It's all they ever talk about, TD.
Nothing about the out of control crime, borders and inflation.
Supreme Court rules against affirmative action.
- Thread starter volsrock
- Start date
It's all they ever talk about, TD.
Nothing about the out of control crime, borders and inflation.
Freddy Figbottom
Was it me?
i was joking.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
^^^
Standard reply of an antisemitic white supremacist caught with his hand in his pants.
QP!
Verified User
What schools like Harvard could consider prior to this ruling:
- Minimum grade levels
- work experience
- travel experience tied to charity or volunteer work
- extra curricular achievements (valedictorian, President of Debate club, etc)
- legacy status (parents or grand parents went to the school)
- Donor status (children of rich donors)
- Faculty member children
- Athletic accomplishments
- race
- etc
These and others were all considered holistically meaning all aspects played a part in the consideration of the decision.
What the SC has determined is discriminatory and gives 'unfair' advantage is solely 'race'.
Studies have shown conclusively that all of these...
- work experience
- travel experience tied to charity or volunteer work
- extra curricular achievements (valedictorian, President of Debate club, etc)
- legacy status (parents or grand parents went to the school)
- Donor status (children of rich donors)
- Faculty member children
- Athletic accomplishments
...Favor white students and by simply banning these considerations as well, the preference given to white students would be greatly reduced and far more diversity would occur. But of course the SC is not interesting in examining 'what advantages white students'.
So lets be clear and admit that what the court wanted to do was leave embedded white advantage in place while removing any attempted 'balancing' considerations all of which only apply to students of any race who are qualified to attend the school, and are used as a way to balance the populations for diversity.
There is no logic that says a Brett Kavanaugh type student, who grew up going to prep schools, having tutors, and a stable home environment that allowed him to travel and to do charity or volunteer work should get more consideration beyond just grades, but a child who grew up facing the levels of racial disadvantage they had to, to succeed, and get the same qualification grades should not have those factors considered.
- Minimum grade levels
- work experience
- travel experience tied to charity or volunteer work
- extra curricular achievements (valedictorian, President of Debate club, etc)
- legacy status (parents or grand parents went to the school)
- Donor status (children of rich donors)
- Faculty member children
- Athletic accomplishments
- race
- etc
These and others were all considered holistically meaning all aspects played a part in the consideration of the decision.
What the SC has determined is discriminatory and gives 'unfair' advantage is solely 'race'.
Studies have shown conclusively that all of these...
- work experience
- travel experience tied to charity or volunteer work
- extra curricular achievements (valedictorian, President of Debate club, etc)
- legacy status (parents or grand parents went to the school)
- Donor status (children of rich donors)
- Faculty member children
- Athletic accomplishments
...Favor white students and by simply banning these considerations as well, the preference given to white students would be greatly reduced and far more diversity would occur. But of course the SC is not interesting in examining 'what advantages white students'.
So lets be clear and admit that what the court wanted to do was leave embedded white advantage in place while removing any attempted 'balancing' considerations all of which only apply to students of any race who are qualified to attend the school, and are used as a way to balance the populations for diversity.
There is no logic that says a Brett Kavanaugh type student, who grew up going to prep schools, having tutors, and a stable home environment that allowed him to travel and to do charity or volunteer work should get more consideration beyond just grades, but a child who grew up facing the levels of racial disadvantage they had to, to succeed, and get the same qualification grades should not have those factors considered.
So true. If Democrats were honest about their destructive agenda, they would never win another election.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
So true. If Democrats were honest about their destructive agenda, they would never win another election.
Only an idiot believes all of those on the opposing side are idiots.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
cawacko
Well-known member
The court rules on the constitutionality of actions. They don't make rulings based on white privilege. Not sure whether it was on purpose or not but you make no reference of those who brought the case and are discriminated against the most, Asian students. If applications were based strictly on merit there would be far more Asian students and less white students.
As far as black students who benefit from AA, most tend to be from middle class or above households. It's an interesting case where someone like TDAK and someone like yourself are saying basically the same thing but for very different reasons. You both believe black people shouldn't be expected to perform as well with grades or test scores as other races. TDAK because he thinks they are inferior, you because you blame racism. Regardless the reason you arrive at the same point.
AA was eliminated in California public Universities in 1996. Initially there was a drop off in black and LatinX students. Today black people attend at near the same levels. Not all black people are poor and black people have the ability to excel and achieve. Black people will continue to go to college and achieve at high levels.