Hitler by mistake, here’s Ryan Helfenbein @ the Faith & Freedom Coalition Gala: “If you don't control education, you can’t control the future. Stalin knew that. Mao knew it. Hitler knew it. We have to get that back for conservative values.”
https://doggett.house.gov/media/in-the-news/new-york-times-whose-version-christian-nationalism-will-win-2024 (https://doggett.house.gov/media/in-the-news/new-york-times-whose-version-christian-nationalism-will-win-2024)
"Last week the ReAwaken America Tour, a Christian nationalist roadshow co-founded by the former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn, rolled up to the Trump National Doral Miami resort. Two speakers who’d appeared at other stops on the tour, the online streamers Scott McKay and Charlie Ward, were jettisoned at the last moment because of bad publicity over their praise of Hitler. (“Hitler was actually fighting the same people that we’re trying to take down today,” said McKay, not inaccurately.) But as of this writing, the tour’s website still includes McKay and Ward, along with Eric Trump, as featured speakers at an upcoming extravaganza in Las Vegas.
ReAwaken America’s association with anti-Semites did not stop Donald Trump from calling into the rally to offer his support."
-
https://canadafreepress.com/article/who-was-chairman-mao-lionized-by-obamas-white-house
Holy Christ, that’s awesome. His middle name is Hussein, too. Makes you wonder
-
It actually was an Economist/You Gov poll that the Washington Post wrote about -- and you no doubt read about it in the article Fox News wrote about the Post writing about the poll.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/washington-post-sounds-off-poll-showing-black-americans-support-scotus-affirmative-action-ruling
FWIW, the last paragraph of the Fox News article reads:
The Economist/YouGov poll cited by the Post does not meet Fox News' polling standards while the ABC/Ipsos poll referenced in the article does meet those standards.
The text of the ABC/Ipsos poll that meets Fox News' standards begins:
Washington, DC, July 2, 2023— In polling conducted June 30-July 1, 2023—just after the Supreme Court overturned affirmative action, struck down the Biden student loan forgiveness plan, and ruled in favor of a web designer seeking to deny services to a same-sex couple—a new ABC News/Ipsos poll finds the American public is split on the decisions. Additionally, a majority of Americans (53%) say that they think Supreme Court justices rule mainly on the basis of their partisan political views, up 10 points from January of 2022.
Looking at each case, a bare majority of Americans (52%) approve of the decision to overturn affirmative action with a third (32%) disapproving. The majority includes majorities of both white (60%) and Asian (58%) Americans. Latino and Hispanic Americans are split on the ruling (40% approve vs. 40% disapprove), and the majority of Black Americans disapprove (52%).
https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/americans-split-recent-supreme-court-decisions
I'll admit I'm surprised a majority of Black people in any poll approved of the ruling, but every poll isn't the same -- indeed, the ABC/Ipsos poll said a slight majority of Black people disapproved -- and there's a lot of nuance with this issue.
you will never get a poll showing the absolute accurate results unless you poll 100% of the people which we all know is not feasible. the ways so many ways polls are worded, where and who they poll and then of course, the integrity of the pollster all go in to figuring the margins of error. with all that said, who really knows, but it's the best barometer we have.
with all of the polarization and media slants, power struggles, most people don't even know half of what's going on today. so many have opinions without even understanding the ramifications except their own "knee jerk" thoughts.
AA at it's core is not healthy. we all want only the best of everything we do and participate in. i know the examples can go on and on, but does anyone want the "c" candidate to fly them, to operate on them, to manage their finances and taxes, etc etc
-
AA at it's core is not healthy. we all want only the best of everything we do and participate in. i know the examples can go on and on, but does anyone want the "c" candidate to fly them, to operate on them, to manage their finances and taxes, etc etc
Do you believe one's skill in flying an airplane or performing surgery is determined by high school GPA and SAT scores?
-
Do you believe one's skill in flying an airplane or performing surgery is determined by high school GPA and SAT scores?
i believe it is a means to measure whether or not that person has the capacity to move on to the next level with greater certainty of success at that point in time. a person with a lower GPA and/or SAT scores could enroll in an alternative program to raise their core knowledge to say, the level closer to those with better scores.
smart people have a talent just as athletic people have a talent. not everyone is capable of jumping into the higher echelons of a skill ready to provide the best outcome. some may take a little more preparation to achieve something they may want to do. in the mean time, taking up space in elite positions within a school or program does not necessarily help and could actually hinder them and/or discourage them
-
with all of the polarization and media slants, power struggles, most people don't even know half of what's going on today. so many have opinions without even understanding the ramifications except their own "knee jerk" thoughts.
I know ... it's like some poor saps mindlessly regurgitate what they hear on Newsmax and Fox News, or from their favorite politicians. There's even this one hopeless cultist on a basketball fan board who thinks that 1/6/21 was a casual tourist tour through the Capitol, with maybe 20 silly kids misbehaving a little!
-
i believe it is a means to measure whether or not that person has the capacity to move on to the next level with greater certainty of success at that point in time. a person with a lower GPA and/or SAT scores could enroll in an alternative program to raise their core knowledge to say, the level closer to those with better scores.
smart people have a talent just as athletic people have a talent. not everyone is capable of jumping into the higher echelons of a skill ready to provide the best outcome. some may take a little more preparation to achieve something they may want to do. in the mean time, taking up space in elite positions within a school or program does not necessarily help and could actually hinder them and/or discourage them
So, none of this answers the question.
I'll try again. Is one's skill at flying an airplane or performing surgery dependent upon high school GPA or SAT score?
Before you answer, Google where Chuck Yaeger and John Glenn went to college.
-
So, none of this answers the question.
I'll try again. Is one's skill at flying an airplane or performing surgery dependent upon high school GPA or SAT score?
Before you answer, Google where Chuck Yaeger and John Glenn went to college.
Your question leads to an obvious answer: No. It's why universities - elite and otherwise - need to have latitude in selecting their students. Test scores and GPAs can only tell admissions officers so much.
Your "before you answer" line raises another good point: Where one goes to college probably is less important than it's often portrayed. That John Glenn could become so accomplished at so much despite going to Muskingum College, followed by a stint at the Civilian Pilot Training Program, could be an argument for "See, nobody really needs to go to an elite college anyway."
But everyone knows the advantages built into attending such schools. Perhaps even more than the academics, the connections one can make are huge. And the injustice of denying perfectly capable prospects just because of their life circumstances ... that's why affirmative action became a thing in the first place.
Fortunately, as others have stated, many (most?) top universities will find a way to work around SCOTUS' decision.
-
So, none of this answers the question.
I'll try again. Is one's skill at flying an airplane or performing surgery dependent upon high school GPA or SAT score?
Before you answer, Google where Chuck Yaeger and John Glenn went to college.
and i'll try this again as it seems i didn't give you the answer you wanted-
i believe it is a means to measure whether or not that person has the capacity to move on to the next level with greater certainty of success at that point in time. a person with a lower GPA and/or SAT scores could enroll in an alternative program to raise their core knowledge to say, the level closer to those with better scores.
you asked me if i "believe" and my answer is above
i'm going to have to let you guys in on a dirty little secret-you guys don't have a monopoly on the answers to everything. you may think you do and that's what's so weird.
so you guys are even smarter than majority of scotus-congrats! and that's why you are here posting on some b-ball message board
82-btw, the 1/6/21 incident has been blown WAY WAY out of proportion by you guys because you have the "media" whipping you into a froth. take a pill, have a hot toddy and go check out what really happened. there were probably a few hundred bad actors charged and rightly so. the violence post george floyd and the anti police riots were much much worse, far more damage and lives lost
-
Ben Carsons nuanced take on the matter.
https://www.delmarvanow.com/story/news/2014/02/23/ben-s-carson-column-beyond-affirmative-action/5707813/
-
and i'll try this again as it seems i didn't give you the answer you wanted-
i believe it is a means to measure whether or not that person has the capacity to move on to the next level with greater certainty of success at that point in time. a person with a lower GPA and/or SAT scores could enroll in an alternative program to raise their core knowledge to say, the level closer to those with better scores.
you asked me if i "believe" and my answer is above
i'm going to have to let you guys in on a dirty little secret-you guys don't have a monopoly on the answers to everything. you may think you do and that's what's so weird.
so you guys are even smarter than majority of scotus-congrats! and that's why you are here posting on some b-ball message board
82-btw, the 1/6/21 incident has been blown WAY WAY out of proportion by you guys because you have the "media" whipping you into a froth. take a pill, have a hot toddy and go check out what really happened. there were probably a few hundred bad actors charged and rightly so. the violence post george floyd and the anti police riots were much much worse, far more damage and lives lost
I’m really surprised that you would downplay the violent attempt to overthrow a legitimate election. 🙄
-
you will never get a poll showing the absolute accurate results unless you poll 100% of the people which we all know is not feasible. the ways so many ways polls are worded, where and who they poll and then of course, the integrity of the pollster all go in to figuring the margins of error. with all that said, who really knows, but it's the best barometer we have.
with all of the polarization and media slants, power struggles, most people don't even know half of what's going on today. so many have opinions without even understanding the ramifications except their own "knee jerk" thoughts.
AA at it's core is not healthy. we all want only the best of everything we do and participate in. i know the examples can go on and on, but does anyone want the "c" candidate to fly them, to operate on them, to manage their finances and taxes, etc etc
The false narrative you are pushing is that AA candidates are not qualified to even be admitted to these elite universities. By the time race was even considered was deep in the process when choosing between candidates that were all qualified.
That being said, I think it was the right decision. And schools have been preparing for it for awhile.
-
and i'll try this again as it seems i didn't give you the answer you wanted-
i believe it is a means to measure whether or not that person has the capacity to move on to the next level with greater certainty of success at that point in time. a person with a lower GPA and/or SAT scores could enroll in an alternative program to raise their core knowledge to say, the level closer to those with better scores.
you asked me if i "believe" and my answer is above
i'm going to have to let you guys in on a dirty little secret-you guys don't have a monopoly on the answers to everything. you may think you do and that's what's so weird.
so you guys are even smarter than majority of scotus-congrats! and that's why you are here posting on some b-ball message board
82-btw, the 1/6/21 incident has been blown WAY WAY out of proportion by you guys because you have the "media" whipping you into a froth. take a pill, have a hot toddy and go check out what really happened. there were probably a few hundred bad actors charged and rightly so. the violence post george floyd and the anti police riots were much much worse, far more damage and lives lost
8.5 out of 10
-
The false narrative you are pushing is that AA candidates are not qualified to even be admitted to these elite universities. By the time race was even considered was deep in the process when choosing between candidates that were all qualified.
That being said, I think it was the right decision. And schools have been preparing for it for awhile.
Well said. Unqualified students were not being admitted. Less qualified were being admitted over more qualified, but all were qualified. I think that gets lost in the conversation and both sides of the argument need to do a better job with that message.
-
The false narrative you are pushing is that AA candidates are not qualified to even be admitted to these elite universities. By the time race was even considered was deep in the process when choosing between candidates that were all qualified.
That being said, I think it was the right decision. And schools have been preparing for it for awhile.
I’m really surprised that you would downplay the violent attempt to overthrow a legitimate election. 🙄
i didn't push a false narrative...never said AA candidates are not qualified. AA at it's core is not healthy-choosing students based on skin color/ethnic background(except for asians of course) is not good. how do you define an AA student? there are many so called AA students who can qualify on their own merit and hence, the bias against many minority students.
to "over throw an election" ?? seriously? that's what you actually thought that was? so what were all the riots post george floyd?? attempts to over throw entire cities? if 1/6 was an attempt to over throw an election, it was a pretty piss poor one at that. hey, why did nance call off the extra security
-
Ben Carsons nuanced take on the matter.
https://www.delmarvanow.com/story/news/2014/02/23/ben-s-carson-column-beyond-affirmative-action/5707813/
Ben Carson has nailed the entire AA nonsense in two concise paragraphs, hey?
"The real question is this: Who should receive extra consideration from a nation that has a tradition of cheering for the underdog? I don’t believe race determines underdog status today. Rather, it is the circumstances of one’s life that should be considered.
Such a strategy demonstrates sensitivity and compassion, as well as recognition of substantial achievement in the face of difficult obstacles. The groups who benefit from compassionate action will probably change over time."
-
Ben Carson has nailed the entire AA nonsense in two concise paragraphs, hey?
"The real question is this: Who should receive extra consideration from a nation that has a tradition of cheering for the underdog? I don’t believe race determines underdog status today. Rather, it is the circumstances of one’s life that should be considered.
Such a strategy demonstrates sensitivity and compassion, as well as recognition of substantial achievement in the face of difficult obstacles. The groups who benefit from compassionate action will probably change over time."
So then why does this guy who reached where he is today through the assistance of public housing and food stamps want to eliminate all that? He himself admits that his aptitude scores were impressive “for a public school kid in Detroit “. He was helped through difficult circumstances to achieve very impressive things. (I got mine)
-
speaking of AA, looks like ketanji was just a bit outside with her opinion on AA. it actually sounds kinda racist if ya axk me, but whatever, right?
so black docs can save at risk new borns over "other" docs? btw, what does she care about "saving" new borns at risk when it's really up to the mother and her doctor anywy
-
speaking of AA, looks like ketanji was just a bit outside with her opinion on AA. it actually sounds kinda racist if ya axk me, but whatever, right?
so black docs can save at risk new borns over "other" docs? btw, what does she care about "saving" new borns at risk when it's really up to the mother and her doctor anywy
The Know Nothing mentality never ceases to amaze me.
-
speaking of AA, looks like ketanji was just a bit outside with her opinion on AA. it actually sounds kinda racist if ya axk me, but whatever, right?
so black docs can save at risk new borns over "other" docs? btw, what does she care about "saving" new borns at risk when it's really up to the mother and her doctor anywy
That was too mean
-
So then why does this guy who reached where he is today through the assistance of public housing and food stamps want to eliminate all that? He himself admits that his aptitude scores were impressive “for a public school kid in Detroit “. He was helped through difficult circumstances to achieve very impressive things. (I got mine)
It's a very boomer mentality
-
to "over throw an election" ?? seriously? that's what you actually thought that was?
Then what exactly do you think it was?
<getting popcorn ready>
-
speaking of AA, looks like ketanji was just a bit outside with her opinion on AA. it actually sounds kinda racist if ya axk me, but whatever, right?
11 of 10. Worms for brains.
-
to "over throw an election" ?? seriously? that's what you actually thought that was? so what were all the riots post george floyd?? attempts to over throw entire cities? if 1/6 was an attempt to over throw an election, it was a pretty piss poor one at that. hey, why did nance call off the extra security
Just a thingee, folks. A disturbance by about 20 people. Nothing out of the ordinary, everyone can relax.
-
speaking of AA, looks like ketanji was just a bit outside with her opinion on AA. it actually sounds kinda racist if ya axk me, but whatever, right?
so black docs can save at risk new borns over "other" docs? btw, what does she care about "saving" new borns at risk when it's really up to the mother and her doctor anywy
Wow, roQQet, that's impressive: an old white guy using ebonics (again) while calling a Black person "racist." Even more unhinged than usual from you, which is saying something.
But what can we expect from a guy who lies repeatedly about the seriousness of a violent coup attempt against the United States at the behest of an unhinged, lame-duck president?
-
speaking of AA, looks like ketanji was just a bit outside with her opinion on AA. it actually sounds kinda racist if ya axk me, but whatever, right?
so black docs can save at risk new borns over "other" docs? btw, what does she care about "saving" new borns at risk when it's really up to the mother and her doctor anywy
You should be more concerned with the racial disparities on mortality that she referenced and is found in the article below.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1913405117 (https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1913405117)
Her point was valid.
And you should be ashamed of your above post.
-
You should be more concerned with the racial disparities on mortality that she referenced and is found in the article below.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1913405117 (https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1913405117)
Her point was valid.
And you should be ashamed of your above post.
He isn’t. He actually thinks it’s funny.
-
You should be more concerned with the racial disparities on mortality that she referenced and is found in the article below.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1913405117 (https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1913405117)
Her point was valid.
And you should be ashamed of your above post.
i am always concerned about any mortality, especially abortion mortalities as completely helpless human beings are being murdered. to be ashamed of a post pointing out an error made by a scotus to further AA with a false narrative?? you've got to be kidding me. how does this even get into the monumental decision?? AA is life or death now?? it's ok if one wants to make an argument for AA but i expect better from scotus
so let me get this straight...you guys have a force field around a certain people and they can do no wrong? noting those who came out to criticize my post, that seems to be the "playbook" on your side of the fence. so now, criticism of people of chosen ethnic backgrounds is off limits?? that is a problem you should be ashamed of
wrong is wrong people and she should have known better, those around her should have known better
-
i am always concerned about any mortality, especially abortion mortalities as completely helpless human beings are being murdered. to be ashamed of a post pointing out an error made by a scotus to further AA with a false narrative?? you've got to be kidding me. how does this even get into the monumental decision?? AA is life or death now?? it's ok if one wants to make an argument for AA but i expect better from scotus
so let me get this straight...you guys have a force field around a certain people and they can do no wrong? noting those who came out to criticize my post, that seems to be the "playbook" on your side of the fence. so now, criticism of people of chosen ethnic backgrounds is off limits?? that is a problem you should be ashamed of
wrong is wrong people and she should have known better, those around her should have known better
5 out of 10
-
i am always concerned about any mortality, especially abortion mortalities as completely helpless human beings are being murdered. to be ashamed of a post pointing out an error made by a scotus to further AA with a false narrative?? you've got to be kidding me. how does this even get into the monumental decision?? AA is life or death now?? it's ok if one wants to make an argument for AA but i expect better from scotus
so let me get this straight...you guys have a force field around a certain people and they can do no wrong? noting those who came out to criticize my post, that seems to be the "playbook" on your side of the fence. so now, criticism of people of chosen ethnic backgrounds is off limits?? that is a problem you should be ashamed of
wrong is wrong people and she should have known better, those around her should have known better
Irony is dead
-
https://canadafreepress.com/article/who-was-chairman-mao-lionized-by-obamas-white-house
Co-founder of the Brownskirts wants to let you know they stand behind their Hitler quote:
https://twitter.com/AmoneyResists/status/1677705838092247041 (https://twitter.com/AmoneyResists/status/1677705838092247041)
Here’s Tiffany Justice, co-founder of ‘Mom’s for Liberty,’ saying “One of our mom’s quoted Hitler in their newsletter. I stand with that mom!” to raucous applause from the crowd.
@Moms4Liberty is not ashamed to be a hate group, just as long as they aren’t in mixed company.
-
Hitler was so misunderstood. And hey, the Jews had it coming.
-
you will never get a poll showing the absolute accurate results unless you poll 100% of the people which we all know is not feasible. the ways so many ways polls are worded, where and who they poll and then of course, the integrity of the pollster all go in to figuring the margins of error. with all that said, who really knows, but it's the best barometer we have.
with all of the polarization and media slants, power struggles, most people don't even know half of what's going on today. so many have opinions without even understanding the ramifications except their own "knee jerk" thoughts.
AA at it's core is not healthy. we all want only the best of everything we do and participate in. i know the examples can go on and on, but does anyone want the "c" candidate to fly them, to operate on them, to manage their finances and taxes, etc etc
What you're forgetting is that "the C candidate" will go on to receive a world class education and perhaps even further credentials if proceeding through grad school. If they don't, they are not going to operate on anybody, or do anybody's taxes, etc.
So your plan is to lock in the credentials of an 18 year old for life? Glad that didn't happen to my buddy who is now a brain surgeon at a major hospital in California. If you want to check the credentials of every pilot, doctor, and cpa at the age of 18, then you would never fly, have a medical procedure, or let someone give you tax advice ever again.
-
Your question leads to an obvious answer: No. It's why universities - elite and otherwise - need to have latitude in selecting their students. Test scores and GPAs can only tell admissions officers so much.
Your "before you answer" line raises another good point: Where one goes to college probably is less important than it's often portrayed. That John Glenn could become so accomplished at so much despite going to Muskingum College, followed by a stint at the Civilian Pilot Training Program, could be an argument for "See, nobody really needs to go to an elite college anyway."
But everyone knows the advantages built into attending such schools. Perhaps even more than the academics, the connections one can make are huge. And the injustice of denying perfectly capable prospects just because of their life circumstances ... that's why affirmative action became a thing in the first place.
Fortunately, as others have stated, many (most?) top universities will find a way to work around SCOTUS' decision.
Either that or Harvard's next entering class is 48% Asian.
I for one think that Harvard should should give it a go: Implement a completely anonymous application process. Only academic merit counts and NOTHING else. C'mon, let's do it. Are you with me? If not, why not?
-
What you're forgetting is that "the C candidate" will go on to receive a world class education and perhaps even further credentials if proceeding through grad school. If they don't, they are not going to operate on anybody, or do anybody's taxes, etc.
So your plan is to lock in the credentials of an 18 year old for life? Glad that didn't happen to my buddy who is now a brain surgeon at a major hospital in California. If you want to check the credentials of every pilot, doctor, and cpa at the age of 18, then you would never fly, have a medical procedure, or let someone give you tax advice ever again.
you guys either don't want to understand what i said or are being willfully short sighted-put aside your hate for me over polarizing politics for one second if you can, learn how to compartmentalize, maintain man, maintain
go back and read my comment with respect to getting their core knowledge up and becoming more prepared for the rigors of a "harvard" or a "stanford". some just aren't ready to make that big jump right away. some mature at a slower rate. some are late bloomers...whatever...that's all. i never said the AA student of today is not worthy of becoming a fill in the blank professional or what have you-
my earlier comment regarding SAT scores GPA or whatever else is being used to calibrate a students proficiency levels-
i believe it is a means to measure whether or not that person has the capacity to move on to the next level with greater certainty of success at that point in time. a person with a lower GPA and/or SAT scores could enroll in an alternative program to raise their core knowledge to say, the level closer to those with better scores.
-
Either that or Harvard's next entering class is 48% Asian.
I for one think that Harvard should should give it a go: Implement a completely anonymous application process. Only academic merit counts and NOTHING else. C'mon, let's do it. Are you with me? If not, why not?
How do you assess academic merit? It is not as simple as you are implying it to be.
-
Rocket, what you are talking about has very little to do with anything in this case. AA at elite universities is NOT about picking less qualified applicants over more qualified ones. Anyone selected after the first go around is massively qualified, and would easily be enrolled at 95% of schools across the country and will very likely be successful no matter where they end up.
AA at these schools is about ensuring a diverse student body, with people of diverse backgrounds of all sorts, because that's what the world is these days. And that's what employers want too - employees with that type of experience.
Getting there by assigning specific points to ethnic minorities is probably not the best way to go about that. And that's fine. Believe me, these schools will still find ways to be diverse because that is what their marketplace wants.
-
Rocket, what you are talking about has very little to do with anything in this case. AA at elite universities is NOT about picking less qualified applicants over more qualified ones. Anyone selected after the first go around is massively qualified, and would easily be enrolled at 95% of schools across the country and will very likely be successful no matter where they end up.
AA at these schools is about ensuring a diverse student body, with people of diverse backgrounds of all sorts, because that's what the world is these days. And that's what employers want too - employees with that type of experience.
Getting there by assigning specific points to ethnic minorities is probably not the best way to go about that. And that's fine. Believe me, these schools will still find ways to be diverse because that is what their marketplace wants.
You make great points and overall your post is IMO spot on, but the notion that AA ''is NOT about picking less qualified applicants over more qualified ones." i'd say is wrong and I'd go so far as to say that that is EXACTLY what AA is about. Have/had minorities been suing schools successfully because less qualified whites or Asians have been admitted over them? Have the challenges to AA centered around minorities with better credentials being admitted over Asians and whites?
-
You make great points and overall your post is IMO spot on, but the notion that AA ''is NOT about picking less qualified applicants over more qualified ones." i'd say is wrong and I'd go so far as to say that that is EXACTLY what AA is about. Have/had minorities been suing schools successfully because less qualified whites or Asians have been admitted over them? Have the challenges to AA centered around minorities with better credentials being admitted over Asians and whites?
No I would say the challenges to AA were because race was used as a factor in the admissions process. By the time race became a significant factor, they were choosing between candidates who were equally qualified - many were already conditionally admitted.
Let me give an example. If I was running a school that needed 300 people in the freshman class, and got 1,000 applicants (marketing sucks obviously), my initial screeners put them in one of five pools, 1-200, 201-400, etc. At no point do I rank the candidates 1 though 1,000 because that's nearly impossible.
I then make up the class by taking the top 200 from the first pool regardless. I then take the next 100 from the second pool of 200 - this is where race can play a larger factor to make the class more diverse.
Now if I took a minority from the THIRD pool at the expense of someone in the SECOND pool, then yes, someone who was white was denied an opportunity at the expense of someone who is a minority. But as long as I don't do that, then I don't see how anyone can claim that they were denied an opportunity at the expense of someone who is less qualified.
I think the basic problem is that people think that there are black and white reasons showing one candidate is better than the other. But at these types of schools, it's a lot of shades of gray. GPA and standardized test scores are obviously objective. But what about extracurricular and community involvement? What about the relative strength of their schedules or their high schools? What about their interview performance?
-
You make great points and overall your post is IMO spot on, but the notion that AA ''is NOT about picking less qualified applicants over more qualified ones." i'd say is wrong and I'd go so far as to say that that is EXACTLY what AA is about. Have/had minorities been suing schools successfully because less qualified whites or Asians have been admitted over them? Have the challenges to AA centered around minorities with better credentials being admitted over Asians and whites?
The problem might be in defining "less qualified" or "more qualified."
The courts in these cases have done so because they've had to, but I'm curious if you think it is only (and should be only) about grades and SAT/ACT scores and internships?
Should factors such as life experiences/circumstances, work ethic, ability to overcome adversity and leadership skills count? If somebody is far "more qualified" based on those attributes but a little "less qualified" based on grades and test scores, do the grades and test scores automatically win out? How does athletic ability factor in? How about brilliance in dance or music or some other pursuit?
Lots of people want to make this a cut-and-dried issue, but there seems to be nuance IMHO.
-
No I would say the challenges to AA were because race was used as a factor in the admissions process. By the time race became a significant factor, they were choosing between candidates who were equally qualified - many were already conditionally admitted.
Let me give an example. If I was running a school that needed 300 people in the freshman class, and got 1,000 applicants (marketing sucks obviously), my initial screeners put them in one of five pools, 1-200, 201-400, etc. At no point do I rank the candidates 1 though 1,000 because that's nearly impossible.
I then make up the class by taking the top 200 from the first pool regardless. I then take the next 100 from the second pool of 200 - this is where race can play a larger factor to make the class more diverse.
Now if I took a minority from the THIRD pool at the expense of someone in the SECOND pool, then yes, someone who was white was denied an opportunity at the expense of someone who is a minority. But as long as I don't do that, then I don't see how anyone can claim that they were denied an opportunity at the expense of someone who is less qualified.
I think the basic problem is that people think that there are black and white reasons showing one candidate is better than the other. But at these types of schools, it's a lot of shades of gray. GPA and standardized test scores are obviously objective. But what about extracurricular and community involvement? What about the relative strength of their schedules or their high schools? What about their interview performance?
I understand your well laid out point. At this point I have to tap out due to lack of knowledge of the specifics of the case(s). I was under the impression out of the qualified pool, they chose less qualified over more qualified and even some schools had specific quotas.
If this AA policy was simply a way to choose applicants instead of flipping a coin, I think the number of affected whites and Asians is insignificant and the SCOTUS ruling is of minor importance .
-
No I would say the challenges to AA were because race was used as a factor in the admissions process. By the time race became a significant factor, they were choosing between candidates who were equally qualified - many were already conditionally admitted.
Let me give an example. If I was running a school that needed 300 people in the freshman class, and got 1,000 applicants (marketing sucks obviously), my initial screeners put them in one of five pools, 1-200, 201-400, etc. At no point do I rank the candidates 1 though 1,000 because that's nearly impossible.
I then make up the class by taking the top 200 from the first pool regardless. I then take the next 100 from the second pool of 200 - this is where race can play a larger factor to make the class more diverse.
Now if I took a minority from the THIRD pool at the expense of someone in the SECOND pool, then yes, someone who was white was denied an opportunity at the expense of someone who is a minority. But as long as I don't do that, then I don't see how anyone can claim that they were denied an opportunity at the expense of someone who is less qualified.
I think the basic problem is that people think that there are black and white reasons showing one candidate is better than the other. But at these types of schools, it's a lot of shades of gray. GPA and standardized test scores are obviously objective. But what about extracurricular and community involvement? What about the relative strength of their schedules or their high schools? What about their interview performance?
Pretty sure admittance to grad and professional schools is a horse of a different color, aina?
-
I understand your well laid out point. At this point I have to tap out due to lack of knowledge of the specifics of the case(s). I was under the impression out of the qualified pool, they chose less qualified over more qualified and even some schools had specific quotas.
If this AA policy was simply a way to choose applicants instead of flipping a coin, I think the number of affected whites and Asians is insignificant and the SCOTUS ruling is of minor importance .
I actually agree with your last sentence. Also, since the vast, vast majority of schools are basically open enrollment these days, there are plenty of opportunities for everyone. I doubt anyone loses their opportunity to achieve higher education due to this ruling.
-
you will never get a poll showing the absolute accurate results unless you poll 100% of the people which we all know is not feasible. the ways so many ways polls are worded, where and who they poll and then of course, the integrity of the pollster all go in to figuring the margins of error. with all that said, who really knows, but it's the best barometer we have.
with all of the polarization and media slants, power struggles, most people don't even know half of what's going on today. so many have opinions without even understanding the ramifications except their own "knee jerk" thoughts.
AA at it's core is not healthy. we all want only the best of everything we do and participate in. i know the examples can go on and on, but does anyone want the "c" candidate to fly them, to operate on them, to manage their finances and taxes, etc etc
Imagine not understanding statistics at all and then commenting about statistics.
Lmao