Scalia’s controversial remarks about African Americans expose U.S. higher education

Damocles said:
He's a bit partisan, since he decided to go left he's been insane. Wait until he pretends that his college education that somehow still left him functionally illiterate somehow makes him better than others.
Click to expand...
If you only had "The Dude's" poetic sense of timing that would have been a pretty good burn Damo. :)
 
Boris The Animal said:
Agreed, but for the little good that AA has done, there have been many very unqualified people in all endeavors who wound up in fields they clearly don't belong. The case of the black female firefighter who just could not cut it in the FDNY comes to mind here. Or even in my own area, there was a reverse discrimination lawsuit over white lieutenant candidates that were passed over blacks, even though the white candidates scored higher.
Click to expand...
That happens all the time in the political arena. In the private sector sometimes you give a disadvantaged person a break and it doesn't work out.

Like I said the soft racism in Scalia's argument is the argument for lowered expectations for blacks and the assumption that a person accepted via AA is patently not qualified. That is rarely the case. The over whelming majority of students accepted via AA are qualified. The bone of contention is that they are accepted over students who have equal or better qualifications.

Personally I think the way the State of Ohio does it just moots the whole AA argument. All high school graduates from the State of Ohio have to be admitted to an Ohio State funded University. The University may place them on academic probation, require remedial classes, but they have to accept them. It is up to the student then to perform at a University level. Resources are available for those who struggle, regardless of race or socio-economic status, and it's up to the individual to succeed and since all the Colleges and Universities in the Ohio State University Systems all have to meet the same academic qualifications for accreditation than the quality of education is pretty much the same regardless of which campus you attend. So you don't hear the kind of bitching about "not getting accepted" at The Ohio State University, that you do at State Universities that play the exclusivity game that University of Michigan and the University of Texas do.
 
Last edited:
christiefan915 said:
I wonder what Ben Carson thinks of Scalia now. This disgusting judge needs to be deep-sixed already.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia just stirred up another controversy with comments about why African Americans might be better off if they are not accepted into top colleges and universities but rather to “slower-track” schools.” Scalia made the comments during a court hearing in a case challenging the race-conscious admissions plan at the University of Texas at Austin. He said in part:

“There are — there are those who contend that it does not benefit African Americans to — to get them into the University of Texas where they do not do well, as opposed to having slower-track school where they do well. One of — one of the briefs pointed out that — that most of the — most of the black scientists in this country don’t come from schools like the University of Texas….

“They come from lesser schools where they do not feel that they’re – that they’re being pushed ahead in — in classes that are too — too fast for them….

“I’m just not impressed by the fact that — that the University of Texas may have fewer. Maybe it ought to have fewer. And maybe some — you know, when you take more, the number of blacks, really competent blacks admitted to lesser schools, turns out to be less. And — and I — I don’t think it — it — it stands to reason that it’s a good thing for the University of Texas to admit as many blacks as possible.”

And

"It is a nearly imperceptibly short stroll from Donald Trump to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. The arrogance of power is disturbing for its privilege and bigotry, but exponentially so for the cavalier brashness and absence of self-awareness.

Regardless of the position of power, Scalia’s racist pronouncements about the proper place of black students in higher education (again, a short stroll from Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’s rejecting affirmative action, which he himself used during his journey to the highest bench) are inexcusable."

https://radicalscholarship.wordpress.com/2015/12/11/scalias-racism-exposes-higher-educations-negligence/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-americans-expose-about-u-s-higher-education/
Click to expand...

You're such a dumb ass. Scalia was talking about blacks making on their own merits rather than lowering the bar for them as if somehow they are less capable, and you write it to imply he's OK with targeting blacks for discrimination when he's for not discriminating for or against them. you're a liberal Democrat card board cut out
 
Mott the Hoople said:
That happens all the time in the political arena. In the private sector sometimes you give a disadvantaged person a break and it doesn't work out.

Like I said the soft racism in Scalia's argument is the argument for lowered expectations for blacks and the assumption that a person accepted via AA is patently not qualified. That is rarely the case. The over whelming majority of students accepted via AA are qualified. The bone of contention is that they are accepted over students who have equal or better qualifications.

Personally I think the way the State of Ohio does it just moots the whole AA argument. All high school graduates from the State of Ohio have to be admitted to an Ohio State funded University. The University may place them on academic probation, require remedial classes, but they have to accept them. It is up to the student then to perform at a University level. Resources are available for those who struggle, regardless of race or socio-economic status, and it's up to the individual to succeed and since all the Colleges and Universities in the Ohio State University Systems all have to meet the same academic qualifications for accreditation than the quality if education is pretty much the same regardless of which campus you attend. So you don't hear the kind of bitching about "not getting accepted" at The Ohio State University, that you do at State Universities that play the exclusivity game that University of Michigan and the University of Texas do.
Click to expand...

Opposing discrimination in favor of a group is implying they aren't capable of making it without the discrimination. Wow, that's a great candidate for retard post of the month, I'm going to enter you.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Again, that's an assumption of your part that because a person of color may be subjectively less qualified than their white counterpart that they are not at all qualified. Soft racism Nora....you gotta be careful about that. Think it through!
Click to expand...

The same can be said about the more qualified student no matter the color.....why should they be denied because they have the "wrong" color....
Yes, do think it through...fair is fair......Its certainly wonderful to give everyone a chance if that is possible, but like you point out.....its not necessarily where you get your
education, but how well you do at it......and if you do well, you will have that much of a better chance to get into that "better" college if you believe its necessary....

Lowering standards for diversity should not be the goal... academic qualification, attitude, personality, ethics, recommendations, etc. all might be considered....
It is no more necessary to have a certain number of Asians, Indians, Christians, Muslims, etc. in the student body than it is to have a certain number of whites or blacks....
 
christiefan915 said:
Maybe that's why the ethnicity section was removed from the Common App, trying to make it color-blind.
Click to expand...

Isn't that exactly what the Justice was saying.....after all, the context of his statements was within the topic of affirmative action, favoring one group over another group.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Sorry Nora. That rationalization is just soft racism. You're argument is based on the premise that these students of color either are not qualified or do not believe themselves to be qualified when there is no question that the admissions process is either fair or objective when it is not and has never been.

Scalia's convoluted thinking is just his rationalizing his own racist view point. The soft racism of accept less than what you believe you are capable of so that you can play catch up to us superior white folk and than maybe one day you can be like one of us. It's a load of horse apples. Learning to compete at the highest level is often of far more value than any grade one would receive.

These folks of color are tax payers in Texas and by golly if they are 15% of the population and they pay 15% of the taxes than by golly they are within in their rights to see the best and brightest in their communities represent 15% of the enrollment of that State funded school. Particularly given this States history of denying these folks access to a quality education.

The flaw in the agrument here is that the admission's process is completely objective and unbiased in terms of qualifications when to any objective observer they have never, ever been. So just because there may arguably be a better qualified candidate doesn't mean, out of hand, that the candidate of color isn't qualified.

That's just poor reasoning based on flawed logic using a false premise.
Click to expand...

????.....is it your argument that whites are admitted to colleges with lower SAT scores than blacks are?......
 
Mott the Hoople said:
AA is needed cause if it's left to your standard GOP white southern racist blacks would be lucky to get a 2nd grade education. AA is intended to both correct a wrong that racist bigots committed and, in part, as a solution to a social problem that white southern bigots are largely responsible for creating. Christie's post shows in no uncertain terms that the systemic issue of the bigotry of conservative white males in this nation is still endemic.

Until the day comes where we don't have bigots like Scalia in positions of power that can affect peoples fair and equal access to education than AA is unquestionably needed to right their wrongs.
Click to expand...

So TWO WRONGS make a right in you mind ?.....I don't think the adage goes quite like that.....AA IS DISCRIMINATION....that, good sir, is an undeniable fact.....

In rhetoric and ethics, two wrongs make a right and two wrongs don't make a right are phrases that denote philosophical norms. "Two wrongs make a right" is a fallacy of relevance, in which an allegation of wrongdoing is countered with a similar allegation. Its antithesis, "two wrongs don't make a right", is a proverb used to rebuke or renounce wrongful conduct as a response to another's transgression.

Conservative....: You shouldn't embezzle from your employer. It's against the law.


Liberal............: My employer cheats on their taxes. That's against the law, too!

We hear this argument on JPP several times a day
 
Mott the Hoople said:
The Dude? A lefty? Look....being slightly to the left of Attila the Hun does not make one a lefty. The Dude may have gone Rasta on us but one thing he is not is a lefty.

The Dude is what used to be a garden variety main street, chamber of commerce, pro-business Republican or what today is called by the wingnut faction of the GOP...a RINO. Just cause someone is into some weed don't make them a liberal.

The Dude has always been an equal opportunity cynic. He takes as many cheap shots at left wing lunacy as he does the KKKonservative nut jobs.
Click to expand...

bull shit....the Dude is a warmed over hippie assed liberal who's brain is too fried on drugs to keep track of any political question that doesn't involve weed.......
 
NOVA said:
So TWO WRONGS make a right in you mind ?.....I don't think the adage goes quite like that.....AA IS DISCRIMINATION....that, good sir, is an undeniable fact.....

In rhetoric and ethics, two wrongs make a right and two wrongs don't make a right are phrases that denote philosophical norms. "Two wrongs make a right" is a fallacy of relevance, in which an allegation of wrongdoing is countered with a similar allegation. Its antithesis, "two wrongs don't make a right", is a proverb used to rebuke or renounce wrongful conduct as a response to another's transgression.

Conservative....: You shouldn't embezzle from your employer. It's against the law.


Liberal............: My employer cheats on their taxes. That's against the law, too!

We hear this argument on JPP several times a day
Click to expand...

AA is an important 12 step program to help people like USFREEDUMB deal wi5h their alcoholism...

Poor BLABO
 
kaz said:
You're such a dumb ass. Scalia was talking about blacks making on their own merits rather than lowering the bar for them as if somehow they are less capable, and you write it to imply he's OK with targeting blacks for discrimination when he's for not discriminating for or against them. you're a liberal Democrat card board cut out
Click to expand...

The quiet racism of low exoectations. Rampant among the left.
 
christiefan915 said:
You think it's okay to make sweeping generalizations about black intelligence? Everybody doesn't qualify for every college no matter their race.

Scalia should have kept his opinion to himself. It doesn't speak well for a SC justice to show his bigotry.
Click to expand...

You do know that he was referring to a brief, right?
 
cawacko said:
I've read his remarks a couple of times. If I thought they were bigoted i would say so. Scalia is not above reproach. He's asking the question about results of students who have gotten in to a higher rates school than their grades would normally allow. That's a legitimate topic.
Click to expand...

I came away with the same impression.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top