Supreme Court rules against affirmative action.

[cawacko]

Many (most?) universities want more students than they have applicants; therefore, they don't need to reject anybody and take almost all applicants. Many, especially community colleges, are open admissions.

The affirmative action applies primarily to faculty and staff.

You are correct, they don't use AA at most state schools because many will accept almost any student who qualifies. AA really is about the elite schools (I think many people are confused about that; they seem to think without AA black kids can't go to any college)

 

[Freddy Figbottom]

You are correct, they don't use AA at most state schools because many will accept almost any student who qualifies. AA really is about the elite schools (I think many people are confused about that; they seem to think without AA black kids can't go to any college)

No it isnt.

 

[cawacko]

No it isnt.

Yes it is unless you can show certain students who don't meet minimum qualifications are accepted to state schools because of AA.

 

[Freddy Figbottom]

Yes it is unless you can show certain students who don't meet minimum qualifications are accepted to state schools because of AA.

It's all over and it can be shown.

 

[Flash]

No it isnt.

If all students are admitted how is affirmative action used for admissions?

 

[Freddy Figbottom]

If all students are admitted how is affirmative action used for admissions?

All are not admitted.

 

[cawacko]

It's all over and it can be shown.

I'd love to see it.

 

[Flash]

All are not admitted.

Most colleges have space for more students. Anybody can be admitted if they choose the right school. If not, they are admitted provisionally.

A typical college cancels many classes each year because they do not have enough students (typically 10) to hold the class.

Community colleges are open admission and admit many students who did not graduate from high school.

In fall, 2022, undergraduate college enrollment was 15.1 million. Today, it is 1.2 million less. Many colleges would love to have some of that enrollment back and would admit anybody.

Any person who wants to attend college has no trouble being admitted someplace. If they are low income Pell grants will often cover the cost of tuition at low-cost community colleges.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Jackson is the worst and least qualified dimwit to ever sit on the court.

“With let-them-eat-cake obliviousness, today, the majority pulls the ripcord and announces ‘colorblindness for all’ by legal fiat,”

“And having so detached itself from this country’s actual past and present experiences, the Court has now been lured into interfering with the crucial work that UNC and other institutions of higher learning are doing to solve America’s real-world problems. No one benefits from ignorance.”

“But deeming race irrelevant in law does not make it so in life,”

Just a few of the moronic race hustling things she said in her dissent.

Jackson's dissent can be read here:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdf

It starts on page 211 and is a mishmash of non sequiturs, irrelevancies, and assorted drivel. Most of it boils down to a historical fallacy and the related Baconian fallacy. That is, she recounts various historical anecdotes and then assumes them to be 100% valid and correct. The worst part is that she uses buzzwords, invoking "Jim Crow laws" at one point, as an example, while showing through what she's trying to discuss that she knows nothing about Jim Crow laws and their history.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Jackson's dissent can be read here:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdf

It starts on page 211 and is a mishmash of non sequiturs, irrelevancies, and assorted drivel. Most of it boils down to a historical fallacy and the related Baconian fallacy. That is, she recounts various historical anecdotes and then assumes them to be 100% valid and correct. The worst part is that she uses buzzwords, invoking "Jim Crow laws" at one point, as an example, while showing through what she's trying to discuss that she knows nothing about Jim Crow laws and their history.

Wow. You studied all 237 pages and that's what you got out of it? Fascinating!

 

[Lionfish]

Jackson is the worst and least qualified dimwit to ever sit on the court.

“With let-them-eat-cake obliviousness, today, the majority pulls the ripcord and announces ‘colorblindness for all’ by legal fiat,”

“And having so detached itself from this country’s actual past and present experiences, the Court has now been lured into interfering with the crucial work that UNC and other institutions of higher learning are doing to solve America’s real-world problems. No one benefits from ignorance.”

“But deeming race irrelevant in law does not make it so in life,”

Just a few of the moronic race hustling things she said in her dissent.

What do you expect from someone who was picked because of her race and gender?

 

[martin]

Jackson's dissent can be read here:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdf

It starts on page 211 and is a mishmash of non sequiturs, irrelevancies, and assorted drivel. Most of it boils down to a historical fallacy and the related Baconian fallacy. That is, she recounts various historical anecdotes and then assumes them to be 100% valid and correct. The worst part is that she uses buzzwords, invoking "Jim Crow laws" at one point, as an example, while showing through what she's trying to discuss that she knows nothing about Jim Crow laws and their history.

Yeah, her dissent is right there. It is far from a "mishmash of non sequiturs..., etc. Rather, it is sharpest reasoned and written opinion of them all, and the opinion Thomas obviously felt most threatened by in his concurring majority opinion. It begins:


"Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA)
has maintained, both subtly and overtly, that it is unfair for
a college’s admissions process to consider race as one factor
in a holistic review of its applicants. See, e.g., Tr. of Oral
Arg. 19.

This contention blinks both history and reality in ways
too numerous to count. But the response is simple: Our
country has never been colorblind. Given the lengthy his-
tory of state-sponsored race-based preferences in America,
to say that anyone is now victimized if a college considers
whether that legacy of discrimination has unequally ad-
vantaged its applicants fails to acknowledge the well-
documented “intergenerational transmission of inequality”
that still plagues our citizenry.1
It is that inequality that admissions programs such as
UNC’s help to address, to the benefit of us all. Because the
majority’s judgment stunts that progress without any basis
in law, history, logic, or justice, I dissent."

She then dismembers the opinions from the majority piece by piece. Read it, then point out for us the "non sequiturs, irrelevancies, and assorted drivel." And don't forget the Baconian fallacy

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Yeah, her dissent is right there. It is far from a "mishmash of non sequiturs..., etc. Rather, it is sharpest reasoned and written opinion of them all. ...

It helps if you hate black people, especially black women, then it becomes easy to see it's all "non sequiturs, irrelevancies, and assorted drivel".

Notice who thinks Jackson, Thomas, Sotomayor only got the jobs because of the color of their skin.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Yeah, her dissent is right there. It is far from a "mishmash of non sequiturs..., etc. Rather, it is sharpest reasoned and written opinion of them all. It begins:


"Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA)
has maintained, both subtly and overtly, that it is unfair for
a college’s admissions process to consider race as one factor
in a holistic review of its applicants. See, e.g., Tr. of Oral
Arg. 19.

This contention blinks both history and reality in ways
too numerous to count. But the response is simple: Our
country has never been colorblind. Given the lengthy his-
tory of state-sponsored race-based preferences in America,
to say that anyone is now victimized if a college considers
whether that legacy of discrimination has unequally ad-
vantaged its applicants fails to acknowledge the well-
documented “intergenerational transmission of inequality”
that still plagues our citizenry.1
It is that inequality that admissions programs such as
UNC’s help to address, to the benefit of us all. Because the
majority’s judgment stunts that progress without any basis
in law, history, logic, or justice, I dissent."

She then dismembers the opinions from the majority piece by piece. Read it, then point out for us the "non sequiturs, irrelevancies, and assorted drivel."

That's a great example of exactly what I mean. She invokes inequality in the past and applies it to the present. That is clearly a Baconian fallacy. Further, she builds that response on essentially nothing but her opinion and use of other historical fallacies. In effect, what she's arguing is that because America was racist in the past, it must be racist today, and therefore through affirmative action, we must apply equal and opposite racism to the situation in the case (college admissions) to make up for that past racism.

 

[Into the Night]

Supreme Court rules against affirmative action. Chief Justice Roberts writes the majority decision for the six conservative justices: "Harvard’s and UNC’s admissions programs violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.


https://www.msnbc.com/ana-cabrera-r...ive-action-in-college-admissions-185841221772



BOOM

And good riddance. It's time for this racism to end. It's time for all racism to end, but Democrats are racists and will have none of it.

 

[Into the Night]

I hope this doesn’t eventually bite the soon to be white minority in the ass.

Still pushing this fiction, racist?

 

[Into the Night]

Wont matter blacks still have lower IQs than Asians and Whites...they will ALWAYS place above blacks when it comes to testing and grades for being accepted into a collage

IQ is a meaningless number. Your statement is racism.

 

[Into the Night]

Thomas is a giant hypocrite

No, you are just racist.

 

[Into the Night]

That's a great example of exactly what I mean. She invokes inequality in the past and applies it to the present. That is clearly a Baconian fallacy. Further, she builds that response on essentially nothing but her opinion and use of other historical fallacies. In effect, what she's arguing is that because America was racist in the past, it must be racist today, and therefore through affirmative action, we must apply equal and opposite racism to the situation in the case (college admissions) to make up for that past racism.

Also known as a Presentism fallacy.
You are correct. The idea is to implement racism in the name of preventing racism.

 

[martin]

That's a great example of exactly what I mean. She invokes inequality in the past and applies it to the present. That is clearly a Baconian fallacy. Further, she builds that response on essentially nothing but her opinion and use of other historical fallacies. In effect, what she's arguing is that because America was racist in the past, it must be racist today, and therefore through affirmative action, we must apply equal and opposite racism to the situation in the case (college admissions) to make up for that past racism.

She invokes racism not “in the past” but as endemic in American culture and continuing today. It is “to make up” for this currently continuing racism that affirmative action exists, or did until yesterday.


.